Deadly playgrounds, cold numbers

I had looked into their eyes. I had watched some of them cock their rifles and aim at an imaginary enemy lurking behind the trees. I had aimed my camera at them and captured the resoluteness in their gait as they carried the heavy weight on their frail bodies.

I saw these so-called child soldiers for the first time in the 1980s in a rebel training camp in the mountain fastness of Samar. In Bicol I also saw a young girl, maybe all of 16, carrying a rifle.

My body ached after that journalistic foray in the jungle but I did come up with a long story. We used the photo of the young boy carrying a long firearm, marching with grizzly rebels in the Sunday Inquirer.

That was many years ago but the images still burn in my mind. What a heavy burden for these children, I thought. I had tried carrying some of the heavy metal that the rebels carried and wore a bandoleer of bullets across my chest for a photograph of myself bristling with bullets. But that was for the fun of it. I still have that photo. In the background, heavily armed rebels played dama.

Now the law says you can no longer use the photographs of minors in a publication, show their faces on TV or identify them if they have been involved in illegal activities or are victims of crimes.



I recall these things again because of ``Deadly Playgrounds: The Phenomenon of Child Soldiers in the Philippines’’ published by PhilRights. According to PhilRights, a human rights research group, the book ``presents the sociodemographic profile, reasons, circumstances and effects of involvement, dreams and aspirations, of the 194 child soldiers (CS) interviewed in the study.’’

PhilRights does not claim that the results and conclusions of the study are representative of the whole population of child soldiers in the Philippines, but the study should be able to give an idea what the world of these children is like.

PhilRights says that the ``major finding in this research is the absence of force or the voluntary nature of children’s involvement in armed groups.’’

In its harsh editorial a few days ago, the Inquirer questioned PhilRights’ statement that the children joined the armed conflict without coercion or with freedom. PhilRights finding: ``Children join armed groups for reasons that include, but are not limited to, poverty, government neglect and apathy to the plight of the poor, ideological beliefs, secessionist advocacy and support for holy war, affiliation of family members in armed groups and pursuit of justice to avenge atrocities and abuses.’’

But even as PhilRights points a blaming finger at the government for its failure in addressing social problems that give rise to rebel groups, it also reminds non-state actors with children among their ranks about children’s rights. PhilRights does point out strongly that the CS phenomenon is an outright violation of children’s rights.

PhilRights sure has a long list of recommendations for the government and for civil society and stakeholders in the peace process.

For non-state armed groups who have children in their ranks PhilRights’ recommendations are a measly two paragraphs—that they respect the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Comprehensive Agreement on the Respect of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law.

PhilRights’ research (funded by Bread for the World-Germany) is heavy stuff because of its academic and scientific approach. It groans with statistics, tables, graphs and numbers that buttress the findings and conclusions. This is not for inspirational reading. It is not for bleeding hearts. It sounds like a doctoral dissertation. Is this because PhilRights’ executive director has a PhD?

It leaves me cold. The children are never quoted or allowed to tell their story. I thought, what a pity. Weren’t PhilRights’ field researchers also made to gather the personal stories of the CS? What a world they could have explored. Or did they stick strictly to the checklist type survey instrument (shown in the Appendix)?

I have an appreciation for the weight of statistics but, as I said, they leave me cold. I’d like to see numbers but I’d also like to hear voices. PhilRights did use some children’s drawings only for one of their chapter breakers.

The Philippine Coalition to Stop the Use of Children as Soldiers did it differently. They made us listen to child soldiers. One said: ``I often carried an M-16. The heaviest I held was an M-14. It was so hard to cock and load. It was even made heavier by the bag of bullets. I once carried an M-203 with bullets as big as batteries. Upon joining, we were trained to fire, disassemble and clean guns. M-14s, M-16s, M-203s, and what to do in an ambush.’’

Voices from ``My Gun Was as Tall as Me: Child Soldiers in Burma’’ published by Human Rights Watch, an international human rights group:

``I left home and joined the armed group because I wanted to run away from my family because it was so bad and noisy. There was so much trouble and I hated getting hurt by my own family.’’

``I carried an armalite, an M-16. I was trained to use a gun, how to fire it, how to dismantle and assemble it. The training included hopping over rocks, crawling, rolling. That was for three weeks.’’

A few years ago the Inquirer had for a banner photo that of a young rebel girl seated among the ferns in the jungle, looking bewildered and frightened. A dead rebel lay beside her. It was the aftermath of a bloody encounter.

A soldier shot that photo. It spoke a thousand words. It stunned me, moved me. I wrote a column piece on it and still it haunted me for days.