The use of child soldiers is a controversial topic, with many countries and non-state armed groups employing children in combat and support roles. In 2013, it was revealed that seven British children, all 17 years old, were deployed to Afghanistan between 2007 and 2010. This was a breach of Ministry of Defence rules, which state that all combat troops must be aged 18 or over. In 2018, the United Nations verified that nine state armed forces were using children in hostilities, including Afghanistan. While the recruitment and use of child soldiers has decreased over the years, with around 71% of countries with armed forces only allowing adult enlistment, the practice remains widespread, particularly among militant Islamist organisations.
Characteristics | Values |
---|---|
Number of 17-year-olds serving in Afghanistan | 3 |
Country of origin | UK |
Year of deployment | 2007-2010 |
Number of minors sent to Iraq | 4 |
Number of minors sent to Afghanistan | 3 |
Age requirement to serve on the UK frontline | 18 |
Number of Americans who have served in Afghanistan since 2001 | 775,000 |
What You'll Learn
The UK sent 17-year-olds to fight in Afghanistan
The UK is not alone in this practice. In 2018, the United Nations (UN) verified that nine state armed forces were using children in hostilities, including Afghanistan. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and others have called for an end to the recruitment of children by state armed forces, arguing that military training, the military environment, and a binding contract of service are not compatible with children's rights and jeopardize healthy development.
The recruitment of children for military purposes has been common throughout history and in many cultures. Children are targeted for their susceptibility to influence, which makes them easier to recruit and control. While some are forced to join, others choose to enlist, often to escape poverty or because they expect military life to offer a rite of passage to maturity.
The UK's Ministry of Defence (MoD) rules state that all combat troops must be aged 18 before serving on the front line. However, critics have argued that the UK's continuing reliance on children to staff its armed forces is manipulative and unethical.
The Complex Relationship: Afghan and US Soldiers
You may want to see also
The US allows 17-year-olds to join the armed forces
In the US, the minimum age to join the military is 17 with parental consent, and 18 without. This applies to all branches of the military, including the Coast Guard, Marine Corps, Space Force, Army, Navy, and Air Force.
However, there are other requirements that must be met for individuals to be eligible to join the US military. These include:
- US citizenship or permanent residency (Green Card)
- High school diploma or equivalent
- Passing a physical medical exam
- Passing the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test
The US is currently involved in the war in Afghanistan, which began in 2001. While there have been reports of 17-year-olds serving in Afghanistan, it is unclear if they were part of US forces.
The Complex Relationship Between Iraq and Afghanistan: A Historical Perspective
You may want to see also
The Taliban use child soldiers
The Taliban have been using child soldiers in Afghanistan since the 1990s. They have been trained and deployed for various military operations, including combat, suicide missions, planting IEDs, and acting as spies. The Taliban have been known to use Islamic religious schools, or madrasas, to indoctrinate and train children as young as six years old. By the time they are 13, these children have learned military skills, including the use of firearms and the production and deployment of IEDs.
The Taliban's use of child soldiers is a violation of international law. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by Afghanistan in 2003, states that people under the age of 18 may not be recruited by armed groups under any circumstances. The use of children under 15 in combat is deemed a war crime under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to which Afghanistan is a party.
Despite the Taliban's claims that they only enlist fighters who have achieved "mental and physical maturity," evidence suggests otherwise. Human Rights Watch has interviewed the relatives of child soldiers and verified their claims through interviews with civil society activists, political analysts, and the United Nations. The Taliban's strategy of deploying children in battle has been described as "cynical and cruel" by senior Afghanistan researcher Patricia Gossman. She further emphasizes that "Afghan children should be at school and at home with their parents, not exploited as cannon fodder for the Taliban insurgency."
The recruitment of child soldiers in Afghanistan is often facilitated by inadequate age verification procedures and low levels of birth registration. Poverty is another driving factor, as many children join the Afghan security forces to support their families. The Taliban's madrasas are particularly attractive to poor families as they provide food and clothing for the children.
The issue of child soldiers in Afghanistan is not limited to the Taliban. The Afghan National Police have also been known to use children as cooks, "tea boys," and guards at checkpoints. However, the Taliban's use of child soldiers has been prominent, and efforts to end this practice have been challenging due to the Taliban's control over certain regions in Afghanistan.
The Plight of Refugees in Afghanistan: A Nation in Search of Sanctuary
You may want to see also
The Afghan government and the Taliban have held peace talks
The talks are not without challenges, however. Firstly, the Taliban's stated goal for Afghanistan is to re-create the Islamic Emirate that was overthrown in 2001. This goal is at odds with the Afghan government's support for the current "Islamic Republic", which is defined by a democratic process for choosing government leaders, separation of powers, and equal rights for women and men to participate in the political process.
Secondly, the Taliban is seen as having an upper hand in the negotiations. The group perceives that it has effectively won the war and that the United States will soon leave, leaving the Taliban as the strongest Afghan party. This perception may reduce the Taliban's willingness to compromise during the talks.
Thirdly, the Taliban and the Afghan government face internal challenges that threaten their cohesion and credibility. The Afghan government is fragile and plagued by high levels of corruption. It has also faced internal divisions, with tensions remaining high between President Ashraf Ghani and Abdullah Abdullah, who leads the High Council for National Reconciliation.
The Taliban, on the other hand, is not a monolith. It is composed of many different factions that will need to be acknowledged or accommodated in any negotiations. Some members of the Taliban have already refused to acknowledge the peace agreement with the United States, and some may be seeking to strengthen ties with the Islamic State in Khorasan.
Despite these challenges, there are reasons for hope. Firstly, the Taliban may divide as a result of "success". The group lacks broad popularity and practical capabilities to govern and move Afghanistan towards development. Secondly, once the United States departs, the burden of dealing with Afghanistan will fall on Russia, China, Iran, and Pakistan, among others. Finally, there is a possibility that targeted conditional aid from the United States and other countries could help to limit the risk of terrorist attacks originating from Afghanistan and keep the Taliban active against the Islamic State in Khorasan.
A Nation's Welcome: Australia's Response to Afghan Refugees
You may want to see also
The US has been involved in the Afghanistan conflict for 17 years
The War's Beginnings
The US first invaded Afghanistan in 2001, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The US's aim was to destroy Al-Qaeda, a terrorist organisation led by Osama bin Laden, who was based in Afghanistan under the protection of the Taliban regime. The Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden, leading to the US invasion.
The War in Afghanistan
The US-led invasion of Afghanistan was swift, with the Taliban regime removed from power within a month. However, Osama bin Laden escaped capture, and fled to Pakistan. The US set about installing a new government in Afghanistan, and supporting the country's reconstruction.
The War on Terror
The war in Afghanistan was part of a wider "War on Terror" declared by US President George W Bush. This saw the US shift its military focus to Iraq in 2002, and then back to Afghanistan in 2003.
The Taliban's Resurgence
Despite the US-led coalition's best efforts, the Taliban began to regain power. By 2004, the Taliban was in the ascendancy again, and in 2006, British troops were deployed to Helmand Province in an attempt to fight back the Taliban. This proved to be the costliest year for British forces, with 108 killed and 157 seriously injured.
The War Drags On
The war in Afghanistan continued through the rest of the 2000s and into the 2010s. Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan in 2011, removing the original reason for the US's presence in Afghanistan. However, the war continued, with the Taliban continuing to gain ground.
Withdrawal
In 2020, the US government and the Taliban signed a peace deal, agreeing to a timeline for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan. However, the Afghan government and security forces were unable to prevent further Taliban gains, and the country fell to the Taliban in August 2021, before the withdrawal was complete.
The Aftermath
The US completed its withdrawal from Afghanistan on 31 August 2021, bringing an end to the 20-year war. However, the Taliban's takeover has had devastating consequences for the people of Afghanistan, with girls once again being barred from education, and women's rights being rolled back. The country is also facing a major humanitarian crisis, with Afghans at risk of famine.
Where Do Afghanistan's Cricketers Call Home?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, there are. In 2013, it was disclosed that seven British children, who were 17 years old, were allowed to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq due to errors by Army commanders. In the U.S., 17-year-olds are allowed to join the armed forces with parental permission and approximately 16,000 17-year-olds were enlisted in 2015.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as any person under the age of 18. The Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict (OPAC) prohibits the direct participation of all children in armed conflict and allows state armed forces to recruit children from the age of 16. Most states have ratified OPAC and reserve military recruitment for adulthood, known as the Straight-18 standard.
Child soldiers face a high risk of developing psychiatric illnesses, poor literacy and numeracy, and behavioural problems such as heightened aggression. They are also more susceptible to recruitment and control and are easier to indoctrinate. Additionally, military settings present several serious risks, including a higher risk of suicide, mental disorders, alcohol misuse, and violent behaviour.