Should Child Soldiers be Prosecuted for their crimes or be victims of war?

250,000 child soldiers are still in action this very moment. That statistic is shocking. In fact, the number needs to be cut down as these young people can do other things in life rather than being part of violence and war that can potentially kill them. Speaking of the issue the United Nations are debating whether they should prosecute child soldiers or call them victims of war. Even though there are arguments on both sides on whether they should be prosecuted or be victims, it really depends on the scenario. Though this will be the case I believe that most child soldiers should be named as victims of war because they were forced to do what commanders said or they would get killed, they had to go somewhere to seek refuge in a war torn area and they got drugged heavily to commit the violent action they would do. Nevertheless, child soldiers should be prosecuted for their crimes under the certain circumstances of having been responsible for many deaths, not necessarily being forced into war and they have been brainwashed into violent behaviour that could impact them to do more crimes even if there the world surrounding them is normal.

Firstly child soldiers are victims of war as they as they are forced to do what their bosses are told or otherwise severe punishments are caused on them sometimes even including death. To give some context during the war in some parts of the world child soldiers are used as a cheap and efficient form of combat on the battlefield. They have been used everywhere, from ISIS to the Sierra Leone civil war to Boko Haram (a Nigerian terrorist group). Not only are child soldiers cheap and efficient, they will listen to what the commander says all the time. The consequence? They will get killed. Not just child soldiers have to listen to the commander's instructions. Former child soldier Ishmael Beah talks about in his book “A Long Way Gone” on when the rebels raided villages they would capture children and kill the parents. “If they did not kill the parents the rebels did force children to do sexual things with their parents to be safe”. Imagine this yourself, a war is a life and death scenario and you could anyways die in battle. The commanders will instruct more things for you to do like kill your parents and if you refused you have invited yourself to another opportunity to get killed. This whole scenario is a life and death situation or a do or die position. Do what they say or get punished and die. Now while this may be true, this might be the case some child soldiers should deserve to be prosecuted as though they did have to kill people and do other favours so they themselves do not get killed, they were responsible for many deaths. To this day children at war are responsible for killing many civilians, Debatewise.org talks about how child soldiers are no different to child criminals and how they act. In the Sierra Leone civil war child soldiers have committed actions in rape, mutilation and mass killing of civilians. All three of these actions involve a lot of people and people being affected somehow. Not only that but children as young as the age of 8 are becoming criminals of war and doing such actions. Overall child soldiers are victims of war because of the things they are forced to do by their bosses but can be charged with prosecution for being responsible for many deaths.

Secondly child soldiers should be victims of war as some of them have nowhere to seek refuge as their homes have been raided and the only place to stay and provide the basic needs are military camps In many war-torn areas in third world countries, people are living in abandoned areas or they are living in areas that can be destroyed soon. Before child soldiers were even hired they lived with their families. In fact They were forced out and sometimes captured from their unsafe homes. Ishmael Beah mentioned in a long way gone that after his village got raided and the child soldier organisation released him he had nowhere to go and nowhere to stay so he had to walk many miles with other kids who needed to seek refuge somewhere. He later found a soldier camp where the commander enrolled him straight off and he had a place to stay and have food. Millions of kids like Ishmael have to face such events and you can not prosecute a child soldier if they are fighting for their survival. The children have no money no food no water, nothing other than the clothes they are wearing and maybe some valuables but that is about it. They are just regular people suffering from the demand of basic needs and the violence part is not really their fault as the commanders just put them there and have to follow his instructions as I mentioned in the previous paragraph why. In my point of view, some children should be victims as they need somewhere to seek refuge. Despite this, that is not the case for all child soldiers. In fact, some are not necessarily forced into war and can do serious crimes and shady business. A great example would be Omar Khadr. He is the son of a former Al-Qaeda and was brought back to Afghanistan at the age of 15 during that time he had killed a sergeant in the US army by the name of Christopher Speer. Omar was later convicted in jail at Guantanamo Bay for 8 years for this. We do not know if he did was trying to protect himself or if he did it on accident or purpose but he did commit a huge crime and even reports say that he was very happy to kill someone. Now though people might argue all the cases of him being a victim, he was under the influence of his dad and he was not forced into the war. He did not have to flee his destroyed village. He did not need to seek refuge somewhere to survive. He has no reason to be a victim as he was not forced in any way. Overall it depends on the scenario a child soldier is to be accused of murder or be called victim.

Last but not least child soldiers should be called for as victims of war as they are drugged heavily to cause such crimes to humanity. Commanders drug the children heavily so that the children can cause the violence behaviour needed and also for them to listen to the commanders. Ishmael Beah said in his book and in an interview on CBC’s The Hour that they would “fight, eat, be feed drugs, watch war movies and sleep until the next day where the cycle goes again”. These kids had marijuana, cocaine, brown brown, all sorts of drugs. I understand why the commanders would do a thing as child soldiers are cheap, yes to be punished and for them to listen so they feel that they are under their orders. You can not prosecute a child for actions they did not control themselves. The drugs intoxicated their brain which caused them to lose self-control meaning they did what they were heard and not with their head. Overall some child soldiers can be called victims as they could not control their actions to cause such crimes because of the drugs they were heavily dosed with. However, they should be prosecuted because of the brainwashing effect. Because of the drugs the kids are brainwashed into violent behaviour and the thought that they are doing this for the country though the Sierra Leone war had child soldiers fighting for the rebels. People might say child soldiers should be prosecuted is that because of the crimes they did society and the officials do not know if they will cause violent behaviour in society even after jail time or months in rehab. Even with Omar Khadr’s case in court the public wanted him to be free but the officials were having some sort of argument over this as he had killed a sergeant from the US army and he has a potential of causing more crimes. Would you want a former killer in your society? Overall child soldiers can be victims as they are not responsible for their violent actions because of the drugs but they can be prosecuted as they are a killer and you never know if they will more violent things after the release

To conclude is depends on the scenarios child soldiers have been in, what they have done and their surroundings but, in my opinion most child soldiers should be victims as there are more child soldiers in the world that have been in more situations in which they have not done anything wrong or little wrong compared to child soldiers in situations that they have done a lot wrong. This issue matters as there are many children as I stated in the introduction that are in violent zones and has been captured and forced to do things against their will rather than having an education and grow up to have a good job.

Works Cited:


Beah, Ishmael. A Long Way Gone: Memoirs of a Boy Soldier. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2007. Print.

"Child Soldiers, Prosecution." | Debatewise. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 June 2016.

Prasow, Andrea. "The Child Soldier on Trial at Guantanamo." Human Rights Watch. N.p., 27 Oct. 2010. Web. 02 June 2016.

TheHour. "Ishmael Beah -- Child Soldier." YouTube. YouTube, 01 May 2007. Web. 02 June 2016.

Is Football Becoming Too Much Of A Money Oriented Sport?

Football, a sport that has revolutionised over the last 50 years or so. In the last 3-12 years, we have been seeing clubs with truck loads of money dominating the footballing scene. Teams like Chelsea and Manchester City. We want to ask one question, Is football becoming too much of a money oriented sport?

The main thing we people have to look back at is the money spending and money oriented clubs like Chelsea and Manchester City. For Chelsea Football Club a russian businessman by the name of Roman Abramovich bought the club back in 2003, now Chelsea have won 4 league titles in the last 11 seasons and 1 UEFA Champions League.

This clearly indicates that money can make a huge difference to a team's success. Chelsea were not known to be a footballing superpower but after the russian takeover everything changed and since they are dominating, other fans are hating them even more because of the success overnight. Aayush, a student at UWCSEA East and a proud Chelsea fan does claim that money buys trophies but says that money doesn't buy happiness. All he cares is that the club wins trophies whether the fans are happy or not so because success only matters. He also only cares about the team and if they win. Look, football nowadays have fans like this but are we losing the joy of feeling the game. Chelsea fans are probably the first set of fans to be like they are.

Plus, they are known to play boring football. If you want the sport to be interesting you have to make the game more intense. How do you do that you ask? Well the team has to create more chances and score more goals because at the end of the day whichever team that has more goals wins. According to myfootballfacts.com, during Chelsea’s 4 league winning seasons, the average goals per game ratio in the league is 2.59 goals. Compare that ratio to other seasons, it is actually low. not only that but the whole average GPG ratio for all of the Premier League seasons are 2.64 goals. This offers evidence that defence wins titles though all of the fans may have not enjoyed it with less goals being scored.

Fast Forward to 2008 when another mid table English team Manchester City Football Club was bought buy Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the head of the Abu Dhabi United Group and was also Deputy Prime Minister of the UAE. What followed for the club were 2 league titles in the last 4 seasons.

As exciting as football is, these clubs that used to finish mid table are dominating their respective leagues and rose to fame for the reason of money. Manchester City had not won the league title in 44 years until the 2011-2012 season where they won it in their 4th season after the arab takeover. Not to mention they also have had the same impact as Chelsea by winning because of money.

Though a huge difference Manchester City has compared to Chelsea is that Manchester City City do not fill up their stadium. The Daily Mail, a British news company had reported in October, Manchester City had matches against AFC Bournemouth and Sevilla FC. In those matches in their 60,000 capacity stadium, the fans filled 54,502 seats which included a large section with no seats but when the team played against Sevilla FC in a Champions League match mid week, the attendance for the match was 45,595 people with parts of the stadium patched with no people. For a club that is growing quickly into a successful club, they should be filling up almost every seat. Like no offence to Bournemouth but only a 45,595 attendance for a Champions League match against the defending back to back Europa League winners? Surely that is a disgrace and also this portrays the fact that these fans do not care about the team so much and instead think their team will win all of the time.

The next steps for these clubs are first should be to fill up the stadium because first, one key factor that comes in are attendance because the ticket money supporters pay to see their clubs go to the clubs themselves. That money can also be used to buy players in the transfer windows. Also on the fact according to UEFA during the transfer window, a club can only spend on players using the money they earned that season. So as the moral, even if your club is facing an easy team or whatever, the money you spend on tickets when you go to a match is transferred to the club on which they can spend on to make your team better by buying new player and so on!

Two, teams would have more exciting tactics when playing other teams because in football at the end of the day, whatever team scores the most goals win. Even if a team cannot score goals, they should make the game more interesting and intense by creating many chances to score, plus it makes them have more of a change to get a goal. Like for example Manchester City though they do not fill up the stadium, they score goals. In their 2 league winning seasons. The whole league averaged 2.79 goals which means the football could have possibly been more exciting season season. Chelsea on the other hand have been a very defencive team. Last season Chelsea had a tactic which was very effective and brought them the league title and the tactic was called “Park the Bus”. What happens is that Chelsea would score an early goal or just one goal in the whole match but, they would have everyone playing defending behind the ball so the other team have no chance of scoring. It made the results come but fans all across the league were against it as games felt more boring for them.

In conclusion, teams that are money oriented are making the sport money oriented and if they change some things they are doing wrong for the community, then everyone can enjoy the beautiful game whether it is filling up stadiums or changing general mentality or making games exciting by tactics change, we people can help make the sport how it should be.

Absolute Drama At The North London Derby

The North London Derby happened this weekend as Arsenal defender Kieran Gibbs scored the equaliser as Arsenal drew 1-1 with their bitter rivals Tottenham Hotspur in a very intense but fairly exciting grudge match that could have gone either way for both teams.

Arsenal had been absolutely dominated most of the game and matters became worse when Tottenham Hotspur star striker Harry Kane scored the opener just before half time. Almost into the last 10 minutes of the game, Arsenal made a substitution by bringing on Gibbs for Joel Campbell. This substitution proved to be a masterclass decision by Arsene Wenger, (the manager of Arsenal) because 3 minutes later, Gibbs scored the equaliser in 77th minute of the game from a tight angle after an amazing run by himself who then received the pass from teammate Mesut Ozil and shoots to score. The Arsenal fans went mad after that goal and the result stayed as the match ended 1 all. After the Gibbs even quoted “I did expect the fact that I will score but we did not get the result we wanted”. This is still a shame for the Arsenal as they have not beaten their rivals in the Premier League since March 16 2014.