Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Author: Stefania Capodaglio

  • Stop Using Child Soldiers

    “I would like to say to other child soldiers…please do not lose your childhood as well as your future.” -Abdi, former child soldier from Somalia.

    There are an estimated three hundred thousand child soldiers around the world. Thousands of children 15 years of age and much younger are recruited every year in countries where contemporary conflicts are uprooting them from their childhood. The considerable numbers of child soldiers make one pause to think that the world is being sucked into a desolate moral vacuum, an endless void where children are now exploited as armed fighters. Angola recruits children at 17 and Uganda at 13 years of age as volunteers. The situation is urgent.

    Child soldiers are considered to be all children under 18 according to Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. In reality, child soldiers are children young enough to lift a rifle. In 1998 alone, there were 35 major armed conflicts where children were used as soldiers. Violent conflict has always made victims of non-combatants, but now, more and more, the combatants are children.

    Contemporary armed conflicts have increased the risks for children because of the proliferation of inexpensive light weapons, such as the Russian-made AK-47 or the American M-16 assault rifles, which are easy for children to carry and use. An AK-47, for example, can be easily assembled by a 10-year old boy. The international arms trade is largely unrestricted making assault rifles cheap and widely available in the poorest communities. In the Sub-Saharan area, for example, an AK-47 can be purchased for as little as six dollars on the streets. It is often suggested that too much money is spent for defense in both the developed and developing countries of the world, and that some of that money might instead be used to relieve hunger and to promote children’s survival and development. But, worldwide, many national budgets stay sharply skewed in favor of defense year after year. If security means the protection of our most precious assets, child survival should be high on the agenda of all defense departments. Why isn’t it? Perhaps in reality, the operational function of defense establishments is not so much to maintain the security of the country as a whole but to assure that the powerful remain in power. Rather than serving all their citizens’ interests, defense budgets serve the survival of the rich, not the children or the poor.

    How are child soldiers recruited?

    Governments in a few countries legally conscript children under 18. In the UK, teenagers who are 16 can enlist in the military for a three-to five-year-tour-of-duty. In the US, a 17-year-old can enlist in the Marines. In both countries these young soldiers can be sent to war zones.

    Even where the legal minimum age is set at 18, the law is not necessarily a safeguard. Child soldiers may be kidnapped or forced by adults to join an army. Others may be forced to join armed groups to defend their families and villages.

    Once recruited as soldiers, children are treated as adults. Children often serve as porters, carrying heavy loads such as ammunition or injured soldiers. Children are extensively used also as lookouts, messengers, and for common household and routine maintenance duties such as cleaning and assembling artillery. In Ugandan armies, children can volunteer at 13. They are forced to hunt for wild fruits and vegetables, loot food from gardens, plunder granaries, and perform guard duty.

    Most of the children in armies come from conditions of poverty. These conditions may drive parents to offer their children for service or sell them into slavery. Children are also recruited in areas where there is a high level of illiteracy among their families and a strong prevalence of violence and ignorance in their communities. Most child soldiers, for example, never go to school throughout their childhood.

    The enslavement of children into guerrilla groups is a serious issue addressed recently by an international labor group. In July 1999, the International Labor Organization (ILO) unanimously adopted Convention No.182 which prohibited and called for immediate action on the elimination of the worst forms of child labor, especially the “forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict.” The United States delegation to the ILO had opposed efforts to include a broad prohibition on child soldiers. Although trade unions and many governments supported a total ban on the participation of children in armed conflict, strong US pressure on the delegates to the ILO Convention resulted in the adoption of a much narrower, general prohibition on “forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflicts.”

    Physical, Psychological and Economic Harm

    Uncertain food supply and nonexistent health care are the worst economic consequences that wars bring into the reality of children on a daily basis. During the 1990s, an estimated two million children were killed in armed conflicts. Countless others have been seriously injured or have been forced to witness or take part in horrifying acts of violence. The shock, trauma, or Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTS) is generally not professionally treated immediately, if ever.

    Conflicts hurt children physically and psychologically. Children suffer the consequences of armed conflicts on their bodies because of the effects of maiming, torture, sexual violence or the multiple deprivations of war that expose them to hunger or disease. The psycho-social impacts of violence on children are as severe as physical wounds. Children respond to the stress of armed conflict with increased anxiety, developmental delays, sleep disturbance and nightmares, lack of appetite, withdrawn behavior, learning difficulties, and aggressive behavior.

    International law — The Geneva Conventions

    Humanitarian law focuses on situations of armed conflicts. Human rights law establishes rights that every individual should enjoy at all times, during both peace and war, such as the right to life, liberty and security.

    The international humanitarian law of armed conflict is reflected in four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and two 1977 Protocols. The Fourth Geneva Convention, relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, is one of the main sources of protection for children. It prohibits not only murder, torture or mutilation of civilians, but also any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

    In 1977, these Geneva Conventions were supplemented by two protocols that unite two main branches of international humanitarian law — the branch concerned with protection of vulnerable groups and the branch regulating the conduct of hostilities. Protocol I requires fighting parties in international armed conflicts to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians to ensure that the only legal targets of attack are military. Protocol II addresses non-international armed conflicts, that is to say, conflicts inside the borders of a nation. This protocol lists the fundamental rights of all who are not taking an active part in the hostilities, namely, the right to life, liberty and security of person. It also provides that children be given the care and aid they require for a normal childhood, including education and family reunion.

    Human rights law establishes rights that every individual should enjoy at all times, during both peace and war. The obligations, which are incumbent upon every nation, are based on the Charter of the United Nations and on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In formal legal terms, the primary responsibility for ensuring human rights rests with nations, since they alone can become contracting parties to the relevant treaties.

    Almost 190 states have agreed to the Geneva Conventions, making them the most widely ratified conventions in history. The majority of these states has also agreed to Protocol I and Protocol II. Although the United States has ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, it has not ratified the two protocols, objecting to the nature of these protocols.

    UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

    The Convention on the Rights of the Child focuses on situations of armed conflicts and the impacts on children. It was adopted by the General Assembly in November 1989 as the most comprehensive and specific protection for children worldwide. The Convention recognizes a list of rights that apply during both peacetime and war, such as protection of the family; essential care and assistance; access to health, food and education; and the prohibition of torture, abuse or neglect.

    Article 38 is known as the armed conflict article, but with regard to protection from recruitment it has little to offer. While the rest of the Convention is generally applicable to “every human being below the age of 18 years,” Article 38 makes a point of allowing children under 18 to take direct part in hostilities and to be recruited into a nation’s armed forces. It is all the more extraordinary because these restrictions are already embodied in international humanitarian law to which the article refers. Article 39 states that governments “…shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of…armed conflicts.” These articles, especially Article 38, call upon nations to respect international humanitarian law as a whole. On the other hand, these articles restate their provisions only on the age limits of a child soldier and, in actuality, offer no relief to an increasingly urgent situation. Three hundred thousand child soldiers — even one child soldier — are too many.

    The Convention: a commitment or a farce?

    In the ten years it took to negotiate the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, many participating nations argued about the age limits. Both the United Arab Emirate and the United States did not want the minimum age for military recruitment to be 18. Currently the US accepts 17-year-olds with parental permission as voluntary recruits into the US Marines. According to the US Defense Department statistics, 17-year-olds make up less than one-half of 1% of all active US troops. The UK, which allows volunteer soldiers at 16 years, joined the US in its opposition. Some UK 16 year olds fought in the Falklands War and 200 were at the front in the Gulf War in 1991. The UK was even less ready than the US to make a compromise by raising the minimum age to 18.

    By the conclusion of the negotiations, the US and UK positions prevailed, and Article 38 stated that governments “shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities.” The irony is that despite its winning many concessions from others in the negotiations and ultimately achieving its way on Articles 38 and 39, the UK signed and ratified the Convention in 1992, but has ignored its provisions. The United States still has not ratified the Convention.

    In a letter made public on December 21, 1998, a broad group of US leaders called on President Clinton to support an international prohibition on the use of child soldiers. The letter, identifying the use of children as soldiers as “one of the most alarming and tragic trends in modern warfare,” was signed by the leaders of forty human rights, religious, peace, humanitarian, child welfare, veterans and professional organizations. Signers of the appeal included Rear Admiral Eugene Carroll Jr., US Navy (retired); Robert Muller, President of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation; Rev. Dr. Joan Brown Campbell, General Secretary of the National Council of the Churches; Dr. David Pruitt, President of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry; Dr. William Schulz, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA; Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch; Bob Chase, President of the National Education Association; Randall Robinson, President of TransAfrica; Charles Lyons, President of the US Committee for UNICEF.

    The debate on age continues and more efforts have been made by other countries. In August 1999, the Nordic Foreign Ministers from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, signed a declaration against the use of child soldiers. In this declaration the Nordic Foreign Ministers supported an optional protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child stipulating that anyone under the age of 18 years not be recruited into their armed forces nor allowed to take any part in hostilities. This optional protocol has not yet been added to the Convention.

    On August 25, 1999 the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1261 condemning the effects of war on children. The resolution strongly condemns the targeting of children and the recruitment of children in armed conflicts, but it does not call for a total prohibition on any recruitment or participation in armed conflict of children under the age of 18. Following the principles of international law and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court the resolution prohibits only the use of children under the age of 15 in armed conflicts because it is considered a war crime. According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court “conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 into the national armed forces or using them to participate actively in hostilities” is considered a war crime. (Art. 8, XXVI)

    Rehabilitation of Child Soldiers: a Step Towards a Better Future

    In recent years there have been important international developments in establishing rehabilitation centers for ex-child soldiers. Rehabilitation centers now exist in Africa and Colombia. In Africa there is the Family Home Care Center in Lakka, Sierra Leone directed by COOPI, an Italian NGO, in collaboration with UNICEF and the Family Homes Movement. There is also the Reconstruindo a Esperança (Rebuilding Hope) Center in Maputo, Mozambique where a group of psychiatrists help former child soldiers re-enter mainstream society. In Colombia the Colombian Welfare Institute (ICBF) houses combatant children while awaiting openings in a rehabilitation center.

    The use of child soldiers is arguably worst in Africa. It is there, however, that the most progress has been made in raising the age of conscription to 18 and in involving ex-child soldiers in rehabilitation centers. The 1990 African Charter for the Rights and Welfare of the Child prohibits both recruitment and use of children under 18 as soldiers. It has thus far been ratified by only 15 of the 53 African countries members of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). Among the 15 states that have ratified are Angola, Benin, Mozambique, Senegal Togo, and Uganda. Although the Charter came into force on November 20, 1999, Angola and Uganda are still recruiting children under the age of 18. Angola recruits children at 17 and Uganda at 13 years of age as volunteers.

    In October 1999 a Conference was held in Berlin on the use of child soldiers in Europe. The conference brought a new hope to the child soldiers issue. Its Berlin Declaration calls for the swift adoption and implementation of new international law prohibiting all participation in armed conflict of children under 18 years of age. However, the declaration was weakened by the refusal of a number of European states to adopt 18 as the minimum age for the participation in armed conflict — notably Austria, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and the UK. In addition, the UK intends to continue its policy of recruiting girls and boys at 16 years of age and deploying them at 17.

    Despite this, a gleam of hope has started to light the path towards change. The US Congress has already passed a resolution (S.Con.Res.72) introduced by Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN), which condemns the use of child soldiers, calls for greater support for rehabilitation and reintegration efforts for ex-child soldiers, and urges the US not to block a ban on the participation of children under 18 in the armed forces. The resolution was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on November 10, 1999.

    In addition, the UN Secretary-General Special’s Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, Olara A. Otunnu, presently serves as advocate for children in armed conflicts and is recognized widely for his catalytic work with the United Nations and NGOs concerned about the child soldiers issue. Otunnu has been an advocate for child soldiers, who recognize in him a source of hope for their future. Otunnu has made an outstanding contribution to the protection and the rehabilitation of children involved in armed conflicts by informing and mobilizing international public opinion. He has made people more aware of the fact that the welfare of children affected by armed conflict is a priority issue for the entire world.

    It is uncertain if substantial changes can be made in a short time when the international debates center on legal age rather than on the humanitarian problems that these children have to face; but as Otunnu said in his report to the United Nations General Assembly on October 26, 1999, “hopes have been renewed by the extraordinary things done by ordinary people.” The efforts of these ordinary people, such as you and me, cannot be underestimated.

    There are many things that we as citizens can do to make a change and give more hope to solving the problem of child soldiers. These include: Join the US campaign to stop the use of child soldiers, by writing or calling the President, the Secretary of State and the members of Congress on this issue. Support the implementation of the Wellstone Senate Resolution. Cooperate with others in your community to publicize the issue of child soldiers in all media – newspapers, radio talk shows, and TV. Support the adoption of an Arms Trade Code of Conduct that would ban the shipment of conventional weapons to countries violating human rights and where light weapons can be easily purchased on the market by children. An Arms Trade Code of Conduct bill (HR2269) has been introduced by Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA). The bill is now held in the House International Relations Committee and the House Armed Services Committee. Support humanitarian organizations, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), UNICEF, Amnesty International, Free the Children, and Rädda Barnen (Swedish Save the Children), that unhesitatingly struggle to set the minimum age at 18, support the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and advocate demobilizing and reintegrating child soldiers into the community.

    The efforts of ordinary people can help renew the culture of peace in all countries. The culture of a country is very important and people who get together and combine their forces can eliminate the sources of violence that are nourished by the availability of light weapons, violence in the entertainment media, and tolerance of domestic violence, and other factors. A global change occurred when ordinary people helped to conduct the campaign to ban landmines, and now it is time to do something to stop the use of child soldiers. Do not let the opportunity slip away to give hope to these children. Believe in the power of one. Even if your voice may seem faint, do not hesitate to let others hear about this serious and urgent matter. You really can create change!

    Stefania Capodaglio was the first Ruth Floyd Intern for Human Rights at the foundation’s Santa Barbara headquarters. She is a student at the Catholic University of Milan.

  • Interview with Olara A. Otunnu, UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict

    Mr. Otunnu, I started to study the issue of child soldiers almost two months ago and since then I discovered the tough reality that these children have to face every day. Today there are almost 300,000 child soldiers around the world and that number is constantly growing. Do you think there is a chance to reduce that number and how would it be possible?

    Yes, we can reduce that number assuming a three-pronged approach.

    One: It is very important for the international community to raise the age limit for recruitment and participation of young persons in conflict. The present age limit is 15 and I am campaigning with others to raise this to 18. Clearly, the higher the age limit the more children we can protect. 18 is important because in the Convention on the Rights of the Child anybody below 18 is defined as a child. Also in many countries the age of majority is 18 and in many countries as well the age of voting is 18. So it is very important to raise the age for recruitment and participation. That is why I have been putting a lot of stress calling on states to cooperate on the present project on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child. That project is meant to raise the age limit for participation and for recruitment and the next meeting of the Working Group on the Optional Protocol is scheduled for January in Geneva and I hope everybody will work actively to cooperate to bring this matter to a successful conclusion.

    The second measure is mobilizing an international, political, social movement of pressure that can lean on governments and insurgencies who abuse children in this way and they can feel the pressure of the international public opinion. It is very important to do this.

    Thirdly, even though a significant number of children are abducted and forced to become child soldiers, we also know that there are many who volunteer to become child soldiers or are enticed to become child soldiers because of economic, social collapse in their societies, which make the alternative of being with armed groups more attractive than staying at home when there is no schooling, no economic production, the family is braking apart and the option of getting a gun and acquiring false power , or being fed, or being in the uniform looks more attractive to them. Children who are attracted by ideology, nationalist ideology come to fight for an ethnic group; or by religion come and fight for a religion; or by political ideology come and fight for a new society to re-establish democracy to overthrow a dictatorship.

    In other words we need to address the economic, social, political factors that facilitate the abuse of children in this way. These are three measures we need to take in order to reverse this trend of abomination.

    Q: I am sure you saw many child soldiers when you traveled around the world. What did you see in their eyes?

    Often is partly despair, is partly resignation and it is partly indifference and a sense of alienation, feeling out of it. This especially becomes acute when a child is becoming an adult and begins to realize more fully what they have been doing and how terrible what they have been doing. As well as also realizing the extent to which they have been exposed. So you have got a child victim in a way at both ends of a gun: the child who is firing the gun and the child who is being fired at.

    Q: I know you were born in Northern Uganda and that you spent your childhood in that area. Uganda is currently recruiting children as volunteers at the age of 13. Since you grew up in Uganda have you ever been forced to join the army or have you ever seen one of your friends joining the army at that age?

    No, when I was growing up in Uganda children were not been recruited into the army. This is a new phenomenon in Uganda. It is something that began in the 1980s when the NRA, the National Resistance Army, which is now the government in Uganda, pioneered the recruitment of children into its guerrilla movements and that is where the term KADOGÓS comes from. Kadogós means “little ones.” That is a term by which now child soldiers are known in Eastern Africa from Burundi to Uganda, from Rwanda to Sudan, and that term originated in a practice of the NRA in Uganda in the 1980s. And then the second wave of the recruitment of children is what we are seeing today in Northern Uganda by the LRA, the Lord’s Resistence Army, an insurgency group which is in opposition to the present government. So it is a relatively new phenomenon in Uganda and it did not exist when I grew up.

    Q: What do you think about the 17 and 16 year olds who can volunteer respectively in the US marines and the UK armed forces?

    We are having a dialogue with the UK government and the US government about the issue of raising the age limit for recruitment and for participation. As you know, my own position is that the age limit should be raised to 18 and both countries up until now have difficulties with that issue. We have an ongoing dialogue going on with the US and the UK on this issue and I hope that it would be possible to have these two countries joining in a consensus in January in Geneva when we discuss the finalization of the Optional Protocol.

    Most of the children in armies come from conditions of poverty. Do you believe that if their families can live in better conditions they won’t join the army or the rebels anymore?

    As I said earlier there are children who are abducted or kidnapped and forced to become child soldiers. That obviously is something that needs to be stopped by leaning on those who are doing this.

    Yes, there are children who because of conditions of poverty, economic-social breakdown will tend to gravitate towards the armed groups who may appear to them to offer better alternatives than the poverty, the despair, the misery in which they live. And it is not by accident that most Child Soldiers tend to be children from very poor, depressed and marginalized communities.

    Yes, by tackling those conditions we would be tackling this issue.

    Q: Children respond to the stress of armed conflicts with physical and psychological trauma. What can be done for them and what do you think would be better for them after they leave the army?

    Definitely is very important to address their trauma because when children go and join up armed groups they are exposed to be killed and they kill. They see violence and atrocities. Children have committed some of the worst atrocities in situations of conflict precisely because they are not fully conscious of what they are doing. They are indoctrinated; they are molded into a particularly efficient, ruthless and unquestioning tool of warfare. In many cases they are even drugged.

    So we must address their trauma, we must somehow address how to win them off violence. Violence becomes a normal way of life for them.

    How do you wean them off this? Of course we must address how to re-insert them back in the society, how to make their families accept them back, how to make the local community accept them back, because in many cases they feel this is no longer their child who left home, it’s a new person who is used to violence and who has committed atrocities. And then of course in terms of loss of childhood and schooling to find ways to give productive work to these children in order to become adults either vocational training or some kind of training for those who are young enough to try to re-introduce them to schooling.

    The four Geneva Conventions, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, but above all the UN Conventions on the Rights of the Child are the primary agreements in international law for the protection of children worldwide. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is generally applicable to every human being below the age of 18 years. But Art. 38 makes a point of allowing children under 18 to take direct part in hostilities. Do you think the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child will prevent the recruitment of children under the age of 18?

    As I said earlier, that is why the present effort to bring to a close of the project of the Optional Protocol is so important. Because an important aspect of that is raising the age limit for recruitment and participation and I personally advocate that we should adopt the age limit of 18. The present age limit is 15, which is much too low and I hope that in the upcoming month of January 2000 in the meeting in Geneva we agree on raising the age limit for recruitment and participation.

    Q: What do you think about the rehabilitation centers for ex-child soldiers in Mozambique, in Sierra Leone and in Colombia?

    They tend to be inadequate in relation to the magnitude of the problem because in all these three countries children have been massively used as child soldiers and quite often there is not enough capacity in these rehabilitation centers. There are not enough resources to put in faith that capacity. Also we need to develop more expertise and learn from other experiences.

    That is why the experience of Mozambique is very important for us to learn from what works and from what does not work, so that this can be applied in Sierra Leone, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in Afghanistan, in Sri Lanka and so on. We learn from previous experiences of doing this and then of course we also need to put into place whenever there is any program for this arming, demobilization and rehabilitation. We are not only addressing the older people, the adults, but as a dimension, a framework, which addresses the situation of children who have been serving as combatants or have served in other ways within the armed groups. Because serving as combatants only is one way of recruitment. Children are used also as porters, cooks and spies.

    Q: What would you like to tell to the young people around the world about the child soldiers issue?

    I would like to tell them that is one of the most cynical features of today’s warfare the way with which adults are using children to be the channel for their own hate and passion. And in this way children are not only victims, they are not only victimized by the conflict, but children have also been victimizers of other children and other civilians. This is one of the worst crimes one could commit: depriving children of their innocence, of their childhood and then turning them into war machines. We must move to reverse this trend. Children have no place in warfare at all, their place is at school, in the family, in the playground and we must deprive them of that.

    Q: Is there anything concrete that ordinary people, like you and me, can do for these child soldiers?

    You can join in adopting the three-pronged strategy. You can join in the campaign through your Congressperson, through your Senator, through your government, through your school, through your city, the campaign to raise the age limit for recruitment and participation.

    You can secondly join in a national and eventually international campaign of political pressure that can lean on the organizations that are abusing children in this way.

    You can thirdly join by urging your own government and other institutions to which you are linked to contribute through their policies, through their resources to addressing the economic, political, social factas that facilitate the use of children in this way.

    At your level, in your school, in your community, you can begin that movement.

    Finally I think one can also build children to children linkages. Children of any community in this country can link up with children who have been exposed to wars in Sri Lanka, in Sierra Leone or in Kosovo with a school, with the hospital, with a village and learn about their experiences. So I hope children who are in the US blessed with a country that has peace, a country that is prosperous and democratic, would become advocate of children who are not so fortunate caught up in situations of conflict.

    * The UN has appointed Olara A. Otunnu as the UN Secretary-General Special’s Representative for Children and Armed Conflict. Otunnu presently serves as advocate for children in armed conflicts and is recognized widely for his catalytic work with the United Nations and NGOs concerned about the child soldiers issue.

    Stefania Capodaglio was the first Ruth Floyd Intern for Human Rights at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Santa Barbara headquarters. She is a student at the Catholic University of Milan in Italy.

  • Interview with Hiro Takeda

    “… as hibakusha I think I have the responsibility inform people of the danger of the bomb, the radiation and the effect it has on human beings, because there are a lot of people still in Hiroshima who have suffering from the radiation. And as for my self I haven’t had anything serious but I have been going to the doctor ever since the dropping of the bomb.” (Hiro Takeda)

    Mr. Takeda was born in 1919. He was living with his mother and brother on the outskirts of Hiroshima when the atomic bomb was dropped there on August 6, 1945. He is a hibakusha, a Hiroshima survivor. Stefania Capodaglio is the 1999 Ruth Floyd Human Rights intern at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation office in Santa Barbara. She spoke with Mr. Takeda during August 1999 about his experiences during and after the bombing of Hiroshima. Mr. Takeda is a US citizen and lives now in Southern California.

    Stefania Capodaglio: One thing that struck me about your description of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing at the Sadako Peace Day event in Santa Barbara this year is the vivid memory that you have of those days. I imagine it is a difficult process for you to awake to those memories. Please tell me a bit about what you remember of those days and what did you and your family do immediately after the dropping of the bomb.

    Hiro Takeda: In my memory it was one of my most frightful and horrendous experience I ever had in my life. Because when they bomb fell there was a big BOOM and then a flash in the BOOM. That is what they call PIKADUN (PIKA means flash). We did not know what kind of bomb was dropped and it was very, very powerful. Fortunately injured because I was sleeping and it pushed the ceiling up, it pushed the walls up. Fortunately we did not loose any windows because my mother had all the windows open because it was a very hot day. But the neighbors who had all the windows closed, the windows shattered and it blew the glass across the room. There were sliding doors and a lot of people got hurt on their head. We were lucky . We thought maybe the when the bomb fell we thought: What happened? Then towards afternoon, towards evening the whole city was in flame so I said: My God what is that! Then there was this awesome sight I ever seen : the whole city was all in flame and we just couldn’t comprehend , what was going on. And that evening my brother and I, we turned on the radio, the “Philco Radio” that we took with us from here (US) and it was a small radio with a short wave on that, but we never used that until we have used that radio because we were afraid , because if we were caught with the short wave being American who knew what would have happened.

    That night, on August 6th, my brother and I, were very very anxious of what was going on, so we turned on the radio and then we caught one of the stations in Australia, we caught the news and then they announced it was an A-bomb that was dropped over Hiroshima and we never heard about A-bomb and radiation. And then I understand ……will grow in the city… we were kind of shocked and just speechless. So what we did the following day, we saw a lot of people coming in a way from (away from) Hiroshima city. They were men all worried about their relatives, friends, and neighbors. So I got my mother on the back of my bicycle and we went out to the city. The first place we went to was the temple because they told us that all the victims were in the temples, shrines and schools. So this was the first place where we went to was the temple, and when we saw all these people they were languishing and disfigured, well my mother and I, we couldn’t even stand, we couldn’t even go forward, we were just frozen dead and we couldn’t believe what we saw and I don’t know, it was one of the most frightful sight I ever seen in a They were all just burned and I saw many many We went to the next place. It was the shrine and it was the same thing and then the school ground. There were 100 and 1000 of people all in classrooms all way along that of course almost all the buildings were quiet damaged because of the blast, but then there were in this room we went to, this room was full of dead people, and then in the other room there were people who were dying, we saw many of them dying in front of our eyes. Some of these things is something that hit me really hard, and still we couldn’t believe….I do not know how to say that!! Have we known that the radiation effect was dangerous we would have maybe been afraid to go even to the city, but we didn’t know anything about that. A-bomb, radiation, nothing! We never heard about that thing, so we were desperate trying to look for relatives, friends, and neighbors. And one of the next sight I saw and I think I have already mentioned that on August 6 Peace Day : a young lady standing, she was just standing with her burned skin that was peeling and she was…. I do not know how to describe her. The next thing that really hurt me, even now when I think about it and I cry is this young boy. I do not know how old he was but I couldn’t recognize him because his face was blown and it was just like a balloon. He was just crying “Mammy, Mammy” and then “water, water”, and then that pitiful and painful voice and I can’t still…..I’ll never forget that little boy!! And we didn’t know what to do, we wanted to do something but we just didn’t know what to do! And this was one of the most frightful experience I ever had: seeing a 100 a 1000 people all around the school ground. Some of the people were disfigured and when I saw them I thought they were in great pain. The people who died without having been identified by their relatives were cremated in the school ground. And these are sights that I think I’ll never forget as long as I live. I saw many movies about Hiroshima and the dropping of the A-bomb, but they were nothing compared to what I actually witnessed. A lot of people aren’t quite aware yet of how dangerous and harmful the story behind is.

    SC: The United States dropped the A-bomb on your country on August 6th, 1945. Do you hate the US for what it did to your country?

    HT: I don’t hate countries for doing that, but I have a grudge against President Truman for ordering that. But then an other thing is why did they have to drop the bomb knowing that 100 of thousands of innocent people would have died? Why couldn’t they drop the bomb in some place in a remote area to show them what powerful weapon they had instead of killing 140,000 innocent people? I know of a friend of mine, his sun whose name was Kasu (Kaso), they could never find him! And we lost quite a few of our neighbors. Five or six days later my brother and I went to look for our teacher who was like a second father. We were so concerned about him! To go to our teacher we had to cross the whole city and we had to go through the epicenter. We spent the whole day to go through the epicenter and the stench of death was all over the place, and finally, I don’t know how we ever managed to cross some of the bridges that were all destroyed, but somehow we managed to find the house. Of course it was completely destroyed, and the daughter was there at the house by herself and she said that her father died three days ago and he was cremated.

    SC: Do you believe that your personal witness could influence people and make them reflect more seriously about the atrocities committed with the dropping of the bomb?

    HT: I would think so! When I talked to the people about what I went through and all that, they were quiet astonished. Well when I talk to the people they try to understand or realize , and of course it is hard for them to even visualize or imagine what effect it had on the human being. They can say it was awful, horrible, but this doesn’t describe anything because there is no words in a dictionary to describe what I saw. They cannot imagine what happened, there are no words to describe what happened. When I tell people about that thing they say: Oh, this is awful!! This is something that we should be aware of and then try to prevent a nuclear war. And this is the only thing they can really do or say. So I have these wishes: at least try get along to each other and prevent war as much as we can. But this is something really difficult. Even right now there are some countries making nuclear warheads and I think about my grandson who have to through all that.

    SC: How do you think your memories and stories can best be shared with students and young people in order to increase their understanding of the need to eliminate nuclear weapons?

    HT: I made speeches at school, even in Japan, at the University in Tokushima and then at the Grammar School in Koku Kopu) and here in SB and I even made a speech in LA. I made these speeches at least to make them aware of how awful an A-bomb is, and of course a lot of students were shocked. But the students at the University in Tokushima they didn’t even know about the A-bomb and this was something surprising to me. I’m sure they heard about it but they didn’t know how much destructive it was or how much effect it had on human beings. So I believe that educating people in extent is a good I idea.

    SC: What do you think about Japanese and American military expenditures for conventional weapons and other sophisticated weapon’ technologies? Do you believe they are still useful after what happened at Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

    HT: If they could avoid using them it would be the best thing, but to prevent that is an other question. Because there is Pakistan, India, China and Korea that are still building them. To prevent an other country to launch a missile in a certain way is necessary, but to spend all that money on nuclear weapons is ridiculous because there are so many people who need to be helped, a lot of people who suffer for hunger. Why cannot they use the money towards helping the people instead of building arms? So sometimes I wonder if this is the right way to go!! But then when you see other countries building something like that because they are trying to attack or something like that, well it is a necessity, but then I hope they have at least something to prevent that thing to happen.

    SC: How do you see your role as an “hibakusha”?

    HT: Well I tried not to spread that I’m an hibakusha, but as hibakusha I think I have the responsibility inform people of the danger of the bomb, the radiation and the effect it has on human beings, because there are a lot of people still in Hiroshima who have suffering from the radiation. And as for my self I haven’t had anything serious but I have been going to the doctor ever since the dropping of the bomb. But I was lucky to be able to still survive and be able to tell people of my experience and I think this is one of my responsibilities.

    SC: If there is one lesson you could share with the next generation, what would it be?

    HT: Well I will simply tell them the truth and tell them how terrible the A-bomb is! I would like to tell them to have good relations with other countries, starting with their neighbors. And build friendship and understanding and prevent all these arguments. That’s all I have to say about this! I have been telling my children about the A-bomb and I’m sure they heard something else from their friends, so in this way you can make people aware of the danger of the A-bomb and then I’m sure they will do everything possible to work towards peace instead of trying to create more walls between countries.

    SC: What effect the bomb had on your family: your mother, your brother ..?

    HT: As far as the health my brother and my sister did pretty well, of course my sister she had some problems but then she is O.K.! It hurt my mother more than anything and I think my mother died because of the radiation. Because right after the A-bomb all the people were in the school and my mother used to go and help to cook and nurse these people not knowing the danger of the radiation and she was there every day. So it may affect her health in this way and of course she was very sad that she lost a very good friend in the A-bomb.

  • Arms Trade Code of Conduct

    As of this writing, about 33 wars are raging across the world and 90% of their casualties are civilians. Over 25 million people have been killed in conflicts since the end of World War II. Yet rather than pursuing real disarmament, governments are spending over $2 billion every single day on armies and weapons. And regimes that abuse human rights are eagerly supplied by the world’s arms producers.

    A global Arms Trade Code of Conduct would prohibit the world’s arms producers, virtually all developed countries, from providing military assistance and conventional arms transfers to foreign governments that do not meet certain requirements. These requirements would include democratic governance, respect for human rights, non-involvement in acts of armed aggression, and participation in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, which was established on December 1991.

    Conventional arms include more than rifles and submachine guns. Also included are battle tanks, missiles and landmines. The conventional arms category is broad and ambiguous because it groups many types of dangerous weapons together under the category of “conventional” arms! Sensitive military and dual-use technologies are also included, such as telecommunications systems, sensors, lasers and sophisticated satellites that monitor and prevent unforeseen attacks from other countries. Also, military and security training for expertise in the use of such weapons, munitions, sub-components and sensitive technologies are considered conventional arms. All this can be supplied with little restraint to developing countries, some of which disregard democracy and blatantly abuse human rights.

    The United States is the world’s number one arms exporter. As a democratic nation, it has a responsibility to take the lead in curbing the weapons trade. In 1996, thirty three nations including the Russian Federation, France, the United Kingdom, and the United States (but not China) signed the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Technologies. This agreement was an important step toward the control of the arms trade. The Wassenaar Agreement was set up to contribute to global security and stability by promoting “transparency” of arms exports. The Agreement requires clear and detailed information about arms exports and imports for each country once a year. The problem is that the Wassenaar Arrangement has been signed by only a few nations. The world needs a global Code of Conduct.

    In the United States, the Executive Office approves which countries receive military assistance and arms. Once a year, the President gives Congress a list of countries which will receive arms shipments from U.S. manufacturers. All U.S. arms transfer decisions take into account the multiple U.S. interests involved in each arms transfer. Sales are approved by the Executive Office on a case-by-case basis. All U.S. arms transfer decisions take into account certain criteria including; “Appropriateness of the transfer in responding to legitimate U.S. and recipient security needs”, “Consistency with international agreements and arms control initiatives”, and “The human rights, terrorism and proliferation record of the recipient and the potential for misuse of the export in question” (Criteria for Decision-making on U.S. Arms Exports, The White House, Feb. 17, 1995).

    Nevertheless, 85% of U.S. arms transfers during 1990-95 went to the nations that did not meet the proposed Code’s criteria. In fact, they went to the Middle East (Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, Israel and Lebanon) and to 43 of the 53 countries in Africa, the continent with the most violent conflicts. In President Clinton’s first term, over two-thirds of all arms Wes agreements with the Third World went to dictatorships which are still violating human rights. In 19917 Clinton approved $83 billion in military assistance to dictatorships, an all-time record even during the Cold War years.

    More than half of U.S. weapons sales are now being financed by taxpayers instead of foreign arms purchasers. During fiscal year 1996, the government spent more than $7.9 billion to help U.S. companies secure just over $12 billion in agreements for new international arms sales. The largest single subsidy program for U.S. weapons exporters is the Pentagon’s Foreign Military Financing (FMF) program. Another Pentagon’s subsidy is the Defense Export Loan Guarantee (DELG) fund. Furthermore the Pentagon has also been leasing or giving away massive quantities of highly capable U.S. weapons that have been declared “surplus” relative to current needs. In addition to Pentagon programs, other agencies provide subsidies for sales of weapons. After the Pentagon’s FMF program, the second largest subsidy comes from the Economic Support Funds (ESF) program administered by the Agency for International Development. The “Dual Use” Funding of the Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im Bank) is another source of funding for military exports. In addition the Senate and House Armed Services Committees are working hard to increase the Pentagon spending encouraged by the “Big Three’ weapons contractors — Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon.

    Besides the United States, there are other countries that export conventional arms to countries violating human rights. France, for example, sent arms to Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates and Rwanda. Human Rights Watch and media reports indicate that the French government continued to supply arms to Rwanda for at least two months after international news reports of genocide became public knowledge and after the imposition of an international arms embargo on May 17, 1994. Later, during hearings in March-June 1998, Bernard Debré, who was France’s Minister of Cooperation in 1994, acknowledged that the French government had continued to supply arms to the Rwandan government “ten days after the massacres started,” explaining lamely that this was “because France didn’t immediately realize what was happening.”

    Sales of conventional arms bolster repressive dictatorships at the expense of the poor. In Togo and Rwanda, populations are crying out for schools and doctors, not for guns and military training. In July 1999 more than 100 bodies were found along the coastline of West Africa just after Togo’s June elections, during which opposition party members allegedly were shot and dumped into the sea. Their bodies washed up on the shores of neighboring Benin. They were killed with conventional arms, in this case, rifles or hand guns. Throughout sub-Saharan Africa, the AK-47 assault rifle can be purchased on the black market for as little as $6.

    Jose Ramos-Horta, a Nobel Peace Laureate form East Timor”, was affected personally by the danger of arms sales. In August 1977 his 21-year old sister, Maria Ortencia, along with at least 20 young children in a remote village in East Timor, were killed by Indonesian Air Force pilots. His sister and these children were only a few of more than 200,000 civilians who were killed in East Timor from December 1975, when Indonesia invaded and illegally annexed the newly independent land, to 1979. Indonesia waged this war — and continues to wage this war — using an arsenal of weapons imported from the United States and Europe.

    Nevertheless, there are still some people who think that an Arms Trade Code of Conduct is not necessary. Congressman Dan Burton (R-IN), for example, believes that a Code of Conduct “hamstrings the President of the United States in his conducting of foreign policy.” He argues, “If anybody believes that a country that wants to buy weaponry is going to not buy it simply because they cannot buy them from the United States, they are just barking up the wrong tree.” Congressman Mat Salmon (R-AZ) declared that the Code of Conduct is “not about human rights, and is not about foreign policy. This … is about a philosophical difference that exists within the Congress.” I wonder if Jose Ramos-Horta believes that the Arms Trade Code of Conduct is only a big philosophical pillow-fight in Congress!

    There is a boomerang effect on U.S. interests, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) explained, citing that the U.S. spends twice as much to fight against countries like Yugoslavia, which was initially armed by U.S. arms exporters. McKinney is the Sponsor of the Code of Conduct bill (HR2269), a bill now pending (Nov 99) in the House International Relations Committee and the House Armed Services Committee. (Contact your legislator)

    There are a growing number of people who agree with the establishment of a global Arms Trade Code of Conduct, people who have a very realistic view of the world. Oscar Arias, former President of Costa Rica and 1987 Nobel Peace Prize winner, argues against a “military-dominated mind-set that prevailed throughout the Cold War.” He also states, “It is embarrassing that five permanent members of the UN Security Council are responsible for the largest quantity of arms sales to the developing world. The very countries that should be maintaining world peace and security are the ones most responsible for promoting war and insecurity by producing and selling weapons.”

    I believe that the United States now has an unprecedented opportunity to take the lead in this international effort. In my opinion, if the U.S. leads the way for the establishment of a Code of Conduct, other arms exporters will follow.

    In 1994 alone, the U.S. taxpayer paid more to subsidize weapons sales than they paid for elementary and secondary education programs. The original meaning of the word “subsidize” derives from the Latin word subsidium which means to help each other. To spend billions in weapons subsidies and billions more to fight against soldiers armed with these same weapons is simply bad policy. I agree with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who pointed out, “All of us whose nations sell such weapons, or through whose nations the traffic flows, bear some responsibility for turning a blind eye to the destruction they cause. And all of us have it in our power to do something in response.” U.S. foreign policy should mirror this statement and reduce weapons sales in order to establish programs that will benefit not only U.S. citizens but also citizens of the global community.

    * Stefania Capodaglio was the 1999 Ruth Floyd Intern in International Law and Human Rights at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation headquarters in Santa Barbara, California. Presently she is completing a Political Science degree at the Catholic University of Milan, Italy.