Many communities within the United States of America suffer from a need to feel secure in the notion that their government protects them from aggression and insures their freedom.  Often, they associate that protection with the role that the military plays and thus they tend to put that institution on a pedestal making it one of their sacred cows; above reproach and criticism.  Compounded by this unhealthy adoration of the military is the belief that in order to be sufficiently safe one must agree that violence is quite acceptable, if not necessary, if it is conducted by men and women wearing a uniform who are, presumaby, acting on the behalf of the citizenry. This is what we often call militarism and it can lead to many other negative "isms". We only have to look back within the last century to recognize that Italian fascism, German nazism, and even Japanese imperialism were all fueled by a strong national consciousness of militarism.

So how do the communities in the United States get this way?  Much of it begins when a young person is born in to an environment that does not allow them to critically analyze militarism, their military, or what it really means to be patriotic in a democratic republic (http://www.afsc.org/Youth&Militarism/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/18301).  The child grows up believing that men and women in uniform represent the "heroes" of their society and many are encouraged to "play soldier" at a very early age.  With the advent of the personal gaming systems that have evolved over the years now children of all ages can play the soldier in the virtual world where they learn to kill, be killed, and reset the game to kill or be killed again.  Other ways in which youth are militarized include being encouraged to join Jr. Reserve Officer Training Programs in high schools as well as similar styled programs at the elementary school level where children are taught the "military" style of discipline, dress up in military uniforms, learn history from a military perspective, and in some cases learn marksmanship with real weapons in school facilties.  Such is the way of 21st century mechanisms to militarize the consciousness of youth.

It is very important to engage our youth in nonviolent alternatives to militarism because militarized youth grow into militarized adults who wind up representing the nation as elected officials and who then tend to lead us into violent conflicts based on the premise that military superiority is the only way to be a strong nation.  These same militarized adults also tend to avoid the reality that billions of dollars are siphoned away from national efforts to bolster true security (eradicating poverty, developing jobs, access to higher education, etc - http://www.oneminuteforpeace.org/) and put into the hands of the Pentagon which then gives much of that money to military defense contractors to develop weapons of mass destruction.  The implication of not reversing the trend toward greater militarization of youth is that not only will our military budget continue to grow unchecked (the US currently spend more on its military budget than the next 15 nations COMBINED spend on their military budgets - http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending) but we as a nation are likely to see more unfettered and unchecked military missions that will often do more harm than any perceivable good. 

While it is not likely that the US military will ever disappear, it is possible that by demilitarizing the lives of youth and ultimately the consciousness of a nation the military that we have will be a military that is controlled by the People and not by those who profit either politically or financially from the preparation and prosecution of war. 

The reasons for youth participation in armed conflict may differ substantially from one context to another and youth presenting similar features (socio-economic, family situation, etc.) may differ in their choice to join (or not) armed forces/groups. In many countries around the world, children and youth are forcibly recruited - abducted from their homes, schools, roadsides and villages and held captive against their will, sometimes for years. Yet others so-called “voluntarily” join armed groups, though this is not a truly voluntary decision oftentimes. Young boys and girls may view enlistment as their best option for survival for themselves, their families or communities in contexts of extreme poverty, violence, social inequality, exclusion or injustice. They may enlist as a response to violence and a means of avenging attacks against their families and communities. They may also enlist to escape abuse or violence in their homes, because a parent or sibling is in the forces, for adventure or to serve a cause.

Preventing youth from participating in armed conflict is strongly linked to providing them with socio-economic opportunities allowing them to transition into adulthood. Without gainful employment, a sense of political involvement or access to education, young people can become alienated and contribute to the political destabilization of a country or region. The resulting sense of hopelessness and futility, coupled with the desire to change a failed political system can convert ordinary teenagers into activists who foment political rebellion. Depending on the opportunities available to them, youth can contribute to peace, security and growth. This is essential for the long-term stability of a nation, particularly one that is or has been recently at war, as youth carry their beliefs, values and experiences with them into the future.

Bear in mind that, within the UN system, youth are identified as those between 15 and 24 years of age, recognising however, that this can vary considerably between one context and another. Social, economic and cultural systems define the age limits for the specific roles and responsibilities of children, youth and adults. Conflicts and violence often force youth to assume adult roles such as being parents, breadwinners, caregivers or fighters. Cultural expectations of girls and boys also affect the perception of them as adults, such as the age of marriage, circumcision practices and motherhood. Such expectations can be disturbed by conflict. Under international law, children under the age of 18 are not allowed to take part in direct military hostilities and child recruitment below the age of 15 constitutes both a war crime and a crime against humanity.

District Swat had been has been under the spell of Talibanization, Militancy and terrorism since 2006. A powerful cleric and head of the prototype Taliban,Mullana Fazlullah held considerable sway over the conservative population of the region and led a campaign based in Swat denouncing television cum cable network and satellite receiver, music, polio drops, women empowerment.

The human capital of Taliban were mostly young men and teenage boys as the Taliban used to brain wash youth and boys, inculcating love for martyrdom, paradise and the global rule of Islam and hence due to misconception youth joined the Taliban only out of ideological persuasion but however the major finding is that the greater reason was high unemployment in the area as the youth were paid (5000PKRS per month) indoctrination and forcible recruitment through kidnapping. Swat Youth Front (SYF) being a non-profit youth organization working for peace and promotion of human rights and peace took the initiative, in spite of the jeopardized situation, to engage the youth of the area in healthy and non-violent alternatives to militarism and extremism and hence initiated sports based related activities to engage the youth of the area in health activities as Sport can be an attractive entry point for those who are skeptical about peace and social cohesion. Sport and games allow those who are critical of or even against intercultural dialogue and nonviolent conflict transformation to work together. Sport and games targets an important part of each human being, which often gets forgotten in peace building: the body and its emotions. Sustainable conflict transformation requires also addressing the participant’s feelings. Sport and games offer the space for joy, fun, creativity, happiness, sadness and frustration. The power of sport comes with its popularity, and the effect and impact comes with its implementation. Focusing on conflicting parties’ mutual interest rather than using the problems as starting points for intervention, sport activities can create safe spaces for interaction where communication can be restored and understanding and tolerance can be built provided we have acquired adequate knowledge of the conflict situation. Sports can also be utilized as a Healthcare - Trauma treatment for men, women and children( militancy victim) the very process of participation in sport may also have a personally Therapeutic and publicly engaging function with regards to assisting the emotional and social rehabilitation of these traumatized individuals

IMPACT OF THE ACTIVITIES REVIVAL OF SPORTS ACTIVITIES:

Under the signed MOU it was mandatory for the teams to ensure providing of photos of the sport activities in which the gifted goods are used and also ensure to be the part of sport for peace network. To utilized Sports as an effective tool and a strong unifying factor in the process of conflict transformation, peace building and development, restoration of interaction and communication and emotional and social rehabilitation of traumatized community, SYF organized cricket and volley ball tournaments among the member teams of Sports for Peace Network

SPORT HELP TO BUILD RESILIENCE: Participating in sport and physical activity can lead to a number of positive health benefits in any situation for people of all ages and abilities. Sport has a crucial role in the optimal growth, learning and development children from infancy through adolescence, and continues people as they get older. In complex emergency / man-made disasters sport for peace project was a useful and valuable tool for building resilience and helping people affected by disaster to overcome trauma. It provided a safe, structured and friendly environment for people to begin to share their emotions through verbal and nonverbal communication. The emphasis was on building social cohesion and to encourage community member to interact and communicate with each other. Sport activities allow brief period of relaxation, focus attention away from the experience of the loss and provide an opportunity to reinforce educational and safety messages along with welcome respite for parents and caregivers. Psychosocial aspect of the sports for peace projectdo not have a primary focus on competition and wining but rather an emphasis on the cultivation of a cooperative and supportive environment. The culture of cooperation contributed significantly to the restoration of psychosocial and social functioning, especially after the trauma of disasters has caused upheaval. People benefited from having regular contact with providers of physical activity who provide trust worthy and reliable role models which is an important aspect of building resilience and overcoming trauma LEARNING OF SKILLS: Revival of Sports activities provide a forum to learn skills such as discipline, confidence and leadership and it teaches core principles such as tolerance, co-operation and respect. Sport teaches the values of effort and how to manage victory as well as defeat.

GENERATE DIALOGUE:

 Sports for peace project help to promote social integration and foster tolerance, helping to reduce tension and generate dialogue. Establish a sense of structure and “normalcy” in Youth’s lives, which is particularly important for children affected by armed conflict and displacement. Sports for Peace project harness the power of sport and play to teach important life skills and values that can contribute toward building vibrant and peaceful communities. Participants learn how to communicate, work in teams and set goals. The project helps youth cultivate an ability to resolve conflicts peacefully through increased self- esteem and confidence in their own abilities, as well as motivation and courage to be positive agents of change. Regular activities also reduce stress, anxiety and depression, provide respite from conflict and stressful situations, and help children affected by conflict and war regain a sense of normalcy. Feedback from evaluations conducted in various areas of District Swat showcase how Sports for peace project is contributing toward decreased violence and conflict in the community and an increase in ability to resolve conflict cooperatively.

The prototype Taliban militants under a strategy demolished many schools and colleges in the area with a sole aim to indulge the school going male teenagers into militarism and Talibanization movement as the major human capital of Taliban were mostly young students and boys as the insurgents used to brain wash youth and boys, inculcating love for martyrdom, paradise and the global rule of Islam and hence due to misconception youth joined the Taliban out of ideological persuasion.

Most of the suicide attacks in pre and post conflict situation were and are involved teenagers students of aged 14 to 19 years and hence to cope with the situation SYF initiated a project Open Minds Pakistan Project funded by Institute of War and Peace Reporting United Kingdom to initiate Human Rights Education and Journalism training with young students in five schools and colleges to broaden and enlighten the outlook of the students in objective manner to reject violence and violent views and increase the capacity of communities to reject violent extremists  and help counter extremist propaganda in Pakistan and district swat  that pulls individuals into radicalization  and then into extremism.

The bimonthly dialogue sessions on Human Rights Education, the bimonthly journalism training and participation in online dialogue on the website www.openminds.org.pk  enabled the vulnerable group of adolescents (aged 10-15 and 16-19) in public and religious schools demonstrate an improved competence in articulating moderate views on issues known to counter radicalization such as governance, rule of law, human rights, security and conflict and development issues.

The students and youth of the area are regularly participating in the online discussion forum on www.openminds.org.pk to share their views with their age sake around the world. The students being trainee journalists are regularly publishing their articles and reports in the local and national newspapers and even will launch a media program on National Television to highlight the issue of terrorism and indulging of youth as a human resources of the militants.

Hello! My name is Vera and I volunteer and work with New Tactics. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the dialogue so far!

Many of you have touched on the role of media in validating the role of militarism and violence, while others emphasized that the military provides concrete socio-economic incentives to attract youth enrollment. Of course, these are fundamentally connected - endorsement of military solutions in the media, in our reading of history and even in discussions with parents, makes the likellihood that youth will engage in violent action all the greater. But even when youth does not engage in violent acts, they are likely to endorse violent and military solutions (e.g., voting for militaristic policies, supporting leaders who promote armed conflict). Both of these aspects are clearly important, but I was wondering if each requires a different kind of approach:

• In preventing youth from engaging in the military, what tactics can be employed? How can we provide alternatives that would overcome the strategies deployed by the military recruitment centers?
• In resisting the larger culture of supporting violent actions, what tactics can we design that would promote youth and their communities to support non-violent solutions? How can we engage the media, for example? Or pre-election campaigns? How can youth be the ones that are active in those movements? 

I'm excited to hear about the examples!

Thank you.

Every event having its roots in the society has an impact on the society both negative and positive but conflict has always a devastating impact on the generation to come and children and teenagers are the most vulnerable to these new trends and can be easily molded to the selfish ends of the insurgents and terrorists.

During the year 2008 and 2009 the Taliban has glowing popularity in the area and hence has an impact on the children and youth of the area. The children as “shown in the below pictures” were wearing  Taliban Uniform and manufactured or bought Weapons, Rockets, Garnets and other destructive weapons.  

In one haunting interview, a teenager in Swat who joined the Taliban a year ago when he was 13 described his journey, “First it was the sermons at the mosque, then being recruited to a madrassa, and finally spending months in military training…They teach us to use a machine gun, Kalashnikov…Then they teach us how to do a suicide attack.” When asked if he’s like to carry out a suicide attack, the boy answered, “If God gives me strength.”

 Poverty and unemployment is also the major cause of Youth Involvement in the area as the parents send their children to some of the madrasas thinking that they are getting and education and more importantly free food but they do not know what kind of religious education their children is being put through. The poor areas of the area were/are increasingly becoming a new breeding ground for the next generation of Taliban fighters as the Taliban commander personally responsible for recruiting children. Qari Abdullah, who revealed he recruits children as young as five, six and seven years old, told her, “Children are tools to achieve God’s will. And whatever comes your way, you sacrifice it.”

To engage the Youth in non -violent alternatives to militarism it is obligatory to wage a war on poverty and a commitment to providing education and opportunity so that children in the future won't be turned into murderers, thinking that suicide and death are their only escape from a hopeless life. Please also visit http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cfll5JCDEq4 that how kids are brain washed by talibans

This section is focused on ways to engage youth in non-violent solutions. I came across an interesting document put together by the UNDP. This PDF, titled Youth and Violent Conflict contains many interesting sections. I was particularly interested in their section on gender and the fact that there seems to be a perception that youth, as a status, is more relevant for boys than for girls. Furthermore, this document contains a whole section on the demographics of youth at risk for being recruited for the military as well as the description of coercive strategies that military centers and officials use to engage youth in violence. 

As difficult as it is for me to say this... movements that advocate for peace, demilitarization, and sustainability in the contemporary context have not done as well as their competitors (the militarists, the war profiteers, and the Pentagon/Department of Defense) who have always mangaged to work out ways to hook youth into their messages.  Arguably, a lot of that can be attributed to the level the competition is playing at financially.  With over $4 billion dollars annually spent to recruit young people into the military, millions of dollars spent on facilitating JROTC programs in the nation's public schools, and untold dollars spent on educational text-books that glorify the US war record it seems that the movements for peace are up against a multi-tentacled monster whose reach permeates in more ways than activist movements can... especially when it comes to engaging young people.  However, one thing is for certain and that is that the best way to reach youth is by assisting youth in leading their own efforts to reach their peers.

As a national trainer & presenter who is contantly sought out to help well meaning grassroots groups engage in the conversation about how to do counter-recruitment/truth-in-recruitment work in their communities I often find that it is a very rare occassion to see young people in the audience. Whilst we may whittle away at the "alphabet soup" that deals with the jargons, and terminology as well as the practical aspects of how to approach school administrators and other "strategic" efforts my one crucial overture to groups is that they need to somehow identify young people they can nurture and support to be the champions of the messages they'd want other youth to hear.  Young people talk more readily and easily to other youth and a peer to peer approach is one of the best ways to help get the positive messages across to those young people who are largely unaware that they are dyed in the wool of militarism.

But how easy is this?  Frankly, not very easy especially if the folk involved do not have children or are very far removed from the generation they wish to reach.  We know that the US military and its various service branches use their military recruiters in a variety of ways. Career recruiters who staff offices are usually senior officers.  These individuals may not spend as much time visiting high schools and other places where young people gather as the field recruiters under their commands will do.  Generally those field recruiters are "young" and are not often too far removed from the generation they are recruiting.  They understand the youth culture of the day, and may even on their own time participate in very similar types of recreational activities as the youth they meet up with.  This allows for a certain type of "gravitas" that aging activists could rarely expect to have with youth.  The military has spent a lot of money figuring out that putting young faces in front of the young people they hope to recruit is the best way to get across their sales pitch.  Compounding the challenge for those who wish to share an alternative message with youth is the fact that the military is a sacred cow in many US communities and young people are taught to value a uniform as a safe authority whereas a concerned citizen trying to engage a young person in the alternatives can often be perceived as someone lacking clout and relevance ESPECIALLY if they have not ever been in the military.

So, in my opinion, the key is to not only figure out how to address the issue at the bureacratic levels (school boards, school administrators, legislators, etc) where older folk may have more traction, but to also figure out ways develop programs that will attract young people and provide them with opportunities to learn and lead.  Examples of this can be found in a number of my organization's Regional Offices throughout the United States:

• Portland, Oregon - http://www.afsc.org/portland/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/4814
• Atlanta, Georgia - http://www.afsc.org/southeast/ht/d/sp/i/17812/pid/17812
• Greensboro, North Carolina - http://www.afsc.org/greensboro/
• Chicago, Illinois - http://www.afsc.org/chicago/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/16715
• Los Angeles, California - http://www.afsc.org/losangeles/ht/d/sp/i/83640/pid/83640

The long and short of it is that we have to be more creative, more innovative, and most of all more dedicated to figuring out ways to reach and engage youth.  The military relies on its popular image, the video games it produces and helps to produce, mainstream media (movies, TV, radio, internet) and even its bases that are scattered around the country within arms reach of civilian populations, to promote itself. We don't have that going for us, but what we do have are thousands and perhaps millions of young people who don't buy into the militarist culture of the United States and who don't know what do about it.  All we need to be able to do is provide those young people with the structure to work within or ways to create their own structures, as well as guidance and any amount of financial resources we can muster and they can often take it from there. 

This past summer I worked with an organization in Guatemala named La Cambalacha. “La cambalacha” means “exchange” in the native Mayan language of Kakchiquel. This idea of exchange is central to all that La Cambalacha does. They do this mainly by bringing in workshop leaders from both within and outside of the country and community to share with youth a skill, practice, or art of theirs. Workshops are most often some sort artistic/creative activity such as painting, drawing, drumming, dance, etc. These workshops allow not only for creative exchange but also often allow for cultural exchange. I feel that these forms of exchange are extremely valuable in empowering youth to find their own nonviolent alternatives to militarism. Youth are provided with tools and skill to express themselves creatively as well as with various different people and perspectives to share insights, challenges, loves, hates, etc. with. I see the use of artistic exchange and rhythms with youth to hold many of the same benefits of using sports. Both sports and arts cans allow for cultural exchange, both provide skills and outlet for expression, both provide youth with safe spaces; both can be therapeutic and provide a sort of normalizing rhythm to lives.

I just wanted to share my own reflections on similarities of these tactics and the value of cultural and artistic exchange – especially with youth. Thoughts?

I am in the Conflict Resolution Course and have been researching the tactic of providing an opt-in form rather than an opt-out form for high school students. Currently U.S. schools are required by federal law to submit all student contact information when requested by recruiters....unless parents fill out a form to opt-out. Unfortunately, not very many parents are informed about this option. A way to help with this would be to assume that the parents do not want their children's information given to recruiters unless they fill out an "opt-IN" form.

There is a particular example I've been researching of the Santa Cruz, California school district switching to the opt-in form in 2003. They were faced with lots of threats from the government to have their funding pulled. This question is particularly for Oskar who works with AFSC. It was on their website that I was first introduced to the idea. I was wondering if you know what happened to those schools? Did they lose their funding or are they still opt-in?

This tactic gives an example of using the law to try and loophole around recruitment and militarism. Are there any other examples of perhaps using the law or maybe interpreting the wording differently to an anti-militarism advantage?

I am a student who is part of the Conflict Resolution Class.

I think there are significant roles played by each of these three groups: families, communities and especially the media, which continue to help endorse militarism in our society. After all, most children do not live in isolation. They are influenced by those closest around them. But I would also like to add another group to this category; our educational system also upholds militarism, because children who are in school learn the history of conflict and war. They are taught here in America that George Washington and other American generals and leaders are heroes to be glorified, not people to be criticized.

I especially think that the media is one, of not the most, influential way through which children and youth learn about militarism. Also it is important to note that this is where they learn violence as well (and, of course, violence relates directly to militarism). At a young age, children are taught to become desensitized by violence witnessed in the media. It often becomes a source of comedy. Likewise then, children also learn to not question what they see of the military whether it is in the media or in real life.

But my question then is: Are there any ways to positively use the media to educate youth on specific nonviolent alternatives? And if so, does anyone have specific examples of what is most effective in doing this?

Families and communities play a significant role in defining and shaping the attitudes of adolescents towards militarism.  In some communities where local defence forces have been established to protect the community from rebel attacks, a social expectation and pressure exists that all able-bodied children, youth and adults contribute to the defence of the local area. Parents actively push their children to do this work; and sometimes the children continue to live at home and even go to school while moonlighting as part of the local defence forces (e.g. Mai Mai forces in eastern DRC).

Oftentimes, however, families and communities actively welcome support to divert youth, especially children, from becoming involved with armed forces or groups and to provide them with viable alternatives to dangerous military work. These alternatives may take the form of back-to-school initiatives or catch-up classes, vocational training or support to set up a small business. Activities that target 'at risk' children or youth at the community-level coupled with involvement in community based activities through youth clubs, awareness raising etc have proven most effective. Hopefully we'll have some examples of such programmes in subsequent postings.

For young people who have been militarized and are then demobilized for whatever reason, families and communities play a critical role in facilitating (or not) that person's ability to successfully adapt to civilian life and reintegrate into his or her family and community life afterwards. 

As such, the role of families and communities is an important consideration in any programme aimed at providing alternatives to youth militarization, in addition to considering the role of the media and the government.

Hello, my name is Lindsey and I am a student in the Conflict Resolution class participating in the dialogue.

I was brainstorming how youth's ideas of the military are formed and I have seen often in my peers that they tend to hold very similar viewpoints to their parents- the connection is obvious and the influence huge. I think that the parent's view of militarism can either be helpful (in the sense that it discourages militarism) or vice-versa. Thus, if we are trying to enlighten the youth, it is important that a tactic or strategy include possibly some of the most influential people in their lives- their parents. What types of tactics have people used to try to incorporate parents into the movement to encourage nonviolent alternatives to militarism? Obviously parents must have their childrens best interest in mind, so there must be a lot of potential in such tactics.

Thanks!

Lindsey

This is a youtube video of a Ukranian commercial encouraging young Ukranian men to join the military.  The message?  "Joining the military will get you girls!" As they say, 'sex sells' right?

With government-sponsored media - commercials, TV shows - and other media funded by governments like videos and video games - how can we compete?  How do we get our message out about alternatives to joining the military, when our adversary seemingly has such an abudance of resources?

Thanks,

I think it is obvious that almost always how militaristic or violent a community in which a child is brought up in/exposed to is extremely influential in the way in which they value violence/militarism and the role it plays in their lives. I, personally, believe in the power of, specifically, words and language and the idea that the words we use to articulate have the power to shape who we are and the lives we lead. \

That being said I am wondering if there are any movements in which personal youth development is focused on. Perhaps movements focused on establishing nonviolent lifestyles for children at a young age, or programs aimed at nurturing the spirit of children to be peaceful and positive; to build things up rather than tear others down. I know this idea is in the mission of many programs for children, but i am wondering if there are any aimed specifically at this, especially for young children (preschool aged and up, maybe).

I think it is obvious that almost always how militaristic or violent a community in which a child is brought up in/exposed to is extremely influential in the way in which they value violence/militarism and the role it plays in their lives. I, personally, believe in the power of, specifically, words and language and the idea that the words we use to articulate have the power to shape who we are and the lives we lead.

That being said I am wondering if there are any movements in which personal youth development is focused on. Perhaps movements focused on establishing nonviolent lifestyles for children at a young age, or programs aimed at nurturing the spirit of children to be peaceful and positive; to build things up rather than tear others down. I know this idea is in the mission of many programs for children, but i am wondering if there are any aimed specifically at this, especially for young children (preschool aged and up, maybe).

The government can also have a big impact on the militarization of youth. For example, in 2001, Mugabe introduced the National Youth Service Programme in Zimbabwe. The initiative was introduced with the goal of instilling the following values in the country's younger citizens: national identity, patriotism, unity, discipline and self reliance. While the program was presumably a platform for youth to participate in service projects and develop leadership skills, it is in practice a training camp for youth militia. With the government playing such a prominent role in the militarization of its youth, how can it be held accountable by the international community? In 2005, at a UN world summit, state leaders (including Mugabe) adopted the following language regarding the responsibility to protect:

 138. Each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. This responsibility entails the prevention of such crimes, including their incitement, through appropriate and necessary means. We accept that responsibility and will act in accordance with it. The international community should, as appropriate, encourage and help States to exercise this responsibility and support the United Nations in establishing an early warning capability.

 139. The international community, through the United Nations, also has the responsibility to use appropriate diplomatic, humanitarian and other peaceful means, in accordance with Chapters VI and VIII of the Charter, to help protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. In this context, we are prepared to take collective action, in a timely and decisive manner, through the Security Council, in accordance with the Charter, including Chapter VII, on a case-by-case basis and in cooperation with relevant regional organizations as appropriate, should peaceful means be inadequate and national authorities manifestly fail to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. We stress the need for the General Assembly to continue consideration of the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and its implications, bearing in mind the principles of the Charter and international law. We also intend to commit ourselves, as necessary and appropriate, to helping States build capacity to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity and to assisting those which are under stress before crises and conflicts break out.

Considering the case of Zimbabwe, is this enough for the international community to intervene in the increasing militarization of the youth by Mugabe and his party?

I know we must have some great success stories out there - Oskar already mentioned the promising work of assisting youth in their own efforts of reaching their peers.  Ali also mentioned the work of IVAW and their counter-recruitment program. I wanted to add, to this section on Sharing Stories of Success, a tactic from our tactics database on the role of parents in counter-recruitment tactics (in response to Lindsey and Daniel's comments above on the role of parents).

Soldiers’ Mothers of Saint Petersburg offers educational sessions to conscripts, army recruits and family members of Russian soldiers to inform them of human rights violations by the military and the possibility of refusing conscription. They discuss human rights and the articles of the constitution that apply to conscription and learn how to write letters to the authorities demanding their rights. About 120,000 people have participated in the training sessions over 12 years and about 90,000 have protected their legal right not to serve in the army. About 5,000 people who were tortured in the army successfully petitioned not to return to their units. Soldiers’ Mothers of Saint Petersburg educates conscripts, army recruits and family members of Russian soldiers about their legal rights so that they can effectively exercise them. This approach gives people the information and skills they need to claim their constitutional right not to serve in the military or not to return to units where they have suffered ill-treatment.  [Taken from the tactic summary: Giving people the information and skills that they need to claim their rights]

This NGO was formed in 1989 and they are still active - in January of 2010 the Soldiers' Mothers of St Petersburg was quoted in Radio Free Europe for their findings of two conscripts in Russia dying due to lack of medical care.

Parents certainly play a crucial role in a youth's decision on whether or not to join the military.  Parents also play an important role in their community.  When a soldier's mother speaks - we listen! There are many other counter-recruitment organizations formed by parents throughout the world - it would be great to hear of more examples! 

Southwest High School in Minneapolis had a strong youth-initiated movement in 2006-07 to counter military recruiting. A youth movement mobilized around two counter-recruitment tactics that I am aware of: recruiter tabling and opt-out provisions of No Child Left Behind.

Whenever a military recruiter was scheduled to table at the school, the student group would invite Vets for Peace or a similar group to table in the same space. In that way, whatever messages the military recruiter presented could be addressed by a veteran whose alternative view could not be easily dismissed. I understand that over time this tactic led to reducing the number and frequency of visits by military recruiters.

The No Child Left Behind act provides access to high school students' contact information by military recruiters, but also includes an "opt-out" provision for families who do not want their child's information to be made available. Students at Southwest petitioned to have the opt-out form added to the school's website and led an education campaign to alert students and families to this option. I don't know how many families used the form, but this post has reminded me that I will need to fill out that form in two years when my daughter enters high school, unless the law can be changed by that time.

Since I mostly work from a national perch it is very rare for me to see success stories at the grassroots level first hand.  However, being in constant contact with those in the field is what I do and a lot of what I hear and see comes by way of my colleagues in the AFSC Regional Offices around the United States who are doing great work with youth (http://afsc.org/program/youth-and-militarism-program).

While the work my colleagues are doing varies from organizing Alternative Career fairs to tabling at high schools, the common denominator is that they are all working to help youth become empowered to demilitarize their lives.

An example of this can be found in our AFSC Hawai'i office.  Many people in Hawai'i, like so many others throughout the US, view the US military with adoration.  Recently, our staff in there helped to create a shift in attitude among 19 Hawaiian youth from the idea that the US military in Hawai’i is a positive force and necessary for security to the idea that true security lies in social, economic, cultural and environmental justice.  Through discussion and an examination of history most of these young people were never comprehensivley exposed to they came to understand that the US military wrongfully took land when it invaded and overthrew Hawai’ian government and continues to violate and use these lands to invade and occupy other countries.

In the Oakland, California area, our AFSC staff constantly meets with youth and students to discuss the concerns most military recruiters will avoid discussing with potential recruits.  During an outreach and workshop effort conducted by our Bay Area staff one student from Ed Shands Adult School in Oakland and two students from Logan High School in Union City for a total of three students claimed they were convinced about joining the Navy and Air Force respectively. All three claimed they were no longer considering enlistment after the workshop ended.

The AFSC Washington, DC office recently engaged more than 75 D.C. public and private school students through weekly human rights learning sessions. Specifically, they used “Article 3” of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security) to reflect on the effects on militarism on young people.  99.9% of students who participated in our human rights learning sessions publically rejected the militarization of youth.  One school in particular created a “peace club” as a forum for students to deepen their understanding of peace building using a human rights framework.

As you see, there really is no cookie-cutter approach that works best.  All efforts, even those that are hard to quantify, are worth the energy put into them.  Sometimes we never really know what kind of impact we will have or if we have made an impact and we know that we can never reach everyone.  The story of the starfish and the little boy on the beach (http://www.adifference.com/starfish-story.htm) comes to my mind when people ask me why even bother if our end goal seems so far away.  I reflect on this story because I know that for every young person we encounter, in some small or large way, "It's going to make a big difference to that one". 

The name of this discussion is clearly "New Tactics," so it should have been clear.  As proof of "we see what we want to see," i proceeded to write comments related to strategy when I replied to Kristin's email.

Since this is my first post on anything here, let me know if I should start a new discussion or what.  My own interest is in strategy, so I don't want to muck up a discussion on tactics.  Apologies for getting off on the wrong foot. 

Here's what I sent to Kristin yesterday:

************************************************************

one thing i've noticed after many similar discussions is they tend to focus--immediately or eventually--on important but narrowly-focused items, sort of a "best practices" listing of what activists have experienced.  what follows is usually a discussion of how we can do what we've been doing, but do it more/better/faster.  for sure we need to do more of the things we've traditionally done and learn how to do them better.  but if we stop there we'll mostly be talking tactically, not strategically, like the antiwar movement has done for so long. 

i'm no strategic genius, but here's what i've learned that seems to make sense regarding the kinds of discussions we're entering.  (note: that is, if I would have picked up on what the theme actually is...)

while we need to oppose war funding and numerous other pieces of congressional legislation;
while we need to support the few good bits of legislation that get introduced;
while we need to limit/eliminate the presence of recruiters in schools;
while we need to support g.i. resisters and petition against d.u. and point out the sexism in the military and the sexual abuse that is rampant and work against many other individual evils in this militarized culture or ours, it is helpful to keep a larger framework in mind.

there are many ways such a framework could be defined.  here's one that seems to make more and more sense to me.

historically we know and many of us understand that fundamental change doesn't come from the white house or congress or the courts.  it comes because of fundamental changes in the culture.  law follows culture.  national policy follows culture.  elections follow culture.
of course there are times when the courts or congress can help influence culture as well, but instances of real, fundamental change being espoused by political leadership before it's demanded by the citizenry damn rare.

so, what does that mean for our organizing?  well, i guess that's the $3 trillion question and i'm not going to say i can answer it completely and certainly not in one email.  but it suggests a framework for discussion.

for example, if we assume a focus on changing the culture, it will mean that by definition our work is long-term.  there are no shortcuts or silver bullets.  it means that grassroots work and building relationships among people also committed to social change and to a sustainable world is critical.  do we have to fight the really big evils and oppose the really bad legislation--yes.  but in my view we have to recognize that those things can't be where the majority of our effort goes and that even when we DO focus on those items, we do it in a strategic way.  by that i mean, if we're going to do a petition against d.u. or get people to call on a particular piece of legislation, the key thing is to build connections, relationships and power at the bottom.  so the most important thing isn't whether or not the legislation gets defeated/passed, it's whether we've built into our organizing a way to keep in touch with people who've identified themselves as interested and involve them in the movement.  simple as sign-up sheets at meetings, tracking who responds to email alerts, the host of new methods in social networking, etc.  all things that are simple and pretty obvious, but also things which we either forget to do, or don't figure out a way to use the data once we've remembered to collect it. 

we are living in a militarized culture.  you can readily see it all around us--a $20+ billion dollar a year recruiting budget gets turned into advertisements everywhere, promotional crap and recruiters by the thousands.  military values, symbols, uniforms, customs etc. are held in esteem by society.  mlk day parades in major cities, including the one where he was killed, memphis , are clogged with military units, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum.   to change a culture so deeply rooted in militarism requires serious organizing and relationship-building.

and what would we like to see in place of the current culture of militarism, commercialism and death?  well, one that valued the earth, the human inhabitants along with the critters; that provided us all with a better life (not necessarily more "stuff") including things like health care, education etc.  and what stands in the way?  primarily the fact that we don't govern ourselves--hence a key to finding a common desire among people working for a better world in many, many different arenas.

a good example of long-term, attention to detail, relationship-based organizing that addressed fundamental issues of economic and political control is a movement like the populists of the end of the 19th century.  lots of lessons there that we don't take time to learn. 

after 15 years or so of hard, grassroots organizing, their aspirations came to be articulated in the form of a political party--the "people's party." 

typically, political parties aren't used for anything more than retaining power and the people's party may have suffered the same fate eventually.  but before that even had a chance to happen, they got co-opted into a "fusion" campaign backing democrat wm. jennings bryan , in 1896.  bryan got clobbered by mckinley (one of the several really crappy presidents from ohio) in the historic "front porch campaign" which he was able to wage because his operative, mark hanna, was busy tithing corporate heads to fund the first really organized, national political p.r. campaign and swamped bryan, destroying the people's party in the process. 

i don't want to venture too far into populist history and leave that to the real experts like lawrence goodwyn.  suffice to say that today's movement is hell of a lot of organizing away from having to worry about the dangers of becoming a political party. 

so that's my two cents (more like 12, i guess) on how to help frame a discussion on the problems of militarism.

mike

Professor Salzberger,

Your story is fascinating and absolutely true. I grew up in a completely different generation (the 90's) and I recall that game being played on our playground as well. The main difference was that it wasn't outwardly war-related. My generation had forgotton where the game had come from and what the real point was. I find that fact to be a bit of a concern because the violence in the game was no less pervasive and "chicken" and "sissy" were still very commonly used. Youth are promoting this warlike violent behavior without even realizing it themselves at all.

I fully agree that gender identity plays a huge part in why young boys and men are so compelled to join the military. I'm curious to know if there have been efforts among any of the practitioners here to counteract militarism in our youth from this angle of gender identity. Are there any success stories? If not, what's the biggest hurdle?

I think it's one thing to educate the young men of the fact that gender roles are simply social constructs and not requirements, and another thing entirely to convince them that it is okay to turn away from these roles when they risk their credibility among peers and even close friends. What other things could be done to help them rise above the roles assigned them? Is there a more effective way to educate them or is it necessary to use another tactic entirely?

Thanks,

Chelsea

Conflict Resolution Class