The Road Less Travelled: Implementing the UN Global Counterterrorism Strategy in South Asia

Implementing the UN Global Counterterrorism Strategy in Asia

Panel Discussions - Thursday, November 13, 2008

On November 13th-14th, the International Peace Institute (IPI) together with the Center for Global Counterterrorism Cooperation (CGCTC) convened a roundtable of counterterrorism practitioners and experts to discuss “Implementing the United Nations Global Counterterrorism Strategy in South Asia.”

 Held in IPI’s Trygve Lie Center, the two-day workshop sought to identify ways in which the UN’s Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy could be better promoted and implemented by bringing together a wide range of stakeholders to explore the role of the Strategy and the challenges it faces. Among the forty-plus participants were representatives from South Asian governments, the UN, regional think tanks, and other civil society groups from, or working on, the region.

Building on past work by IPI and the CGCTC on this subject, the discussion and the resultant project report will contribute to improving the UN’s capacity to better understand and counter transnational security challenges, strengthening the response capacities of national, regional, and international actors, and enhancing counterterrorism cooperation in South Asia.

A cocktail reception following the discussions allowed for increased interaction among the conference participants, diplomats, experts, and the broader UN community in New York.

Welcoming Remarks

Edward Luck,
IPI Senior Vice President and Director of Studies

Alistair Millar,
Center for Global Counterterrorism Cooperation (CGCTC)

Speakers and Moderators
Imtiaz Ahmed,
Department of International Relations, Dhaka University, Bangladesh

Richard Barrett,
UN Security Council Al-Qaida/Taliban Sanctions Analytical and Monitoring Team

Laila Bokhari,
Norwegian Defense Research Establishment

Eva Buzsa,
UN Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force; Executive Office of the Secretary-General

Suba Chandran,
Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, India

Christopher Coleman,
United Nations Department of Political Affairs (UNDPA)

Kishore Dash,
Thunderbird School of International Management

Sreeradha Datta,
Institute of Defense Studies and Analysis, India

Naureen Chowdhury Fink,
IPI Program Officer

Shirani de Fontgalland,
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Division, Commonwealth Secretariat, United Kingdom

Bushra Gohar,
Awami National Party, Member National Assembly, Pakistan

John Hirsch,
IPI Senior Adviser

Nigel Inkster,
International Institute for Strategic Studies, UK

Christian Mahr,
United Nations Counterterrorism Committee Executive Directorate

Eric Rosand,
CGCTC

Shambhu Ram Simkhada,
Peace and Conflict Management Committee, Government of Nepal

Farooq Sobhan,
Bangladesh Enterprise Institute, Bangladesh

European Union Developing Standards for Assistance to Victims of Terrorism Compensation and Reparation

The paper below authored by a European Union expert presents guidelines for developing the standards of assistance to the victims of terror. Given our social economic conditions and lack of efficient public health care and education system, it is vital for us to make special provisions for those who lost their lives due to terrorist attacks in the cities.

Please read the paper below:

http://www.euforumrj.org/readingroom/Terrorism/Compensationpresentation.pdf

UN GLOBAL COUNTER TERRORISM STRATEGY 2008

UN Global Counter Terrorism Strategy is the primary document that deals with the victims of terror worldwide. Pakistan is one of the signatory of the UN Strategy and is obliged to implement the recommendations of the Strategy.


http://www.globalct.org/images/content/pdf/reports/strengthening_a_critical_partnership.pdf

UN Press Conference on Support to Victims of Terrorism

On 8th September 2008. Robert Orr, Assistant Secretary-General and Chair of the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, chaired a symposium on supporting victims of terrorism –- the first of its kind at the United Nations.  Mr Orr, declared the victims of terrorism, “one of the most neglected types of victims in the world today”. 

Following is the brief Press Conference report issued by the Department of Public Information • News and Media Division • New York

Please Read On

PRESS CONFERENCE BY CHAIR OF COUNTER-TERRORISM IMPLEMENTATION TASK FORCE ON SECRETARY-GENERAL’S SYMPOSIUM TO SUPPORT VICTIMS OF TERRORISM

Tomorrow’s symposium on supporting victims of terrorism –- the first of its kind at the United Nations –- was not a political event, but an attempt to “fill a real gap in the world’s consciousness” on how States, international organizations and civil society can better address victims’ needs, a key adviser to the world body’s Secretary-General stressed today.

“While the United Nations has convened meetings for victims of various kinds of atrocities in the past, we have never brought together a global meeting addressing the issue of victims of terrorism,” Robert Orr, Assistant Secretary-General and Chair of the Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force, said at a Headquarters press conference.

He went on to say that the one-day Symposium on “Supporting Victims of Terrorism” would be “historic and unprecedented”, offering an important occasion to put a human face on the tragedy suffered by survivors and victims’ families. “It is solely designed to focus on concrete ways to better support victims around the world.” The world would be surprised by the stories that would be told because the cameras went off once the “twisted metal and charred remains” were cleared from the scenes of various terrorist attacks around the world. Victims of terrorism “just don’t have a voice [and] we must see that they have a platform”, he added.

Terrorism not only dehumanized victims, but the societies in which they lived, he explained. “We often hear the voices of terrorists, but too seldom do we hear the voices and stories of victims.” Indeed, victims and survivors were crucial in the fight against terrorism to provide a better understanding of long-term needs and to “humanize” the events, thus helping prevent future terrorist acts by convincing people to pursue their grievances in other ways.

He stressed that the media had a key role to play in that regard, noting that the entire event tomorrow would be open to the press and urging reporters to “make full use of this unprecedented opportunity”. Further, the Secretary-General would hold a midday press conference featuring 4 of the 18 victims scheduled to participate in the Symposium. They would include Ingrid Betancourt, the former Colombian presidential candidate kidnapped in 2002 by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and rescued by Colombian forces some 10 weeks ago with 14 other hostages. Upon request, some of the victims and 10 experts attending the event would take individual interviews.

Among other objectives, Mr. Orr said, the Secretary-General hoped the Symposium would present an opportunity to start changing the “often strained” dynamics between Member States and victims, who too often felt their needs went ignored or unrecognized by their Governments. At the same time, Governments often felt the sting of doing too little and reacted defensively. “This dynamic must change if we are to help victims and fight terrorism.” Indeed, many Governments had stepped up their efforts to care for victims and it was to be hoped that tomorrow’s Symposium would open dialogue on developing best practices for victim support.

He said victims, experts, civil society, journalists, international organizations and Governments attending the Symposium could participate in an open exchange towards overcoming barriers and strengthening mutual trust. On the basis of such a dialogue, the Secretariat hoped the Symposium would also provide a starting point for “building a grand coalition against terrorism”.

He continued: “The adoption in 2006 -- and reaffirmation last week -- of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy signals Governments’ support to renew unreservedly their efforts to implement its provisions, including those on victims of terrorism.” But Governments would not be able to do that on their own; it would take strong partnerships involving Governments, civil society “and, most importantly, the voices of victims of terrorism to move us ahead”.

On the specifics of tomorrow’s event, he said the Secretary-General had invited a “microcosm of victims from around the world” to participate, including five (victims of attacks) from the Middle East, five from Europe, two from Eurasia, three from Africa, two from the Americas and one from Asia. “These are amazing people who have not only suffered much, but who have given even more [by] advocating for other victims, built networks and institutions to help victims and bravely offered themselves up to the glare of public scrutiny in order to help others.”

He said the invited experts also represented all regions, cultures, religions and professional specializations, reflecting worldwide expertise. Three were from Asia, three from Africa, two from Europe, one from the Middle East and one from the Americas. Their areas of specialization ranged from organizing victims’ assistance networks to analysing victims’ experiences, and some had themselves been victims. Others had been invited because they had helped victims recover from other types of conflict or violence. Indeed, one of the Symposium’s purposes was to better learn and apply the experiences of helping victims in other contexts to the question of victims of terrorism, “one of the most neglected types of victims in the world today”.

Mr. Orr then took a raft of questions, most of which focused on the vetting of the participants, the overall composition of the list, the General Assembly’s long-acknowledged stalemate over an agreed definition of terrorism, and journalists’ perception that certain Member States were either being overlooked or unfairly targeted.

He stressed that there was, in fact, a solid legal basis on which the Organization and the wider international community could proceed: 16 international legal instruments –- 13 conventions and three protocols –- that identified “acts of terrorism”, including terrorist bombing, kidnapping, hijacking and financing of terrorism.

On the issue of State terrorism, he acknowledged that it was not mentioned in any of the conventions, but emphasized to several reporters that the Observer Mission of Palestine had been invited to participate in the Symposium, simultaneously with all other Member States and observers. Indeed, one expert attending the event was Palestinian. “The victims that the Secretary-General has invited have suffered from an act of terrorism, as defined by those legal instruments.”

Responding to a question about the selection of participants, he said the Task Force’s working group on victims had been charged with submitting suggestions of any victims and experts; civil society groups around the world had been consulted for input; and, in the case of each victim, the Member State of their nationality had been consulted. The Secretariat had not tried to vet every victim or expert with the wider membership: “I think you can appreciate that that would not have worked.” The criteria for and process of selection had been based on the broadest elements of consensus among Member States –- agreed international legal instruments –- in to “keep politics as far out of this as possible”.

Asked whether the Secretariat was worried about the Symposium turning into a politicized event, he said that, while it was not worried, some critical issues were best addressed “up front”. Everyone was aware that one of the reasons for an international event in support of victims of terrorism was the gridlock over questions of definition. At the same time, Member States had taken a pragmatic step two years ago to address “obvious and real needs” by adopting the Counter-Terrorism Strategy rather than putting their decision on hold while such definition issues were hashed out. “Adoption of the Strategy opened the door for the holding of such an event for the fist time.”

“We know that there are sensitive issues. We’re not naïve,” he continued, underscoring that everything possible had been done to ensure that the Symposium stayed focused on the victims and what they needed. Victims, experts and international organizations participating had been asked to respect those ground rules. Mr. Orr added that there were other venues in the United Nations where political issues could be raised.

To suggestions that victims of terrorist attacks in such countries as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia were not participating in the Symposium, Mr. Orr emphasized the “very difficult situations” in those countries. While the Task Force had tried hard, particularly to secure participation by Afghan victims, identifying and contacting people in those environments who were willing and able to come to New York and take part in such an open forum had been extremely challenging. “I would like to have had someone from Afghanistan; the burden of victimhood is such that it would have been important […] we tried and unfortunately we ended up without anyone.”

In fact, until a few days ago, it had looked as if the list of participants might have been longer, but logistical challenges and other sensitivities had caused some to drop out, he continued. “Coming to an international forum to talk about their own grief was maybe more than they wanted at this time.” That was probably most true for victims of recent terrorist violence.

The Task Force had also worked to find participants from Iraq and Iran, he said, stressing that, overall, while “the list was not perfect”, weighed against regional, religious or cultural criteria, it was a fair representation of worldwide statistics on terrorism, including where it happened and to whom.

In conclusion, Mr. Orr stressed that the United Nations was examining how it could better address the needs of its own terrorism-affected staff. “This is personal for the Secretary-General and all of us who work at the UN, just like it’s personal for the communities and countries around the world that have suffered from terrorism.” The Symposium was a fist step in the global dialogue about victims of terrorism.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record

European Conference on Developing Standards for Victims of Terrorism

The heightened awareness and consequences of terrorism for victims of terrorist acts has led to the inclusion of their needs in a number of international legal instruments of international bodies like the EU, the Council of Europe and the UN. However, these instruments are relatively abstract or include victims of terrorism under the broader heading of victims of crime in general. This is why the European Commission launched a preparatory action to support projects in favour of victims of terrorist acts and to promote the European dimension of support actions in favour of victims.

The project focused particularly on developing standards in the field of continuing assistance, access to justice, administration of justice and compensation to victims of terrorism. Moreover, the possible role of restorative justice principles and practices in dealing with victims of terrorism was assessed. The overall goal of the project was for the standards to serve as a basis for the further development of services for victims of terrorism in Europe.

A draft of standards was developed in two seminars on the basis of a literature review undertaken by researchers at the K.U. Leuven and INTERVICT, supported by the steering committee of experts of the partners involved in the project. The seminars took place in Leuven, Belgium, in November 2007 and were organised by the European Forum for Restorative Justice and the K.U. Leuven. The first seminar was attended by policy makers and practitioners, and the second seminar by academic experts.

The final event of the project was a conference on victims of terrorism, where the draft standards and the results of the literature review were presented to a broader public. The conference took place in Tilburg, the Netherlands, on 10 to 11 March 2008 and was organised by INTERVICT. Both the seminar and conference results served as a basis for the finalisation of the standards and the literature report that was presented to the European Commission at the end of the project.

The Conference was held on 10 and 11 March 2008, Tilburg University, Tilburg, the Netherlands.  Minister Hirsch Ballin Address is as below:
Ladies and gentlemen,

First of all, I want to express my thanks to Ms Kemény for her introduction to the EU project. It was a very interesting talk and one that offers many new prospects. Many thanks and congratulations also to the organisers of this conference, especially Tilburg University and its Intervict Institute together with the European Commission and other partner organisations.

It is an honour for me to speak to you here today, at the start of this two-day conference which will tomorrow coincide with the fourth European Day for the Victims of Terrorism. A conference which is to develop Standards for Victims of Terrorism. As Minister of Justice, I am responsible for both victim policy and antiterrorism policy, two policy fields that have so far developed more or less autonomously. This is also evidenced by the list of participants, since most of you have expertise in one of these two fields. We must share our knowledge in these policy fields if we are to achieve good results, results that will help us to improve the position of victims of terrorism. And that is what brings us together here today and tomorrow. I therefore heartily support the initiative of the European Commission to investigate and define the need for help and support specifically for victims of terrorism.

Today I would like to briefly dwell on Dutch terrorism policy and victim policy, after which I will name two aspects which require further elaboration specifically for victims of terrorism.

Terrorism

There are few offences in which the group of victims of one individual crime can be as large as is the case with terrorism. An attack comes as a real bombshell; terrorism is intended to hurt a much larger group than its immediate victims. Prevention of terrorism is therefore our first concern. There are radical consequences, not only for the immediate victims and their survivors, but also for society as a whole. Its effects may include vicarious anger and vicarious retribution, and its cure may require inter-group forgiveness. Prevention of terrorist attacks, suffering and disruption of society must have great priority in any antiterrorism policy.

Unfortunately, this is not always successful in reality. The figures make this clear. The EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report for 2007 reports 498 attacks in the EU in 2006. The majority of these attacks resulted in little material damage and were not intended to kill. A total of 706 people were arrested in 15 Member States. The countries most frequently affected were France, Spain and the United Kingdom. Much attention goes to the investigation of offences and the prosecution of offenders, but also to investigating and bringing to trial people involved in the preparation of terrorist attacks. People suspected of terrorism have been arrested and brought to trial in the Netherlands as well.

What the EU report does not tell is the consequences of these attacks. How many lives were lost? How many survivors were affected by this? How great was the material and immaterial damage? When developing counterterrorism policy it is very important to not only establish means to prevent future terrorist crimes, but as well take into account the consequences for victims of terrorist attacks. It is time that we focus our attention on this. From the very serious attacks in the United States, Madrid, London and many other attacks, we can learn a great deal about assistance and support to victims.

Victims

There is no universal definition of the term ‘victim’. In the context of terrorism, and particularly when we are dealing with large-scale attacks, it is broader than the people actually killed and their survivors. Eye witnesses, care workers, relatives and friends can be counted to this group as well. Other people can find it difficult to cope with their anxiety and anger as a result of the attack. Society as a whole experiences the consequences. This means we must adopt a broad, differentiated approach to immediate victims and to society as a whole.

We know a lot about the needs of victims of more ordinary forms of crime. A review very recently published by the Research and Documentation Centre of my Ministry showed that victims share a number of different needs. For instance, all types of victims want emotional support and information and want to be heard in the criminal proceedings. But some needs are linked to specific types of crimes. For example, surviving dependants of victims of homicide more often ask for crisis management and for advice about dealing with the media. Victims of violence express a need for immediate safety. Many of these needs will be recognisable for victims of terrorism. This means that for our assistance and support to victims of terrorism as well as for their legal position, we should start by looking along the lines of existing rules and existing policy.

An important document for the legal position of victims is The European Framework Decision on the Standing of Victims in Criminal Proceedings from 2001, which of course is also relevant for victims of terrorism. The regulation forces the countries of the European Union to take the rights of victims seriously. Further, there is the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, which demands worldwide attention to their access to criminal proceedings, to fair treatment, to compensation for injuries and damage sustained, and to assistance.

These four important themes also play a major role in Dutch victim policy. For a long time, the rights of victims were largely set forth in subordinate legislation. The Dutch parliament is presently discussing an act which would give victims and their survivors a well-defined set of rights in criminal proceedings. We have also set out to improve implementation of victim policy. This means an about-face for organisations that have traditionally been oriented to offenders, such as the police and the public prosecutions service; they will have to shift their focus in order to include victims.

This, too, is of great importance for victims of terrorism. They may also have to deal with the police and the public prosecutor after an attack. This means that a well-defined and balanced legal position in the criminal proceedings, as well as assistance and support, must be available to them.

However, all these important developments are still not sufficient for terror victims. Because a terrorist attack will be extensively and continuously dealt with by the media and, as a result, not only the direct victims are affected but also society at large, for terrorism victims an additional, more specific policy must be developed.

Communication to society at large

Terrorist attacks affect society at large: this is one of the objects of committing a terrorist attack. For this very reason, communication to the public is one focus of antiterrorism policy. There are basically two types of crisis communications: before and after an attack. ‘The Netherlands against Terrorism’, a campaign started in February 2006, aims to inform society about counter-terrorism efforts and measures. Another aspect of the campaign is to inform people about their own role and what precautionary measures they can take.

Communication after a terrorist attack requires a different approach. After a terrorist attack, there is absolutely no time to lose. Not only in responding, but also in communicating with the public. And speed is not only important for the country under attack. We live in an era of globalisation. With Internet, mobile phones and satellite TV, the world is rather small. News travels fast, and through many channels. Government communications must not fall behind, especially at times of crisis. In our national strategy for communication after a terrorist attack, speed is the key word. Delay makes things worse. Terrorists aim to instigate fear and confusion, to divide public opinion. So it is crucial to address people's fear and anger. Of course, there are limits to how much we can prepare for. Every situation is unique. Nevertheless, we have guidelines for public communications after an attack, which address the following matters:

1) What exactly has happened? What are the facts and what are we doing to prevent parallel attacks?
2) Public fear and unrest. We work to prevent counter-reactions and to provide reassurance.
3) What measures will be taken, such as extra surveillance at certain locations or on public transport?

Specifically for victims of terrorism

Existing policy can help victims of terrorism on many aspects. Two subjects require particular attention: the scale and pattern of victimisation, and the amount of attention given by the media to a terrorist attack.

Experiences abroad have shown that terrorist attacks can be of a large magnitude, such as the train attacks in Madrid. The legal system in Spain was not designed to cope with large groups of victims and survivors who needed to be informed about the criminal proceedings or who wanted to file a claim for damages. A possible solution to this is to allow interest groups of victims to have access to certain provisions. In the Netherlands, we have some experience with interest groups filing claims for damages in civil proceedings; however, we have not yet seen anything similar in criminal proceedings. Working with such interest groups has both advantages and disadvantages, for victims and their survivors as well as for the criminal system. This is an aspect that requires further exploration.

Conclusion

Ladies and gentlemen,

This brings me back to what I have started with today. There are many similarities between victims of ‘ordinary’ crime and terrorism. We can start by aligning the rights of victims of terrorism with existing rights for victims of crime. But there are unmistakable differences that we primarily see in the event of large-scale attacks. When there are large groups of victims and survivors who want to exercise their rights in criminal proceedings, additional measures will need to be taken. Another point that demands our attention is the influence of the media on the way people cope with an attack. More than only the immediate victims are affected by the difficulties of coping with an attack.

In fact terrorism affects society as a whole. But its immediate victims and their survivors feel its greatest impact. Although we cannot remove their suffering, we can ensure that they are heard and feel that they are supported. It is our duty to do so.

The Ministry of Justice is very much interested in the findings of this conference and will definitely benefit from the proposals for the best possible support for victims of terrorism.

I wish you two very fruitful days, I hope that you will learn a great deal and moreover, that you will have many useful encounters. Thank you for your attention.

EUROPEAN CONFERENCE STANDARDS FOR VICTIMS OF TERRORISM DEVELOPING STANDARDS FOR ASSISTANCE TO VICTIMS OF TERRORISM IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

Statement of Albina Ovcearenco Counter-Terrorism Task Force, Council of Europe

Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a pleasure for me to be here today on behalf of the Council of Europe and to address such an eminent audience of representatives of international organisations, host authorities, victims’ organisations and academic circles.

On behalf of the Council of Europe, I would like – first of all – to thank the organisers for this useful and thought-provoking Conference and the authors of the draft Recommendations for the considerable efforts they have made to provide a paper which approximates and develops further the existing European policies regarding assistance to victims of terrorist acts.

The Council of Europe considers that addressing the needs of victims of terrorist acts and their families is one of the priorities of the international action against terrorism.

Since the 1980s, the Council of Europe has integrated the victims’ perspective into its work in the field of the fight against crime and has paid particular attention to states’ capacity to restore the situation of victims of terrorism.

The Council of Europe's action has resulted in the adoption of a number of binding and non- binding instruments which provide Council of Europe member states with useful guidance in defining their legislation and practice on assistance to victims, including the victims of terrorism.

The compendium of Council of Europe standards – available for the participants of the Conference – contains the relevant Council of Europe conventions, including the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes, and a dozen relevant resolutions and recommendations, including the 2006 Recommendation on Assistance to crime victims.

This Recommendation addresses the support services offered to victims, and also deals with such matters as the provision of information to victims; victim protection; social measures; selection and training of staff working with victims; aspects of criminal and civil justice systems; compensation and mediation.

In 2005 the Council of Europe also adopted further Guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism specific to the protection of victims of terrorist acts. These Guidelines recognise the suffering endured by victims and call for them to be shown national and international solidarity and support.

States are also encouraged by this document to provide victims and, where appropriate, their close family, with emergency and continuing assistance.

In addition the Guidelines deal with key issues, such as the need to award fair and appropriate compensation to victims of terrorist acts, to facilitate their access to the law and to justice, as well as to protect their private and family life, their dignity and security.The objectives of the Guidelines were endorsed in the 2005 Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, which contains a binding provision for Council of Europe member states on protection, compensation and support for victims of terrorism.

Following the finalisation of these standard-setting activities, the current priority of the Council of Europe is to ensure the effective implementation of the existing standards in its 47 member states.

It is evident that terrorist acts, and other forms of transnational crime, or the threat of such acts, call for constant improvements to the forms of assistance available to victims and for the development of new, innovative approaches.

However, it is of the utmost importance to avoid duplication, which may also create confusion and double standards and ultimately undermine the efficiency of states’ responses to the needs of the victims of terrorism.

We recognise and welcome the standards elaborated by other international organisations in the field of victims and terrorism, in particular those of the European Union which Mr Seniore has already mentioned:

- - -

EU Council Framework Decision on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings EU Council Directive relating to compensation for victims of crime, and EU Framework Decision on combating terrorism.

We welcome the present initiative and we believe that the European Union can and should make a substantial contribution to the protection of victims of terrorism by acting within its powers and by building on the existing national laws and European policies and instruments in this field.

Thank you very much for your attention.

For Whom the Bell Tolls: The fate of Child Suicide Bombers in Pakistan

Child suicide bombers "victims of the most brutal exploitation"
February 12, 2008

Zarak Khan, 16, needs to do little more than sit in his chair, flicking through TV channels, to bring a fond smile to his mother’s face. Rehma Bibi is simply glad to have her oldest son at home and safe. “They wanted to make him into a suicide bomber, but we got him away from the seminary school,” she said.

Rehma, her husband Shaukat and their four children, moved from the town of Kohat in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province (NWFP) almost a year ago, soon after removing Zarak from the seminary just outside the town where he had been enrolled since he was 12.

Shaukat had become alarmed by the teenager’s talk of suicide bombings and paradise - where he said those who carried out attacks on “enemies” went.

Fearing their son was being brainwashed into becoming a suicide bomber, the family moved to Lahore to ensure the teenager escaped the influence of his fanatical Islamic teachers and peers.

“We sent Zarak to a `madrassah’ (seminary) because we are poor and could not afford a regular school,” said Rehma. This is a common reality in today’s Pakistan.

The family lives on an income of just under US$66 a month, the amount earned by Shaukat as a day labourer.

Most of the thousands of seminary schools dotted across Pakistan offer religious education, food and shelter free of charge to such families, but a few have developed links with extremist outfits which have unleashed violence across the country, say analysts and observers.

Suicide attacks on the rise

Over the past year, Pakistan has been struck by a wave of attacks, many involving suicide bombings. Fifty-six suicide bombings took place in 2007 alone, killing at least 636 people, including 419 members of Pakistan’s security forces.

A further four bombings in 2008 have already killed over 70 people - the most recent at a political rally on 11 February when a teenage suicide bomber blew himself up in Pakistan’s North Waziristan tribal area near the Afghan border.

The toll of such attacks continues to rise, with suicide bombings having claimed over 2,000 victims in Pakistan over the past decade. Many others have been gravely injured - some disabled for life.

“Victims of the most brutal exploitation”

Many of the bombers who blew themselves up were children, while teenagers who have been arrested provide chilling accounts of how they had been imbued into carrying out similar attacks.

“These young boys are as much the victims of terrorism as those they kill. They are victims of the most brutal exploitation,” said Anees Khan, a Lahore-based psychologist who is carrying out a study on the use of children as bombers for a local non-governmental organisation (NGO).

The manner in which teenagers have been used in suicide bombings has become evident in recent months.

In December 2007, an attack in Kohat that killed 11 army cadets was carried out by a bomber aged 16 or 17 who detonated explosives strapped to his body as he approached his targets.

In January, a boy of around the same age blew himself up at a mosque in Peshawar in a sectarian attack on worshippers gathered there.

Indoctrinated

But it is the manner in which these boys are indoctrinated that is most revealing.

Just a few weeks earlier, Aitezaz Shah, 15, detained in the northern town of Dera Ismail Khan, told investigators how he had been recruited by extremists after dropping out of school in Karachi in May last year.

He said he had been assigned to act as a “back-up” bomber in the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, the chairperson of Pakistan’s populist People’s Party, who was killed in a suicide bombing on 27 December.

Aitezaz had been trained at a `madrassah’ in the tribal area of South Waziristan and was preparing to carry out other attacks.

“We are still conducting interrogations and investigations in this matter,” said Pakistan Interior Ministry spokesman Brig Iqbal Cheema.

A year ago another 15-year-old Pakistani suicide bomber, Hainullah, trained in Waziristan, was arrested in neighbouring Afghanistan where he had been sent to carry out an attack on US troops there.

He said he was offered a “way out of a life of boredom” at a seminary in the area by a preacher who offered him visions of paradise, where rivers of milk and honey flowed, in exchange for giving up his life by becoming a suicide bomber.

A few months later, in a case that made headlines, a 14-year-old would-be bomber, Rafiqullah, was pardoned by Afghan President Hamid Karzai and sent back to Pakistan after being arrested wearing a “suicide vest” packed with explosives.

“It is a sad fact that a Muslim child was sent to a religious school to learn about Islam but was misled by the enemies of Afghanistan,” Karzai said at the time.