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.

EUROPEAN AGENDA FOR MEETING ON VICTIMS OF TERRORISM IN EUROPEAN UNION

13-14 September 2007 HOFBURG, VIENNA

OVERVIEW

Acts of terrorism critically undermine the enjoyment of human rights, including the right to life and to physical integrity of the victims. Terrorists exploit victims by using them as means to convey their message of fear to the wider population. Preventing terrorism, assisting its victims, reinforcing solidarity with and among victims, and involving civil society in this effort is crucial in order to improve security and foster long-term stability. By empowering victims of terrorism, States are reinforcing their very societies against future terrorist threats.

Among conditions conducive to the spread of terrorism, the UN Counter-Terrorism Strategy (adopted by the UN General Assembly on 6 September 2006) includes “prolonged unresolved conflicts, dehumanization of victims of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, lack of the rule of law and violations of human rights, ethnic, national and religious discrimination, political exclusion, socio-economic marginalization and lack of good governance.” In this connection, States Members of the United Nations resolved to “consider putting in place, on a voluntary basis, national systems of assistance that would promote the needs of victims of terrorism and their families and facilitate the normalization of their lives [...].” Moreover, they undertook to increase their efforts in promoting “international solidarity in support of victims and foster the involvement of civil society in a global campaign against terrorism and for its condemnation.”

UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001) calls upon all States to “cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts.” The crucial role of regional and sub-regional organisations in the fight against terrorism has since been emphasized by the Security Council in several subsequent resolutions.1 As a regional arrangement under Chapter VIII of the UN Charter, the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is in a unique position to engage its participating States in discussing the threat of terrorism in relation to the human rights of victims. This is possible thanks to the OSCE’s comprehensive approach to security, linking together military aspects of security with the protection of human rights and the rule of law.

1 In Resolution 1566 (2004), for instance, the Council called “upon relevant international, regional and sub- regional organizations to strengthen international cooperation in the fight against terrorism and to intensify their interaction with the United Nations [...].”

OSCE Permanent Council decision No. 618 of 1 July 2004 recognizes that acts of terrorism seriously impair the enjoyment of human rights and that there is a need to strengthen solidarity among participating States for the victims of terrorism. The decision acknowledges that individuals who have suffered bodily injury or impairment of health, and dependants and family members of persons who have died as a result of such attacks, require support and assistance in accordance with each State’s domestic law. To this end, participating States are invited to explore the possibility of introducing or enhancing appropriate measures, including making provison for financial support for victims of terrorism and their families.

In light of the range of legal, political and cultural experiences across the OSCE region, there is a need to discuss the concept of “victim” and how victims of terrorism may be distinguished from victims of violent crime. The establishment of assistance programs for victims of terrorist acts will be discussed on the basis of an exchange of protection models. The relationship between victims of terrorism and the national justice systems, in particular the role of victims in legal proceedings and the existence of adequate safeguards for the protection of their dignity should be carefully explored. Finally, the meeting will look at what role civil society can play in preventing the dehumanization of victims of terrorism and, more generally, in complementing States’ efforts in this field.

The OSCE’s cross-dimensional approach to security is based on democracy, respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and social justice. Key to this are notions of comprehensiveness and indivisibility of security, and allegiance to shared values and commitments. Respect for, and compliance with, international human rights law, including politically binding commitments, stands central to the efforts to prevent and combat terrorism.

As a first conference on the issue of victims of terrorism in the OSCE, this is an important opportunity to begin both to build political consensus, and frame the OSCE’s approach to victims of terrorism, building on a discussion that can explore the key issues, informed by experts in the field.

SESSIONS

Session 1: The Victim

This Session introduces the concept of “victim”, and will identify key issues that will be dealt with throughout the High-level meeting. It will provide a chance to discuss the notion of solidarity with victims of terrorism both generally, and in the context of the UN Global Counter Terrorism strategy, and the scope for the definition of “victim of terrorism” and of “victim of violent crime”. Some participating States have adopted specific legislation concerning victims of terrorism; others do not differentiate between victims of terrorism and victims of violent crime. In some cases, protection is guaranteed to victims of counter- terrorism measures.

The aim of the session is to discuss approaches in the OSCE region to solidarity with victims of terrorism and to explore in a more concrete manner questions such as who may be considered a victim in the national legal systems in the OSCE region, and how this designation applies to the trans-national nature of terrorist acts.

Questions that could be addressed:

• How can solidarity with victims of terrorism act as a factor in the prevention of terrorism?

• What are the distinguishing features of victims of terrorism? • Is it important to differentiate between victims of terrorism and victims of violent

crimes more generally? • Are there risks in creating a hierachy of victims? • Could the occupation of a casualty of a terrorist act effect his/her status as a victim?

Session 2: Victims' assistance programs

States should ensure appropriate assistance to victims of terrorist acts, including medical, psychological, social and emotional assistance. Ideally, victims should receive fair, appropriate and timely compensation for damage inflicted. The specific needs of victims of terrorism are widely recognised by OSCE participating States, but dealt with differently at the national level because of States' diverse legal and social traditions.

The aim of this session is to allow for an OSCE-wide exchange of information on national models and practices in the assistance and remedy to victims of terrorism.

Questions that could be addressed:

• What types of assistance, including emergency assistance, should best be provided by State authorities?

• What types of assistance, including emergency assistance, could best be provided by non-State authorities?

• Should States' assistance programs cover foreign nationals and/or nationals injured abroad?

• Should States have specialized units for managing all the assistance and compensatory measures put in place for victims of terrorism?

• Should some minimim standards be agreed amongst participating States? Session 3: Victims in Legal Proceedings

While States have a positive obligation to bring perpetrators of terrorist acts to justice in a reasonable amount of time, consideration should also be paid to the rights of victims in legal proceedings. Victims should be able to provide and receive information regarding the progress of any court proceedings related to their injuries, and have access to legal aid and representation as appropriate. The dignity, security and privacy of victims should be taken into consideration at all stages of investigation and trial proceedings in order to avoid further victimisation, including by designing and implementing adequate witness protection arrangements.

The aim of this session is to facilitate an exchange of good practices among OSCE participating States about the status of victims of terrorism in legal proceedings.

Questions that could be addressed:

• How can victims best be represented at court?

• What mechanisms could best fulfil their entitlement to timely information?

• Are State's witness protection mechanisms effective and human rights compliant?

• How do we ensure victims' rights of privacy in the context of media freedom?

• Are there any other experiences related to support for victims of terrorism that might be of particular benefit during legal proceedings?

SESSION4: THE ROLE OF CIVIL SOCIETY

Civil society and victims’ associations play a key role in the initiation, development and implementation of policies and services that empower and support victims of terrorism. While States must not abrogate their responsibilities in the field of assistance and compensation, civil society can play an active part in supporting victims, particularly by providing advice and psychological support. Non-governmental organisations and agencies can provide practical support for victims such as counselling, welfare assistance and supplementary therapies. Human rights organisations can contribute with broader social and political support, such as advocating and lobbying on behalf of victim groups.

The aim of this session is to analyse possible roles of civil society in the promotion of solidarity with victims of terrorism, as well as to explore ways forward for participating States in supporting these initiatives across the OSCE region.

Questions that could be addressed:

• What roles can best be performed by civil society in promoting solidarity with victims of terrorism?

• What are the main challenges faced by civil society in promoting solidarity with victims of terrorism?

• How can States best support non-governmental organisations and associations of victims in their endeavours?

Pakistan's Bhutto visits bomb blast victims

10-27-2007,

LARKANA, Pakistan (AFP)

Benazir Bhutto visited a family whose son was killed in the October 18 suicide blasts, as the former Pakistan premier Sunday kept up a tightly secured trip to her ancestral home.

Bhutto made a jubilant return to her family district in rural southern Pakistan on Saturday, in her first trip outside of Karachi since the bombings in the city that targeted the two-time premier, ripping through her homecoming parade.

Thousands of supporters cheered Bhutto as she flew into Sukkur city from Karachi before she was driven to Larkana district, where crowds danced and waved flags as she paid her respects at the Bhutto family tomb.

The mood was more sombre on Sunday as Bhutto called on the bereaved family in their two-room mud house and offered prayers before moving on to the home of a worker of her Pakistan People's Party who was injured in the blasts, which killed 139 people.

"I have come to condole the martyrdom of a brave and innocent boy of 22 years who lost his life in the movement to save democracy," Bhutto wrote in a condolence book on the verandah of the family's house.

"He did not bow his head before dictatorship or terrorism. His sacrifices shall not be in vain," she wrote, an AFP correspondent witnessed.

Hundreds of people climbed onto rooftops and gathered in lanes of the impoverished neighbourhood in Larkana town to try to catch a glimpse of Bhutto, while others chanted "Jiye Bhutto (Long live Bhutto)."

Security was once again tight amid ongoing fears for her safety, with large numbers of private guards and paramilitary officers, armed with machine guns, surrounding the houses and keeping supporters at bay.

Bhutto is expected to call on party supporters in the area before meeting party leaders at her residence in nearby Naudero, her aides said.

She has vowed to stay in Pakistan despite the bombings and lead the party in general elections, which are seen as a key step in the nation's return to democracy after eights years of military rule by President Pervez Musharraf.

The attacks on her homecoming procession in Karachi happened just hours after Bhutto set foot on Pakistani soil for the first time since 1999 and ruined her planned triumphant return to contest the polls set for January.

Bhutto was granted an amnesty by Musharraf on corruption charges earlier this month, paving the way for her return to Pakistan and a possible power-sharing pact with the general, who seized power in a 1999 coup.

The United States and Britain have been quietly pushing the pact as the best chance of fighting Islamic extremism gathering force in Pakistan, and for political stability in the nation of 160 million people.

Bhutto expressed frustration late Saturday at the extent of the security, which is unlikely to reduce in the run-up to the elections.

"What sort of politics is this where political parties cannot hold rallies? I want to be among my people but because of the security threat I cannot hold rallies," Bhutto told reporters.

Bhutto also late Saturday vowed to continue to fight extremism, which she said was derailing the Islamic nation's return to democracy.

"I am very happy to be back among my own people. You have stood by me in good or bad times," she told about 500 supporters gathered outside her house.

"It is encouraging for me and gives me strength to continue my mission for democracy and a stable Pakistan, free of terrorism, free of militancy and free of extremism," she said.

No group has claimed responsibility for the attacks, with Bhutto alleging a link to rogue elements in the establishment and a pro-Taliban militant denying his involvement.

RAND STUDY SHOWS COMPENSATION FOR 9/11 TERROR ATTACKS TOPS $38 BILLION; BUSINESSES RECEIVE BIGGEST SHARE

Rand Corporation Press Release

Victims of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks — both individuals killed or seriously injured and individuals and businesses impacted by the strikes — have received at least $38.1 billion in compensation, with insurance companies and the federal government providing more than 90 percent of the payments, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today.

New York businesses have received 62 percent of the total compensation, reflecting the broad-ranging economic impacts of the attack in and near the World Trade Center. Among individuals killed or seriously injured, emergency responders and their families have received more than civilians and their families who suffered similar economic losses. On average, first responders have received about $1.1 million more per person than civilians with similar economic loss.

The analysis by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice is the most comprehensive examination to date of financial compensation made following the Sept. 11 attacks.

The crashes of passenger planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a field in Pennsylvania together made up the largest terrorist strikes in U.S. history, killing 2,551 civilians and seriously injuring another 215. The attacks also killed or seriously injured 460 emergency responders.

“The compensation paid to the victims of the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania was unprecedented both in its scope and in the mix of programs used to make payments,” said Lloyd Dixon, a RAND senior economist and lead author of the report. “The system has raised many questions about equity and fairness that have no obvious answers. Addressing these issues now will help the nation be better prepared for future terrorist attacks.”

Dixon and co-author Rachel Kaganoff Stern interviewed and gathered evidence from many sources to estimate the amount of compensation paid out by insurance companies, government agencies and charities following the attacks. Their findings include:

Insurance companies expect to make at least $19.6 billion in payments, comprising 51 percent of the money paid in compensation.

Government payments total nearly $15.8 billion (42 percent of the total). This includes payments from local, state and federal governments, plus payments from the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 that was established by the federal government to compensate those killed or physically injured in the attacks. The total does not include payments to clean up the World Trade Center site or rebuild public infrastructure in New York City.

Payments by charitable groups comprise just 7 percent of the total, despite the fact that charities distributed an unprecedented $2.7 billion to victims of the attacks.

Because of concerns that liability claims would clog the courts and create further economic harm, the federal government limited the liability of airlines, airports and certain government bodies. The government established the Victim Compensation Fund to make payments to families for the deaths and injuries of victims. In addition, the government funded a major economic revitalization program for New York City.

RAND researchers found that businesses hurt by the attacks have received most of the compensation that the study was able to quantify. The families of civilians killed and the civilians who were injured received the second-highest payments. The study found that:

Businesses in New York City, particularly in lower Manhattan near the World Trade Center, have received $23.3 billion in compensation for property damage, disrupted operations, and economic incentives. About 75 percent of that came from insurance companies. More than $4.9 billion went to revitalize the economy of Lower Manhattan.

Civilians killed or seriously injured received a total of $8.7 billion, averaging about $3.1 million per recipient. Most of this came from the Victim Compensation Fund, but payments also came from insurance companies, employers and charities.

About $3.5 billion was paid to displaced residents, workers who lost their jobs, or others who suffered emotional trauma or were exposed to environmental hazards.

Emergency responders killed or injured received a total of $1.9 billion, with most of that coming from the government. Payments averaged about $1.1 million more per person than for civilians with similar economic losses, with most of the higher amount due to payments from charities.

Certain features of the Victim Compensation Fund tended to increase compensation relative to economic loss. Other features tended to decrease compensation relative to economic loss. Researchers say more detailed individual data are needed to determine the net effect.

For example, the Victim Compensation Fund decided to limit the amount of lost future earnings it would consider when calculating awards for survivors. Administrators capped income the fund would consider at $231,000 per year in projecting future lifetime earnings, even though many people killed earned more than that amount. The special master of the Victim Compensation Fund had substantial discretion to set final awards for higher income earners, but data are not available on how he exercised that discretion.

Many issues of equity have been raised by the compensation process. For example, some people have questioned whether it is fitting that some lives appear to be more valuable than others, as demonstrated by higher payments to emergency responders and people who earned high salaries. Others wonder why the victims of the 2001 attacks received greater compensation than that paid to victims in previous incidents, including the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.

Researchers also interviewed people who said it appeared that more effort was made to compensate those killed or physically injured than to aid those with economic losses not related to death or serious injury.

While insurance companies provided the majority of compensation, the RAND researchers warn that there may be less insurance in future domestic terrorist attacks. While before the 2001 attacks terrorism was automatically covered in insurance policies, since then it has been offered as a separate type of coverage, and many businesses have not purchased it. In addition, chemical, biological, and nuclear attacks are now typically excluded.

Researchers say that deciding now what mechanisms should be used to compensate terrorist victims in the future could lead to better use of resources and less duplication of efforts. For example, had the charities known that there would be a victim compensation fund, they might have used their resources differently rather than focusing on providing direct aid to victims killed or seriously injured in the attacks.

A better compensation system for victims of terrorism also would help the nation cope with the aftermath of any future attack and help thwart the aims of terrorism, researchers say. For example, compensation can reduce economic vulnerability to terrorism by affecting how quickly the economy rebounds from an attack and can create incentives to adopt physical security measures and potentially reduce panic and fragmentation.

The RAND Institute for Civil Justice helps make the civil justice system more efficient and equitable by supplying government leaders, private decision makers and the public with the results of objective, empirically based, analytic research.

Printed copies of “Compensation for Losses from the 9/11 Attacks” (ISBN: 0-8330-3691-2) can be ordered from RAND's Distribution Services (order@rand.org or call toll-free in the United States 1-877-584-8642).

About the RAND Corporation

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world.