Pakistan welcomes UN decision to remove references in child conflict report
Pakistan on Friday welcomed a decision by the United Nations secretary general to remove references to the country in the annual report on Children and Armed Conflict, calling it a recognition of Islamabad's efforts to protect child rights.
In a statement issued by the Foreign Office on Friday, Pakistan termed the development a 'significant outcome' and a testament to its 'constructive, sustained, and intensive engagement' with the United Nations, particularly the Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict (SRSG-CAAC).
The UN's Children and Armed Conflict (CAAC) agenda monitors six grave violations against children in conflict zones: killing and maiming, recruitment and use of children, sexual violence, abduction, attacks on schools and hospitals, and denial of humanitarian access.
PR No.1️⃣9️⃣1️⃣/2️⃣0️⃣2️⃣5️⃣
Pakistan Welcomes United Nations Secretary General's Decision to Remove References to Pakistan from the Annual Report on Children and Armed Conflict
🔗⬇️https://t.co/cl1edtKFeS pic.twitter.com/19HAtFzbfC — Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Pakistan (@ForeignOfficePk) June 27, 2025
The report, published on June 17, acknowledged the agreement between Pakistan and the United Nations on a child protection roadmap, formalised in June 2025, and urged its effective implementation.
While noting progress, the UN secretary general expressed concern over reports of grave violations, including attacks on schools—particularly girls' schools—health workers, and incidents along the Afghan border.
However, he added that, given Pakistan's cooperation and preventive measures adopted under the agreement, the country would not be listed in the next annual report.
'In view of the level of grave violations in Pakistan and the preventive measures adopted as agreed by the Government in June 2025 in cooperation with the United Nations to protect children, the situation of Pakistan will be removed from my next report,' the secretary general noted.
Also Read: Trump ends trade talks with Canada over tax on US tech firms
The FO said the decision reflects international recognition of Pakistan's legislative, institutional, and policy measures to protect and promote the rights and well-being of children while reaffirming country's commitment to aligning national frameworks with international norms and best practices in child protection.
Pakistan, it added, remains committed to close cooperation with the UN to ensure a safer and brighter future for children.
Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, in a statement on X, also welcomed the UN secretary general's decision, calling it 'a reflection of our sustained, constructive engagement and Pakistan's unwavering commitment to child protection.'
He added, 'It also marks a significant recognition of Pakistan's national efforts to uphold child rights and ensure their well-being. Pakistan remains committed to working with the United Nations and international partners to secure a safer, more hopeful future for all children.
Pakistan welcomes the UN Secretary General's decision to remove references to Pakistan from the Annual Report on Children and Armed Conflict. This reflects our sustained, constructive engagement and reaffirms Pakistan's commitment to child protection.
It also marks a significant… — Ishaq Dar (@MIshaqDar50) June 27, 2025
Report reveals grave violations against children
According to the United Nations report, violence against children in armed conflicts surged to record levels in 2024, with a 25% increase in grave violations compared to the previous year.
The report, prepared following consultations and in line with UN Security Council Resolution 2427 (2018), covers the period from January to December 2024. It outlines trends in the impact of armed conflict on children and includes a list of parties involved in violations such as recruitment and use, killing and maiming, sexual violence, abductions, and attacks on schools and hospitals.
The UN verified 41,370 grave violations, including 36,221 that occurred in 2024 and 5,149 from previous years that were verified during the reporting period. At least 22,495 children were affected.
Among the most widespread violations were the killing and maiming of children, with 4,676 children killed and 7,291 injured. Other grave violations included 7,906 incidents of denied humanitarian access, 7,402 cases of child recruitment and use, and 4,573 abductions.
Read More: Israeli soldiers ordered to shoot at unarmed aid seekers in Gaza: report
The report also noted that 3,018 children were detained in 2024, often for alleged or actual ties to armed groups — including those sanctioned by the UN Security Council — or on national security grounds, raising serious concerns about violations of their rights.
The highest numbers of violations were recorded in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory (8,554), followed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo (4,043), Somalia (2,568), Nigeria (2,436), and Haiti (2,269). The largest percentage increases occurred in Lebanon (545%), Mozambique (525%), Haiti (490%), Ethiopia (235%), and Ukraine (105%).
Sexual violence against children rose by 35%, including a sharp increase in cases of gang rape. The report described sexual violence as being used deliberately as a tactic of war — to terrorize populations, assert control over territory, displace communities, or target children based on ethnicity or gender.
The denial of humanitarian access also reached unprecedented levels in 2024. The report said more humanitarian workers, including UN staff, were killed last year than ever before. Aid convoys and personnel were attacked, humanitarian workers were arbitrarily detained, and numerous bureaucratic and administrative barriers were imposed, severely disrupting operations.
These actions left countless children without access to healthcare, education, protection services, or life-saving humanitarian aid, the report said.
The report has urged all parties to uphold their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, and to respect the rights and special protections granted to children.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US and India — strategic autonomy or alliance partnership
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam This piece attempts to deconstruct the imperatives of Sino-India bilateralism in the backdrop of US-China competition. In my piece, "War of Humiliation" in the South Asia magazine (November 2020), discussing the Sino-Indian escalation in Ladakh, I had concluded that expecting India to stand up to China as a bulwark, that the US continues to prop it, is too far-fetched. That China and India would never — willingly or unwillingly — walk into a full-blown war, that is in nobody's interest. If anyone expects India to stand upto to China — doing the US bidding — in a resurrected Great Game 2.0; then it is not knowing India of Chanakya Kautilya (375-283 BC). The wizard, also called Vishnugupta or the Indian Machiavelli, said: "Do not reveal what you have thought of doing... keep it secret being determined to carry it into execution." Fast forward to 2025, there is a lot of debate nudging India to be in a 'partnership alliance' with the US to counter China; as most analysts in the US/European camp, think India cannot do it alone. Some emphasise that 'strengthening Quad' (Quadrilateral Security Dialogue comprising Australia, India, Japan and America) would be a good starting point for New Delhi. Realising that India is a 'hedging' middle power, eager to play both if not all sides, the US think-tanks deduce that transfer of more sophisticated and advanced technology to India would depend upon India's overt anti-Beijing credentials. The basic premise of such thinking is that a shooting Sino-Indian war is inevitable, and that militarily embroiling China through India is cost effective and makes strategic sense. This is a faulty presumption, just like encouraging Ukraine, a militarily weaker side, to go on the offensive against a militarily stronger Russia that was on the defensive, in the much-touted Ukrainian counter offensive in 2023, that failed. The recent chasm in the US-India relations emanate from India profiting from the Russian oil imports, debunking sanctions; Indian protectionism in trade against US agricultural products; Modi's refusal to acknowledge President Trump's role in the May 2025 Pakistan-India ceasefire; and the less than expected tenacity by India in the cited conflict. However, these are transient factors originating from the 'Trump Factor', who is in his last presidential term. There are compelling reasons for Washington to keep India in its orbit and repair the damaged relations, even if New Delhi is not very forthcoming. First, in the US strategic construct China, Iran, North Korea and Russia make a substantial 'authoritative scale (mass of alliance power)' presenting a unified challenge, needing a unified response. Moreover, China under President Xi has moved away from its confrontational 'wolf warrior' diplomacy, with emerging profile in the Global South, Africa in particular. Its BRI networks 126 countries through highways, railways, pipelines, power plants, grids, IT, social welfare and poverty-alleviation projects. BRI's staggering investment of over $1.3 trillion will ultimately cover 60% of the world population and 40% of its GDP, providing a viable economic alternative, catapulting the present US-led predatory economic system. Second, America's inability to compete with both China and Russia, requires 'strategic diplomacy', some US analysts emphasise. Its core purpose being 'cultivating favourable balances of power in critical regions' to project power far beyond material means. Strategic diplomacy aims to limit rival's options, without seeking to remove the sources of conflict. The US is moving past the age of 'globalized utopia', of being the single-most powerful hegemon, enjoying comprehensive security enabled by techno-military capabilities. It gravitates towards alliance partnerships and strategic diplomacy. And under its 'pivot to Asia' strategy, building the largest anti-China coalition, India stands out to bridge the gap between Washington's rhetoric and capabilities. US analysts feel Biden Administration was unable to properly cultivate New Delhi against Beijing. They feel Trump should nudge India closer 'as an ally on the level of Japan or NATO partners'. Will India do the US bidding willingly, under coercion or under inducements? The straight answer is no, under any conditions. Way back in a meeting with the US officials, when asked to analyse the US-India potential relationship, my answer was to 'go ahead and find out'. However, much that India will drag its feet on becoming involved in bloc politics, alliance partnership with the US, and ignore its 'strategic autonomy', Washington will persistently deploy the pressure-inducement combo to rope in New Delhi against China. Even if that means making India, as some suggest, a regional policeman and hegemon in South Asia, deferring to its advice and actions concerning other countries like Pakistan. The other touted US 'deputy sheriffs' to include Australia in Pacific Islands, Vietnam in continental Southeast Asia and Nigeria in Africa. Expecting India to go against one of its largest trading partners (despite an otherwise obscure border conflict), is not understanding geo-economics and history. First, Sino-India annual trade is over $100 for the third consecutive year. It was $124 billion for FY2024. Second, India has historically conceded against formidable adversaries, from Afghans to Moghuls to Portuguese to the British. That historic constant has not changed, Modi or no Modi. Third, militarily, Indian discussions concede China's conventional and nuclear advantage. India responds to this "conventional asymmetry" through infrastructural build-up, force modernisation and new raisings, compared to Beijing's better military infrastructure, capabilities, and logistics. The Indian security establishment remains concerned about greater survivability of Indian forces on the battlefield, in an environment of uncontrolled escalation, instead of investing in new weapon platforms especially the nuclear ones. However, paradoxically, the cited asymmetry also serves as a strong catalyst for peaceful co-existence. It is, therefore, no surprise that India gravitates towards better relations with Beijing under its 'Look East Policy', burnished by the recent chasm with Washington. When China's Foreign Minister, Wang Yi on August 18, 2025, during his two-day visit to New Delhi emphasised both nations to view each other as 'partners' and not 'adversaries or threats'; his Indian counterpart Jaishankar acknowledged the Chinese overtures, saying both countries were seeking to 'move ahead from a difficult period in our relations'. Wang met Premier Modi on Tuesday, reaffirming 'positive trend' in the bilateral ties. In sum, India it too smart to fall for the US trap.
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
US sanctions four ICC judges, prosecutors over war crimes investigations
The International Criminal Court building is seen in The Hague, Netherlands. Photo: Reuters/ File US President Donald Trump's administration on Wednesday imposed sanctions on two judges and two prosecutors at the International Criminal Court, as Washington ramped up its pressure on the war tribunal over its targeting of Israeli leaders and a past decision to investigate US officials. In a statement, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the court "a national security threat that has been an instrument for lawfare" against the United States and Israel. The move drew ire from France and the United Nations. Paris urged Washington to withdraw the sanctions, while the ICC said it deplored the designations, calling them "a flagrant attack" against the independence of an impartial judicial institution. Washington designated Nicolas Yann Guillou of France, Nazhat Shameem Khan of Fiji, Mame Mandiaye Niang of Senegal, and Kimberly Prost of Canada, according to the US Treasury and State Department. All officials have been involved in cases linked to Israel and the United States. Also Read: Pakistan, China, Afghanistan forge deeper alliance with CPEC extension "United States has been clear and steadfast in our opposition to the ICC's politicization, abuse of power, disregard for our national sovereignty, and illegitimate judicial overreach," Rubio said. "I urge countries that still support the ICC, many of whose freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices, to resist the claims of this bankrupt institution." The second round of sanctions comes less than three months after the administration took the unprecedented step of slapping sanctions on four separate ICC judges. The escalation will likely impede the functioning of the court and the prosecutor's office as they deal with major cases, including war crime allegations against Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. ICC judges issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Israeli defense chief Yoav Gallant, and Hamas leader Ibrahim al-Masri last November for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity during the Gaza conflict. In March 2020, prosecutors opened an investigation in Afghanistan that included looking into possible crimes by US troops, but since 2021, it has deprioritized the role of the US and focused on alleged crimes committed by the Afghan government and the Taliban forces. Read: India test-fires nuclear-capable Agni-5 missile amid US tariff tensions The ICC, which was established in 2002, has international jurisdiction to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in member states or if a situation is referred by the UN Security Council. Although the ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide in its 125 member countries, some nations, including the US, China, Russia, and Israel, do not recognise its authority. It has high-profile war crimes investigations under way into the Israel-Hamas conflict, as well as in Sudan, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Venezuela. Undermining international justice Both France and the United Nations said the judges' work is crucial for international justice. "Their role is essential in the fight against impunity," a statement from the French Foreign Ministry said. The US sanctions undermine the foundation of international justice, UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric said, adding: "The (US) decision imposes severe impediments on the functioning of the office of the prosecutor." Netanyahu's office issued a statement welcoming the US sanctions. The designations freeze any US assets the individuals may have and essentially cut them off from the US financial system. Guillou is an ICC judge who presided over a pre-trial panel that issued the arrest warrant for Netanyahu. Khan and Niang are the court's two deputy prosecutors. Canadian Judge Kimberly Prost served on an ICC appeals chamber that, in March 2020, unanimously authorized the ICC prosecutor to investigate alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Afghanistan since 2003, including examining the role of US service members. Also Read: Trump rules out US troops for Ukraine The Trump administration's dislike of the court goes back to his first term. In 2020, Washington imposed sanctions on then-prosecutor Fatou Bensouda and one of her top aides over the court's work on Afghanistan. Countering Rubio's call to other countries to oppose the ICC, the court urged member states to stand in solidarity. "The Court calls upon States Parties and all those who share the values of humanity and the rule of law to provide firm and consistent support to the Court and its work carried out in the sole interest of victims of international crimes," it said.
Express Tribune
5 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Selective patriotism
It was Ramazan, and a friend of mine refused to fast. When I asked why, he said that his doctor had advised against it due to health reasons. Yet, the same friend smoked incessantly. I tried to argue and asked whether the same doctor had advised against smoking as well. He made a poker face and said no such advice was given to him. I am not sure what kind of doctor would not advise against smoking. Even cigarette brands advise against smoking at the end of their ads. Life is a game of what one chooses to believe, practise, avoid and adopt. Just like religion, citizenship and patriotism are practised quite selectively as well. In the US, a specially tailored form of patriotism is in fashion, especially with the ascension of Trump to the White House. He was really voted in due to the poor situation of the US economy and the miserable conditions that the citizens found themselves in. Credit card debt had grown over a trillion dollars and even the paycheck-to-paycheck life that was once ridiculed had become an ambitious milestone quite far from the reach of the citizens. Immigrants were not really on people's minds when dealing with the inability to pay their bills. The genocide in Gaza and Elon Musk's tweets also played a serious role in defeating Biden. However, once Trump started his term, one of the first major things that he did was an intense crackdown on illegal immigrants, legal residents and even naturalised US citizens. ICE raids have become the norm in this society. The broader promise of America First and Make America Great Again (MAGA) did include this racist and violent practice but it meant that the interests of the US would be put ahead of the interests of any other state. Just like my friend who followed his doctor's advice on fasting but ignored it on smoking, when it comes to Israel, America is not first. The same politicians that make noise about patriotism and making America great again sacrifice all that in the interests of Israel. Ted Cruz, one such politician, proudly said that he had joined the US Senate with the goal of defending Israel and Israeli interests. Jews are disliked by this crowd but not when it comes to Israel. One US politician is quite interesting. Her name is Marjorie Taylor Greene. She is MAGA on steroids. She supports Trump and his racist anti-immigration policy. She is all about America First. But that same ideology, if that is what one wants to call it, also compels her to question the blind support the US provides Israel. She started making noise against supporting Israel, Ukraine and the genocide in Gaza. She even calls it a genocide, which is a term the mainstream Americans like to avoid uttering. She perhaps does not like immigrants like me in the US, but she doesn't practise a selective belief system. So, as part of that same mindset, she also wants the US focus its own citizens and improve their lives instead of blindly giving Israel billions of dollars when the US itself is drowning in debt. Moreover, politicians who care about keeping the US safe and loved around the world should also stick to the advertised image of America where it stands against the bullies and supports the oppressed. Supporting Palestine against Israel's terrorist actions is what America — if it truly prides itself on being the saviour of humanity — should be doing. This will not only be the right thing morally, but will also not generate anger against the US, which has always resulted in attacks against innocent Americans. This will be a policy very much in line with America First and MAGA.
