In this report , we read that the term “diaper terrorist” is humorous on the surface, but behind it lie the horrific realities of the use of children in wars, terrorist operations, and propaganda; children who, instead of going to school, are given weapons and explosive belts in their arms.
AsiaNews Iran’s analytical report, with a precise definition of this term, documented examples from ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, the Taliban, and FARC, a review of international legal frameworks such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Optional Protocol, an examination of the psychological and social consequences on child victims, and an analysis of the positions of institutions such as UNICEF, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, and Human Rights Watch, shows that these children are not in fact “agents” of terror, but rather “victims” of the crimes of warlords and extremists; a crime that international law has identified as a war crime and calls for the prosecution of its perpetrators and supporters.
The term “diaper terrorist” may seem ironic at first glance, but in a deeper and more terrifying sense, “diaper terrorist” is an image of a child who is still in diapers but appears in extremist groups’ propaganda videos with a gun, an explosive belt, or as an executioner; a child who has been made into a “tool of war,” not a joke. This report focuses on this second figure: children caught in the fire of conflicts that they neither chose nor understand why they should fight in.
Between 2005 and 2022, more than 105,000 children were officially registered as “used” or “exploited” in armed conflicts around the world; a figure that UNICEF itself emphasizes is only the recordable part of the truth and the real figure is likely much higher.
This phenomenon is not limited to one region or one ideology; from jihadist and extremist ethnic groups to Marxist guerrillas and local militias, everyone has played a role in this cycle.
In the Middle East, ISIS (ISIL) is one of the most prominent examples. The group launched a program called “Cubs of the Caliphate” in which it systematically trained 10- to 15-year-old children in military and ideological training, who appeared in violent videos as snipers, executioners, or front-line fighters.
Alongside ISIS, reports of the recruitment of teenagers by some Kurdish armed groups, the symbolic use of children in parades and propaganda in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and the presence of children in the media productions of armed groups such as Komala and the Democratic Party, paint a picture of a spectrum from propaganda exploitation to direct participation in combat.
In Africa, the old and bitter story of the “child soldier” has taken on new dimensions. The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda and Central Africa kidnapped thousands of children, forcibly trained them in military service, and forced them to participate in killings and torture. Commander Dominic Ongwen, who himself was kidnapped as a child, was convicted years later by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the war crime of child soldiers, a historic verdict that sent a clear message to other warlords that using children does not bring immunity.
Boko Haram in Nigeria has pioneered another form of this crime: the use of children – especially teenage girls – as “human bombs.” According to UNICEF, in 2017 alone, at least 83 children were used by Boko Haram in suicide attacks, strapped with explosive belts and blown to pieces alongside the victims.
In Somalia, Al-Shabaab has been on the UN blacklist for years as one of the worst violators of children’s rights in armed conflicts, and has recruited hundreds of children as fighters and spies.
In South Asia, the Afghan Taliban is a clear example of child recruitment. Religious schools in poor areas have become a breeding ground for new generations of fighters; to the extent that in the days after the fall of Kabul in 2021, the prominent presence of armed figures aged 14 to 17 alongside adult Taliban forces on the streets was itself a form of “normalization” of child soldiers. Reports from Pakistan, Sri Lanka (Tamil Tigers), and other Asian conflicts also show that the region has by no means been immune to this phenomenon.
In Latin America, the FARC in Colombia recruited hundreds of rural children over decades, some kidnapped, some tricked. According to official Colombian government figures, of the approximately 6,000 child soldiers released at one time, 60 percent were FARC members. After the 2016 peace agreement, the group pledged to release all members under the age of 18, and the commanders responsible were held accountable for crimes against children by the Special Peace Court, one of the rare examples in the world of transitional justice specifically addressing children.
Although the media sometimes uses the term “diaper terrorists” to attract attention, international law recognizes these children as “victims” rather than “terrorists.” The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) and its Optional Protocol on the Participation of Children in Armed Conflict (OPAC) prohibit the direct participation of persons under the age of 18 in hostilities and clearly emphasize that non-state armed groups have no right to recruit or use children in any way.
The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also defines “the recruitment, enlistment or use in hostilities of persons under the age of 15” as a war crime, a dimension that led to the conviction of rebel commanders in cases such as Lubanga and Ongwen. These rules rightly place the blame squarely on the planners, commanders, and financial and arms sponsors of the groups; a 12-year-old child armed with a gun or explosive belt is, in its legal sense, the first and foremost victim of a gross violation of human rights.
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has noted in recent reports that war “violates virtually all rights guaranteed in the Convention on the Rights of the Child” and that states – whether engaged in war, supporting or observing – have an undeniable obligation to prevent, protect and respond to these violations.
Children caught in the cycle of violence are not only wounded on the battlefield; the real trauma is in their minds and psyches. Field studies of former child soldiers from the LRA in Uganda, the FARC in Colombia, and armed groups in Africa and Asia have shown that these groups have very high rates of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), severe depression, recurrent nightmares, and high-risk behaviors. Many of them were forced to commit acts as children that no adult would tolerate, from shooting civilians to violence against family members.
In addition to psychological trauma, educational and skills deficits, social exclusion, and even the label of being a “terrorist” make it more difficult for them to return to normal life. In Nigeria, UNICEF reported that children released from Boko Haram face suspicion and fear in their villages; people worry that the children have not been brainwashed or are still a potential danger.
Such a reaction is another wound to the soul of a child who has already been abused.
For this reason, in the new human rights paradigm, the principle is that the child soldier is not a criminal but a victim; direct prosecution should be avoided and the focus should be on his rehabilitation and social integration, while the responsible commanders and leaders are brought to justice. Programs such as “Children, Not Soldiers” are designed with this approach in mind, to force governments to end the presence of children in armed forces.
Almost no human rights issue has generated as much global consensus as the condemnation of the use of children in war. UNICEF, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and dozens of other organizations have called the exploitation of children by ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, the Taliban, the FARC, and other groups “crimes” and “calculated atrocities” in numerous reports and statements.
On the other hand, positive examples – albeit limited – have shown that if there is political will and sufficient resources, the cycle of violence can be broken. Child soldier rehabilitation programmes in South Sudan and the Central African Republic, the return of FARC children to school in Colombia, and social integration projects in Sierra Leone and Liberia have shown that abducted children can be partially reconstructed, provided that society re-embraces these children and holds the perpetrators, not the child victims, accountable.
What is the solution? Three axes to end the “diaper terrorist”
Analysts suggest three main axes to combat this phenomenon:
- 1. Pursuing the bosses and sponsors
Explicitly criminalizing the recruitment and use of children in domestic law, cooperating with international mechanisms such as the ICC, and imposing sanctions and political and financial pressure on groups that recruit children to fight are first steps. Commanders and governments who participate in this crime must know that sooner or later they will be held accountable at the national or international level.
- 2. Root prevention
Poverty, injustice, lack of education, ethnic and religious discrimination, and a void in the rule of law all contribute to the recruitment of children into extremist groups. Without safe schools, real opportunities for education and decent work, and a clear message of “no to violence” in crisis-affected communities, any false promise from warlords can become tempting for adolescents. Investing in education, local development, and awareness-raising programs about children’s rights are the pillars of sustainable prevention.
- 3. Rehabilitation and return to life
Rescuing a child from an armed group is not the end; it is the beginning. Long-term psychotherapy programs, reparative education, family counseling, job training, and anti-stigma campaigns are essential for the child to return to normal life. The experience of Colombia, Sierra Leone, and Uganda has shown that when society sees a former child soldier as a victim and gives him a second chance, the likelihood of violence reoccurring in the next generation is reduced.
Behind the “diaper terrorist” label stands a kidnapped child.
The “diaper terrorist” is ultimately not a ridiculous creature, but the image of a child stolen from his or her own childhood; a child who, in the dictionary of warlords, has become a “soldier,” a “human bomb,” or a “propaganda tool.” True defense of security and justice means not allowing children to suffer this fate; it means relentlessly pursuing the perpetrators and supporters of this crime and respecting the lost childhood in remote villages in Africa, the Middle East, or Latin America as much as we value the security of our cities.
As long as children are seen in the ranks of ISIS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, the Taliban, FARC, and dozens of other groups, the case of the “diaper terrorist” is not closed; and until the day the last child is released from this cycle, we cannot claim that we have truly learned anything from the bitterest lessons of the last two decades – child warfare.
This phenomenon of using children in terrorist movements also exists among the terrorist group, the MKO TERRORIST GROUP. The children of MKO TERRORIST GROUP members who were separated from their parents during the ideological revolution and forced divorce and raised in European cities under the supervision of members of this terrorist group were also, with a few exceptions, returned to Iraq and were informed of the terrorist actions of the MKO TERRORIST GROUP.
