Comment: ‘ISIS traitors should be kept where they are’: what or who decides the fate of those who want to return?

With the US pull out and the death of Baghdadi, the situation on the ground remains fluid and the detainees in the Kurdish held camps – some who would want to stay and fight, and others who want to return home,  needs to be urgently addressed. The argument is within the framework of the law: prosecution, interrogation and possible re-integration are just some of the tools at the disposal of States when it comes to addressing the issue of foreign fighters. Similarly, a position on what must be done with young children needs consideration rather than offsetting them as another nation’s problem.

The headline or more emotive responses to pressures to take back ISIS members revolve around everything from their security risk to the view that they are traitors who have given up their citizenship rights by joining a terrorist group.  With individuals such as Shamima Begum, there has been a strong reaction that she did not show remorse in an interview (among other things) and does not deserve our sympathy. Yet, we at ConnectFutures would argue that public opinion should not be allowed to condition what is a question of national and international law.  We believe that four aspects are evident and should be considered – legal, moral, humanitarian and procedural.

The legal position relates to citizenship and the rights of citizens: it has become clear that the UK government’s claim that Shamima Begum has dual citizenship may not hold – as Bangladesh is refusing to accord this and indeed would treat her harshly – perhaps, her lawyers say, hang her – should she travel there (she is not ‘returning’). ConnectFutures’ position is strictly that of the rule of law: UK nationals have the right of return. Removal of British citizenship is possible only if someone has dual citizenship, as by international law an individual cannot be rendered stateless. Jack Letts (‘Jihadi Jack’) does have dual nationality (his father is Canadian) although Canada, like Bangladesh, strongly contests the decision to refuse entry as UK ‘offloading its responsibilities’. The question of whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute on their return is secondary to this right of return, although it relates to the practical issue of structures in place for assuring the security of others and for deradicalization and reintegration.

The moral questions revolve around responsibility.  Given that the Bethnal Green girls and numerous others who joined ISIS were radicalised in this country, we have a responsibility for their future – including any deradicalisation.  The States’ responsibility is to ensure that its citizens are returned and face due process and justice here. We define our country, our state and our institutions by stating we abide by the rule of law (one of the British Values which we emphasise as part of the Prevent training) and yet we are sending mixed messages that some British citizen’s can potentially face the death penalty in America (rather than face justice here or being kept in Syria). This would be set a terrible precedent.

The position of children and orphans is both a legal and humanitarian issue.  UNICEF reported that 70,000 children had been displaced in just a week of fighting in October.  More than 60 British children of Islamic State members are stuck in eastern Syria – more than double the number previously thought, according to Save The Children. They are enduring dire conditions in the refugee camps or have been displaced more than once.   There are thought to be more than 9,500 foreign children in the camps, many born under the ISIS ‘caliphate’. With many European countries, including Britain, stripping their parents of citizenship, their legal status is unclear. Agencies such as Save the Children argue strongly that Britain should seek to repatriate all the UK minors in Syria.  Children whose parents are alive are just as innocent as those who have been orphaned. It was reported on Oct 20th that British officials have ‘taken the first steps’ to repatriate children stranded in Syria by liaising directly with agencies on the ground to identify unaccompanied minors for ‘safe passage’ back home. It is hoped this admittedly complex process can be achieved as soon as feasible.

With adults, the final question relates what happens to returnees after they have faced investigation and/or trial. As in other EU countries, rehabilitation and reintegration schemes have been introduced inside and outside prison in the UK.  Where an individual has not committed an offence – or there is not a public interest to prosecute – they may be put into a deradicalisation programme, such as the UK government’s own Desistance and Disengagement programme (DDP), which can include intensive mentoring and support from psychologists and others.  While it may not be perfect, what must not happen is an angry trial by the public or the media which could undermine efforts based on the rule of law.

The State’s duty also relates to longer term responsibilities for building resilience to violent extremism and providing sustained financial support for educational and community programmes that do this.  The gender aspects need to be factored in too. Moral, humanitarian, practical and legal issues all overlap in the continued struggle against violent extremism. The UK government should show that they do not hold justice and security as antithetical, but part of the same duty.

Finally, as a democratic nation, it’s important to say that the judicial and legal system must remain open, accessible and transparent to all and especially when dealing with matters of national security.

Check for more details  of our resources, workshops (for students and professionals) and videos on www.connectfutures.org