As the size of the self-declared ISIS caliphate, which used to stretch across large swaths of Iraq and Syria, shrunk to approximately the size of a potato chip, and now is completely eradicated [1], it’s time to start talking about what comes next. Don’t harbor any illusions, the Syrian Democratic Forces’ victory in taking back land does not spell the end of the extremist group; just look at how ISIS-affiliated fighters have taken over a city in the Philippines [2]. Rather, the fight in the Levant leaves behind scores of surrendered fighters, former “ISIS brides,” many of whom were also full-fledged members of ISIS, and a lot of questions.
I’d like to focus on the second group: female ISIS members. Western countries, lately, have been scrambling to figure out what to do about surrendered or captured women who left their countries of origin to join the declared Caliphate. Although there are many, you’ll probably recognize two of the names: British-born Shamima Begum and American-born Hoda Muthana [3].
Here’s what’s important to know about the attempts by the U.K. and U.S. to strip these women of their citizenship: it’s wrong. It’s wrong for a variety of reasons:
One: Because removing citizenship from people violates human rights, justice, and international law. Stripping people of citizenship, whether or not they have a viable alternative citizenship (ie. are a dual citizen), is wrong. Internationally, there is a strong presumption against rendering anyone stateless under the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, Article 8. U.K. law is discriminatory [4], as it allows only those with other citizenships—primarily immigrants—to be stripped of citizenship. And in the U.S., there is no legal basis for removing citizen status. In fact, in the U.S., the Supreme Court ruled in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967) that U.S. citizens may not be stripped by Congress of their citizenship without their consent [5]. Simply put, the legal or extralegal bases of the U.K. and U.S. actions to strip Muthana and Begum of citizenship are either in violation of international law or have no legal basis in the first place.
Two: Because stripping citizenship of extremist fighters imperils current and future world security. Revoking citizenship doesn’t help eradicate ISIS or any other extremist group for that matter. Instead of trying people in court and doling out punishments, we just leave them floating in Turkey or wherever else, stateless but very much unpunished. The fact that we abandon Muslim women when they show extremist tendencies serves as fodder for an already-burning fire of anti-western sentiment, especially since we don’t abandon the men. Which brings up my last point:
Three: Because current repatriation policies are sexist. The U.S. has allowed former Islamic State fighters—who were men—to return to the U.S., where some have been tried and punished [6]. This process is nearly nonexistent with returning female foreign fighters and affiliates, regardless of the fact that women are much less likely to have actually participated in violence, a policy that is often fueled by angry think pieces about how the women don’t seem “sorry enough” or “sufficiently grateful” [7]. U.K. government statistics show only around 1 in 10 ISIS fighters are being tried for their crimes abroad, making clear that there must be reform in countries’ legal systems to better allow for prosecution of foreign fighters when they return home. But even now, what prosecution that does happen is primarily of men. Stripping women of their citizenship with tenuous or no legal basis rather than deal with their actions domestically is sexist, cowardly, and unfair.
Essentially, there’s no basis or precedent for denying repatriation to these women, no matter what they’ve done. Stripping individuals of citizenship violates international law and should not be used as easy absolution for governments at loggerheads about their own terrorism policies. The apparent impunity with which the U.S. and U.K. have made moves to strip Hoda Muthana and Shamima Begum of their citizenships sets a dangerously low bar and is blatantly sexist, and it must stop. As the world deals with the next phase of the fight against ISIS, governments have to do their due diligence and reform their terrorism prosecution and repatriation policies to face the difficulties brought about by terrorist involvement, rather than punting the issue to another country, or to no other country at all.
SOURCES:
[1]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6825363/U-S-backed-SDF-says-captured-157-militants-foreigners.html; https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/us/politics/us-isis-fight.html
[3] https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1098226267277664256; https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1098055464573517831
[4]https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/09/terror-suspects-british-citizenship-european-ruling
[5] https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/387/253
[6] https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/Musaibli%20Indictment.pdf; https://extremism.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs2191/f/TravelersAmericanJihadistsinSyriaandIraq.pdf; https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/shamima-begum-isis-return-uk-syria-jihadis-terror-threat-prosecute-nationality-a8790991.html
[7]https://newrepublic.com/article/153184/refusing-repatriate-isis-brides-terrible-idea-perspective