Main Edition
US
FR
June 14, 2023 - 7:00am
If you’ve forgotten all about the war against Isis in Syria, then you’re not alone. European governments, thousands of whose expatriate jihadists are being held in squalid and overcrowded jails in Northeastern Syria, have been happy to ignore the issue of their captive citizens until now. For that exact reason, after four years of pleading for European aid, the region’s Kurdish-led Autonomous Administration, or AANES, has announced that it will begin mass trials of the Isis suspects within days.
As an AANES statement released over the weekend declared, since 2019 “AANES appealed and repeated its calling on the international community to fulfil its responsibilities in finding solutions to the issue of Isis elements in its custody,” to no avail. Consequently the AANES will begin “public, fair and transparent trials in conformity with international and domestic laws on terrorism” while “we call on the international community to respond to our demands for the formation of an international court.”
The problem has two fundamental causes, both difficult to resolve. Back in 2019, when Isis made its last stand in the remote Syrian town of Baghuz, the US-backed AANES’s SDF military forces temporarily halted its successful campaign to evacuate surrendering Isis families, and were surprised by the thousands disgorged from the seemingly empty desert. As well as genuine humanitarian concerns, the AANES presumably believed that managing the detainees would confer political favour from the West, including international recognition for their statelet and the security advantages of a sustained Western presence to fend off the ever-present Turkish threat.
But neither of these materialised, due to the second problem: under current laws, without specific evidence of wrongdoing, European governments, whose citizens make up around one quarter of the 10,000 Isis prisoners, would find it difficult to prosecute their wayward citizens. Flying Isis members home and then promptly releasing them would not only constitute a major security risk; it would also anger European voting publics.
So far, countries like Britain have dealt with the problem through the double strategy of removing citizenship from those with dual nationality (a useful precedent, established in the face of significant domestic opposition, it would be desirable to keep) and ignoring the rest. Additionally, while providing the AANES with military support against Isis, European governments have remained wary of granting the PKK-linked administration meaningful diplomatic recognition. But for the AANES government, this legal and diplomatic limbo is no longer tenable, hence the announcement of trials which, in reality, are beyond its financial, logistic and security capabilities to hold.
How should the problem be resolved? There’s a strong moral case for European governments to take responsibility for their citizens without taking on the risks of repatriating them. At the very least, European governments should send legal observers to oversee the trial process, lessening the risk of successful future challenges by their lawyers at home.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere is no point bringing any of them to the UK. Only a small percentage of returnees have been prosecuted so far. The large majority of returnees cannot be prosecuted as no case could be brought against them under UK law.The Aussies DO have an appropriate law: anyone who has been in a war zone for no good reason can be prosecuted. But even if they could be prosecuted under UK law, it would still be a bad idea. They would relish doing time in a UK prison as they would have a golden opportunity to brainwash their co-religionist fellow prisoners. Then, following early release for “good behaviour”, they would return to their communities as folk heroes.
There is no point bringing any of them to the UK. Only a small percentage of returnees have been prosecuted so far. The large majority of returnees cannot be prosecuted as no case could be brought against them under UK law.The Aussies DO have an appropriate law: anyone who has been in a war zone for no good reason can be prosecuted. But even if they could be prosecuted under UK law, it would still be a bad idea. They would relish doing time in a UK prison as they would have a golden opportunity to brainwash their co-religionist fellow prisoners. Then, following early release for “good behaviour”, they would return to their communities as folk heroes.
Might I suggest, in addition to mass trials, mass executions?
Precisely. Problem solved and justice served for everyone.
Precisely. Problem solved and justice served for everyone.
Might I suggest, in addition to mass trials, mass executions?
nu britn has ” forgotten” about all Islamic wars, for fear of upsetting Muslims.. which is just what they seek….
nu britn has ” forgotten” about all Islamic wars, for fear of upsetting Muslims.. which is just what they seek….
A begining of justice.The ennemies of civilisation must pay !
A begining of justice.The ennemies of civilisation must pay !
I’ve never known a writer be wrong on so many topics as this one.
ISIS will be around until they’re no longer any use for America/NATO, even if they can’t get rid of Assad they’ll ethnically cleanse the Arabs in NE Syria so America can steal the oil in peace and starve the Syrians at the same time. When the Americans leave Syria ISIS will just end up wherever they end up, meanwhile America will forget all about them.
As for your Kurds, they won’t get their own state and America will forget about them as well.
I’ve never known a writer be wrong on so many topics as this one.
ISIS will be around until they’re no longer any use for America/NATO, even if they can’t get rid of Assad they’ll ethnically cleanse the Arabs in NE Syria so America can steal the oil in peace and starve the Syrians at the same time. When the Americans leave Syria ISIS will just end up wherever they end up, meanwhile America will forget all about them.
As for your Kurds, they won’t get their own state and America will forget about them as well.
The opposition to removing the UK citizenship of Shamima Begum (which is what the link points to), is due to the fact that Ms Begum did *not* have dual citizenship at the time. It was merely judged that she should be able to *acquire* Bangladeshi citizenship – which the Bangladsh government quite understandably refused to let her do. Wich means that UK actions left her stateless. If Ms Begum never left the Syrian desert few people outside ISIS would miss her – but that does not justify removing her only citizenship.
That seriously mis-represents the UK Government’s case. Under the British Nationality Act (1981), the Secretary of State can deprive and individual of citizenship if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good. The Secretary of State can only do this if the individual can, in principle, become a citizen of another country. Bangladesh has a constitution (the English translation is available on the Bangladesh government website) which unconditionally states that any child of a citizen of Bangladesh is eligible for citizenship. Shamima’s parents are citizens of Bangladesh, so Shamima qualified for Bangladesh citizenship. Governments can say what they like, but the whole point of a written constitution is that it trumps their utterances. The UK Secretary of State can only go on what the law of Bangladesh clearly states.
The point about the Nationality Act is that it introduced new routes to UK citizenship, but with the quid pro quo of removing that citizenship, under restricted circumstances. If you disagree with the Nationality Act and want it repealed and decisions made according to the Act undone, that is a double-edged sword. The Nationality Act also provided the legal route by which Shamima’s family were able to obtain UK citizenship in the first place, so retroactively undoing the Act would remove their citizenship anyway.
What you say is untrue. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission found that as a matter of Bangladeshi nationality law, Begum holds Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, under section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1951. The Home Secretary’s decision was confirmed as lawful by the Supreme Court in February 2021.
Begum can go to Bangladesh, but the Bangladeshi authorities have been clear that she would face trial for terrorism and, if found guilty, would face the death penalty. That’s her problem, not Britain’s
Begum is a repulsive individual who has shown no genuine remorse for her actions. As far as I am concerned, AANES would be doing the world a great favour by summarily dealing with Begum and her fellow jihadis, They would be facing the same “justice” that imposed on others.
@Peter Kwasi-Modo, Marcus Leach
It looks like we agree on the facts. As Peter says, Ms Begum can in principle become citizen of another country, is eligible, or qualified for Bangladeshi citizenship. It does not say that she had Bangladeshi citizenship, AFAIU for the very good reason that she did not. So taking away her British citizenship left her stateless, but it is supposedly in her power to fix that. The reason that taking away people’s only citizenship is not allowed in international law is that this would allow countries to play pingpong with citizenship,. each saying ‘no, not ours, try the other guy, he ought to take you‘. Which is exactly what the British government (and the Bangladeshi one) are doing in this case.
It may be that the courts found that this was actually lawful – though I had remembered that they merely found that it was not up to them to challenge the decision of the Home Secretary. But then it is well known that the law is an ass. I submit that in substantial fact the UK government has rendered Ms Begum stateless and that in substantial fact this is unacceptable and contrary to at least the spirit of international law. Whether or not the loophole that UK lawyers have found can squeeze through the letter of the law makes no difference to that – and I for one am not comfortable with the government of the country I live in inventing dodgy loopholes to avoid facing up to their obligations.
I have no liking and no pity for Ms Begum, but she was a British citizen, she had and has no other citizenship, and, like it or not, the UK is stuck with her.
Many thanks, Rasmus, for engaging in a civilised discussion on this topic and for marking out the common ground between us.. I do not think that you deserve those down-ticks for your original post.
I don’t accept that the UK rendered Shamima stateless. Shamima rendered herself stateless by her inaction. She has an extremely well-funded legal team working on her behalf. Undoubtedly, her legal team would have made Shamima aware that she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. She chose not to pursue that option. This may have been a game of brinkmanship (possibly even suggested by her legal team?), in which case Shamima lost.
I personally think that the Nationality Act makes it far too easy to obtain UK citizenship in the first place. These kinds of problems could have been avoided with a more restrained policy for conferring citizenship. For example, Shamima’s father is a tailor. It may be that the UK was so desperately short of tailors that he had to be given employment in the UK. But why should he and his dependents have been given citizenship so soon after his arrival? The section of that Nationality Act is supposed to deal with exactly Shamima’s situation: her immigrant parents did not bring her up to respect British values and consequently she rendered herself undesirable.
Uherd is at its best when readers, like you, engage in civilised discussion, even if they disagree. Thank you!
Uherd is at its best when readers, like you, engage in civilised discussion, even if they disagree. Thank you!
Many thanks, Rasmus, for engaging in a civilised discussion on this topic and for marking out the common ground between us.. I do not think that you deserve those down-ticks for your original post.
I don’t accept that the UK rendered Shamima stateless. Shamima rendered herself stateless by her inaction. She has an extremely well-funded legal team working on her behalf. Undoubtedly, her legal team would have made Shamima aware that she was eligible for Bangladeshi citizenship. She chose not to pursue that option. This may have been a game of brinkmanship (possibly even suggested by her legal team?), in which case Shamima lost.
I personally think that the Nationality Act makes it far too easy to obtain UK citizenship in the first place. These kinds of problems could have been avoided with a more restrained policy for conferring citizenship. For example, Shamima’s father is a tailor. It may be that the UK was so desperately short of tailors that he had to be given employment in the UK. But why should he and his dependents have been given citizenship so soon after his arrival? The section of that Nationality Act is supposed to deal with exactly Shamima’s situation: her immigrant parents did not bring her up to respect British values and consequently she rendered herself undesirable.
That seriously mis-represents the UK Government’s case. Under the British Nationality Act (1981), the Secretary of State can deprive and individual of citizenship if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good. The Secretary of State can only do this if the individual can, in principle, become a citizen of another country. Bangladesh has a constitution (the English translation is available on the Bangladesh government website) which unconditionally states that any child of a citizen of Bangladesh is eligible for citizenship. Shamima’s parents are citizens of Bangladesh, so Shamima qualified for Bangladesh citizenship. Governments can say what they like, but the whole point of a written constitution is that it trumps their utterances. The UK Secretary of State can only go on what the law of Bangladesh clearly states.
The point about the Nationality Act is that it introduced new routes to UK citizenship, but with the quid pro quo of removing that citizenship, under restricted circumstances. If you disagree with the Nationality Act and want it repealed and decisions made according to the Act undone, that is a double-edged sword. The Nationality Act also provided the legal route by which Shamima’s family were able to obtain UK citizenship in the first place, so retroactively undoing the Act would remove their citizenship anyway.
What you say is untrue. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission found that as a matter of Bangladeshi nationality law, Begum holds Bangladeshi citizenship through her parents, under section 5 of the Citizenship Act, 1951. The Home Secretary’s decision was confirmed as lawful by the Supreme Court in February 2021.
Begum can go to Bangladesh, but the Bangladeshi authorities have been clear that she would face trial for terrorism and, if found guilty, would face the death penalty. That’s her problem, not Britain’s
Begum is a repulsive individual who has shown no genuine remorse for her actions. As far as I am concerned, AANES would be doing the world a great favour by summarily dealing with Begum and her fellow jihadis, They would be facing the same “justice” that imposed on others.
@Peter Kwasi-Modo, Marcus Leach
It looks like we agree on the facts. As Peter says, Ms Begum can in principle become citizen of another country, is eligible, or qualified for Bangladeshi citizenship. It does not say that she had Bangladeshi citizenship, AFAIU for the very good reason that she did not. So taking away her British citizenship left her stateless, but it is supposedly in her power to fix that. The reason that taking away people’s only citizenship is not allowed in international law is that this would allow countries to play pingpong with citizenship,. each saying ‘no, not ours, try the other guy, he ought to take you‘. Which is exactly what the British government (and the Bangladeshi one) are doing in this case.
It may be that the courts found that this was actually lawful – though I had remembered that they merely found that it was not up to them to challenge the decision of the Home Secretary. But then it is well known that the law is an ass. I submit that in substantial fact the UK government has rendered Ms Begum stateless and that in substantial fact this is unacceptable and contrary to at least the spirit of international law. Whether or not the loophole that UK lawyers have found can squeeze through the letter of the law makes no difference to that – and I for one am not comfortable with the government of the country I live in inventing dodgy loopholes to avoid facing up to their obligations.
I have no liking and no pity for Ms Begum, but she was a British citizen, she had and has no other citizenship, and, like it or not, the UK is stuck with her.
The opposition to removing the UK citizenship of Shamima Begum (which is what the link points to), is due to the fact that Ms Begum did *not* have dual citizenship at the time. It was merely judged that she should be able to *acquire* Bangladeshi citizenship – which the Bangladsh government quite understandably refused to let her do. Wich means that UK actions left her stateless. If Ms Begum never left the Syrian desert few people outside ISIS would miss her – but that does not justify removing her only citizenship.