Debating the Treatment of Returning Foreign Fighters

About returning foreign fighters in the UK

Debate around treatment of returning foreign fighters comprises arguments to prohibit them from returning, revoking their citizenship and also to bring them to justice with a view to security of the country on one hand and de-radicalising and integrating them on the other.

Syria is the main destination for potential extremists. Hundreds of British fighters joined the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL) (Security Service M15, 2020). There were evidences establishing that foreign fighters do not either intend of leaving Syria or Iraq, or intend to move to another conflict zone. There are a significant number of these fighters that have moved out to another conflict zones or returned to home countries. This is poses a potential high risk to the security of the country. Attacks in the UK in the year 2017 are examples showing the impact and result of returning foreign fighters back to the country. The criminal justice system has set up wider legal framework to enable prosecution of the returning fighters. The criminal justice response includes the process of investigation, arresting and detaining, prosecution, sentencing and that of imprisonment. Rehabilitation may also ensure to identify the cognitive element of criminal behaviour and also enable re-entry of the fighters into the social stream (Overland et al., 2018). This is particularly needed in respect to de-radicalising the returning foreign fighters. The policy of mere disengagement may not be enough for the authorities to tackle issues of returning foreign fighters. There has to be de-radicalisation, which is supported by the policy of rehabilitation. This is because the returning foreign fighters may serve as catalysts for recidivism amongst disengaged terrorists (See, 2018).

General Lord Dannett, the former head of the British army, argued that it is the government responsibility to bring back British foreign fighters in Syria and put them through the due process of law. They should be treated fairly with justice (Mason, 2019). The Home Office has reportedly consulted with a leading mental health clinic to treat returning foreign fighters and their children. Max Hill QC, the Government’s terrorism laws watchdog, also suggested the returning jihad must be reintegrated (Gardner, 2019 ). This finds support in the opinion against argument to revoke citizenship of the returning foreign fighters. The opinion is based on the recommendation that the government should be more effective in dealing with the issue of returning foreign fighters. The proposition of revoking citizenship may alienate them in most debates. It may disrupt long-standing international agreements in respect of exchange of citizens or deportation, and may expose the country to more risk of safety. This action would be unilaterally and would breach international rules and treaties. Moreover, the proposition is wrong from a moral perspective. The returning foreign fighters are citizens of the country and it would be morally wrong to shift the burden of responsibility to deal with them to other countries. It would also damage the image of the country as an open society. Thus, they should be brought to justice (House of Commons Hansard, 2019).

There is an opposite argument that British foreign fighters returning to the UK pose the greatest threat to security of the country. Some of them are well trained in arms and explosives that serve as potential threat to the country. This is also supported by the annual report, ‘The United Kingdom’s Strategy for Countering Terrorism’ of the Home Office (Özdemir & Kardaş, 2014). It is also strongly argued to prohibit British ISIS fighters from returning to Britain, stripping returnees of citizenship, and treating them as enemy combatants (Crouch, 2019). Syria is the main destination for potential extremists. Hundreds of British fighters joined the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL). The Syria conflict and presence of ISIL and Al Nusra Front (ANF), affiliated to Al Qaida, pose significant threat to the UK and its interests overseas (Security Service M15, 2020). Keeping in view of this potential threat, there are public attitudes and strong opinions that do not accommodate any kind of attempt to bring the foreign fighters to justice in the UK. Many security officials have the view that British foreign fighters should not be allowed to return. This particular sentiment was followed in the case of Beatles, which was a cell of four British foreign fighters, which tortured and beheaded Western hostages, including two American and two Britishers, held by the ISIS. The two British nationals were prosecuted in the US. The UK British government agreed to assist the prosecution by sharing evidence. It stripped them of their citizenship (Jenkins, 2019). Similar decision was taken in the case of Shamima Begum, a girl who travelled to Syria in 2015 when she was 15 years old, who wanted to return to the country with her newborn infant. Her citizenship was stripped off and the Home Office prevented her return based on the reason of safety and security of the country (Rawlinson & Dodd, 2019). In the E-petition 231521 relating to ISIS members returning to the UK, the petition called for revoking citizenship of foreign fighters (House of Commons Hansard, 2019). It included opinions that citizenship must not be taken for granted. Revoking will act as deterrent from becoming a foreign fighter and also demonstrate non-tolerance of membership of terrorist organisations. It will allow proper use of police forces that can focus on responding to terrorism-related incidents, thereby removing some of their burden (House of Commons Hansard, 2019).

Some key facts

Britain has reportedly the highest rate of ‘exceptionally dangerous’ returning jihadis in Europe. Europol also reported that hundreds of Britons went to Syria and Iraq during the time of the rise of ISIL. It was reported that 45% of them have returned home safely. However, there was reported low number of returning fighters and jihadi brides being successfully prosecuted in the courts (Gardner, 2019 ). According to the Home Secretary, almost 900 people considered a concern to national security travelled to Syria and Iraq in order to join terrorist organisations. About 20% were killed, 40% stayed in the region and 40% have returned to the United Kingdom. More than 100 of the 900 people are deprived of their British citizenship (House of Commons Hansard, 2019). In the E-petition 231521, it is mentioned that there were 360 returned foreign fighters and only 40 were successfully prosecuted. This presents a flaw in the prosecution procedure. Statistics showed there were alleged difficulty in gathering evidence and thus, the difficulty of carrying out the prosecution (House of Commons Hansard, 2019). However, a positive development is that of deradicalisation. Deradicalisation course for terrorists, returning fighters is mandatory. Their number in undertaking the course was reportedly tripled in 2018. The programme has been run by The Desistance and Disengagement Programme (DDP) since October 2016 as a part of Contest (Economic Times, 2019).

Current strategy

Current strategy includes prosecuting aspiring and returning fighters and new legislation to widen extraterritorial jurisdiction to enable prosecution abroad. It also includes passport confiscation under Royal Prerogative and citizenship deprivation. Preventative efforts include de-radicalisation programme, counter-messaging to discourage travel, and a de-radicalisation referral programme known as Channel that provides multi-agency support to people expose to risk of terrorist influence (Stuart, 2014).

The United Kingdom prohibits its citizen from joining a designated foreign terrorist organization (John, 2019). The UK has implemented the Prevent Strategy, which is a part of its counter-terrorism strategy, CONTEST. Prevent aims is to stop people from becoming terrorists or from supporting terrorism, which also means intervening to stop people from taking part in terrorist-related activity. Prevent does not substantially cover policy and programmes to tackle extremism and extremist organisations and so, it will be coordinated from the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) (Secretary of State for the Home Department , 2011).

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 provides for temporary exclusion orders. The Secretary of State can render invalid a foreign fighter’s passport. They must apply for a permit to return to the UK. Also, it provides for severe penalties for non-compliance, which includes lengthy prison sentences (House of Commons Hansard, 2019). Together with the Prevent Strategy, they tackled with offences relating to the obtaining and sharing of terrorism-related materials. The Act 2019 has cautionary provisions, such as material will only be viewed or streamed and any download to form a permanent record is treated as an offence (House of Commons Hansard, 2019). The Act ensures that the punishment properly reflects the crime, better preventing re-offending, and ensure that terrorist offending can be disrupted more rapidly. It also contributes to the government’s objective of hardening the UK’s defences against hostile state activity (Home Office, 2019).

The Prevent’s concept of de-radicalisation involves adopting counter-violence measures. De-radicalisation comprises renunciation or counter-violence, developing non-violent ideology, re-integration of the foreign fighters into mainstream society and empowerment. The concept of de-radicalisation in respect to renunciation or counter violence aims to mitigate risk of violence committed on the soil the land (Elshimi, 2017).

Recommendation

It is recommended that a framework comprising two levels of governance, deriving its source from law, must be introduced. The first level deals with treatment of the individuals in terms of prosecuting, deradicalising or integrating them into the society. Strategies regarding radicalisation should consider the factor the process of radicalisation has overseas connections. Activities of Prevent Strategy must take place overseas and not only in the UK. These activities must also be aligned with domestic priorities and must be rigorously appraised (Secretary of State for the Home Department , 2011). This will find support in the efforts that are more community driven towards countering violent extremism. The reason is that the age of Britishers travelling to conflict zones has decreased, but the number of travellers has increased. Their immediate environment, which is mainly their communities, should be the focused of any strategies to prevent violent radicalisation and subsequent travel to conflict zones. Government's positive approaches towards community engagement can empower counter-extremism efforts and increase the efficacy of the community in that regard (Silverman, 2017).

Profiling of the returning foreign fighters must be conducted to categories them to degrees of risk relying on the mental status and their social connection with their communities. This will strengthen the option of considering treason laws as an alternative to citizenship deprivation (Stuart, 2014). This option will be linked with the outcome of de-radicalisation and the further integration of the fighters, in respect to determining whether they get benefits or other citizen rights. Thus, this step will involve high level prioritisation of individuals, which could enable categorising priority and non-priority cases. This may also involve conducting rigorous background checks, history and ideological practices.

The second level determines the rights of the individuals as a citizen of the country. This may include the option of passing a law empowering concerned authority to confiscate passport (Stuart, 2014). However, this power should be exercised considering how the individuals are responding to the integration process. There should be a centralised framework that could connect the first level and the second level of the strategy. A strict implementation of existing law must be there to prohibit any kind of terrorist related activities, including spreading or supporting propaganda. The implementation of the concerned law must have close connection with policy and process implementation of strategies, as stipulated in Prevent and mandatory deradicalisation course. This will enable any gap between implementation of the law and the purpose of securing the society at large. The mandatory deradicalisation courses should not only be limited to terrorist, but should be included in social programmes in education sector. Discover additional insights on Feedback about Policing Assessment by navigating to our other resources hub.

Conclusion

The issue of returning foreign fighters presents a dilemma of conflict between security of the country and development of the society in respect to socially integrating these fighters. The issue cannot be tackled only through legal provisions, but a compact legal and social programme. This programme should have only mandatory provisions, which are interconnected to prevent loopholes in the programme. The process of profiling should be linked with determining the degree of prosecution or de-radicalisation, which in turn should effect social integration question. There should be strict disciple for high risk individuals, where a combination of criminal, civil and prevention provisions should be invoked.

Bibliography

Elshimi, M.S., 2017. De-Radicalisation in the UK Prevent Strategy: Security, Identity and Religion. Routledge.

House of Commons Hansard, 2019. ISIS Members Returning to the UK. Petition 18 March 2019 Volume 656. UK Parliament.

Jenkins, B.M., 2019. Options for Dealing with Islamic State Foreign Fighters Currently Detained in Syria. Combating Terrorism Centre, 12(5).

Mason, R., 2019. Trump is right, UK must take back Isis fighters – ex-British army chief. [Online] Available at:

Overland, G., Andersen, A.J. & Førde, K.E., 2018. Violent Extremism in the 21st Century: International Perspectives. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Özdemir, Ö.B. & Kardaş, T., 2014. The Making of European Foreign Fighters. SETA.

Rawlinson, K. & Dodd, V., 2019. Shmina Begum: ISIS Briton faces move to revoke citizenship. [Online] Available at:

Secretary of State for the Home Department , 2011. Prevent Strategy. The Stationery Office Limited.

See, S., 2018. Returning Foreign Terrorist Fighters: A Catalyst for Recidivism Among Disengaged Terrorists. Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses , 10(6), pp.7-15.

Silverman, T., 2017. "UK Foreign Fighters to Syria and Iraq: The Need for a Real Community Engagment Approach. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism , 40(12), pp.1091-1107.

Stuart, H., 2014. British Jihadists: Preventing Travel Abroad and Stopping Attacks at Home. Policy Paper No. 1 (2014). Centre for the Response to Radicalisation and Terrorism.