By Sabrina Pecorelli

Estimated Daseh Affiliates, Map Legend

• Black: 3,000+

• Dark Red: 1,000-2,999

• Red: 500-999

• Orange: 100-499

• Yellow: 10-99

• Green: <10

Background:

Daesh (The Islamic State, ISIS) rose to global infamy in the mid 2010s, as militants with black flags conquered vast areas of Syria and Iraq and carried out violent atrocities in pursuit of their so-called Islamic caliphate. At its peak in 2015, ISIS’ global jihad attracted over 40,000 foreign fighters from over 100 countries across the world.

Foreign fighters are defined by the United Nations as “individuals who travel to a State other than their State of residence for the purpose of the perpetration, planning, or participation in, terrorist acts or terrorist training. Foreign fighters including those in connection with armed conflict, “require a primarily ideological motivation instead of a financial one.

The Islamic State’s territorial ‘defeat’ was officially declared in March of 2019 when the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) regained the last ISIS-held town of Baghouz. After this, hundreds of Islamic State fighters surrendered, and some tried returning to their home countries, which sparked international debates about repatriation, reintegration, and prosecution.

Out of all the foreign fighters that joined the conflict, a few thousand have been killed, about 3,000 remain in the area and continue fighting, and about 7,000 have returned home. However, a majority are being held in regional prisons or camps.

In Syria, SDF prisons hold an estimate of 800 ISIS members from over 50 countries, while about 700 women and 1,500 children reside in refugee camps. In Iraq, about 1,300 individuals from a wide range of countries were detained. Records do not specify whether these detainees are men, women, or children. These detainees were prosecuted; and some were even sentenced to death.

Country Policies on Returning Foreign Fighters

As the world reveled in the Islamic State’s territorial defeat, the international community prepared to deal with the fallout of the organization’s legacy. The issue of foreign fighters quickly became a global consequence of ISIS’ reign of terror. The collapse of the caliphate left roughly 10,000 fighters imprisoned in Iraq and Syria--almost 2,000 of which were foreigners.

Most of these prisons are managed and operated by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which are a majority Kurdish group fighting the Islamic State and the oppressive government of Bashar al-Assad. They do not have the resources or manpower to detain all these suspects indefinitely. American troops in Syria used to help supervise these prisons, but after the Trump Administration’s withdrawal in 2019, the security gaps intensified. In fact, after the troop withdrawals, SDF personnel were stretched so thin that hundreds of ISIS inmates escaped from these facilities.

Weakened security constitutes one of the main arguments for the repatriation of these foreign fighters; however, there are countless other factors to consider including country politics, public opinion, criminal justice systems, and lack of evidence for prosecution. Although many countries have been involved in dealing with their foreign fighters, very few have created national policies to bring their citizens back or published any data on the rates of these returnees.

The ideal solution would include an international mechanism to prosecute ISIS related crimes, but since no such thing exists yet, it is up to individual countries to take charge. Most governments are reluctant to repatriate foreign fighters, as fears over domestic terrorism plague public opinion.

Additionally, some countries are unwilling to disclose information or data on their citizens’ affiliations with the Islamic State, and this lack of transparency can sometimes translate to lack of accountability. There is also the issue of evidence, as states who do want to prosecute these individuals lack proof of their crimes in order to provide a proportional punishment.

The American Response

The American response, although inconsistent, has pushed for repatriation and prosecution on the international stage, urging countries to take responsibility for their foreign fighters by bringing them back home and prosecuting their crimes appropriately. According to the Department of Justice, up until October 2020, the United States had repatriated 27 Americans from Syria and Iraq, including 10 with terrorism related charges.

However, the U.S. response has failed to be cohesive on all fronts, as the Trump administration prevented at least one American-born ISIS member from returning to the U.S. One New Jersey born woman, Hoda Muthana, travelled to Syria in 2014 at 20 years old to join the Islamic State where she married an ISIS fighter and had a son. When the caliphate collapsed, Muthana surrendered with her infant son and sought to return to the United States to face her punishment.

A judge denied her re-entry, stating that her American citizenship is not valid because at the time of her birth, her father was a Yemeni diplomat. Muthana and her son are currently in Syria’s Al Hol refugee camp, which houses over 62,000 individuals, including wives and children of ISIS members.

The main criticisms of the American response surround the national “obsession with prosecution and incarceration”, including the use of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba. The prison has been used as a major Islamist propaganda tool that exacerbated anti-American sentiments around the world, driving recruitment for extremist groups like ISIS.

The European Responses

The European response has been incredibly fragmented, as some countries pushed for stripping of citizenships, and others were reluctant to do anything at all. The main similarity is that most of the countries do not want their foreign fighters to return, mainly over fears of domestic terrorist attacks.

France outright refused to repatriate its citizens affiliated with ISIS, instead leaving them to be handled by countries to which they fled. In 2019, the Iraqi criminal justice system sentenced 10 French nationals to death for their terrorist involvement. The United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark have stripped foreign fighters of their citizenships and forced them to remain abroad.

The biggest criticism of the European responses is that they fail to take responsibility for their citizens, instead forcing other countries to deal with the consequences. Leaving their foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria can overwhelm the local prisons and criminal justice systems, as well as make it easier for the individuals to escape. Furthermore, stripping individuals of their citizenships makes them stateless, which intensifies the feelings of alienation that fuel terrorist radicalization.

In terms of women and children, most European countries have stated their consideration in repatriating children up to a certain age, but still refuse to accept women. France, Germany, and the United Kingdom have all repatriated a number of orphans from Iraq and Syria, but public opinion polls show a majority of people favor leaving the children abroad.

The Russian Response

Russian President Vladimir Putin had adopted a policy of transparency, publishing personal information about Russian foreign fighters with ties to extremist insurgencies, including ISIS. This was meant to send a message that others will be found, tried, imprisoned, and punished.

While this policy was meant to discourage radicalization, it also discouraged Russian foreign fighters and their families from returning home. Many men went to fight for the Islamic State after committing crimes in Russia in order to escape prosecution. These foreign fighters ultimately stayed there indefinitely, as punishment for their crimes in Russia awaited them if they returned home.Reports suggest that if it was not for Russia’s domestic treatment of its prisoners, many foreign fighters would have surrendered earlier and returned to their homeland.

Russia has reportedly repatriated over 150 Russian children from the war zone, but the number of adults has not been publicized.

The Chinese Response

In China, Uighur Muslims face widespread persecution and have been rounded up and placed in labor or prison camps. Many of them did not feel safe in other countries, especially ones that have extradition treaties with China, so they sought refuge in the Islamic caliphate.

China’s response included tightening up its border security to make it harder for people to leave the country illegally, as well as signing extradition treaties with other countries to ensure they could repatriate citizens from abroad.

The Kazakh Response

Kazakhstan has received global commendations for its approach toward foreign fighters, and has repatriated over 700 individuals so far; including 33 ISIS members, 187 women, and 490 children. In December of 2019, 14 people were sentenced to between 8 and 12 years in prison for their involvement with the Islamic State.

The government has partnered with local NGOs and invested about $1 million in resources to provide support for these returnees. It provides rehabilitation centers where foreign fighters are sent for medical checkups and psychological evaluations.

This was called the “3 R” policy: repatriation, rehabilitation, and reintegration. It includes vocational training to help women find jobs, religious interventions by imams, and necessary psychological assistance. This process also emphasized the need to keep mothers with their children, who begin receiving socialization through education.

Conclusion

The issue of foreign fighters has impacted a multitude of countries across the world, each with their own policies and approaches. There is a wide range of governmental approaches--from ignoring the matter and leaving it up to other countries, to prosecutions and full-scale rehabilitation programs.

While there are costs and benefits to every kind of response, it is imperative to consider the long-term repercussions of each policy. Leaving foreign fighters incarcerated in places like Syria and Iraq may increase the chances of escape, radicalization, and recidivism. On the other hand, bringing these individuals home may incite public dissent and reintegrating them into society without an adequate rehabilitation plan may lead to domestic terrorism.