The Five Myths of the ISIS Repatriation Debate
by Amarnath Amarasingam and Leah West
18 October 2019
As we head into the Canadian federal election next week, one of the many pressing issues facing the new government will be the question of what to do with the nearly 40 Canadian men, women, and children currently in Kurdish custody in northeastern Syria.
We visited the camps and the prisons over the course of a week earlier this month, and the challenges we documented were immense and since the invasion by Turkey, those problems are only getting worse. On the day we visited al-Hol camp, which houses most of the Canadian women and their children, Kurdish forces supposedly interrupted a meeting of the “morality police” who were, apparently, getting set to punish one of their fellow women for some sort of religious violation.
The Kurdish police were able to stop the meeting, and arrest some of the women. Upset by these arrests, several women in the camp began, with babies and toddlers in their arms and at their feet, chanting and moving aggressively towards Kurdish police and SDF officers. Kurdish police started firing their weapons into the air to disperse the crowds. We were told it was safer if we left. What happened next is unclear, but the situation clearly escalated with several women killed and injured. It was a vivid illustration of the volatile situation in the camp, one housing over 50,000 children under the age of 12 from over 55 countries. The prisons, housing the male ISIS suspects, is little different.
What is perhaps most striking is the dichotomy between the realities on the ground and the nature of the policy debate in Canada. We have heard several arguments against repatriation during the many years we have been involved in this debate. We address some of the most widely held myths below:
Myth 1: They Made Their Choice. It is Not Our Problem.
This argument is largely a visceral one: these individuals chose to leave the comforts of Canada, joined a brutal terrorist organization, and renounced their Canadian citizenship. They made their bed, the argument goes, and they can now lay in it.
The problem with those who throw up their hands emphatic that “these people aren’t our problem” is that they never bother to consider whose problem it then becomes. These Canadian men and women traveled to Syria and Iraq and made life unbearable for thousands of locals. Our citizens very likely joined an organization that took over land took over land, confiscated homes, purchased Yazidi slaves, and certainly helped prop up an organization that killed and psychologically scarred the residents of every city it conquered.
The Kurdish people, for instance, paid a hefty price in assisting the global coalition against the Islamic State. SDF Spokesperson Mustafa Bali told us that 11,000 members of the Syrian Democratic Forces lost their lives in the fight against ISIS, and another 24,000 were wounded. What’s more, according to the Kurdish government, they spend $700,000 a day to house former ISIS member in the camps. That includes 4000 male foreign fighters, and another 11000 women and children.
Aside from the cost, the international community expects their citizens to have adequate food, water and shelter, be held in humane conditions in compliance with international human rights law, and answer the calls of consular officials who try to make sure that Canadians are getting needed medical care.
The Kurdish people particularly have suffered enough. Asking them to rob their own citizens in order to care for ours is not only selfish, it’s morally reprehensible. To make matters worse, depending on how the current conflict evolves, areas that Turkey eventually could subsume under its control have prisons and camps housing ISIS prisoners and families. Kurdish officials we spoke with made clear that they may have to re-task Kurdish fighters guarding these prisons in order to fight the Turks. We’ve already seen a mass escape from one camp, and limited numbers of fighters escape from prisons. ISIS is threatening more breakouts, and the national security implications for not only the region, and the West, could be serious.
Myth 2: If They Come Back Here, We Won’t Be Able to Charge Them, and They Will Go Free
The government reported that 60 “extremist travelers” – individuals who have travelled abroad to fight in a variety of conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Sudan – have returned to Canada over the last several years. To date, only four returnees have been prosecuted for related terrorism offences. Many point to these statistics as support for why those currently detained in Syria ought not be repatriated, arguing that our justice system lacks the capacity, and our officials lack the evidence, to successfully prosecute them. If they bring them back, they argue, they will walk free.
This is a false comparison. The six men currently in Kurdish custody in Syria either surrendered or were arrested on the battlefield. They have since been interviewed by SDF forces, allied agencies like the FBI, multiple journalists, and researchers like us. We know, to a much greater extent, what they did and evidence exists to substantiate those allegations. At the very least most will be hard pressed to mount a defense to the charge of “Leaving Canada to Participate in the Activity of a Terrorist Group” or “Leaving Canada to facilitate terrorist activity” which carry a maximum sentence of 10 and 14 years. Others like Abu Ridwan, the unmasked voice behind a vast array of English-language releases by the Islamic State since 2014, has giftwrapped hours of evidence of his participation in and facilitation of terrorism, not to mention “instructing” others to carry out an activity of a terrorist group (an offence that carries a life sentence).
Yes, terrorism prosecutions are difficult in this country. Yes, Canada has a problem converting intelligence into evidence for prosecution at trial (one of us has been lamenting this issue for years). But most of these men aren’t the hard cases; some may prove to be the easiest.
Myth 3: Canada Doesn’t Have the Resources to Deal with Them
While the war in Syria saw the largest mobilization of jihadist foreign fighters in history, the numbers leaving, and wanting to return, to Canada has always been relatively smaller than European or Middle Eastern countries. According to our research, somewhere close to 100 men and women left Canada from 2012 onwards to join a variety of militant and jihadist organizations in Syria, fighting against the Assad regime. We can confirm at least 23 dead, but many more are unaccounted for and probably perished in the conflict
In terms of the repatriation debate, we are realistically talking about 6 men, 11 women and 22 children who are currently in Kurdish custody. The vast majority of children are under the age of 5, and some were even born in the Kurdish camps after they came out of the final ISIS holdout of Baghouz.
In Canada, we have a vast network of social workers, pediatricians, child psychologists, and trauma counselors who deal, every day, with the very issues that these children will also be struggling with: early exposure to violence, loss of a parent or sibling, neglect and trauma, interrupted education, and malnutrition. It is fairly obvious that our network of professionals, with perhaps some extra training in the Syrian and ISIS context, are perfectly capable of helping 22 children build a normal life in Canada, and facilitating the rehabilitation and eventual reintegration of the adults.
Myth 4: An International Court is the Answer
Others argue that foreign ISIS fighters/supporters in SDF detention should be tried by some form of international court. To be sure, trying the “fighters” in an international tribunal within Syria is the preference of the Autonomous Administration of North Eastern Syria (AANES), and we agree that an international tribunal modelled after the ad hoc courts in Yugoslavia, Rewanda or Lebanon is ideal. Unfortunately, it’s also politically unrealistic. The jurisdiction for these courts stems from the invocation of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter by a Resolution of the UN Security Council. Establishing a similar tribunal in Syria and/or Iraq would require the consent of the Council’s permanent members (US, UK, France, China and Russia).
There are a number of reasons why this is unlikely. First among them is the fact that to secure their vote, Russia is likely to demand that all parties to the war in Syria, including coalition and anti-Assad forces, be subject to prosecution: a non-starter for the US and their Kurdish partners. There is some talk of the creation of a European Tribunal or a Hybrid Court, but there is not yet strong (or even growing) consensus around any one proposal. What’s more, it is not clear that the proposed options would capture the crimes of all Canadians currently in detention.
In our opinion, national security policy decisions reliant on the establishment of a court that may never come to fruition (while also doing nothing to support its development) is irresponsible. The stark reality of the past few days is that the longer the SDF have to wait for support, the more likely it is that the security situation will devolve beyond their control.
Myth 5: It is Too Dangerous for Canada to Send Officials
Whenever the Canadian government is asked why they have not repatriated ISIS fighters and families back to Canada, one of the arguments they repeatedly put forth is that Syria is too dangerous to send consular officials. We don’t have diplomatic relations with Syria, they argue, and won’t send our people to this dangerous part of the world. Sadly, at least for the time being, this may have become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
That said, it’s still important to highlight that up until a few days before the reemergence of armed conflict in the region, repatriations to Western states were facilitated without foreign state officials actually traveling into Northeast Syria. In previous instances, foreign states made arrangements with the AANES to bring foreigners to the Iraq border where they are met by Iraqi officials and officials from their home state. Those officials provide consular and other services in Iraq as necessary before returning them to their home country for trial, assessment, rehabilitation or reintegration. Canada has Consular offices in Erbil (a Kurdish controlled area of Iraq not far from the Syrian border) and has staged certain elements of their coalition operations and the NATO training mission from there for several years.
While it may be true that Canada does not have a diplomatic relationship with the Assad regime in Syria, this did not stop officials from previously reaching out to the AANES. In our interview with Dr. Abdulkarim Omar, the co-chair of foreign relations for the SDF-led administration in the region, he once again reiterated that Canada was one of the first countries to reach out to discuss repatriation efforts. These discussions came to an abrupt halt in May 2018 for reasons he does not understand, he told us. Nevertheless, he informed us that Canadian officials do communicate with the Kurds regularly to check in on the condition of Canadians and press for their humane treatment and access to medical care. Further still, the United States is willing and able to act as an intermediary for the repatriation of foreigners; a role they took on to facilitate the repatriation of hundreds of Kosovars, Kazakhstanis and Moroccans.
Certainly, Northeastern Syria is a relatively dangerous part of the world, but as we travelled around the countryside and drove through the city centres we never once felt threatened. The Kurdish people have retaken their land and are proud to share their victory with others they consider allies in the fight against ISIS and extremism. Suggesting that it is simply too dangerous to send Canadian diplomats into a region where millions of people are going about their lives and doing their best to rebuild after years of war, is ignorant and insulting to their enormous sacrifice and remarkable resilience.
Sadly however, the recent threat of withdrawal of US forces from parts of Syria and the invasion by Turkey has closed the window of opportunity Canada had to take responsibility for our citizens and protect the lives of innocent Canadian children. We are hopeful, but not necessarily optimistic that window will reopen soon.