Caught in the middle of nowhere

The British Court of Appeal has recently ruled that "ISIS bride" Shamima Begum should be allowed to return to the United Kingdom to challenge the revocation of her British citizenship. Earlier in February last year, Sajid Javid, the then British Home Secretary, had stripped Begum of her citizenship, citing her as a threat to UK's national security. This decision was later endorsed by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC), which the BBC terms, "a semi-secret court that deals with cases where the UK government wants to keep someone out of the country on national security grounds."

There, however, is a bit of a complication: international law considers depriving nationals of their citizenship illegal if doing this renders them stateless. But the British Home Office had devised a way of bypassing this—they suggested that since Shamima Begum's parents are of Bangladeshi heritage, she can claim Bangladeshi citizenship, therefore she will not become stateless. A claim Bangladesh refutes on the solid grounds that she was neither born here, nor did she ever apply for a Bangladeshi citizenship. A suggestion Begum's lawyer Tasnime Akunjee agrees with—"in no way is she Bangladesh's problem", Akunjee said while speaking with the BBC.

The lawyer also added, "What Sajid Javid did in stripping Shamima of her citizenship is human fly tipping—taking our problems and dumping them on other countries". And this attempt by the British Home Office raises certain rightful questions.

For one, the British government's justification for revoking Begum's citizenship on the grounds that, "The government's top priority remains maintaining our national security and keeping the public safe"—as suggested by the British Home Office—is flawed at its core. A society cannot wash its hands of its citizens because they have committed crimes or become associated with terrorism. 

And if Shamima Begum remains a threat to the UK's national security, won't the same be applicable for Bangladesh? More pertinently, is it even possible for a nation to unilaterally make such decisions, and impose them on other countries?

Unfortunately, it seems the British Home Office has a certain way of dealing with people it considers a "threat" to its national security. According to a report by The New Yorker, in August last year, the British government also revoked the citizenship of Jack Letts, a jihadi hailing from Oxfordshire who was imprisoned in Syria, on the ground that his father was Canadian. In reaction, the office of Ralph Goodale, Canada's Minister of Public Safety, in a statement said, "Canada is disappointed that the United Kingdom has taken this unilateral action to off-load their responsibilities".

But aside from the superficial problem of "dumping" one's unpleasant responsibilities on other nations, there is a deeper issue that needs to be talked about. By stripping citizenship of their nationals, Britain, along with some other nations, is not only undermining the human rights of the individuals, but also potentially reinforcing their extremist ideologies.

Left alone to fend for themselves in the inhumane realities of the inhabitable camps in northern and northeastern Kurds-held camps in Syria, many like Shamima are left vulnerable to the lures of the terrorists. With no place to go, these individuals might turn back to IS for support and shelter. And with the Russia-brokered ceasefire between the Turks and Kurds remaining fragile, the threat of these women escaping the camps and going back to the arms of terrorism persists. During the Turkish attacks last year in northeast Syria, the fear of these prisoners fleeing became a real concern for the region. 

Overall, the West have fared poorly when it comes to taking responsibility of its citizens who have become associated with the IS. In fact, in the face of the West's inertia regarding this problem, last November, Turkey followed through on its promise of deporting IS fighters and their families to their native countries, sending back men, women and children to the US, Britain, Denmark and Germany, among other countries.

And this has caused tensions for many governments. While most states scrambled to find ways of washing their hands of these pariahs, the US State Department's deputy spokesperson Robert Palladino went on to suggest that the Trump administration is mulling transferring the IS fighters who are not being taken back by their countries of origin to Guantanamo Bay—a netherworld of human rights abuses.

But for now, with the West and the rest of the world still undecided about the fate of IS fighters and their "brides", they remain a threat to global stability. These individuals are terrorists and criminals, and they should be held to account. But they cannot be left on their own. These people cannot be denied justice, even if they themselves are not on the right side of it.

No government has the mandate to undermine the basic human rights of their citizens and their social contract with the state. There are crimes and then there are laws to punish the criminals. It is time for nations to rise to the occasion and accept their responsibilities. The world needs to hear the stories of these individuals and understand what led to their radicalisation to be able to better address the problem of terrorism.

When Shamima Begum was found last year, she begged to be returned to the UK, especially fearing for the health of her unborn child. According to The New Yorker report cited earlier, Begum said, "I'm scared that this baby is going to get sick in this camp… That's why I really want to get back to Britain, because I know it will get taken care of, health-wise at least." Later, Begum's three-week old baby boy died of respiratory diseases.

While the Court of Appeal's verdict to allow Begum to return to the UK to contest the revocation of her citizenship is a welcome move, the negative reaction coming from Priti Patel's office and Downing Street—with a spokesperson for the Home Office even saying, "We will now apply for permission to appeal this judgment, and to stay its effects pending any onward appeal"—are disappointing and myopic. 

One country's problem cannot be passed on to another, nor can these individuals be left alone to be lured back into terrorism. Britain must understand this, and the world must understand this, and now.

Tasneem Tayeb is a columnist for The Daily Star.

Her Twitter handle is: @TayebTasneem