Shamima Begum, and the wider problem with stateless terrorists

The story of Shamima Begum, the IS bride who left Britain aged 15, has been under the spotlight in the UK media over the past week or so. Indeed, the story became more prominent in the international media when Trump made demands of European nations to take back their IS fighters. Her story is one of immense cultural, moral, and legal implication, but so too is the question: what happens when IS collapses, and, more specifically, what happens to the fighters?

Now 19 years old, Shamima Begum has given birth to a third child after losing her first two. She resides in a refugee camp, and, when interviewed recently, she made outrageous comments about her lack of regret, her emotional apathy, even when seeing decapitated heads in bins, and has, on top of that, asked for “sympathy”. Hardly a good way to get sympathy, is it?

Regardless, her case is particularly salient because of her age when she was groomed and lured to Syria, because of her statelessness as a result of the Home Secretary’s revocation of her British citizenship. After Bangladesh has declared that she will not be given Bengali citizenship, she is now stateless.

This is something which is extremely problematic. Firstly, it means that these people will never be brought to justice. They will never be punished for their committing crimes, or facilitation of them. Secondly, and more importantly, it means that a growing group of terrorists roams freely, and this is worsening with the loss of territory of the so-called Islamic State.

As the focus of the Islamic State switches from holding and regaining territory to causing as much havoc as possible anywhere that they can, there will be huge issues with western countries revoking citizenship and leaving fighters stateless.

There were concerns about IS collapsing and fighters returning home and committing terror attacks in the West, but now the concern must shift to the issue of statelessness.

If IS loses its territory in the Middle East, then more and more fighters will want to return home. We should accept this as an opportunity — to bring them back, and imprison them immediately, removing any danger or threat that they pose, here or abroad.

If we don’t, then these fighters will begin to carry out spontaneous terror attacks wherever they can: in the Middle East, throughout Asia, Eastern Europe, and much of Africa. Without a valid passport, they can’t legally travel anywhere, but a large network of very clever malcontents will get anyone far.

Moreover, IS has a wide and extensive presence in Africa, with territory in the regions without a stable government presence, in parts of Nigeria, Somalia, and Niger, and fighters could very easily join caliphates in this region, even when IS falls in Syria and Iraq.

This is the problem of leaving people stateless. It gives them nothing to lose, and the motivation to join caliphates in other regions across the world. It also means that, instead of being in prison, where they ought to be and where they cannot commit attacks, they keep their liberties, and are free to do with them as they wish.

There are multiple concerns about the specific case of Shamima Begum. For example, many believe that the UK failed her in allowing her to be groomed at just 15, and should therefore take her back and be responsible for her imprisonment.

However, we must start to realise the potential disaster that is no longer too far away. Statelessness and revoking citizenship will solve nothing, and only serve to create new problems and worsen the current ones. In our strive to ensure that no terror attacks occur at home, we must ensure that we are not opening the door to terror attacks and conflict in poorer nations.

If we allow this to continue to happen, not only are we foolish, but it will say a lot about how we value the lives of people in North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and South-Eastern Europe.