Four years ago I argued the UK should make no effort to retrieve Shamima Begum from Isis – I stand by that today

There should be no question of the UK government mounting a rescue or facilitating Begum’s return. If her family want to fund such an effort, or a charity wants to help, that is their business

Mary Dejevsky
Thursday 14 February 2019 15:49 GMT
Comments
Shamima Begum: British Isis member who fled to Syria 'has right to return to UK'

Shamima Begum, whose strong, solemn and determined face is all over the UK media today, encapsulates a big problem for western governments. As the civil war in Syria winds down, those countries with citizens who went to fight on the side of Isis must now decide what to do with them if they want to return, as Begum insists she does.

This is a question that has rumbled on in the political background of many European countries for months, but the reappearance of Begum – who was one of three Bethnal Green schoolgirls to leave for Syria four years ago – places it suddenly front and centre for the UK. Speaking to The Times, whose war correspondent, Anthony Loyd, tracked her down in a Syrian refugee camp, Begum pleads to be brought home – home apparently meaning east London. She is heavily pregnant and wants, she says, to return for the sake of her child.

How much sympathy to extend? Is she a victim or a criminal (or both)? Would her return – without remorse, it would seem – see her lionised in some quarters as a heroine, or could she pick up her life in London pretty much where she left off. She tells Loyd, that she “would do anything required just to be able to come home and live quietly with my child”. Could she, would she, should she be permitted to do that?

It is almost exactly four years ago that the UK media were caught up in one of their periodic frenzies, after three teenage girls upped and left their school with their backpacks and set off to join Isis in Syria. Grainy CCTV frames showed the trio en route to Istanbul, from where they made their way across the border and to the then Isis stronghold of Raqqa.

Passions raged, as did the questions. How had they been recruited? Apparently over the internet by a former fellow pupil at the Bethnal Green Academy. Why had nothing been done to stop them leaving – either by the police, who knew their names, or by their parents? In part, because the wheels of authority move so slowly, in part because lax exit controls at UK airports means that even three minors travelling by themselves raised no suspicions. It was even suggested that police should be dispatched to Turkey, to try to bring them back – too late, said the Turkish authorities.

Amid all the breast-beating and calls for action, I argued – to the consternation of some – that what the UK authorities should do was… absolutely nothing. Yes, the girls were minors (but this was basically a family matter); yes, it appeared they had been “groomed” by a former pupil at their school (but the recruiter was already in Syria, so it was a bit late to do anything about that). The three girls might not have been fully aware of what they were doing, but they were aware enough; they could not, at that stage, be saved from themselves. Anyway, once with Isis in Syria, they were ranged with the enemy and no longer the UK’s responsibility.

Kadiza Sultana was reportedly killed in the an airstrike and Amira Abase has not been seen since June .

Now Begum wants to return to give birth to her child and live quietly, if not happily, ever after. What should be done? Social media and phone-ins have been alive with acrimony, leavened with just a little human kindness, ever since.

My own view remains exactly as it was before. As of now, Britain should do absolutely nothing. There should be no question of the government mounting a rescue or facilitating Begum’s return. If her family want to fund such an effort, or a charity wants to help, well, that is their business. The government has no obligation to repatriate her.

Mass grave reveals horrors of Raqqa’s final battle

The UK has a neat diplomatic excuse for doing nothing – which has been set out twice in as many days by the security minister, Ben Wallace. We have no consular services in Syria because it is judged too dangerous for our diplomats to be stationed there. So, the inference is, Begum would have to make her way to a country and a city where the UK does have consular services if she wanted to negotiate her return.

Now I call this an excuse, because – as it happened – I was very recently in Lebanon and was told many times that the main road from Beirut to Damascus was safe, as was Damascus, and that displaced Syrians regularly returned to their home country at weekends. There was great resentment, too, that the UK Foreign Office advises against travel to the Beqaa Valley, which the Lebanese authorities also consider entirely safe.

But the absence of UK diplomats from Syria has its uses. One is that there is no target for protests (or worse) over the continued activity of UK special forces in the country. Another is that it signals the UK’s continuing non-acceptance of president Assad’s rule, which would still appear to be our policy. But a third is that it makes it more difficult for one-time Isis fighters and their families to arrange their return.

More difficult, but not impossible. Anyone with an European passport – does she still have her passport? – or who can prove who she is, and who manages to leave Syria’s ever-shrinking warzones for Damascus, can probably leave by road. Cash may be hard to come by, but those versed in war economies find ways. One day, perhaps quite soon, Begum will present herself to a British consulate in Turkey or Lebanon, or perhaps arrive at a UK port or airport, and she will indeed be the UK’s problem, as will her soon-to-be born child. What then?

Some returnees with dual citizenship may find that their citizenship, and so their right to enter the UK, has been revoked. But there has been no suggestion that Begum, or the other Bethnal Green schoolgirls, were dual nationals. In which case, there are two overriding questions: will she represent a danger to UK security, and should she – and others returning in similar circumstances – be required to pay something back or, in more archaic parlance, do penance?

As with all those who joined the Isis cause, the first will be a matter of fine judgement. It could involve support from her family, if they are well-integrated and willing, or the completion of her unfinished education. Does it matter whether she expresses remorse – which she conspicuously declined to do in her Times interview? Probably not much; remorse can be feigned, and she will anyway be subject to close surveillance. In the past, the intelligence services have tried to turn former fighters into informers, with variable success. It is hard to see how useful someone now so relatively well-known could be.

Penance of some kind seems a more attractive route – but not the prosecution and prison enshrined in new legislation designed to address crimes proved to be committed in warzones abroad. UK prisons have long been recruiting grounds for jihadi fighters, which hardly recommends prison as a remedy.

More useful might be a period of genuine, and visible, community service. Begum has not been “ordinarily resident” in the UK for four years; she would not normally qualify for housing or free medical treatment at once. So could she – and other returnees – perhaps be required to start by earning their keep? Attitude, of course, is all. But if Begum now sees the UK as her home, to the point where she is pleading to come back, might her country not reasonably ask her to make some effort to show that she intends to belong?

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in