The prodigal jihadis
We can turn Mark Taylor’s experience as an Isis fighter to our advantage. But not if we go down the path of retribution, write and
Like other countries, New Zealand is grappling with what to do with foreign fighters wanting to return home after the demise of the Isis caliphate. Most people have shown little beyond casual interest until the capture of Mark John Taylor became public this week, bringing to the fore the possibility that he may return here. He may not be the only one.
Our deputy prime minister and leader of the Opposition appear to be dismissive of Taylor’s situation, but less brashness could be advisable. Sure, allowing the few New Zealand men and women who joined or supported Isis to return will require a level of compassion and tolerance, but this is regularly cited as an enduring hallmark of our nation.
Understanding the terror that has been witnessed, and the fear that comes from exposure to such a vicious and repressive group, needs to match the ongoing determination to remove any chances of such a threat gaining a foothold here. We need to focus on both in equal measures, and think about our response now.
Much of the overseas debate hinges on the wilfulness of those who went to fight for or support Isis, or marry its fighters. US President Donald Trump’s line is that they must be returned and prosecuted, punished for joining an organisation whose anti-social, anti-Western doctrine and barbarity of its methods is unparalleled in our times.
But prosecutions will not be easy. Proof will be needed that criminal offences have been committed, along with independent witnesses who can identify both act and perpetrator. The estimated 40,000 foreign fighters in Iraq and Syria came from 85 different countries, including New Zealand, and it would be next to impossible to replicate successful legal proceedings in all of them.
In the cases of women who have married Isis fighters, what should they be charged with? Marrying someone who has committed a crime is not illegal. The type and nature of the Isis crimes better suit inquiry by an International War Crimes Tribunal than the dozens of separate domestic jurisdictions that Trump’s approach would require.
But such a tribunal is unlikely, and already trials have been held in Iraq where captive fighters and supporters have gone to the gallows quietly, without much media exposure. The spectacle of an international judicial panel, or multiple Western court proceedings, may well galvanise remaining pro-Isis sympathisers and provide a range of new targets for them.
There is an old terrorist tactic of taking hostages and trading them for the release of their own prisoners, usually successfully. Trump’s prescription, as usual, lacks any depth of thought about how it may actually work.
Ending a terrorist organisation is a pragmatic political objective; it cannot be about retribution. A sure way to hasten the disintegration of such an organisation is to offer its waverers and deserters a way out.
In most cases, those now wanting to return are opting for the first real opportunity they have had to do so; Isis has maintained an oppressive iron-fist rule over all its followers, whether they came willingly or not. Leaving Isis territory alive before now has never really been an option.
The stories these insiders could tell about Isis’ ‘‘Islamic paradise’’ will be harrowing, exposing the corruption, brutality and godlessness of the caliphate – the counter-narrative effect of this would materially assist in disabling and disengaging potential young recruits from joining Isis now, or anything like it in the future.
Taylor’s story could be a powerful de-radicaliser if harnessed correctly. It is important to note Isis’ caliphate has collapsed, but its organisation hasn’t.
New Zealand legislated to allow for passports to be cancelled for those who were found to be intending to leave – but did not make it illegal for those who slipped through the net to return. There are significant practical hurdles in the way of getting back, but nothing legally to prevent them doing so, and possibly little available to allow for harnessing their experience for the greater good if they do come back.
Solving terrorism is not a backward-looking exercise. It is not about where we have been, but where we can go now.
Preventing the return of those who have given up on Isis, or prosecuting them without good cause, blocks the path to the future, prevents reintegration and preserves the aloofness of individuals or groups that potentially caused them to join Isis in the first place.
Dr John Battersby is a fellow at Massey University’s Centre for Defence and Security Studies, and Dr Rhys Ball is a lecturer at the centre. Yeah, they call me ‘‘Knuckles’’ since I dispute every one of my fifty convictions of my rap sheet. But here in Paremoremo I am seen as a leader. What I say goes. So I can deliver votes and I love the Greens since we have much in common. You see we do ‘‘Green’’ for all those that need it. I like to think we are franchising. We provide a service to everyone except what I say goes. So we need the vote and then we can control, sorry persuade, sorry, give our vote to those who think like us. Of course if you don’t think like us, we’ll come and visit and give you options. You know, do you need your arms or legs? So, vote for the Greens, because if you don’t, even though they say I murdered three children or killed your mother, I deserve the vote. Remember the Greens, the party who loves those whose murderous, violent and evil personality want to decide your government. It’s so unfair to be convicted of horrendous crimes, but it is only fair that we can vote, you know, kill the parties that might govern our country. Vote me ‘‘Knuckles,’’ I can with the help of the Greens persuade you to see things and the Greens way. The party that really cares about your future health. Vote Greens for Knuckles. Harsh words indeed from Tom O’Connor about the Catholic Church. I think I am right in saying that in this day and age, we of the Catholic persuasion are very aware of past atrocities committed by the ordained representatives of Christ, and greatly abhor their very betrayal of the authority granted them on Ordination. The Parish Priest’s roll of complete domination of the flock in Ireland, is well documented, even well into the 20th century. This gross hypocrisy is abhorred by current members of the Church.