Oceania | Society | Oceania

What Should Australia Do About Its ‘ISIS Brides’?

Ultimately, the dilemma facing the Australian government about these women and their children stems from an uncomfortable truth: citizenship is a concept that sits above good and bad behavior.

Australia has found itself in a dilemma: How to deal with a group of Australian citizens – 11 women with their 23 children – currently living in the Kurdish-militia-run al-Roj detention camp in northeast Syria. The women had previously traveled to the region between 2013 and 2016, during the height of the Islamic State’s territorial expansion in Iraq and Syria. That has led them to be dubbed by the Australian media as “ISIS Brides.” 

Earlier this month, the group tried to leave the camp to travel toward Damascus and eventually back to Australia, but Syrian authorities turned them back. The Australian government maintains it is not actively organizing the repatriation of this group but says they could legally return on their own initiative. Yet this remains a contentious issue with the Australian public. 

For years, successive Australian governments have tried to avoid this issue. It is geographically distant and politically toxic, but the responsibilities of the state towards its citizens remain. The government cannot refuse entry into Australia of Australian citizens, regardless of their alleged behavior abroad. 

This situation is made more difficult by the complex web of reasons these women ended up in Syria and Iraq. The women may have traveled to the region out of ideological conviction and actively facilitated the activities of the Islamic State, or they may have been groomed or coerced into traveling by others. They may have naïvely fallen for the promise of a utopian Islamic caliphate, or simply been in love with the men they traveled with. Or it could be a combination of all these factors to varying degrees. They could be extremists or victims, or both. 

However, this complexity cannot obscure the legal reality. Australia cannot avoid its legal responsibilities, no matter how politically toxic the situation. The camps administered by Kurdish militias are not designed as long-term detention facilities. They are makeshift, unstable, and vulnerable to radicalization networks that continue to operate within them. The government risks future potential problems by leaving Australian citizens there. 

Children raised in squalor, statelessness, and ideological isolation are not neutral actors in waiting. They are being socialized in environments where resentment toward Western states is reinforced daily. From a counterterrorism perspective, the argument for controlled repatriation........

© The Diplomat