What Should Australia Do About Its ‘ISIS Brides’? |
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 is risk management. Bringing individuals back under Australian jurisdiction allows security agencies to monitor, rehabilitate where possible, and disrupt extremist networks. It takes control out of the hands of Kurdish militias and places it into those of the Australian authorities.
Australian citizenship confers protection, but also due process. When citizens commit crimes abroad, the appropriate response is prosecution under domestic law, not indefinite abandonment in legal limbo. Australia has already legislated for extraterritorial terrorism offenses, and if evidence exists, charges should follow. If evidence does not meet prosecutorial thresholds, the ability to surveil suspected extremists still exists within Australia’s legal system.
Navigating domestic politics, however, is less clear. The tabloids, talkback radio, and social media all thrive on issues like this. It is an open goal for the “angertainment” industry, which can funnel outrage toward the prospect of individuals who had pledged allegiance to a movement such as the Islamic State simply being able to restart their lives on Australian soil without consequence.
The government responded to such scenarios in 2020 by legislating that dual nationals engaged in terrorism could be stripped of their citizenship by the Home Affairs minister. However, in 2022 the High Court of Australia partially invalidated this law, decreeing that a government minister has no power to deny citizenship without the involvement of the legal system. Furthermore, it is illegal under international law to render a person stateless.
The desire to strip citizenship is also an admission of weakness masquerading as toughness. It signals that the state lacks confidence in its own legal institutions to prosecute and contain threats. Liberal democracies do not demonstrate resilience by exporting their problems, they demonstrate it by upholding the rule of law even when doing so is politically costly.
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. A state confident in its institutions should not fear bringing its own citizens home to face justice. Nor can Australia pretend that allowing these women and their children to wallow in a dire refugee camp is a sustainable solution. Repatriation is not a reward; it is simply a matter of jurisdiction.
Get to the bottom of the story
Subscribe today and join thousands of diplomats, analysts, policy professionals and business readers who rely on The Diplomat for expert Asia-Pacific coverage.
Get unlimited access to in-depth analysis you won't find anywhere else, from South China Sea tensions to ASEAN diplomacy to India-Pakistan relations. More than 5,000 articles a year.
Unlimited articles and expert analysis
Weekly newsletter with exclusive insights
16-year archive of diplomatic coverage
Ad-free reading on all devices
Support independent journalism
Already have an account? Log in.
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 is risk management. Bringing individuals back under Australian jurisdiction allows security agencies to monitor, rehabilitate where possible, and disrupt extremist networks. It takes control out of the hands of Kurdish militias and places it into those of the Australian authorities.
Australian citizenship confers protection, but also due process. When citizens commit crimes abroad, the appropriate response is prosecution under domestic law, not indefinite abandonment in legal limbo. Australia has already legislated for extraterritorial terrorism offenses, and if evidence exists, charges should follow. If evidence does not meet prosecutorial thresholds, the ability to surveil suspected extremists still exists within Australia’s legal system.
Navigating domestic politics, however, is less clear. The tabloids, talkback radio, and social media all thrive on issues like this. It is an open goal for the “angertainment” industry, which can funnel outrage toward the prospect of individuals who had pledged allegiance to a movement such as the Islamic State simply being able to restart their lives on Australian soil without consequence.
The government responded to such scenarios in 2020 by legislating that dual nationals engaged in terrorism could be stripped of their citizenship by the Home Affairs minister. However, in 2022 the High Court of Australia partially invalidated this law, decreeing that a government minister has no power to deny citizenship without the involvement of the legal system. Furthermore, it is illegal under international law to render a person stateless.
The desire to strip citizenship is also an admission of weakness masquerading as toughness. It signals that the state lacks confidence in its own legal institutions to prosecute and contain threats. Liberal democracies do not demonstrate resilience by exporting their problems, they demonstrate it by upholding the rule of law even when doing so is politically costly.
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. A state confident in its institutions should not fear bringing its own citizens home to face justice. Nor can Australia pretend that allowing these women and their children to wallow in a dire refugee camp is a sustainable solution. Repatriation is not a reward; it is simply a matter of jurisdiction.
Grant Wyeth is a Melbourne-based political analyst specializing in Australia and the Pacific, India and Canada.
Australian women in ISIS
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria