Former jihadis are our best weapon again Islamic State grooming

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/former-jihadis-are-our-best-weapon-again-islamic-state-grooming-20150520-gh5ig4.html

http://bit.ly/1HtuFO9

Sydney Morning Herald, 20 May 2015

Former jihadis are our best weapon again Islamic State grooming

Shutting the door on former Islamic State recruits seeking repatriation may miss an opportunity to block the radicalisation path. After all, law enforcement strategies and name-calling by government voices have not curbed the magnetism of this “death cult”.

Yes, the chorus of cautious voices is justified. Yes, the disillusioned youth should have renounced IS on the same public platforms that drew them in: online for other youth to see and hear, loud and clear. Yes, the youth who have broken our counterterrorism “foreign fighters” legislation must be subjected to the full force of our criminal justice system, including imprisonment. Yes, we need to ensure that we do not inadvertently create an escape clause for “jihadis” who want to “get out of jail free”.

But if ever there was an opportunity to benefit from these de-radicalised voices, and benefit from the lessons learnt in other parts of the world, this is it. Surely, our intelligence authorities should be trusted to be intelligent enough to harness rather than squander this opportunity.

In Europe, former extremists have long been recruited by organisations such as Exit and the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. These movements recognise that angry, rejected youth need a counter-narrative and “tangible alternatives to violence”. They recognise that “formers” have a credibility that governments lack.

Former extremists now understand the continuum from isolation to belonging to disengagement better than most. They now understand the consequences when one is seduced by the two-dimensional videos then lands in a three-dimensional reality, sometimes cleaning toilets and babysitting. They now understand how to resist these temptations and learn to act on their anger through legitimate channels such as social justice and politics. They now understand what many non-Muslim “experts” are grappling with: why people go and why they return. No amount of funding or education can substitute for the firsthand testimonies of “formers”.

In the United States, the diminution and implosion of the Ku Klux Klan was partly due to former members publicly denouncing its violence, such as the late Elwin Wilson in 2009. For more than a century, former members have proven to be a more formidable force than law enforcement authorities or external critics.

Even in Australia, a mercy campaign involved eminent Australians petitioning for clemency for the “extraordinary rehabilitation” of former drug smugglers Myuran Sukumaran and Andrew Chan, before their tragic execution last month. There was growing recognition that their genuine and demonstrable reform could have aided the war against drug smuggling.

Clearly, cynicism prevails about the sincerity of reformed jihadis returning from the Middle East. The same logic does not apply, yet Australia has never tested this theory of deploying deradicalised and disillusioned youth to aid the war against violent extremism and home-grown terrorists.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott reflected the broad Australian sentiment when he declared that “there is no place in our society for people who have been radicalised”. Perhaps those deradicalised now passionately agree with him, but offer a more credible voice. Perhaps they are now the most potent strings on his bow. Perhaps their testimonials are our best weapon in this battle for young minds.

This logic has been echoed by counterterrorism experts including Professor Michele Grossman, who argue that the most authentic counter-narratives come from disillusioned foreign fighters who are in a unique position because of their firsthand experiences.

Rather than investing $21.7 million in an online social media campaign to counter pro-ISIS propaganda, our government could spend less money by amplifying the testimonials of deradicalised formers through all the clandestine channels. The money could be spent to build resilience and resistance against the groomers and traffickers.

Surely our authorities can discern who among the three young jihadis now seeking repatriation has already demonstrated to other disoriented youth: “wrong way – go back!”

If we are serious about fighting the recruitment of IS and its ilk, we need to learn from international experiences and recognise when opportunity knocks. Before us now, we have people who have been “educated” and exploited as frontline fodder. They can in turn educate us to inoculate other vulnerable youth against this dead-end street, sold as a path to paradise.

What needs rehabilitation now is our policy on these “formers”, when the policy of fear is lifted to give way to clarity.

Our own clemency policy and counter-narrative need not be as black and white as the ISIS propaganda. Conditions apply.

 

Beware Australia’s real ‘illegals’

http://bit.ly/17QYaGP

The Advertiser, 8 November 2013

PICTURE this scenario at an Australian international airport arrivals terminal: “
Excuse me, sir. We are the Federal Police. You are under arrest.”
“Are you serious? What for?”
“Participating in illegal military activities while in Syria.”
“I was on a humanitarian mission!”
“You will need to prove it.”

But this scene will not play itself out in reality while politicians drag their feet in a legal quagmire.
The Abbott Government is renowned for its simple and clear statements, especially pertaining to border protection.

The incarnation of the ‘‘stop the boats’’ war-cry was to launch Operation Sovereign Borders, deploy a three-star general and render the seafaring asylum seekers ‘‘illegal arrivals’’.

So what is the incarnation of its “baddies versus baddies’’ banner overarching Syria?

Why have we not seen the Government launch Operation Foreign Fighters, deploy a three-star general and render the returning mercenaries ‘‘illegal combatants’’?

In his book Foreign Fighters: Transnational Identity in Civil Conflicts, Dr David Malet from Melbourne University claims that the 200 Australians participating in the Syrian war outnumber all other Westerners.

He contends that “the biggest danger is that they return home as recruiters” and are hailed as “heroes in their local communities”.

Surely, this must render them more dangerous than the ‘‘illegal arrivals’’ who are desperately seeking life for their beloved families, not martyrdom for their ‘‘brothers in arms’’ and a ‘‘ticket to paradise’’? Already four Australians are known to have been killed in Syria since the uprising began.

It was rich of former foreign minister Bob Carr to urge his successor to revisit the idea of legally blocking these Australian citizens from returning home from the Syria war zones. He had his chance.

What has been the result of his strategy of intelligence gathering and merely monitoring their recruitment activities after their return? The number of fighters swelled from single to double to triple digits.

While our intelligence agencies need to keep their confidential information and control orders out of the public domain in case the radicalised recruiters go underground, the public deserve more than blanket response of ‘‘trust us – we are doing much more than you think’’.

Regardless of reality, there is a prevailing perception that Australian jihadists come and go with impunity.
Community advocates sounded the alarm when there were two high-profile Australian fatalities in the battle zone in 2013. The alarm was amplified with when this figure subsequently increased.

The government’s “‘wait and see’’ strategy revealed a gaping loophole and made a mockery of our federal laws.

Those opposing the Syrian government did not want their sons to slip down this hole, as virtually all embraced Australia to flee from war. Those supporting the Syrian government also opposed this loophole because of their general concern over foreign mercenaries and terrorists allied with al Nusra and al-Qa’ida.

When David Hicks was participating in paramilitary training in Afghanistan in 2001, the US Military Commission charged him with “providing material support for terrorism” and he was detained in Guantanamo Bay until 2007. But when other Australians participate in military activities in the plethora of pro and anti-government ‘‘brigades’’, they return home to a hero’s welcome.

The current law is articulated by the Department of Foreign Affairs travel advice: “It is illegal under Australian law for Australian citizens, including dual citizens, to provide any kind of support to any armed group in Syria.

“This includes engaging in fighting for either side, funding, training or recruiting someone to fight.”. . . Australians who commit these offences while overseas may be prosecuted in Australia”.

Breaches may incur heavy fines and a maximum 10 years’ imprisonment. So why has there not been a single arrest, prosecution of or conviction reported to the Australian public since the alarm bells were sounded?

Too many of these Australians publicly claim to be offering humanitarian aid to the Syrian refugee epidemic, but their Facebook photos show them posing proudly with guns.
If the problem is loopholes within the current Australian law, then it is incumbent upon the Attorney-General George Brandis to update the national security laws. , just as the anti-terrorism laws were updated with 54 new Bills under the Howard government. The real ‘‘illegals’’ are arriving in planes, not boats.

Joseph Wakim is the founder of the Australian Arabic Council and author of Sorry We Have No Space.