Current AffairsLife styleNews

Defeating Radical Islam: The Revocation of the Citizenship of two British Women Linked to Islamic State

I have written several times that the International Court of Justice is meant for the weak and vulnerable actors in the international system. Given the anarchical nature of the world community, what do you need judicial arbitration for when an overwhelming dose of force would achieve the same results within the shortest time in a more effective manner! Nigeria gave itself a bloodied nose in the ICJ over the Bakassi Peninsula simply because of weak military might and cumulative years of banal, directionless and consficatory leadership. Which part of the world do you see nations cede their territories to other nations in the name of name good neighbourliness and other platitudes that are often associated with weak and vulnerable nations. How many times has the United States taken another nation to the ICJ? What of Israel? What for! They could not afford such an expensive luxury. When Mummar Ghadaffi was busy sponsoring Islamic fundamentalist terror attacks across the globe in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan, in 1986, would not tolerate any of Ghadaffi’s nuisance value. Consequently, he detailed the American jet bombers to deal a decisive blow on Tripoli and Benghazi. Ghadaffi narrowly missed death. Until Reagan left office in 1989, Mummar Ghadaffi never ‘misbehaved’ again.

What of the attack and capture of President Noriega of Panama by the American forces! And his subsequent imprisonment in the United States? Noriega was alleged of sponsoring drug cartels that were exporting drugs to the United States. After several warnings, President George Bush told the world that enough was enough. In one of those uncommon commando operations, the American troops landed in Panama City, trailed down the sitting President, captured him , manacled him and landed him in a US jail. Realpolitik per excellence! This is the nature of the international system and the pacifists and the moralists should be practical enough to throw overboard their hallucinationist and delusional international paradigm. 

Photo Credit: Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Today, America lives in relative peace because they took the fight against Islamic terror to the doorsteps of the enemy. They toppled the Talibans from Afghanistan, Saddam Hussain from Iraq and killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan. This is how to keep your territorial integrity safe from the foes that are prepared inflict a maximum damage to your national interest. This is where the doctrine of credible deterrence comes to the fore. In international politics, your enemies will never take you seriously until they realise that stiff and staggering reprisals would follow their potential acts of aggression which will immediately annihilate the anticipated gains from such an adventure.

Since the end of the Cold War in 1991 when the Soviet bloc disintegrated, radical Islam and other forms of violent extremism have taken the world hostage. They have come in various shapes and sizes – Al-qaeda, Boko Haram, Al-shabab, Islamic State, Al-qaeda in the Magreb, Islamic State of West African Province and so on and so forth. As a matter of fact, the United Nations has classified the killer herdsman as the fourth most dangerous terrorist organisation in the world. In Nigeria, they are currently most deadly group, more deadly than the Boko Haram insurgents because they are treated with kid gloves by government – a development that led them to kill over 3,600 Nigerians in three years(as reported by the Amnesty International in 2018).


The only language global Islamic terror understands is force, punitive and unrestrained force. How do you explain the actions of group of sub-human elements that will go to the mosque, church or a market place and bomb off innocent women and children! All in the name of trying to impose the Sharia laws on peoples of other faiths. Certainly, the punishment must fit the crime. This is where I hail the decision of the British government to strip any British citizen his citizenship if he is found to have any link with any terrorist organisation. This is a welcome development that must be sustained. You do not solve a problem by romancing it and by a half hearted measure. The current furore generated by two British women that have been fraternising with the Islamic State in Syria should be seen as what it is: a storm in a tea cup that will soon pass. 


Shamima Begum in the al-Hawl camp in  northern Syria. Her three-week old son died in the past week; Photo Credit: dailymail.co.uk


The BBC on 10 March, 2019 reported the event thus:
“Two more women from the UK who are being held in Syrian camps with their young children have been stripped of their citizenship, a report says. It comes after the death in a Syrian camp of the baby son of Shamima Begum, who left London to join Islamic State and had her UK citizenship revoked.
“The Sunday Times quotes legal sources who name the women as Reema Iqbal and her sister, Zara, from east London.


The Home Office said it did not comment on individual cases. Decisions to withdraw citizenship from individuals were evidence-based and not taken lightly, it added.


The use of the powers has risen sharply, with 104 deprivations of citizenship in 2017, compared to 50 in the previous decade, according to Home Office figures obtained by the immigration law website Free Movement.


Many cases have involved national security and supporters of groups such as Al-Qaeda but criminals – including three of the Rochdale grooming gang – have also been stripped of citizenship.


The Sunday Times says that Reema, 30, and Zara, 28, are living in separate refugee camps in Syria along with thousands of other families who have fled from territory formerly controlled by jihadis.
Between them they have five boys under the age of eight, it says.


The parents of the sisters are originally from Pakistan, but it is not known if they have dual nationality.
“According to the Sunday Times, the sisters left for Syria in 2013 after marrying IS fighters with “close links” to the filmed murders of western hostages.
“Zara was heavily pregnant with her second child when she travelled to Syria and later gave birth to a third.


” Reema has one son born in the UK and another born in Syria.


“Home Secretary Sajid Javid has faced criticism for his handling of the similar case of Ms Begum.


“Her three-week-old son, Jarrah, died of pneumonia on Thursday, according to a medical certificate.


“As he was born before she was deprived of UK citizenship by the Home Office, the baby would still be considered British.


“I apologise to Britain, says Shamima Begum’s dad


What was life like for Shamima Begum?
“Dal Babu, a former Metropolitan Police chief superintendent and friend of Ms Begum’s family, told the BBC: “We’ve failed, as a country, to safeguard the child.”


“Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said the child had died as a result of the “callous and inhumane” decision to strip Ms Begum of her citizenship while Tory MP and former justice minister Phillip Lee urged the government to “reflect” on its “moral responsibility” for the tragedy.


“A UK government spokesman said: “The death of any child is tragic and deeply distressing for the family.”


“Prior to the child’s death, Ms Begum’s sister, Renu, wrote to Mr Javid on behalf of the family challenging the decision to revoke her citizenship.” 


Certainly, anyone would be remorseful over the death of a baby. But then, the baby’s mother initially put her son’s life in jeopardy by involving herself in an affair with a murderous father and husband. These ladies belong to either Syria where they migrated to or Pakistan, their original home country. This will definitely send a strong message to the violent extremists across the world that their bestial and animalistic behaviours do not have any place in the civilised world.

0
Tags:

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *