KEY TAKEAWAYS
KEY TAKEAWAYS
With conflicts raging in Gaza, Lebanon, Ukraine and Sudan, concerns related to the extremist group ISIS may seem overtaken by these other conflicts. After all, Iraq declared the group’s military defeat in 2017 after the territory held by the extremists was retaken by Iraqi government forces in partnership with the United States. Yet just over a month ago, U.S. and Iraqi forces conducted a joint military raid against the group, killing nine senior ISIS leaders who were hiding in the rugged Hamrin Mountains in northern Iraq. This raid comes off the heels of the UK’s domestic intelligence chief stating that the group is positioning itself as a resurgent threat. Indeed, ISIS has conducted over 150 attacks so far this year in Iraq and Syria, more than those claimed by the group in 2023.
To help combat this threat, the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS held its annual ministerial meeting at the end of September with the aim of affirming global support for the continued fight against the extremist group. One of the key points of discussion at this year’s meeting was the issue of the repatriation of families with perceived ISIS affiliation held in Syria’s al-Hol camp: over 40,000 individuals are currently residing in the camp, with nearly half of the camp’s population (18,000) being Iraqi nationals.
In Iraq, the way the return and reintegration process transpires will be a key determinant of the extent to which ISIS is able to reconstitute itself. Poorly done, returning families risk being further marginalized, opening the space for extremist elements to prey on their vulnerability and neglect. Done effectively, however, a successful return and reintegration process can close the potential space afforded for extremist narratives and loyalties to thrive.
The process of return and reintegration starts with the Government of Iraq’s National Security Service conducting a registration and security screening of potential Iraqi returnees in the camp. Once clearance is given, Iraq’s Ministry of Migration and Displacement organizes and facilitates the return of the families to Jadaa Rehabilitation Center, which south of Mosul and acts as a temporary residence for families. At the camp, the Iraqi government provides various services with support from U.N. and international and Iraqi non-governmental organizations, including health care, legal assistance and psychosocial support. The process of securing sponsorship takes place at the same time, as families need the support of a trusted leader or authority from within their community to get final approval to leave the camp and return to their areas of origin.
A successful return and reintegration process can close the potential space afforded for extremist narratives and loyalties to thrive.
To date, the Iraqi government, with support from the international community, has helped repatriate nearly 10,000 individuals from al-Hol camp since 2021, with over 7,000 returning to where they are from. Though constituting significant progress, the process has not been without challenges, including a frayed relationship between survivor families (i.e., those directly victimized by ISIS) and returning families, limited community engagement in reintegration efforts, ongoing security concerns and a lack of tailored support for both returnees and receiving communities. Additional challenges highlighted by the ministerial meeting include the slow pace of returns from al-Hol to Jadaa Rehabilitation Center, shifting international funding priorities and the potential end of the Global Coalition’s military presence, which might allow for a resurgence of the extremist group.
While some of these challenges require robust diplomatic engagement, others are more operational and can be addressed through enhanced coordination among government ministries and the international community, targeted support for local initiatives, and increased community outreach to foster trust and engagement. On such challenges, USIP’s experience working on the return and reintegration problem set has highlighted the role dialogue processes have played in addressing many of these issues to-date.
Indeed, the international community along with key government partners have implemented over 20 local peace and dialogue processes since 2014, with USIP responsible for 11 of them. The aim of these processes is to establish framework agreements that would set the foundation for the safe and voluntary return by reaching community consensus on how to deal with the thorny issues arising in the post-ISIS period.
As such, these processes have addressed concerns over collective liability and punishment, the use of exclusionary tribal practices, community acceptance of families with perceived ISIS affiliation, security arrangements post-return, and demands for compensation and reparations. They have also been impactful at bridging the divide among community leaders and between community leaders and government actors working on the issue and solving some key issues arising in the return process.
Local peace and dialogue processes have proven to be an effective tool in fostering trust and facilitating open communication and collaboration between key community and government actors. That is, they have helped bring key community actors into the process who have the influence and capability to address challenges facing the return and reintegration process. This is perhaps best illustrated in Western Anbar, where a USIP-supported dialogue led to key tribal leaders in the province changing their position on the return process from one of opposition, to one of non-objection, and finally to one of active support for the process and collaboration with the government.
This was a crucial development not only because of the influence tribal authorities wield throughout the province but also since 50 percent of Iraqis held in al-Hol camp are originally from Anbar, especially its western portions. Hence, without the support and active engagement of tribal leaders, which was made possible through inclusive dialogue, the return and reintegration process would face significant obstacles.
Local peace and dialogue processes have also helped address key obstacles emerging in the return and reintegration process, including the issues of sponsorship and disavowal. On the former, the dialogue process in Anbar led to government authorities granting tribal leaders’ permission to sponsor multiple families from their tribe held in Jadaa Rehabilitation Center, thereby helping to speed up the pace of returns. On the latter, the process produced a directive by Iraq’s prime minister issued via the National Security Service that no longer allowed security actors to demand the practice of disavowal, which was a point of contention for returning families.
The practice of disavowal has its origins in Iraq’s tribal traditions whereby individuals with actual or perceived affiliation with ISIS were disavowed from their tribe. Over time, it has morphed into a legal practice whereby individuals would open a court case against their family member accused of being a member of ISIS, an act that carries with it legal implications for the person informed on.
These types of outcomes demonstrate the utility of dialogue work in the return and reintegration process and can also help address some of the key challenges highlighted in the ministerial meeting around reintegration, especially the relationship between returning families and survivor families. USIP-conducted dialogue processes in Anbar with both groups have already highlighted the conditions and requirements needed for the groups to enter a restorative justice process aimed at repairing their relationship.
For one, they require psychosocial support services in order for them to manage and overcome the trauma inflicted by the conflict with ISIS. Having such services will, in the view of survivor families, allow them to be in the required emotional and mental state to begin speaking and thinking about true reconciliation with those that they associate with their victimization. For returning families, the need for psychosocial support stems from the stigma and rejection they face from the broader community, which has forced them to isolate from the community.
Moreover, dialogue is seen as a means to raise awareness about the need for and benefits of restorative justice, while simultaneously serving as a tool to facilitate reconciliation between survivor families and returning families. Here, survivor families see dialogue as an opportunity for returning families to express their rejection of ISIS and publicly apologize for the actions committed by their male relative; for returning families, dialogues offer a way to help reduce the stigma attached to them.
Indeed, having dialogue sessions in which symbolic disavowal of ideology is sought — as opposed to formal disavowal of family members via the courts and tribal disavowal via customary practices — can pave the way for trust-building and healing by enabling returning families to distance themselves from the violent acts of their relatives without facing the legal ramifications associated with formal disavowal or the social isolation that comes with tribal disavowal. This is all the more important given that recent USIP findings from its Conflict and Stabilization Monitoring Framework (CSMF) show that the majority of residents in Anbar (63%) do not believe formal disavowal or tribal disavowal do much to facilitate community acceptance for returnees.
Dialogue sessions that help establish trust and lay the foundatins for deeper discussions around reconciliation and restorative justice can help unlock a key precept to communities in Anbar accepting the return and reintegration of families with perceived affiliation: the approval of survivor families. Per CSMF data, the plurality of Anbar residents (43%) state that they would accept these families only after survivor families agree to them returning and being part of the community, meaning more needs to be done to work on attaining this acceptance in a conflict sensitive manner through dialogue.
Dialogue processes have been a critical tool in overcoming the challenges to the return and reintegration process to-date. Not only have they helped lay the groundwork for the overall return process, ensuring that localized drivers of tension are minimized in the post-ISIS period, but they have also been effective in helping overcome specific challenges impacting the return process of Iraqis held in al-Hol camp.
As the return process continues to make steady progress and more returnees make it back to their areas of origin, more emphasis will need to be placed on the reintegration phase. Here, dialogue can also play a crucial role by helping to identify specific reintegration challenges, such as psychosocial support, and creating safe spaces for survivor families and returning families to begin the process of advancing social cohesion. In short, dialogue processes are essential if the return and reintegration process is to lead to sustainable peace, strengthen community resilience and prevent the re-emergence of extremist ideologies in post-conflict Iraq.