Pilar Cebrián: "Delaying the repatriation of European jihadists could be the preparation for the next caliphate in 2030"

The journalist Pilar Cebrián, in her book 'El infiel que habita en mi' ('The infidel who lives in me'), recounts the testimonies of different Europeans who decided to travel to Syria to join Daesh. Throughout the book, she describes the reality of the 'Foreign Fighters', all of them moved by a mixture of discontent and hope for the promises of redemption and purification offered by the caliphate.

In 2019, the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) declared the end of the caliphate established by Daesh, after having captured its last stronghold, Al-Baguz, on the Iraqi border. Now the reality experienced by the fighters and their families is not a priority for the countries. Women and children live in subhuman conditions in detention camps in Syria, controlled by Kurdish militias. Many of them are of European nationalities, whose countries refuse to repatriate them as they pose a national threat. Pilar Cebrián analyses the complex logistics involved in repatriating these fighters and their families to their countries of origin.

Europe has exported a high percentage of fighters to Syria. Does the Old Continent have a problem at the social and political level in integrating these second or third generations of immigrants?

Whether the problem is Europe's or that of these religions, which sometimes do not accept the secularity of the state, I do not know. Europe is the State in this case and, therefore, it is the one that should guarantee this equality of opportunities or living conditions. That is why we are pointing the finger at Europe, though the European continent is not the only one responsible.

It is obvious that there is a problem between Europe and Islam and between Islam and Europe, both on the part of European society, which does not accept that Muslim communities are also Muslim, and on the part of these communities, where a percentage of recent generations have become a little more radical in their stance, as they do not accept certain more Western values such as the empowerment of women, drinking in the public sphere, extra-marital relations. In short, it is a two-way vector. I would not blame Europe alone.

The concept of Western Islam, i.e. bringing Islam into line with a more European mentality, is being considered. Could this be the way to reconcile these two worlds?

I think so. In fact, one of the main problems in the area we are talking about is foreign interference in Islam. Whenever I have spoken to representatives of this community who I consider moderate, they always ask for a little more help in creating Spanish Islam.

In the end, the imams or other religious leaders have not been trained in Spain and other countries, such as Morocco or Saudi Arabia, are the ones bringing them in and introducing, on occasions, such questionable currents as Wahhabism, Salafism and even certain profiles connected to terrorist organisations.

You mentioned in the book about the possibility of making it compulsory for imams in Spain to obtain a degree in order to be able to practice. Could this measure eliminate the radical discourse of some leaders?

Yes, that is one of the many steps that must be taken, but of course each country can contribute to the formation of its own Islam in accordance with the country's culture and values and principles, in this case Western ones, it is an essential step. In fact, I also mention this in the book, and there is an imam from Verviers (Belgium), the town where Tarik Jadaoun, the protagonist of the second chapter, comes from, who explains how in the end these young people have identified rite with culture, stating that there is a mistake when Islam is related to identity. Islam is a religion, in any case, a religious rite, but it should be possible for Muslim Europeans to have a Western identity. He explained it this way, a Western identity, a European identity, a Belgian identity, and at the same time they could commune this identity with their religion.

In short, you wouldn't have to choose between being European or Muslim, but both, right?

That would be a success. It is difficult because coexistence is difficult, and discrimination appears at many levels of daily life. Many of these communities have more unfavourable socio-economic conditions. So there is a whole series of conditioning factors that mean that the ideal scenario, in which these two identities are combined, cannot be successful, and it gets complicated, but they are working on it.

Which common features do countries such as France or Belgium share, as they have sent a greater number of radicalised people, compared to, for example, Spain?

I was once told a curious phrase: "Jihadist radicalisation is a symptom of a country's weaknesses, but also of its strengths". In the end, the countries where Daesh has had the largest target audience are countries that are already in the third or fourth generation of immigrants of Muslim origin. Because it is in these generations that the identity problem arises. Spain has not been such an economic power as to attract all these waves of immigration from as far back as France, Belgium, Germany or the United Kingdom. Spain began to be a power, a magnet for immigration from the 2000s onwards, especially from Latin America. Spain, therefore, was not economically strong enough to be in the fourth generation of Muslim immigrants. It is in that generation in which the who-am-I dilemma begins. 
Other reasons also exist to explain why Spain has not sent so many fighters, for example, the reform of the Penal Code in 2015, which for the first time criminalises travelling to a territory controlled by a terrorist group. This changes many things and means that preventive arrests are starting to be made in Spain. In other words, the detention barrier is lowered a little and people who are simply consulting online propaganda in which the movement to the caliphate is being considered are being detained. Other countries have opted to purge the radical community of people they had and opted for them to move to the battlefield and either get lost or die in combat.

The European Union has passed a resolution urging member states to repatriate children in refugee camps in Syria. Is it possible for this resolution to go ahead within the European Union?

Children should, because it is a matter of international law and it has its own European legislation. Ultimately, there will come a time when these children who are presumed to be innocent and whose lives are at risk in the detention camps will have to be repatriated. Europe is facing one of the great dilemmas, this institution has drawn up some of the most comprehensive charters of children's rights, but, at the same time, in this case, we have about a thousand European children, probably more, who are in limbo, in the most decisive years of their lives. These children are growing up in abject poverty, with no schooling, no future prospects and, moreover, surrounded by an environment in which radicalisation is very likely. Small steps are being taken, I am in contact with Spanish MEPs and, in fact, they recently voted in favour. And there is indeed an intention to at least get the children out of there as soon as possible. The big problem is that, for the sake of the children's rights, they cannot be separated from their mothers.

The main obstacle to repatriating the children is, on the one hand, their mothers, because they have to be brought with them and they are not presumed to be innocent. On the other hand, no one knows exactly what age limit to set and, in that case, whether adolescents should also be brought in. These are the main problems facing the European Union.

Women often blame their husbands and hide behind the fact that they did not take part in the group's terrorist activity.

One hundred percent of the women I have spoken to have said that they knew nothing about it until the moment they crossed the barbed wire. I don't believe that. In any case, it is obvious that there is a procedural crisis, and that is one of the reasons why several European countries refuse to allow these women to return, as they know that many of them will remain at liberty. And it is a matter of five years before these men, if tried, are released from prison. In addition, there is the political issue, i.e. EU leaders do not want the far right to benefit from such an unpopular repatriation. These are the main reasons why this quota of jihadist prisoners is being left in such an unstable and unpredictable scenario as the prisons in Iraq and Syria.

In the end, this policy also works against the European Union, because in such unstable countries as Syria or Iraq, a massive escape of these jihadists can occur, as happened in Ain issa last year.

Definitely. Delaying it might pave the way for the next caliphate in 2030. But policies against terror are defined in the short term and that is why, in the end, in such a generational issue as jihad, because we are talking about people who give their lives and dedicate their entire lives to this political project, policies cannot be short term. They have to be thought out for at least ten years at a time. A jihadist dispersed in the Middle East is the same as a jihadist at liberty in Europe, it is exactly the same.

Are these children living in Syrian detention camps right now likely to be a threat to Europe in the long run?

It is really unpredictable to determine what the radicalisation of these children might lead to. In this sense, I am always a little cautious. I have spoken to these children, to their mothers and grandparents, I have seen the drawings in the letters sent by these children; in the end, they are children traumatised. If they remain there for another ten years, they will live through adolescence and adulthood, and will integrate a discourse which is not their own, since I don't think there is any possibility of critical thinking in that environment. When you have not been educated, your own frustration is the trigger for your own radicalisation. When you are suffering in a camp, you know that you come from a country that no longer wants you, that you are, let's say, exiled in a camp where there are no possibilities, no basic rights, no basic food, you end up blaming the country of origin. 

Save the Children has already warned that the children of the caliphate will be a smaller generation with many mental problems. Why? Because of malnutrition problems they are having right now in the camp. All they get is free distribution of pulses, oil and bread. There is no fish, while fruit, vegetables and meat can only be bought with money and nobody has money in these camps. Sooner or later these children will return. So postponing their experience in the caliphate 2.0 is one of the worst foreign policy decisions of the European Union.

What led you to write this book?

My intention was always to inform, to break stereotypes and to answer some of the big questions of our time; why our contemporaries, the people we have grown up with and with whom we have shared schooling or university, have suddenly decided to emigrate to another time and submit to this violent, anachronistic and totalitarian authority in the 21st century. It was something that I couldn't explain to myself and I decided to write this book to try to find answers.

Have you found all the possible answers to understand this phenomenon?

YES, I have understood it, I haven't justified it, but I have understood it.

At a personal level, how has this research affected you?

This project has left me exhausted and out of energy. Not only because of the fact of conducting an investigation alone, which is very difficult because at times you lose perspective, but also because of the subject matter, which is hard in itself; everything related to the jihadist prisoner is difficult information to verify. Many parties use this information, even talking to the families themselves has been complicated, because no one tells you the truth. Maybe the most difficult thing has been reading between the lines and extracting the truth from the lies.