Uzbekistan’s model of rehabilitation and reintegration of women and children has been widely praised by the international community. What is the underlying cause for this praise and what lessons could be learned from it? – writes Maya Ivanova, research analyst specialized in security, geopolitical risk assessment and gender (Bulgaria).
Uzbekistan in the general context of repatriation efforts
Following the loss of territorial holdings by the Islamic State, thousands of women and children had been arbitrarily detained in camps in North-East Syria and Iraq. According to UN experts, they were “exposed to violence, exploitation, abuse and deprivation in conditions and treatment that may well amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under international law, with no effective remedy at their disposal”[1]. Reports submitted to the EU Commission in 2021 show that around 2,500 out of 5,300 people are believed to still be in these territories, with the ratio of children returning being really low: around 1,400 out of 1,600 are estimated to remain (not considering war and famine casualties)[2]. According to international law, states are obliged to protect the rights of their citizens regardless of where they are and irrespective of whether they might have committed crimes. Taking that into account and despite calls from the UN to facilitate the repatriation from the camps, few states have actually done so and this is continuously fueling public debates across a number of European countries.
These debates are triggered by political, legal, security and ethical arguments spanning over questions regarding humanitarian concerns, reputational risk, radicalization and many more. The thread that connects and binds all those arguments together is the fact that they all reflect in some way the main concern of states and their citizens, that repatriation could lead to home- grown terrorism and the spread of extremist ideologies domestically. However, foreign terrorist fighters are not a new phenomenon- a number of fairly recent conflict zones have attracted foreigners in the past, such as Bosnia-and-Herzegovina, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Pakistan and others. Indeed, there are cases where repatriated individuals have engaged in terrorist activities once back in their country of origin thereby further feeding into the arguments that repatriation would only increase the spread of radicalization and pose security liabilities. However, we should also factor in the argument that those that did so were radicalized, trained men, not women and children, who were not reintegrated successfully into society. Unlike men, women and children had a different role in the conflict areas and therefore did not have training to fight or engage in terrorist activities in another country. Another key distinction is that Daesh has adopted a new strategy based on the principle ‘divide, polarise and radicalise’[3]. Essentially they exploit people’s sense of discrimination, prejudice and inequality, thereby convincing people they are victims in society. In the case of Uzbekistan, this is especially pertinent since there is a sizable diaspora of economic migrants outside of the country who are susceptible to such sentiments.
Therefore, fostering repatriation and ensuring their reintegration in society would be particularly beneficial to states in their attempts to prevent the spread of violent extremism, because those returnees would be at the forefront of countering the success of Daesh’s communications strategy. The returnees could draw on their personal experiences and refute the legitimacy of Daesh’s official and unofficial communications efforts and their calls to instigate terrorist activities. Therefore, it can be deducted that repatriation and reintegration would prove to be powerful tools for states who have facilitated the repatriation of their citizens.
So far, there has been no commonly – agreed upon EU strategy and the European approach could be most accurately described as reluctant while its methodology remains on a case to case basis, which does not facilitate the overall process. Unlike the approach that European countries have taken, Central Asia has facilitated the return of more than 1,500 of its citizens and each of the repatriating countries has utilized a linear approach for rehabilitation and reintegration[4]. The latest data from 2021 shows that the government of Uzbekistan has so far repatriated 531 of its citizens, including 381 children[5].
During the 47th Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in July 2021, the participants of the international meeting noted that the programme implemented by Uzbekistan regarding the repatriation of its citizens can serve as an example for many countries, whose citizens are still in refugee camps in Syria and Iraq[6]. Uzbekistan has adopted a unique approach based on family values and tight social relations in society that arguably accounts for the praise it has received. According to the Deputy Representative of UNICEF in Uzbekistan, Mr. Geoffrey Ijumba, Uzbekistan continues to lead globally, not only in regard to returning its citizens from conflict zones, but also in ensuring gender-sensitive and age-appropriate reintegration of women and children[7]. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism within the largest body of independent experts in the UN Human Rights system, Ms. Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, notably pointed out that Uzbekistan’s model provides a roadmap for other governments to return their nationals from conflict zones “effectively, humanely and in a human rights compliant manner”[8]. She underlined that Uzbekistan’s model premised on family unity and community support, which place the best interest of the child, and the meaningful reintegration of women at the centre of political, legal and social action thereby providing us with an example of best practice on reintegration[9]. Since Uzbekistan has received such praise, analyzing its model and drawing lessons learned from it could perhaps be of benefit for other states that would decide to repatriate its citizens.
Uzbekistan’s model of rehabilitation and reintegration – a success story?
The EU countries have generally built on existing programmes and structures intended for homegrown radicalised individuals or minors in need of protection to address the issue of returnees. In Central Asia, only Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have repatriated their citizens from conflict zones and the process has allowed the governments to monitor repatriated persons for security purposes. Each state has utilized a different approach- while Kazakhstan emphasizes the de-radicalisation of returnees and Tajikistan highlights pragmatic state protectionism, Uzbekistan practices the organic social reabsorption of repatriates[10]. What they all have in common is the depiction of the repatriation operations as acts of mercy and the positive media coverage, which in turn contribute to a more positive perception of returnees by the receiving communities and have smoothed the reintegration process[11]. In Uzbekistan in particular, with the change of presidency and the granting of greater religious freedom, the media also depicted this approach not only as an act of mercy by the state, but also as a symbol of greater tolerance in the country’s policies toward religion and religious adherence. Largely positive public perceptions meant that social rehabilitation had a higher possibility of success and consequently, this had a ripple effect that buttressed the overall reintegration process.
Since 2019, Uzbekistan successfully completed five operations “Mehr” aimed at repatriating women and children from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan[12]. The formal processes of repatriation and reintegration started at the government level with the President of Uzbekistan, Shavkat Mirziyoyev, announcing his decision that Uzbekistan should repatriate its citizens from the conflict areas. What followed were negotiations between various state institutions on a domestic and international diplomatic level with the Kurdish- held part of Syria determining whether the citizens of Uzbekistan want to be repatriated or would rather stay, negotiations on flight corridors and arrangements of all the security and logistics aspects[13]. After the repatriation phase was done and the women and children were brought to Uzbekistan, the rehabilitation and reintegration stages were initiated. In essence, these processes required a lot of coordination and collaboration between a number of institutions among which the justice system, the security sector, physical and mental health providers, education and employment services, civil society actors and receiving communities[14]. Upon arrival in Uzbekistan, the returnees were officially welcomed and had new documentation distributed to them at a nationally broadcast congratulatory ceremony, which served as a recognition by the state and further contributed to their resolve to reintegrate into society[15]. The returnees had to undergo medical examinations, have their family members informed, arrange for their documents and all related judicial aspects. Finally, they were provided with psychological assistance and help from social workers before being returned to their families, or in the case of those that were unable to do that- were provided with further assistance to find a place to live and a job[16]. Children were on average above the age of ten, but many had not attended school and could not read or write, so they had to be put in the right class corresponding to their level of education. When determining the education level of the child, the Ministry of Public Education placed the main focus on developing the child’s communication skills, interaction with classmates and teachers, and life skills despite the evident lower levels of educational attainment, so as to ease the reintegration process[17].
Scholars working in Central Asia have divided women who were engaged in conflict zones into several categories- women who have been exploited due to their financial and social circumstances; who joined because of their desire to have a family of their own; who have been exploited due to their psychological peculiarities; those who joined because of ruptures in their family and women who were striving for leadership and power. Moreover, experts point to very specific challenges like remaining faithful to the ideology they shared with the fighter whom they married (regardless of whether they have children), venerating him as a role model and trying to support him morally[18]. In contrast, men who volunteered to fight could change their views regardless of whether their spouse shared those views. However, in Uzbekistan, women were presented by the media and subsequently viewed by the public as “victims of deception”[19]. Therefore, they were not subject to precise categorization and were indirectly acquitted of any blame since they were essentially labelled as the victims. Moreover, this gendered aspect of the repatriation policy fits within the broader dynamics of patriarchy in the region- namely the presumption that women and children were innocent bystanders and men were the ones making all the decisions[20]. However, it is worth noting that this more passive role assigned to women and children although not necessarily always the case, does indeed contribute immensely to the societal acceptance of returnees. As a result, although the women are not categorized and their motives for going to Syria or Iraq are not necessarily shared with any societal group- this rather linear, not individually- tailored approach has proven to be more beneficial to the reintegration back in society.
According to the model of Uzbekistan, the returnees are expected to spend less time in closed rehabilitation centers and more time in social settings to enhance socialization. In the culture of Uzbekistan, social ties within neighborhoods (mahallas) or villages (qishlaqs, auls) exercise great influence over the larger community as well as the individual and play a key role in ensuring the social cohesion behind a given idea or perception. When asked about the model of Uzbekistan, the Director of the NGO Barkaror Hayot, Oliya Ilmuradova, who works directly with returnees, calls the model “My Family” (Моя семья) as the driving force behind the successful reintegration lies exactly in the re-establishment of family ties, values and wider social relations[21]. The sheer delegation of the rehabilitation process to civil society appears to be the key to success of the Uzbekistani model. Specifically, the mahalla culture facilitates the understanding of the family as a unit and its place within society and therefore plays a vital role in the rehabilitation and reintegration processes. By initiating the wider reintegration process with the family as a unit, the transfer of relationships to the societal group is thereby facilitated, because the women are motivated by their sense of familial responsibility. It should be noted that in Uzbekistan, despite the underlying risks, the decision was to return the women together with their children and keep them together, instead of separating them. This is further translated in practical terms by everyone involved in the rehabilitation process focusing not on the reason behind them joining a terrorist group, but rather on their rejoining their previous social circles. Ms. Ilmuradova exemplifies this by pointing out that instead of referring to the returnees as “ex members of a terrorist organization who are obliged to undergo a rehabilitation course”, they are referred to as “people who found themselves in a difficult situation, and have the right to rehabilitation”[22]. This clear focus on the socialization in a familiar and traditional community setting is what makes the Uzbekistani approach unique among the other Central Asian states and European countries which rather place an emphasis on security concerns.
Identified Challenges
As practitioners have pointed out, there cannot be a 100% success rate of rehabilitation and reintegration[23]. Therefore, in order to have a holistic picture of the model Uzbekistan is using, one should also explore the challenges that it still has to tackle with. Overall, the main challenges pertaining to preventing domestic outbreaks of extremism and ensuring paths to justice of returnees from conflict zones could be broadly divided into two levels- individual and structural.
On the individual level, in addition to providing counseling and mental health treatment, the Uzbekistani model places a practical focus on avoiding stigmatization, ensuring access to fundamental rights, including economic and social rights. As a result, while some female returnees of age were provided with the option of receiving help to find employment, others refused to work or chose to work at home. However, this served as a source of resentment in some communities, where people were struggling with unemployment.
On the structural level, challenges show that more clarity and an established normative framework providing a detailed outline of which institution is responsible for what aspect of the rehabilitation and reintegration process is required as well as provisions for the avoidance of any overlap or duplication of effort and resources (for instance between state agencies and NGOs). Uzbekistan has also been faced with the challenge of having multiple organizations and institutions involved simultaneously, but it is worth noting that in practical terms this has been somewhat addressed by having one social worker/ specialist working with one family directly. Another challenge common in this sphere around the world is achieving rehabilitation without integration[24]. This challenge can also be seen as pertinent to Uzbekistan- ensuring that the process functions both ways requires that the focus is placed not only on the psychological aspects, but also on community engagement as well. An empirical measure of that for instance is the absence of more favorable conditions for self- employments and working from home for start-ups so as to increase the level of economic independence of returnees as well as the high level of dependence on the wider societal group for finding a job if the returnee does not have any particular skillset or a specific profession.
Based on the outlined challenges, it can be deducted that both levels are interdependent to a large degree. Hence, any form of rehabilitation and reintegration would have to be executed on a case to case basis, while keeping in mind that instead of categorization, the linear approach should be adpoted. This results in a number of success stories as in the case of a woman repatriated voluntarily from Afghanistan who was integrated back to society, managed to finish high school and became financially self-sufficient to the extent where she qualified for a loan from the state to buy her own flat[25]. As specialists involved in the subject point out, not all cases have a 100% success rate when it comes to rehabilitation. However, with each new case new empirical experience and expertise is developed and built upon so as to improve the overall rehabilitation and reintegration process.
Conclusion
The issue of repatriation, rehabilitation and reintegration of citizens of Uzbekistan from conflict zones is a subject in fluctuation with numerous nuances that will only grow in number with time. Some countries in Europe and Central Asia have adopted varying, different approaches, while others have chosen not to engage in any repatriation efforts. Repatriating citizens from conflict areas, providing for their rehabilitation, reintegration and the different rationales underlying each approach for achieving those goals continue to be subjects heavily debated and discussed internally by numerous states. However, it is worth noting that the model of Uzbekistan for rehabilitation and reintegration has been widely praised on an international level. The model of Uzbekistan involves the state authorities granting official recognition to the repatriates, the added value of encouraging the media to portray the repatriated women as victims, the benefits of engaging civil society and more specifically the mahallas in supporting repatriates on their way to social reintegration and the quick release of women and children into society for the purpose of individual rehabilitation and economic reintegration as opposed to isolating them in a designated center. The model of Uzbekistan has proven that its applicability produces positive deliverables- hence it could prove to be a good source for lessons learned, best practices and it could also prove instructive for countries considering future repatriation of their citizens.
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=27919&LangID=E
[2] This estimate takes into account the several waves of returnees, the war casualties and the fighters who left to join other war theatres. Source: Repatriated foreign terrorist fighters and their families: European experiences & lessons for P/CVE, EU Commission, 2021
[3] “Responses to returnees: Foreign terrorist fighters and their families “- report by the Radicalization Awareness Network, 2017, Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/home-affairs/system/files_en?file=2020-09/ran_br_a4_m10_en.pdf
[4] https://uznews.uz/posts/savkat-mirziyoev-vydvinul-ryad-predlozenii-po-protivodeistviyu-terrorizmu-i-ekstremizmu?fbclid=IwAR1tumejXa5H55NarSUdln-cq-4ve-vW5LLyIeCMhRR0LmJMDj710Wa6N8E
[5] https://www.unicef.org/uzbekistan/en/life-after-war-stories-of-children-from-iraq-and-syria
[6] https://www.uzdaily.uz/en/post/66545
[7] https://www.unicef.org/uzbekistan/en/support-for-citizens-returned-from-conflict-zones
[8] https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=27919&LangID=E
[9] https://www.unicef.org/uzbekistan/en/normal-life-for-repatriated
[10] “Processes of Reintegrating Central Asian Returnees from Syria and Iraq”- Special Report by the United States Institute of Peace, July 2021
[11] Ibid.
[12] Interview with the Director of the NGO Barkaror Hayot, Ms. Oliya Ilmuradova conducted on 12 March 2022
[13] Interview with the Director of the Center for Studying Regional Threats, Mr. Viktor Mikhaylov, conducted on 10 March 2022
[14] Ibid.
[15] “Processes of Reintegrating Central Asian Returnees from Syria and Iraq”- Special Report by the United States Institute of Peace, July 2021
[16] Interview with the Director of the Center for Studying Regional Threats, Mr. Viktor Mikhaylov, conducted on 10 March 2022
[17] https://www.unicef.org/uzbekistan/en/life-after-war-stories-of-children-from-iraq-and-syria
[18] “Women involved in forceful extremism”, Penal Reform International, 2018
[19] https://central.asia-news.com/en_GB/articles/cnmi_ca/features/2019/06/11/feature-01
[20] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/returnees-central-asia/
[21] Interview with the Director of the NGO Barkaror Hayot, Ms. Oliya Ilmuradova conducted on 12 March 2022
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] https://www.unicef.org/uzbekistan/en/normal-life-for-repatriated
[25] Interview with the Director of the NGO Barkaror Hayot, Ms. Oliya Ilmuradova conducted on 12 March 2022