Samenvatting

An estimated 6,000 EU citizens have left their home country to join the terrorist organisation Islamic State (IS) in battle. The Netherlands has contributed approximately 260 foreign fighters to IS since 2012. Several attacks on European ground, such as Brussels and Paris, have been carried out by foreign fighters who have returned from IS territory in Syria and Iraq.
The main purpose of this research is to analyse the current measures taken by the Netherlands in regards to returnees and to recommend policies for the Dutch government. This leads to the main research question “What possible measures can be taken by the Netherlands to best address the issue of foreign fighters who return from Syria and Iraq after joining the terrorist group Islamic State?”. In order to answer this question, a comparison of existing Dutch measures to those of France and Belgium was conducted. The research was carried out through literary review and two in-depth interviews.
The literature review in combination with the interviews have established the complexity of the issues regarding returning foreign fighters. There are several aspects that need to be taken into account when it comes to the approach towards returnees such as reasons for departure, reasons for return, psychological aspects and the community of the returnee. The current approach of the Dutch government seems to lean more towards repressive and hard punishable measures. According to the findings of the research, soft reintegration measures are more beneficial when it comes to returnees.
Recommendations for measures aimed at returning foreign fighters from IS point towards an effective reintegration approach that puts the focus on each individual returnee. The personal history of the returnee and the focus on the reasons why the jihadist joined IS should be examined. It is essential to take the returnee out of their old environment which might have caused their departure in the first place. Where there is no evidence that the returnee poses a direct and active threat to society, the reintegration process can be initiated. This is possible through assistance in obtaining work and by providing psychological and emotional support for the returnee and his direct community. This is preferably initiated by non-governmental organisations that can serve as a bridge between the government, society and the returnee. The general conclusion of this research is that the focus should lay on positive measures rather than repressive measures, except when that person poses an immediate threat to society.