With the fall of the Assad regime in Syria, repatriating foreign fighters is a pressing issue at the intersection of global security, humanitarian principles, and national responsibility. Central Asian governments — namely, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan — have emerged as proactive players in repatriating their citizens from camps in northeastern Syria. While these efforts are laudable, they come with challenges and unanswered questions.
Tens of thousands of people, many of them women and children associated with former ISIS or the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria – a terrorist organization known for its extreme ideology and violent actions of its’ fighters — remain trapped in the camps of northeastern Syria. Their lives are defined by squalor and uncertainty, and they face a bleak future. Central Asian nations have stepped up where many others have faltered, asserting their responsibility to help their citizens who languish there.
Yet, this commitment is not without its limits. Repatriating men — many of whom were fighters — remains a challenge that even the most ambitious programs have struggled to address. This issue looms large, as it intertwines with broader questions. These include reintegration, security risks, and the potential for radicalization, both in prison systems and broader society.
The scale of efforts undertaken by four of the Central Asian countries is significant. Together, they have repatriated around 2,200 citizens: Kazakhstan, the most, 754 individuals, followed by others with numbers ranging from 381 to 533.
These figures represent more than just logistical achievements. They reflect these governments’ commitment to humanitarian principles. However, the path has not been entirely smooth, as some of the repatriated women and children have returned back to conflict zones. As counterintuitive as this may seem, they might do so out of ideological commitment, social ties, coercion or threats, trauma bonding, or difficulty reintegrating into their home societies. All this suggests cracks in reintegration programs that must be addressed.
The strategies employed by the Central Asian states, despite their common goal, differ in focus and execution. Kazakhstan’s “Operation Zhusan” is often mentioned as a model of coordination and commitment. It has gone beyond mere repatriation to a vision embracing comprehensive reintegration, including other services, such as DNA testing to identify orphaned children.
Yet such efforts rely heavily on state resources and long-term political will, neither of which can be taken for granted. Uzbekistan’s Mehr (“Kindness”) initiative has particularly focused on protecting children and supporting the unification of families. Yet even with international appreciation, Uzbekistan faces the same challenges as its neighbors: how to sustain this momentum and address lingering societal stigmas toward returnees.
Kyrgyzstan paused its repatriation operations in Iraq due to legal roadblocks and has turned its attention to Syria. However, Kyrgyzstan relies significantly on international cooperation, as its own economic resources for such activities are comparatively limited. So far, it has repatriated 511 citizens.
Tajikistan’s steady progress highlights even more pointedly the role of international cooperation with organizations like UNICEF and the European Union. The Tajik authorities have worked closely with these partners to provide psychological and educational support for returnees. Questions remain about the long-term success of reintegration, particularly for individuals who may struggle to find acceptance in their communities.
However, repatriation is not just a strategic necessity, but a moral obligation.
For women and children, the barriers to reintegration include societal stigma, mental health struggles, and the absence of economic opportunities. Repatriated men face a different set of concerns. Not least, the risk of radicalization can be significant in instances of incarceration. Even outside of the prison system, ISIS sentiments and the urge to impose or fight for extremists and oppressive ideologies may persist.
The countries of Central Asia have taken constructive steps to address such challenges where others have hesitated: in Europe and North America, repatriation efforts have frequently been delayed or limited by debates over security risks, public opinion, and resource allocation. Many Western nations have opted for a case-by-case approach or declined broad repatriation. The much more comprehensive Central Asia approach, by contrast, demonstrates both responsibility and the presence of compassion in governance.
Important international observers have considered such efforts as a global model for balancing security and humanitarianism. Thus, even NGOs such as Human Rights Watch, critical of other aspects of Central Asian governance, have noted the humanitarian focus of these repatriation efforts. Likewise, respected think-tanks such as the International Crisis Group, have highlighted Central Asia’s approach as noteworthy; and UN agencies like UNICEF have praised aspects of reintegration and repatriation programs, particularly those aimed at children and vulnerable populations.
Yet, the Central Asian experience demonstrates the importance of looking beyond repatriation to focus on long-term reintegration. Central Asia has shown that progress is achievable, but also fragile. It requires continuous investment, not just in financial terms, but in terms of societal and political commitment, as well as continuing international assistance. Time and again, we are reminded that terrorism is a global challenge, indifferent to borders. Without opportunities for integration and a shared future within civil society, those disconnected from it will continue to pose a threat globally.
