Protecting the Rights of Syrian Refugees

The collapse of the regime of Bashar al-Assad on December 8 was met with not only jubilant demonstrations across Syria and the Syrian diaspora but also bumper-to-bumper traffic as hundreds of Syrian refugees began streaming home.

They belong to the approximately fourteen million—out of Syria’s prewar population of twenty-one million—who were displaced after the 2011 Syrian uprising evolved into merciless war. This figure includes approximately 7.2 million internally displaced persons, 4.8 million registered refugees in the Middle East, and 1.5 million asylees in Europe. Since the toppling of Assad, some of these refugees have been heading back to their former homes; others are weighing their yearning for return against fears about Syria’s uncertain future. And still others are coping with a different fear: that they might be expelled from the lives they have worked so hard to build in exile, whether or not they are ready to leave.

Within twenty-four hours of the regime’s overthrow, nine European countries suspended asylum applications from Syrians. Among them, Austria announced that it would give any Syrian one thousand euros to leave Austria for Syria. Germany’s interior minister, Nancy Faeser, said that her government was studying the situation in Syria and, depending on how conditions develop, “Of course, there could be repatriation.” Other European politicians wasted no time in calling for asylum to halt and refugees to return immediately.

These developments are dangerous. Though refugees have the right to return to their homeland if they wish, states must not force anyone back. All returns, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reminds us, must be voluntary, dignified, and safe. The forcible return of refugees is a violation of the international principle of non-refoulement, which forbids countries from deporting people to where their lives or freedom would be threatened. While the 1951 Refugee Convention acknowledges that refugees might no longer require international protection when the circumstances that caused their displacement cease, legal experts warn that these changed circumstances must be fundamental, durable, and effective.

Given the power of Syrians’ hopes for the future and the strength of the civil society that they have built over the long years of crisis, the potential for a democratic, prosperous, and peaceful Syria is immense. But grave threats persist. External actors continue to intervene with violence, violating Syrian sovereignty and right to self-determination. Israel has struck Syria more than 450 times in the past ten days, annihilated its military capacity, confiscated land, and approved a plan to double settlements in the occupied Golan Heights. Meanwhile, Turkey-backed militias have been fighting Kurdish-led forces in the north.

Domestic challenges are no less formidable. No country can be transformed into a secure democracy overnight after half a century of brutal dictatorship, much less fourteen years of a war during which that dictator vowed to burn the country rather than step down. Syria requires time to stabilize, and any discussion of ending asylum before then is premature.

Further, talk of refugee return must go hand-in-hand with action to aid Syria’s recovery. Humanitarian conditions across the country are catastrophic. After years of skyrocketing inflation and costs of living, more than 90 percent of the Syrian population subsists below the poverty line. Communities struggle with hunger and cholera; dire lack of electricity, fuel, and clean water; and devastation of the health, education, and sanitation sectors. Many refugees do not have homes to which to return, as their houses—and perhaps entire towns and villages—were destroyed. When politicians speak of deporting refugees, the public must remember that this is the shattered reality to which they would arrive.

Refugees’ personal circumstances also vary greatly, and states must evaluate claims on a case-by-case basis. Most Syrians fled persecution and violence perpetrated by the Assad regime. But some fled other actors or for other reasons. Even for those who fled Assad, the collapse of the regime does not mean the evaporation of either their past trauma or their future fears. Some will overcome that trauma and return. Others might not feel able to return to where they lost loved ones and suffered so terribly—or might not become ready to return on schedules arbitrarily determined by state interests. Still other refugees might choose to return, become re-traumatized, and find it too difficult to stay. Policymakers must be attentive to refugees’ diverse needs and not regard individuals from Syria as one monolithic category.

Millions of Syrians worked for years to build new lives in new places across the globe. Whatever happens in Syria, it is inhumane to force them to restart their lives yet again if that is not their wish. Many risked death or sold everything they owned to reach countries where they never wanted to go because they saw no alternative. Once there, they learned new languages, navigated unforgiving bureaucracies, and moved mountains to find jobs in familiar or completely new fields of work. Their children may have been raised entirely in exile and may not speak Arabic. Families must be allowed to determine for themselves if return serves their aspirations and whether that return will be permanent. They might, instead, want to make only temporary visits to their original homeland while continuing to live in what they now also regard as a homeland.

Even if asylum rights are not curtailed, this new anti-refugee discourse does grave harm. It emboldens the right-wing and xenophobic trends that are already on the rise across the world. More importantly, it creates incalculable pain for refugees themselves. Displaced Syrians have mustered tremendous strength to move forward, wherever fate threw them. They have cultivated relationships, adjusted their sense of self and ways of life, and become self-sufficient taxpayers and contributing members of their communities—often despite bigotry and scapegoating for problems not at all of their making.

After so much hardship and sacrifice, it is excruciating for Syrians to be told, so quickly and candidly, that host societies are eager to get rid of them. Belonging is the true test of refugee integration, and debates on repatriation or freezing asylum unequivocally tell refugees that they do not, or might never, belong, no matter how much they try. This is a painful irony, given that some who call to halt asylum were also those who demanded that refugees change themselves to integrate.

Respecting the needs of Syrian refugees means respecting their rights either to return or not to return. It also demands listening to what they say Syria requires to enable its people to live with dignity. Politically, regional and international actors should act now—before it is too late—to use their leverage to engage the new authorities in Damascus to ensure that they broaden participation in an inclusive transition process that will yield the democracy for which Syrians fought so hard and sacrificed so much.

Economically, a surge in humanitarian assistance is essential. But there are also important steps that states can take without pledging new funds. The United States and other countries should sketch a thoughtful approach to ending the sanctions that they imposed on Syria to punish the Assad regime but which now, Syrian rights groups warn, stand as obstacles to reconstruction. For years, the European Union has given billions of euros to the governments of Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon to aid their hosting of Syrian refugees—largely as a containment strategy, to ensure that refugees stay there rather than attempt to get to Europe. If refugees are to return to Syria, this aid should be rechanneled directly to Syria, where its benefits can ripple across the local economy.

Syrian refugees never wanted to leave in the first place. They were forced out by violence and injustice. The more that Syria moves toward a free and safe new reality, the more refugees will return on their own. But many who put down roots in countries around the world might want to remain where they are. They deserve to be viewed not as a “refugee crisis” but as a diaspora like other global diasporas. Both returnees and diasporans will have much to contribute to Syria’s future. They must determine the nature and timing of that role for themselves.