Plan to tempt refugees back to Syria unlikely to succeed

Ahalf-century of Assad family rule in Syria was marked on Nov. 13. Between father Hafez and son Bashar, most Syrians have known only one name as leader. It is a bitter indictment of Assad rule that the country lies in ruins, is divided, its economy shattered, much of its urban centers reduced to rubble, and its society smashed.

Of all the gruesome statistics, perhaps the most telling is that nearly 11.5 million Syrians have either fled the country or become internally displaced. This was out of a 2011 population of 23 million.

So just what were the Russian and Syrian regimes up to in holding a major two-day conference in Damascus last week? Do these regimes really want to see the return of millions of Syrian refugees, the majority of whom would not be sympathetic to their agendas?

Last week’s conference was all about messaging, not content: A non-stop blame game on steroids. Determining what this conference was about is an exercise in calculated guesswork because taking the Russian or Syrian regimes’ statements at face value is pointless. They need to be deciphered.

The Syrian regime and its backers, including Russia, want to portray a sense of normalcy — that the conflict is over. To do that they have to retake all the outstanding territory and also resolve the refugee issue, bringing back a fair portion of the 5.6 million UN-registered refugees. But normalcy is a fantasy, even if much of the fighting is over and the lines of control have barely altered since March. Many Syrians living in regime-controlled areas openly say that the current situation amid the pandemic and economic meltdown is worse than at any point since 2011.

Did the international community play ball? Not at all. Only 27 countries sent representatives. The reaction outside of the conference ranged from hostile to negative to nonplussed. Given the record of the regime, most countries — including, crucially, likely donor countries — do not think it is safe for refugees to return. They would not accept any regime guarantees, not least before there is serious political change. Donors are also wary of allowing the Syrian regime to benefit financially from reconstruction.

The UN did send their country coordinator, as did the International Committee of the Red Cross, but, given the delicate diplomacy, they had little choice. They were at least able to deliver the message rarely heard in Damascus that international law is clear on refugee return: That it must be voluntary, safe and dignified. Of course, the refugee-hosting countries may have different views. Some Lebanese factions would like to see Syrians return. Turkey hosts more than 3.5 million Syrian refugees and President Recep Tayyip Erdogan remains intent on returning refugees to northern Syria, which many fear will be forced, not voluntary, and will involve being moved to an entirely different area of Syria to where most originated.

What about the refugees themselves? Their rationale for any return would depend on their circumstances. For those with a political record of opposing the regime, returning while it remains in power is not going to be an option. Others fear being forcibly conscripted into the Syrian army. Some consider housing and economic opportunity a factor. Ultimately, only a credible political process with international guarantees could see a safe return for a sizable number of refugees.