Despite joyous images of Syrian refugees going home, no government should be sending or planning to send people back involuntarily. Every citizen has the right to return to their home country, safe or not. But because one refugee chooses to repatriate is no justification to forcibly return another who remains fearful, as many Syrian refugees do, especially given the country’s unstable and possibly dangerous conditions.
Following the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria over the weekend, some European governments have begun announcing the suspension of individual status determinations for Syrians. But this approach carries real risks, especially given how keen some European states are to declare Syria safe and begin returns.
The 1951 Refugee Convention includes a “cessation clause” that says a person no longer needs international protection when the circumstances that caused them to become a refugee “have ceased to exist,” a phrase that indicates a high degree of certainty about the permanence and extent of change. The United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) states that the changed circumstances must be both fundamental and durable.
Even with what now looks like a fundamental change in Syria’s governance, the question of durability remains. The rapidity of the change in Syria is inherently volatile. The situation on the ground is fragile and unpredictable, and the possibility of new waves of refugees fleeing persecution can’t be dismissed. Meanwhile, the situation in parts of the country is far from safe. Fierce fighting is ongoing in the north and northeast, and an estimated 125,000 people, mostly Kurds, have been displaced since late November.
As UNHCR has noted, it is vital that Syrians in Europe retain access to asylum. No future returns of Syrians should take place until their claims are individually examined in full and fair procedures with due regard for past trauma and future fears.
Likewise, notwithstanding a reluctance to keep hosting large numbers of refugees, Syria’s neighbors Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan have provided temporary protection to the largest numbers of Syrians for many years. While these countries may wish to fast forward given the events in Syria, they should maintain such temporary protection until it’s clear that the changed circumstances in Syria are more than fleeting and will offer some stability.
Donor countries should not falter in their support to these frontline states, even as they begin the pivot to aiding in the reconstruction of war-torn Syria to help make changes there both fundamental and durable.