How European leaders can support sustainable refugee returns in a post-Assad Syria

After the fall of Bashar al-Assad, hundreds of Syrian refugees lined up at the borders of Lebanon and Turkey to return home. Yet the situation is still volatile and may not result in spontaneous returns of Syrian refugees from Europe right now. As Syrians look to fulfil their political aspirations during this delicate transition, European leaders should lay the foundations for sustainable returns from the region in order to build confidence.

European leaders might not get another opportunity to stabilise Syria, so they need to get this right

This will require huge political and economic investment. But European leaders might not get another opportunity to stabilise Syria, so they need to get this right. They should focus on supporting an inclusive, UN-led political transition and comprehensive efforts to improve the situation on the ground in the whole of Syria.  

A hasty decision

If Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other militant actors were fast in sweeping through Syria, European politicians were even faster in announcing a stop to Syrian asylum applications. Germany, the United Kingdom and others argue that for many people from Syria, the reason to flee to Europe no longer exists. Austria even declared an intention to start deportations.

These statements are highly motivated by domestic imperatives generated by an increase in the popularity of right-wing political parties in Europe. These groups are ramping up rhetoric on migration, placing the issue at the forefront of domestic agendas. In Germany, the right-wing party Alternative for Germany (AfD) is on the rise and the February 2025 elections are forecast to result in a more right-leaning government. Even the UK’s new left-wing prime minister, Keir Starmer, won the elections by pledging to be tough on migration and to “smash the gangs”.

Given where European politics are right now, to some extent this rhetoric was to be expected. Still, the haste with which European countries rushed to adopt these restrictions is somewhat shocking when considering how uncertain the situation on the ground remains.

Syrians are still grappling with the magnitude of what is going on, uncovering the horrors of Assad’s brutal regime and coping with huge trauma. It is already clear that discussions on the political future of Syria are set to be difficult at the very least, and the economic conditions Syrians will face will be challenging no matter who is in power.

Although fighting has stopped, humanitarian needs are greater than ever. Many parts of Syria are now ghost towns without basic services, adequate homes and critical infrastructure. Half of Syria’s primary health facilities and over one-third of public hospitals are partially or fully out of service. Much of the land is contaminated by unexploded devices, putting up to 10 million people at risk.

The debate in Europe

The main argument made by European politicians calling for a halt to asylum applications is that without Assad, Syria is safe. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), Filippo Grandi, urged caution, advising patience instead of rushing to close borders. The European Union itself stated that, despite the end of the Assad regime, Syria remains volatile.

Despite the EU’s requirement for safe, voluntary, and dignified returns, European politicians focus mainly on safety. To be sure, safety on the ground is the number one factor for Syrians too. But it alone will not translate into lasting returns. Those who return may well leave again in the face of crumbling education and livelihood prospects. The most recent UN survey on Syrian refugees points to the growing importance of livelihood opportunities as factors that would convince Syrians to go back and stay.

While much of the international community looks at returns as the main solution to the Syria crisis (and this is the preferred solution by most Syrians), a focus solely on return dynamics risks neglecting the fact that some Syrians might not want to go back at all. For example, many young refugees have never lived in Syria, have only known life in Europe and speak European languages, so they may well never want to return.

From their end, European states do need some Syrians to stay, as they often represent the solution to key problems. Germany’s Hospital Association has already warned about the detrimental consequences that a mass return of Syrian refugees from Germany might have given the country’s health system relies on them. Alternative avenues, like resettlement and integration, should be available to them.

The speed of returns

European governments may need to wait a little longer until some Syrians return home. More refugees are leaving Syria for Lebanon than vice versa. Jordan has shut its border with Syria due to fears of another wave of refugees. Some estimate that it could take ten years for Syria to return to its 2011 levels.  Despite some initial returns from the region, the highly volatile situation on the ground means that few Syrians will return from Europe until they see both progress towards safety and economic opportunities.

Easing the way back

The potential return of hundreds of thousands of refugees to Syria could burden the post-war Syrian economy, despite a likely initial injection of diaspora funding. Therefore, European policymakers should support carefully phased approaches to returns. The priority should be encouraging an inclusive political transition in close partnership with the UN. Then, Europeans should focus on helping to rebuild the economy, education, and health systems, gradually lifting sanctions and supporting private small and medium-sized enterprises. The emphasis should be on offering incentives for Syrians to return rather than creating reasons for them to leave.

In parallel with these efforts, European policymakers should work with the UNHCR and humanitarian organisations to provide a clearer picture of local conditions in different areas of the country in order to inform Syrians considering returning voluntarily.

European leaders should also enlist the support of Turkey. Ankara supported HTS and, as a result, is the main external actor that has emerged triumphant from recent events. European capitals could persuade it to invest in housing, critical infrastructure and service delivery as these will be essential to convince Syrians to go back voluntarily. Turkey has shown willingness to provide support in the past in helping rebuild the country.

Meanwhile, European governments will need to keep supporting Lebanon and Jordan as they cope with the instability brought about by this transition period. Both countries are particularly vulnerable to a potential deterioration in Syria, the humanitarian consequences of a prolonged war in Gaza and spillover in the West Bank. Donor perceptions that funding can be redirected to other crises after Assad’s departure may result in regional host countries hardening their stance towards Syrian refugees. If that were to happen, many Syrians might seek to reach Europe.

It will take years to see progress and significant investment. But European leaders should step up their support in a constructive way through a more paced approach to the refugee issue. Working with humanitarian actors and regional host countries to create the conditions for sustainable returns will likely pave the way for stability in Syria.