The sudden collapse of the Assad regime in Syria has caused millions of Syrian refugees to experience a moment of immense happiness – something they had absolutely not anticipated having felt in their lives.
The developments in Syria has surprised not only the Syrians, but also the European Union, which in the last decade has become home to a significant Syrian community. After Bashar al-Assad’s fall, some governments in Europe have decided to halt accepting asylum applications of Syrian citizens, while others have begun to organise the return of Syrian refugees back to Syria. As if they were participating in a global race for influence, foreign ministers of Germany and France left for Damascus without delay to establish contact with the new Syrian authorities. Trust is a high-risk investment, as we know. Whether the trust in former al-Qaeda member Ahmed Hussein al-Shar’a will be rewarded is an open question, but the diplomatic incident during Annalena Baerbock’s visit to Syria – the refusal of a handshake – does not bode well.
Nevertheless, those returning to Syria following Assad’s fall, have expressed their support for Shar’a. They are determind to trust him. The fulfilment of their hopes is in the best interests of everyone, as it can lead to the next important step – Syria’s transition to democracy.
But, what if Syria’s new rulers turn out to be as cruel as their predecessors? What if Shar’a returns to his former terrorist identity and once again starts acting as Abu Mohammed al-Golani? (A nom de guerre, that was seemingly dropped by him.) What happens if Shar’a’s and his team’s vision concerning the security of Syria and the region are not in line with the vision of the leaders of Syria’s influential neighbours?
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said that Türkiye is ready to step in if Syria breaks up. Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu went further and that is exactly what he did: immediately after the collapse of the Assad regime, he ordered the Israeli Defence Forces to launch airstrikes and sending troops on the ground into Syria, claiming that these operations were crucial for the safety of Israel against potential terrorist attacks.
In addition, the situation in Syria is also shaped by the intentions and interests of the United States and Russia, moreover, by potencial future deals between these two powers.
In the optimistic scenario, with enormous efforts, stability could be reached in Syria, but only with the ivolvement of outside forces. In light of the fact that extremist fighters from Afganistan and Iraq are being welcomed in Syria by the new regime, the possibility of a jihadist-type Syria cannot be ruled out. Syria as a state with political Islam seems also to be an option. The transition in Syria – from an authoritarian regime to a democracy – must be a long and rocky way, especially in light of recent developments which would give one the impression of a caliphate being established in post-Assad Syria.
’Syria is an artificial country that was created by the Brits and the French post-World War I. As a result, Syria is an amazing complex of sects, religious groups and political groups, each with their own sub-groups. And everybody around Syria has stakes in what is happening in Syria. So, the idea that the enemy of your enemy is your friend is not working in Syria. In the Middle East, sometimes you have what we call “frenemy”: You are a friend and an enemy at the same time.’, Israeli military strategist Amos Yadlin explained.
Having examined the situation in Syria and based on the new Syrian leader’s statements and first steps to give himself a more Western-friendly look and name, it is obvious that the newly-born Syria is very fragile. This also means that once the initial euphoria fades and people experience the harsh reality, hundreds of thousands of Syrians may decide once again to leave for Europe in search of refuge. In this case, according to estimations, the European Union would face a refugee influx comparable to that of 2015.
And this raises questions, concerning both sides – Europe and the Syrian refugees. First, whether Europe is prepared for a new wave of Syrian refugees, and second, whether these people are aware of the fact that something has changed in Europe…? The ’Willkommenskultur’ – an open-door policy for asylum seekers, especially for people from Syria started by Angela Merkel in 2015 – is not only over, but it has been replaced by a more rational position even anti-migration sentiments in several EU Member States which makes life difficult for Syrian refugees all across Europe. The question of what to do with them also remains unanswered.
To fully understand the scope of the situation, it is worth studying the figures first.
According to the UN, since the onset of the Syrian civil war in 2011, at least 7.4 million Syrians remain internally displaced, with approximately 4.9 million seeking refuge in neighbouring countries, mainly Türkiye with 3.1 million and Lebanon with an estimated 1.5 million Syrians. An additional 1.3 million have resettled elsewhere, mostly in Europe where Germany hosts the third-largest number of Syrian refugees – about 716,000 and, as is well-known, it has a reason why the German government has to take care of so many Syrians.
In her recent memoir, ’Freedom’, Angela Merkel refers to the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says that ’everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution’, adding that she still cannot understand how anyone could assume that a friendly face on a photo could encourage people to flee their homeland in droves…
It may indeed be very painful to admit that it was she herself as German Chancellor who fuelled not only the refugee crisis in 2015 but also the rise of the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). Complicated legacy, that is for sure, which, following the fall of the Assad regime, may have contributed to the announcement by the German Interior Ministry a suspension of decisions on asylum applications from Syrian citizens. This decision affects more than 47,770 asylum applications, according to German authorities.
Germany is home to the largest number of Syrian refugees in the EU, but some other countries should also be mentioned: there are large Syrian communities in Austria (97,939), Sweden (86,956) and the Netherlands 65,622. In Greece, there are also more than 50,000 Syrians.
A look at the political landscape in Europe shows that governments in a number of countries appear to be strongly and openly anti-migration which is a development over the last ten years. Europe as refugees perceived it in 2015, no longer exists. Without aiming to give an exhaustive list, here are some examples.
The right-wing Schoof cabinet in the Netherlands is fully committed to curbing migration, as is Herbert Kickl, the new Austrian PM, leader of the Austrian far right Freedom Party. On the streets of Germany, migration aid workers have by now been replaced by supporters of the far right AfD with anti-migration banners. The government in Rome led by Georgia Meloni is so reluctant to see more refugees in Italy that it has started operating a refugee camp outside the EU. The government of France is about to introduce stricter migration rules, meeting the decade-long demands of the French far right. The governments in Belgium and the Nordic countries face increasing migration-related criminal activities with widespread gang violence.
The rise of the far-right parties across Europe with a hardcore anti-immigration and sometimes anti-Islam agenda clearly reflects the shift in European societies over the past decade.
With regard to the developments in Syria, it is to be expected that in a short time, the EU may face a dilemma of making a choice between solidarity as a core value and protection of Europe as a key responsibility. This choice will also make it clear whether the Commission’s statements concerning the need to protect the EU are merely rhetoric or whether there is real commitment to do so.
It will soon turn out whether the strengthened border protection measures on the external borders of the EU are effective and whether the new EU Pact on Migration and Asylum adopted last year is a viable solution. In this process, it may also turn out that the only humane and effective solution is for the EU to help at the root of the problems, rather than return to the Willkommenskultur.
