The devastating crisis has led to the displacement of millions, but with Moscow getting desperate to label Syria as a post-conflict situation and boost al-Assad’s legitimacy, rushed decisions to resettle refugees will be costly.
Since the onset of the civil war in Syria, 5.6 million have fled the country, whilst 6.6 million remain internally displaced according to the UN’s refugee agency. The intensity of the combat and the indiscriminate targeting of civilians has forced people to flee for their lives. Russia, an ally state to the al-Assad regime, became involved in the conflict in September 2015 with the pretext of defeating the ISIS caliphate and re-stabilizing the security situation on the ground.
Thus far, Russian and Syrian forces have managed to recapture crucial strategic points from ISIS and other opposition groups, but their operations that utilized ‘carpet bombings’ in heavily populated civilian areas, have reduced whole cities such as Aleppo to rubble, which according to Airwars estimates it has cost approximately 3,945 civilian lives in the process.
Russia is not only a party to the conflict purely for security reasons. Since 2014, Moscow has assumed a more proactive role in multiple complex combat theaters, either as a third party intervener or as a peacekeeping force, in their pursuit of restoring Russia’s ‘great power status’ in the international system. For example, Russian PMCs are documented to operate in almost 30 countries.
However, with such actions come great responsibilities regarding the protection of civilians. Matters concerning the protection of non-combatants have become increasingly important for the state of refugees worldwide. Whilst it is unclear whether the people who flee the country should remain a liaison of the intervening powers, it is undeniable that the main stakeholders to the conflict cannot ignore them, even if they remain outside the geographical perimeter where their forces are active. Issues that accompany mass displacement become even more salient in neighboring countries such as Turkey, which has pursued extensive military campaigns in Syria and Iraq with the ‘pretext’ of creating ‘safe zones’ to return refugees.
With most of ISIS units being defeated, President Vladimir Putin seems anxious to label Syria as a post-conflict situation and kick-start an extremely costly and controversial reconstruction from which hopes to use international funds to employ Russian contractors. If the refugees return it will mean it is safe enough to start the reconstruction process and consolidate Syria’s status as a stabilized state. Putin, on November 9, stated that it is safe for refugees to return and that repatriations should ensue. He also held a conference in Damascus on November 20, which he hoped to gain support for this endeavor, but was not met with much enthusiasm, even from countries that have every incentive to want refugees repatriated as soon as possible.
The situation remains extremely precarious and labeling Syria as a safe and ‘habitable’ place for refugees to return can have grievous consequences. Firstly, large swaths of Syria are still not pacified, militias have engaged with kidnappings, whilst regime forced disappearances and other abuses remain high. Additionally, with infrastructure in many provinces dilapidated from years of fighting, and many houses lost to the war clashes, realistically, it would be unlikely that any refugees could return sustainably before the reconstruction process ensues. Furthermore, many people within Syria are in dire need of assistance and with the Covid-19 pandemic still in the background, premature repatriation might further deepen the crisis and put a strain on the already minuscule resources.
In previous talks within the UN Security Council, it was agreed that refugees should return in accordance with resolution 2254, which premediates a ceasefire that was never met. Therefore, many international commentators are highly skeptical of Kremlin’s initiatives. While the EU and the United States criticized Russia for promoting the premature repatriation of refugees, they themselves have been very frugal in terms of resettling refugees. While most of them have been granted asylum based on humanitarian grounds and are internationally recognized as refugees, many are languishing in refugee camps and live in extreme poverty. Russia itself has largely refused to give asylum to Syrian nationals and has denied their status as victims of an unjust war due to their allyship to the al-Assad regime.
The Syrian conflict is entering its 10th year in 2021 and with power-politics dividing the country and further exacerbating violence, civilians are caught in a limbo of uncertainty, as hopes for an early resolution are diminishing. The plight of Syrian refugees and those internally displaced runs the great danger of becoming protracted, if the multiple actors involved cannot agree on how or when to deliver an effective humanitarian package for all those affected.
Comments