Expectations are low. More importantly: as long as the future in Syria is not safe and stable, and without serious and long-term international political and economic engagement, it is morally and politically indefensible to entice people with a ‘departure bonus.’
If the genuine aim is to enable Syrians to contribute to reconstruction, the Netherlands should at the very least reconsider the go & see-arrangement, previously proposed by Henri Bontebal and Kati Piri.
Return, but to what?
It has now been almost a year since the genocidal regime of Bashar al-Assad was removed from power. Assad was chiefly responsible for more than half a million deaths, over six million refugees, and at least as many internally displaced people.
After fifteen years of war, Syria lies in ruins. A member of the German government delegation that recently visited the country noted that Syria is ‘in worse shape than Germany in 1945.’ Socially, economically, and politically, the country is on its knees. It is obvious that a sustained, large-scale international effort is required to help Syria back on its feet. Yet no such effort currently exists, not even from the Netherlands.
Lack of enthusiasm
So far, only a small number of Syrians in the Netherlands have made use of any return scheme. This year, roughly 700 Syrians returned; the minister expects this number to rise to around 3,000 with the new policy. The condition, however, is that these returning Syrians must halt their asylum procedure and renounce the residence rights they have acquired in the Netherlands in order to qualify for the bonus.
In March, armed groups, with or without the approval or support of the government, committed mass killings of the Alawite population in the coastal region. The area around Suweida is still under siege by, among others, government forces, following the mass killings in July.
No steps have been taken toward prosecuting those responsible for human rights violations: neither those loyal to the former regime, nor those on the side of armed opposition groups, some of whom are now part of the new government.
The government does not fully control the country. Turkey and Israel, among others, continue to occupy parts of Syria and intervene militarily. Add to this the fragile and tense regional situation; dire economic conditions; ongoing threats of violence between (and against) communities; significant doubts about the government of Ahmed al-Sharaa, and it becomes understandable that many Syrians find it too early to give up their future and rights in the Netherlands for an uncertain future in Syria. Moreover, large influx of returnees could further destabilize the country.
Go & See
The motion that Bontenbal and Piri submitted in February to allow Syrians to visit their country without it directly affecting their Dutch residence status, was therefore a sensible idea. This would allow Syrians to assess the situation in Syria with their own eyes and make an informed decision. The Schoof government, however, dismissed the proposal.
Whilst a new government is being formed, led by CDA and D66, there may be an opportunity to develop new policy on Syria. The go & see scheme would be a good start. But it should not stop there. To help build a future in Syria, the Netherlands must genuinely invest in the country’s social and economic reconstruction, and actively involve the more than 150,000 Syrians living in the Netherlands.
