Syria: how the fall of Assad has affected the asylum debate in Europe
After the fall of Bashar al-Assad and his family’s 50-year dynasty of fear, several European countries announced a suspension of asylum application procedures. Germany, France and Sweden are among the countries which have also paused all pending asylum requests from Syrians. Austria, meanwhile, has signalled it will soon order refugees to return.
Across Europe, Syrians are presently make up one of the largest groups of asylum seekers. As the primary host country for Syrian refugees within the European Union, Germany has provided shelter to nearly 1 million Syrian nationals. So its decision to declare a halt to processing asylum applications from Syrians the day after the Assad regime collapse was a major step.
This sudden shift in stance from several European countries raises questions about how attitudes have changed. Germany is particularly interesting in light of the country’s previous leadership during the “migration crisis” of 2015.
Germany’s approach at the time, under then-chancellor Angela Merkel, was characterised by a willkommenskultur – a culture of welcome. In response to the arrival of more than one million refugees – mainly from Syria – Merkel declared: “Wir schaffen das.” (“We can do this.”) The German leader emphasised compassion, integration and Germany’s capacity to manage the crisis.
Germany became a symbol of humanitarian leadership in Europe, offering protection to thousands of families fleeing war and persecution. Merkel’s open-door policy was met with widespread international praise.
But it also ignited a domestic political backlash. The influx of asylum seekers has largely coincided with the rise to prominence of the powerful right-wing party, Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), whose anti-immigration stance is a big part of its platform.
However, refugees were also used as diplomatic tools between Germany and Turkey. Under the EU-Turkey deal, signed in March 2016, Turkey agreed to prevent irregular migration to the EU in exchange for financial aid, work visa for Turkish citizens and renewed talks on EU membership. It effectively meant that Turkey has served as a rampart guarding the European Union’s door against migrants.
As one of the main proponents of the deal, Germany played a crucial role in its negotiation. The then chancellor, Angela Merkel, strongly supported the principle. It reflected Germany’s significant stake in managing migration flows and alleviating domestic political pressures linked to the 2015 refugee crisis.
The EU-Turkey accord faced criticism for allowing Europe to evade its humanitarian protection responsibilities by outsourcing the containment of desperate asylum seekers to Turkey.
Despite these suspensions, in most countries there are no immediate plans for mass repatriation. It is mostly acknowledged that conditions in Syria are not? yet conducive to the safety of returnees.
But in the Netherlands, for instance, a coalition led by right-wing nationalist Geert Wilders is talking about identifying safe areas in Syria to facilitate the return of refugees. Despite a general sense of euphoria at the possibility of a free and democratic Syria, many European countries also see it as a political opportunity in a climate where the immigration debate is prominent.
In Germany, this issue comes at a pivotal moment as the country prepares for legislative elections in February. The conservative CDU and the far-right AfD are putting significant pressure on the government to further tighten migration policies.
Risks and consequences
The suspension of asylum applications raises critical legal and humanitarian concerns. The 1951 refugee convention includes a cessation clause, which allows for refugee status to be revoked when the conditions that led to protection no longer exist.
Specifically, the convention states that refugee status can be withdrawn if “a fundamental change occurs in the political regime of the country of origin, particularly when this change leads to the democratisation of the country”. Critics argue that such policies are premature, given the ongoing instability in Syria.
But suspending asylum applications for Syrians requires a careful assessment of the situation in Syria. While the regime may have changed, the country remains far from stable.
With the HTS-led regime in its infancy, the country’s political future is uncertain. To date, no fundamental or democratic transformation has taken place. So the conditions for safe return are far from guaranteed.
The suspension of Syrian asylum applications by European states is a significant departure from their humanitarian stance during the 2015 migration crisis. The decision appears to be more about each country’s domestic politics than any mission to ensure refugees’ safety and raises serious concerns about their rights.
In a region as volatile as the Middle East, where stability remains elusive, any premature push for refugee returns risks exposing individuals to further persecution and violence.
The current situation demands caution, compassion, and a commitment to upholding international obligations. The European Union and its member states must find a balanced approach that prioritises human rights while addressing domestic political pressures.
Morgiane Noel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.