A Syrian refugee child in the Bekaa as he prepares to return to Syria, as part of a "voluntary return" campaign organized by Lebanon, May 14, 2024. (Credit: AFP)
Can a bankrupt country say no to a billion euros? Ever since the European Union announced this aid package, the Lebanese have been crying foul, perceiving it as a way to finance the settlement of some two million Syrians in Lebanon.
The EU is certainly not selfless, that would simply be illogical. This sum is supposed to enable Brussels to limit the migration flow towards the EU’s 27 member states since it is supposed to help Lebanon better control its borders (with Syria and, and above all, the sea with Cyprus, the gateway to the EU). It is also supposed to ease the societal friction between the Lebanese and the Syrians.
The massive presence of these refugees and migrants on Lebanese soil undoubtedly poses both an economic and a demographic challenge, which this grant — to be paid over four years — is far from able to offset.
Political leaders have been calling [the cabinet] to reject this so-called “bribe” and the repatriation of the Syrians, resorting to their usual populist discourse. What they failed to mention, however, is that the latter is not an option and that Lebanon has every interest in tackling the migration crisis with the international community by its side, rather than becoming an outcast.
In the eyes of the international community, the main obstacle to the Syrians’ return remains the Bashar al-Assad regime, which is reluctant to accept its nationals into the country without obtaining a substantial political and economic “reward” in return, including having international sanctions lifted.
The proof is that despite the promises and guarantees the Syrian authorities have given to citizens wishing to return home, several human rights organizations have recorded cases of forced disappearance among the returnees to Syria. This is not to mention the confiscation of property and the military conscription of men, who have had to leave behind families with no income.
Until the regime backs off, it seems virtually impossible to plan an organized, voluntary and substantial return of the Syrians who settled in Lebanon.
Lebanon can send as many delegations as it likes to Damascus, but the regime’s position will not be altered, as the migration issue is one of the few leverages in Assad’s hands.
Hezbollah’s Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah, who is an ally of Assad, put it bluntly in his speech on Tuesday: “If sanctions on Syria aren’t lifted, there will be no return of refugees,” he said.
How about blackmailing Europe?
Forced return, on the other hand, would violate the international principle of non-refoulement and lead to anarchy and even violence.
Is it a price to pay to defuse the bomb? Not really, because even if Beirut succeeds in moving refugees and migrants to Syria, they could simply cross back into Lebanon through the porous border — which is largely controlled by Hezbollah — between the two countries. Then, Lebanon won’t be able to count on the international community’s funds to control the border.
“Our aid is not conditional on Syrians remaining in Lebanon,” said a European diplomatic source. “However, we have to be honest that the 27 [states] will not want their taxpayers’ money to be spent on supporting a country that is violating international law,” the source added.
Unable (or unwilling) to send the Syrians back home, Nasrallah called on the Lebanese to take the “courageous decision” and put pressure on the Europeans by opening the sea border to the many refugees wishing to travel to Europe — which is something Lebanon has never done on a large scale.
“Allow them to leave legally, by passing a national law that says: The sea is open,” said Nasrallah.
“If we do that, the EU will not give us 1 billion, but 20 billion, and maybe 30,” he said. This would prompt the Europeans to “lift the embargo on Syria,” he added.
In addition to causing a hecatomb in the eastern Mediterranean, such blackmail would turn Lebanon into a rogue state and damage its relations with Europe, not to mention the risk of punitive measures. All this, for the sake of Assad.
On the other side of the political spectrum, another proposal has been increasingly popular: Taking the refugees — or at least the opponents among them — to the rebel-held areas in the northern part of Syria.
Ingenious on paper, such a plan remains impossible as clashes continue to happen in these areas. Assad and the Russians continue to indiscriminately bombard the northwest daily, while the Kurdish northeast is a favorite target of the Turks. In addition, getting aid to these areas is still difficult to achieve without Damascus’ consent (which has never been free).
This does not mean that Lebanon has its hands tied. It can do what it has always been reluctant to do for lack of political will, which is to deal with the issue reasonably.
“It’s not the EU that’s preventing the Lebanese authorities from controlling their border to stem the flow of irregular migration or identify people with refugee status while going back and forth,” said the source.
“We understand that Lebanon is facing a major crisis, but it can act perfectly well within the limits of international law, particularly concerning those who are illegally present on its soil, while the others return to their country or obtain asylum in the West,” the source said.
“Moreover, 13 years after the start of the migration crisis, Lebanon has still not passed a law on asylum or refugees, at least to regulate their presence — not even temporarily — and benefit from it economically, despite the insistence of the international community... But, if the government prefers to reject an aid that benefits everyone, especially the Lebanese, we’ll respect its decision,” the source added.
This article was originally published in L'Orient-Le Jour. Translated by Joelle El Khoury.