We have seen calls from some EU member states — namely, Italy, Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Greece, Slovenia and Slovakia — to normalise relations with the Assad regime on the basis that this would help to alleviate Europe’s share of Syrian refugees.
Normalisation with a criminal regime cannot resolve the flow of refugees to Europe, nor will it bring any relief to Syria’s humanitarian crisis.
The same goes for ‘early recovery’ initiatives, which seek to invest in a country held together by a deeply-corrupt state overseeing the spread of militias and Captagon [the drug Fenetyllin], further adding to Syria’s catastrophic humanitarian situation.
In the absence of any progress in implementing UNSCR 2254 and a political solution, any step towards normalisation with the Assad regime will undermine the prospect of peace, stability and prosperity.
It is clear that by all estimations Syria is not a safe place for refugees to return to.
As the UN envoy recently told the Security Council, Syria is “riddled with armed actors, listed terrorist groups, foreign armies and front lines […] and civilians are still victims of violence and subject to extensive human rights abuses, a protracted state of displacement and dire humanitarian conditions."
In this context, the European Court of Justice issued a ruling in October which stated that a third country for returns can only be considered ‘safe’ if the assessment applies to the country’s entire territory.
By our estimations, the Assad regime now only controls around 50 percent of Syria’s territory and population, and significant parts of the country remain subject to persistent violence and catastrophic living conditions.
Rewarding the Assad regime and Russia with normalisation will only help to cement Syria’s divisions and deteriorating humanitarian conditions. Without a political solution, normalisation can only worsen the situation both for Syria and Europe.
There are many significant political risks to engaging with the Assad regime, not least that any investment and reconstruction will directly benefit the Assad regime and its corrupt network of officials, businessmen, and military personnel.
Without guarantees or commitments from the regime and Russia, investing in Syria whilst Assad remains in power is a losing game — a black hole into which international investments, aid, and loans all disappear into the pockets of a few.
This corruption will only deepen the country’s problems without any concessions or commitments from the regime towards a political solution for the country’s crisis.
Furthermore, normalisation risks condemning Syria to a bleak future under the Assad regime that no Syrian would want to return to, a move that could only worsen Europe’s refugee crisis.
We understand that for Europe, migration and refugee flows are an extremely pressing issue.
And I can assure you that, when the conditions are right and in place, there is nothing we would like to see more than Syrians return to build Syria’s future. Many Syrian refugees have fled unspeakable horrors and brutality at the hands of the Assad regime, and will never feel safe to return until a peaceful and just political transition is underway.
This is not such a distant prospect in spite of the country’s dire situation, however, it demands renewed European and international leadership on Syria. 13 years into the Syrian uprising, the country remains too important for the region and the wider international community to be abandoned and left on a path of destruction under this regime.
The EU’s existing Syria strategy endorses the “three nos” as conditions for EU engagement and is based on the assumption that “there can be no lasting peace in Syria under the current regime.”
There have been no significant changes to the situation in Syria to warrant a review of this assessment. The situation in Syria and the wider region remains critical to Europe’s security, and the objectives laid out in the EU’s 2017 Syria strategy are as relevant today as they were then.
The priority for the international community is agreed to in UN Security Council Resolution 2254, and our collective task now must be to restart diplomatic momentum towards the UN-led political process.
This is the only route that presents a better future both for Syria and the European Union.
The situation across the region is plagued by instability, and in our neighbourhood; the prospect of a major regional war is looming.
More than ever we need our allies and partners to refocus their efforts on a political solution.
In this regard, we took note of the recent news that the EU will appoint a special envoy for Syria. We look forward to working with the envoy with renewed determination to advance the political process under UN Security Council Resolution 2254, as well as further urgent steps needed to alleviate the humanitarian catastrophe across the country.
Dr Badr Jamous is president of the Syrian Negotiation Commission.
Dr Badr Jamous is president of the Syrian Negotiation Commission.