Safe, voluntary and dignified? Local Jordanian NGO perspectives on Syrian refugee return

Guest post by Lisa Marie Borrelli. Lisa works as Associate Professor at the HES-SO Valais-Wallis, Institute of Social Work, in Switzerland. This post has been developed as part of the project 'Contesting returns from below: Local inclusion of Syrian refugees in Jordan and Sweden‘, funded by the LH MENA Consolidation Grant.   

“Safe return”, “safe zones”, “safe third countries” and “safe countries of origin” all make use of the term “safe” in context of asylum and return governance, yet they have different nuances. A "safe third country" refers to a country where foreign nationals, for example asylum seekers, could reasonably seek protection without jeopardizing their safety, with the result that their application for asylum in another country might be deemed inadmissible. “Safe countries of origins” and “safe zones” are countries or national areas designated as safe and hence automatically excluding individuals from these regions from seeking refugee status. Both concepts have been criticised by various scholars, as they play into the new focus of temporary asylum, followed by a return. 

A “safe return” thus thematizes a repatriation of (former) asylum seekers, which according to UNHCR must be voluntary and dignified (in contrast to deportation, which is forceful and against the “will” of those being returned). This is despite the fact that safe returns are often characterised by in-transparent readmission agreements, lacking procedural safeguards, and (in)direct deterrence strategies, such as lacking basic health care, housing, or welfare once an asylum claim has been rejected. This blog posts thus makes use of a case study to explore how local Jordanian NGOs reflect on the question of whether a return of Syrian refugees is feasible in contrast to other voices, such as international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) and governments.  It delves into the question of how “safe returns” are understood by local actors working with Syrian refugees and who reflect on current political developments. 

While the concept of “safe returns” is not new, it received specific attention after the Assad regime fell in the winter of 2024, bringing up the question whether Syrian asylum seekers and refugees should return. Yet, already earlier on, the push for return was a key theme on European agendas, for example when Denmark in 2019 declared parts of Syria safe. This has included efforts such as the Czech Republic’s fact-finding missions to establish “safe zones” for Syrian refugees in Syria and Cyprus’ push-backs of refugee boats. The Turkish government is also implementing its repatriation project that requires a ‘safe and dignified’ voluntary return of a million Syrian refugees to Turkey’s safe zone in Northeast Syria.  

The overarching theme across these initiatives is a broad political consensus on return, which is in line with the temporary turn of asylum that exacerbates the situation of Syrian refugees in neighbouring countries such as Jordan and Lebanon. Indeed, European actions have been discussed as a hypocritical double-standard, deterring further arrivals to Europe on the one hand and funding other regions for hosting and thus “containing” refugees on the other. One of our interviewees described this contradiction as follows:  

“Unfortunately, there are European countries that claim democracy and are now making a statement that they want the return of Syrian refugees and claim that the situation in Syria is safe. [...] Refugees are still at risk if they return due to the deteriorating security and economic situation in the country. We urge the international community to continue providing support to refugees until their return is safe.“ (Interview 13, Jordan 2024) 

This double standard not only emboldens neighbouring regions to engage in push-backs and forced removals, but also impacts the potential financial support for local actors assisting Syrian refugees. Our exploratory research project examines how Jordanian local NGOs navigate these challenges, focusing on housing, welfare, health care and legal support. With the fall of the Assad regime, however, return has become a more prominent issue, pushing local NGOs to reframe their work within the context of repatriation debates.  

Critical reflections on Syrian return 

Local NGOs are expressing concerns about the rapid push for return by European actors, who see an opportunity to limit Syrian asylum claims and facilitate repatriation as soon as possible:  

“Do we have opportunities to ensure the provision of education and health in the areas to which refugees will return? Can they get the necessary assistance after returning? Will they have opportunities to work in the areas to which they return? And the reconstruction of the areas from which refugees left, these are the questions that must be answered to ensure a safe and sustainable return for refugees and for the decision to be up to the refugee to decide that.” (Interview 15, Jordan 2024) 

Such important concerns seem marginal if not  absent from European political discourses. Instead, local perspectives emphasize the lack of general living standards and the reduced level of access to services upon return. These reflections further stand in contradiction to INGOs that propagate “successful stories of return”, with the all-time favourite catch phrase “voluntary, dignified and safe”. Quickly after the fall of the Assad regime, UNHCR distributed stories of “hopeful” returns, including families that decided to return from Jordan, after being unable to find employment for over a decade. Most of the stories take up the broken infrastructure and lack of housing in Syria, yet positively underline the emotional longing of Syrian refugees to return - neglecting the potential lack of employment, schooling, and heath care or the access to it.  

Indeed, our interlocutors  described very well a tension between the politically accelerated and premature return and their own experiences. They ‘believe that the international community should focus on resolving the issues inside Syria before asking refugees to return’ (Interview 4, Jordan 2024). This raises  the question of how safe return is understood by different actors.   

Narrative convergence between “safe returns” - Safety as floaty signifier 

Safety becomes a fluid and rather ambiguous signifier that changes meaning depending on which actors make use of it. Our interlocutors are caught between reproduction of the dominant ‘safe return’ narrative that is particularly in line with UNHCR, while also supporting concerns mirroring research that has shown how safe return programs often fail to meet international standards of the refugee protection regime:  

“For me, I support voluntary return for refugees only with guarantees of safe and stable conditions for them in Syria!“ (Interview 20, Jordan 2024) 

“We saw that there is a strong investment in return, at least, and this is the main problem, at least, if not only at the rhetoric level, by stakeholders and by international actors. [...] So, we do support the idea, of course, of return if conditions of safety and dignified life are guaranteed. But we can also see that these conditions are not yet available for people.” (Interview 14, Jordan 2024) 

These different statements highlight a more nuanced understanding of return, bringing forward specific local needs for those wishing to return. The quotes add context about the situation in Syria, which is far from stable, and that return, even if wished for and supported, is not currently feasible. Yet, ‘safe’ return continues to be promoted by INGOs and European institutions despite caution by local NGOs that have on the ground expertise about the conditions and needs for truly ‘safe’ and ‘dignified’ returns. 

Any comments about this post? Get in touch with us! Send us an email, or find us on LinkedIn and BlueSky.