The crisis of Syrian refugees and internally displaced people remains one of the most complex humanitarian and political challenges of the modern era. Even after the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime, returns remain limited, despite the disappearance of the main reason that forced millions to flee. International organisations and host countries have increasingly adopted a strategy centred on encouraging return through financial incentives – sums that vary from state to state – offered to Syrians willing to go back.
Yet these attempts coincide with unusually direct statements from European officials calling for the return of Syrian refugees and a halt to new arrivals. Earlier this month, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz urged the start of returns, insisting that “the war is over… there is no longer any justification” for asylum claims, while stressing the need to deport those who refuse voluntary return. In July, Germany’s Foreign Ministry also announced plans to remove Syrians who committed offences or serious crimes. Similar pressure has appeared in other European capitals.
At the same time, the UN has been organising “voluntary return” programmes from Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan and other countries, offering cash grants to encourage departures. This raises wider questions about whether international efforts are paving the way for large-scale returns at a time when Syria still faces severe economic deterioration, poor living conditions and heavily damaged infrastructure.
According to social activist Ubaid Dali, the countries hosting Syrian refugees face economic and social pressures that have pushed some of them to launch “voluntary” return schemes with limited UN monitoring. However, rights groups report that some of these programmes involve coercive conditions or indirect pressure on refugees.
Dali explains, speaking to +963, that since the fall of the Assad regime, international actors and host countries have adopted new methods to encourage return, including significant financial grants. Nevertheless, returns remain limited, mainly because reconstruction has not yet progressed, infrastructure is still fragile and meaningful employment opportunities are lacking.
He argues that the international community shares responsibility for the absence of sustainable solutions, pointing to chronic underfunding of UN agencies that support returning refugees. He emphasises the need to secure a genuinely safe environment across Syria and to develop gradual return programmes under direct UN supervision.
Human rights lawyer Hayan Haidar also stresses that conditions for return remain extremely difficult. Large parts of Syria’s housing stock and infrastructure have been destroyed – more than 50 per cent, according to UN estimates – alongside severe shortages in electricity, water, healthcare and services. Employment opportunities are scarce, and the Syrian economy has been critically weakened by years of war and sanctions.
“Those who return often find themselves without jobs or stable income, whereas many relied on aid and support in host countries,” Haidar tells +963. “Reconstruction is still stalled, waiting for political clarity and the formation of a stable government.”
Legal and property challenges further complicate return. Many refugees have lost official documents or property deeds, and entire land registry archives were destroyed during the conflict. These issues make it difficult for many to reclaim their homes or prove ownership.
Haidar warns that international encouragement – particularly UN financial incentives – can be dangerous given Syria’s fragile conditions. Families returning need stable income, education, health services and housing. At the same time, he highlights the urgent need for solutions in northern Syria, where nearly a year after the regime’s fall, displaced people still endure harsh living conditions in camps with little improvement.
