Two years ago, in February 2019, the Danish Immigration Service published their country of origin report on Syria. The report concluded that the security situation in Damascus and the surrounding areas is now safe. The Danish media disseminated the news, and politicians argued in favour of reconsidering cases of Syrians who had been given Danish residence permits.
Back then, the Syrian Cultural Institute in Denmark called a town hall meeting in which around 30 Syrians shared their worries about the uncertainty of their lives in Denmark, especially their new-found feelings of vulnerability due to the government’s revised measures and the intense public debate on the subject. Many expressed their fear of being deported to Syria and imprisoned by the Assad regime. Some spoke about losing their properties in Syria to looters. Young men were afraid of being conscripted. Many others discussed the steps they had taken to establish a new life in Denmark, with a local girl/boyfriend, sending their children to school or being connected to the Danish labour market.
What they lost in Syria because of the war they were happy to have found again in Denmark.
Based on the meeting, the Institute published an article in Politiken, one of the biggest newspapers in Denmark.
Today, Denmark is witnessing virtually the same discussion, but on a much larger scale. In addition to the 189 Syrians who have had their Danish residency revoked since last summer, an additional 500 are at risk of the same result, and another 95 applications for residency were rejected.
Neither Denmark nor the EU have dealings with the Assad regime. This means that Syrians without valid residency awaiting deportation would have to live in holding centres in Denmark for an indefinite time, adding to the trauma they have already experienced. Despite this, some far-Right parties in Denmark celebrated the move, and erected posters in Copenhagen telling Syrians that they can now return to “safe and sunny Syria”.
A flawed report
Denmark’s policy is based on a report that is fundamentally flawed. The report bases its evaluation on a handful of interviews (just 12 in total), including one with Naji Numeir, a Syrian general in the Assad regime who also happens to be the head of the regime’s immigration service.
The report misrepresents hand-picked quotes from experts in Jordan and Lebanon, including Sara Kayyali and Bente Scheller, who protested heavily against its conclusions. Eleven out of the twelve interviewees did the same. The quotes are taken out of context and seem to serve mostly as welcome propaganda for Assad.
In addition, the Danish government concluded that Damascus and its surroundings are safe simply because the Syrian government reasserted full control over the area. But this is exactly the problem in the eyes of Syrians in Scandinavia: the tight grip of the Syrian dictatorship and its security forces poses the greatest danger for returning refugees. Forensic evidence shows that Assad’s repressive system is systematic, structural and brutal, and there is also evidence of unprecedented crimes against humanity.
Norway: no returns yet
The safety or otherwise of Damascus and its surroundings has been the subject of ongoing debate throughout Scandinavia. In 2018, Jan Egeland, the secretary general of the Norwegian Refugee Council, predicted on NRK, Norway’s national public broadcaster, that areas of Syria may experience a periodic cessation of violence, only to erupt again.
The warning was clear then: a cessation of violence does not guarantee safety for returnees without a durable agreement by the warring parties, which has yet to happen.
Norway, home to more than 31,000 Syrians, has maintained its position that the situation in Syria is unsafe for refugee returns and it does not assist in voluntary returns. On the contrary the Norwegian government confirmed that some people would be especially targeted by the Assad regime if they returned to Syria, including former opposition activists, members of the media, those involved with the White Helmets, and those who have not entered into so-called “reconciliation agreements”.