Outsourcing Accountability

The European Union has long portrayed itself as a bastion of human rights and democracy, and a defender of individuals oppressed by authoritarian regimes in the Global South. Yet the political shift to the right in many member states has seen the EU’s commitment to protecting and promoting human rights wane, particularly when it comes to the rights of migrants and refugees.

Faced with an massive influx of refugees caused by the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Sudan along with tensions in Sub-Saharan Africa, the EU’s focus has increasingly turned towards strengthening a border regime that keeps migrants out, thereby avoiding legal obligations on their territories such as respecting the right to asylum and the non-refoulement principle, which states that no one should be sent back to a country where they potentially face torture, mistreatment, or other irreparable harms.

A crucial component of this regime is the outsourcing of enforcement via so-called “migration deals” with several Mediterranean countries, including Lebanon. Regardless of the alarming reports and grave violations of refugee rights in Lebanon, in May 2024 the EU proceeded with a new 1 billion euro aid package to support the Lebanese government in managing the flow of refugees. In return, Lebanon will help the EU circumvent its international obligations according to the Geneva Convention, and even its own directives on dealing with migrants and refugees.

Repackaging Aid for Political Aims

Over the course of the eighth Brussels Conference, an annual gathering organized by the European Union for the sake of “supporting the future of Syria and the region”, the EU announced a three-year financial support package for Lebanon. Although the deal was marketed as a new migration deal, Hussam Baravi, Senior Program Manager at the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, says that the initiative represents a repackaging of existing aid to help the country deal with the Syrian refugee crisis, strategically timed by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to appear tough on migration ahead of the European elections.

Indeed, Lebanese government officials regularly amplify rhetoric blaming Syrian refugees for Lebanon's economic crisis. This narrative is often accompanied by xenophobic campaigns and violence against Syrian refugees in the country, as part of an effort to pressure the EU into increasing its financial assistance. Subsequently, the provocations and violence tend to decrease. This year was no different, but amidst heightened hostility towards Syrian refugees including deportations, arbitrary arrests, and violence, the EU’s deal has come under renewed scrutiny.

Despite Assad’s assurances of a safe environment for returning refugees, the regime’s record of grave human rights abuses casts serious doubt on these claims.

Reactions amongst Lebanese leaders regarding the deal have been mixed. Prime Minister Najib Mikati welcomed the deal, but also insisted that Lebanon could not become an alternative homeland for Syrian refugees hoping to reach Europe. Others perceive it as a form of political manipulation or bribe. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah called for open sea routes for refugees to reach Europe. Striking a similar note, the Lebanese Forces, a right-wing Christian party, regards refugees as a cultural and economic threat and advocates for their return to so-called “safe zones” within Syria as a more sustainable solution to alleviate Lebanon's burden.

In response, von der Leyen acknowledged Lebanon's challenges in hosting a large number of refugees and stressed the need to “work on a more structured approach to voluntary returns to Syria”. Concurrently, seven European countries are lobbying for the evaluation and identification of safe zones in Syria to facilitate voluntary returns.

How Safe Is Syria Really?

The discussion of “safe zones” in Syria remains highly contentious. Despite long-time ruler Bashar al-Assad’s assurances of a safe environment for returning refugees, the regime’s record of grave human rights abuses, dating back to Assad’s father’s tenure and continuing to the present day, casts serious doubt on these claims. Over a decade after the Syrian war began, numerous reports attest to ongoing mass war crimes, torture resulting in fatalities, forced disappearances, and arbitrary detentions under Assad’s rule.

Recent events underscore the unsafe conditions faced by Syrian refugees attempting or forced to return home. Human Rights Watch published a report in April 2024 documenting violations against Syrian refugees in Lebanon, highlighting unlawful and mass involuntary deportations facilitated by the Lebanese army. One such case is Rafaat Falih, a Syrian army defector deported in January 2024, who subsequently disappeared after being held by the Syrian military. His family has since been unable to determine his whereabouts. In another case, Ahmad Adnan Shamsi al-Haydar was forcibly deported, arrested, and tortured to death upon returning to Syria. Numerous reports have documented hundreds of involuntary returns. Aya Majzoub of Amnesty International remarks, “human rights organizations unanimously agree: no part of Syria is safe for refugee returns”.

Assad has shown minimal interest in facilitating the return of Syrian refugees, a move that could potentially disrupt his authority, as many oppose his rule.

The idea of “safe zones” in Syria has been criticized as a diversionary tactic, says a source at the Access Center for Human Rights (ACHR), who refused to disclose their name for security reasons. The source highlighted that the first attempt to establish such safe zones was made in 2017. It was a failed suggestion lacking a clear plan, timeline, or consultation with countries directly affected such as Turkey and Lebanon. The source further emphasized that establishing safe zones requires cooperation and agreements involving the Syrian regime, the UNHCR, and other organizations — a scenario Bashar al-Assad is unwilling to engage with, as he lacks the willingness to cede control of specific areas within Syria to international bodies.

Moreover, Assad has shown minimal interest in facilitating the return of Syrian refugees, a move that could potentially disrupt his authority, as many oppose his rule. Assad’s strategy appears geared towards maintaining control and preventing demographic shifts that could undermine his government. Reports indicate his regime has not only refused to accept refugees from Lebanon, but has also deported them back.

Hezbollah’s control over the Lebanon–Syria border is widely acknowledged, facilitating both legal and illegal entry for refugees escaping Syria. Hezbollah turns a blind eye to the deportation of refugees returning from Syria, amplifying their plight. Compounding the issue, refugees face exploitation by smugglers and human traffickers upon their return, according to the source at ACHR.

When deported from Lebanon and handed over to Syrian authorities, refugees confront three harsh options: arrest, compulsory military service, or payment of 1,500–3,000 US dollars to traffickers for re-entry into Lebanon, depending on age and gender. Importantly, re-entering Lebanon is unimpeded by border security forces under Hezbollah’s oversight and control.

A Duplicitous Game

While Lebanese politicians vary in their stance on the EU migration deal, a majority call for returning refugees to Syria or resettlement in the EU, but not within Lebanon itself.

The question arises: why does Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, a close ally of Assad’s regime, push for refugee returns, when Assad himself shows little interest in facilitating them? Baravi states that Nasrallah aims to normalize Assad’s regime on the international level, which has been hindered by sanctions and diplomatic isolation. Nasrallah’s strategy includes leveraging the threat of facilitating routes for refugee migration to Europe, a scenario most of the EU vehemently opposes, except for a few states such as Italy and Cyprus.

For other political leaders, the motivation is different. Following Lebanon's severe economic collapse in 2019, compounded by government failures to revive the economy, many Lebanese politicians began using refugees as scapegoats to deflect from their own failures to manage the economic crisis and regain public trust. Hate speech amplified through social media worsened discriminatory practices, while the government resumed deportations to Syria, alongside repressive measures, arbitrary arrests, and closures of refugee-run businesses.

Increasingly, the primary objective of the EU appears to be preventing migration to Europe at any cost.

Issam Sbat, a lawyer at the Centre Libanais des Droits Humains (CLDH), highlights how the Lebanese government manipulates the anti-migrant mood to its own advantage. He points out that the Lebanese government has benefited significantly from EU funds to support refugees since 2011. These funds have sustained vital sectors such as education, healthcare, and security, and created thousands of jobs for unemployed Lebanese citizens. The presence of Syrian refugees, paradoxically, has shielded Lebanon from even more devastating economic deterioration and has made for good business for Lebanon’s political class

Europe’s Complicity

The European Union's recent deal with Lebanon lacks transparency. Little information is available on the details of the allocation of funds, and the EU's statement on the matter remains vague. While the aid is said to target improvements in basic services and support economic reforms, it also includes provisions to enhance the capabilities of the Lebanese Armed Forces and security agencies in managing borders and combating smuggling.

Perla Khaled, advocacy and communications officer at CLDH, argues that the deal fails to address the grim human rights situation faced by Syrian refugees in Lebanon. The agreement does not include any protection clauses to address ongoing violations such as involuntary returns, violence, or breaches of the non-refoulement principle. Instead, the deal reinforces support for Lebanon’s corrupt military apparatus that the international community has otherwise hesitated to fund in recent years, citing the absence of substantive reforms and anti-corruption measures

The EU claims that its agreements with states like Lebanon are aimed at managing the migrant crisis. But by supporting the establishment of safe zones in Syria, as proposed by von der Leyen, the EU makes itself complicit in human rights violations against refugees in both Syria as well as Lebanon. Increasingly, the primary objective of the EU appears to be preventing migration to Europe at any cost, as is evident in the incentives offered to Mediterranean countries to stem the flow of boats towards European shores. The millions of Syrians who fought for a democratic Syria and were ultimately forced to flee will be the ones to pay the price.

The EU’s failure to hold itself accountable for human rights violations against migrants committed by countries it funds will only translate into more violations in the future. As Europe continues its drift to the right, it can only be hoped that a strong civil society and Left will emerge to expose these double standards and advocate for sustainable, humane solutions to the refugee crisis.