As the new year 2016 begins, Syrian refugees continue to stream into Europe. The UN estimates that more than one million people — half of them Syrians — crossed by sea into Europe in 2015. As refugees keep coming, European leaders are increasingly desperate to find ways to cope with, and slow, the flow.
At the same time, late 2015 saw increasing talk of alliances against Daesh (the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). In the wake of the November Paris attacks, European leaders spoke of increasing efforts to combat the organisation. In December, Saudi Arabia announced a new coalition of Muslim states to combat terrorist groups. In the US, presidential candidates talked about what they would do to defeat Daesh.
Combating Daesh should be an international priority. But the growing focus on the terrorist group risks distracting political leaders from the most important factor driving the Syrian conflict and creating refugees: the Al Assad regime.
Daesh is an appalling group responsible for grave atrocities and which has forced out many refugees — members of religious minorities and also Sunnis. Young men have left to avoid being forced into the ranks of Daesh fighters. As a major party to the conflict in Syria, it also contributes to general insecurity, which in turn creates more refugees. While recognising Daesh’s significant role in the conflict, however, those who want to stop the outflow of refugees from Syria to neighbouring states and to Europe must understand that the Al Assad regime has been and continues to be the most significant factor forcing Syrians to flee their homes. Any policy approach that does not fully incorporate this reality will fail to have a major impact on the refugee crisis. Combating Daesh is very important for regional and global security, but focusing on it while ignoring the role of Al Assad’s forces in fuelling conflict will not lead to sustainable solutions to the refugee crisis.
The reasons why many Syrians have left their homes are often complex. Many are not attempting to escape from only one armed group; they are often fleeing generalised violence, as well as a declining ability to survive physically and economically in a war zone. The loss of hope for any future in their country pushes many families and individuals to go elsewhere. Sunnis as well as members of religious or ethnic minorities may also fear persecution by the regime, Daesh or any number of opposition groups.
While recognising the range of reasons why Syrians leave, and the role of many parties to the conflict in perpetrating violence against civilians, it is critical to understand that the Al Assad regime remains responsible for the majority of casualties and refugees. The Syrian Network for Human Rights — one of the few organisations regularly tracking civilian casualties — reported that 73 per cent of the civilian deaths in 2015 were attributed to government forces; Daesh was a distant second at 8 per cent. One reason why the regime is the greatest source of civilian casualties is its use of airpower — strengthened in recent months by Russia. The regime has become notorious for using weapons such as barrel bombs pushed out of helicopters, cluster munitions, and chlorine gas that readily and indiscriminately cause large numbers of civilian casualties.
Government forces’ widespread use of organised violence, especially in urban areas, is a major factor driving Syrians to leave their country. While there are few large-sample surveys of refugees conducted by fully neutral parties, in September-October 2015, researchers from the Berlin Social Science Centre worked with several NGOs to interview 889 Syrian refugees in five German cities. The survey found that around 70 per cent of respondents fled Syria because of the Al Assad regime, compared to 32 per cent due to Daesh and smaller numbers for other opposition groups. Critically important for developing policies that allow Syrians to return home, 52 per cent said they would not return to Syria unless Al Assad leaves. In addition to this survey, many journalists and NGO officials working with refugees in the Middle East and Europe have reported that a large majority of people they talk with say they left Syria primarily due to fear of government forces. In addition to fleeing regime violence, many men have fled to avoid forced conscription.
Some analysts argue that the Al Assad regime is pursuing an intentional strategy of population redistribution. This includes pushing out groups it sees as likely hostile, allowing only friendly ethnic or religious groups to return to stabilised areas under regime control, and changing passport procedures to make it much easier for Syrians to obtain a passport. Al Assad’s government might be trying to build up friendly populations in areas it thinks it can control as well as to demonstrate to the outside world that Syria will pose an ongoing refugee problem without a single strong leader to end the conflict.
Indeed, this plays into Al Assad’s ongoing argument that only he can prevent Syria from being a long-term source of international terrorist threats and refugee flows. Al Assad aims to position himself as an ally in combating Daesh, and he blames the West for causing the refugee flows by its support for opposition groups. Russian President Vladimir Putin supports this narrative and has claimed that refugees are “running away not from the regime of Bashar Al Assad, but from Daesh”.
The reality is that the Al Assad regime played a major role in sowing the seeds of the conflict, failed to maintain control of the country, and has badly exacerbated the situation through its widespread violence against civilians. International leaders who want to combat extremism and diminish refugee flows should recognise that Al Assad himself is a key part of the problem rather than a necessary part of the solution. The refugee crisis will not end until the country is safe from its own government.
Kerry Boyd Anderson is a writer and political risk consultant with more than 13 years experience as a professional analyst of international security issues and Middle East political and business risks.
