Repatriation from Refugee Camps: Challenges Facing Al-Hawl
Image courtesy of Y. Boechat (VOA) via Wikimedia, ©2019, some rights reserved.
Experts at the United Nations have urged 57 countries to repatriate 27,000 children from the al-Hawl refugee camp. The camp, a sprawling jungle of displaced Syrian and Iraqi citizens, is also the home to thousands of foreign adherents of the notorious terrorist organisation ISIS. The UN’s recent announcement targets children from countries like the United Kingdom, France, and China amongst dozens of other nations, to sponsor the process of bringing home their young citizens in Syria. However, this undertaking has yet to begin, and without concrete plans to execute it, will only be made possible with the strong initiative of each individual state.
The Syrian Civil War has been raging for almost a decade and has left devastating damage to the country and its neighbours. Although the violence has gradually subsided, as a result of the authoritarian al-Assad government’s brutal seizure of the largest cities of Aleppo and Damascus, the domestic conflict is far from being over; still rife with sporadic fighting mainly in the northern regions, the country remains in a position of extreme insecurity and inequality. An epicenter of the living victims of the war is found within the al-Hawl refugee camp, which houses roughly 74,000 people. The camp, run by the Syrian Democratic Forces, an American backed alliance which claims a goal of a democracy in Syria (but is also accused of being a Kurdish terrorist group by Turkey), has been marred by poor living conditions and allegations of neglect of refugees. Al-Hawl does not bring with itself a strong reputation to inspire confidence in the repatriation effort desired by the United Nations: with violence widespread in its borders, claims of poor treatment, and widespread infantile malnutrition rates up to 30% in the camp, it is clear that the refugee camp is a dangerous and insecure place to call home.
However, the most worrying obstacle facing al-Hawl, and the one that complicates every effort to repatriate its youngest residents, is ideological. Most of the inhabitants of the camp, the expatriates in Syria (many being the parents of the children who are being urged to be repatriated) are directly involved with the Islamic State, or ISIS. Thus, the camp has been described as a breeding ground for the next generation of the group’s fighters, this indoctrination having radicalised the children who inhabit al-Hawl: In missions to expose the harsh environment faced by those in the refugee camp, journalists have uncovered young children espousing violent threats that aligned with the radical and militant Islamist group.
Consequently, the repatriation process of these children will not be as simple as just reintroducing them to their native countries without supervision nor specialised guidance. Many of them were born in the camp, and all of them are unfamiliar with and often indoctrinated to be ideologically averse to their home nation. However, in their recent statement, the UN stressed the task of rehabilitation through integration in communities, emphasising the necessity to keep children out of damaging and oppressive institutions; in doing this, the UN has asserted that any child brought back to their country of origin must be viewed as a victim of circumstance rather than as a security threat.
This compassionate position will nonetheless further complicate the already risky process of bringing back these children, many of whom already believe in a terrorist ideology. However, countries have already shown that with slow and incremental progress, this process is possible. France, notoriously strict in refusing any adult ISIS members the possibility of repatriation, has taken in 35 children in the last 2 years (despite at least two hundred more minors deemed vulnerable still remaining in al-Hawl). Through their procedures, these children were taken to social services and have not posed security issues; this little number, though, shows that countries are not readily eager to readmit large amounts of their own citizens that may pose a risk, however diminutive, to communities.
Beyond the social stigma and controversy surrounding it, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic adds extraordinary logistical challenges to the repatriation effort. With economic insecurity widespread due to pandemic related lockdowns in practically every country addressed by the UN, the task of reintegration into communities will be particularly complicated; with many schools remaining closed, it will not be an easy task: the inequalities often faced by many refugees of war are only exacerbated by the domestic infrastructures that are not currently designed to take in and care for large numbers of children, who could be perceived as security threats. With these young victims being seen as aggressors, the nuances regarding their repatriation are often disregarded in the name of security.
Whilst the process of repatriation is not one to be taken lightly, the UN has set a firm standard for countries to take their own initiative to bring home their children from the al-Hawl refugee camp. Only time will tell whether this long process will begin soon, and when all the children will be back in the communities of their home countries.
