The politics around safe zones: a comparative perspective on return to Northern Syria

Abstract

Safe zones, initially established as practical tools for refugee protection, have evolved into diplomatic instruments. Through the case of Northern Syria in a historical-comparative perspective, this article explains the link between border politics and host state-induced return to the safe zones; and questions the viability of return within this politicised environment. Considering the earlier experiences of six cases in Sri Lanka, Iraq, Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Afghanistan, it shows how safe zones and refugee return have become venues for power struggles, not only between the origin and host states but also amongst regional and global powers; established with respect to their economic, political and strategic interests. The Northern Syrian case is distinguished by Turkey’s pressure for returns during the conflict, which makes conditions for return dependent on Turkish military presence. Without international support or a UNSC decision, Turkey’s self-proclaimed safe zone lacks international legitimacy, and refugee returns remain dependent on unilateral efforts by the Turkish government. Lack of security, rule of law, access to basic services, reconstruction, and overall prospects undermine the feasibility of safe, voluntary and sustainable returns. And as all actors involved place their military objectives above civilian governance, conditions for security in the safe zone remain precarious.