For the first time, two days after the devastating earthquake that struck the southwest of Türkiye and the north of Syria, the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad requested European humanitarian assistance, through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism.

When an emergency overwhelms the response capabilities of a country in Europe and beyond, it can request assistance through the EU Civil Protection Mechanism, which coordinates the emergency services of all 27 members and 8 additional neighbouring countries such as Türkiye, Norway, or Serbia. The Commission plays a key role in coordinating disaster response worldwide, contributing to at least 75% of the transport and/or operational costs of deployments. Any country in the world, but also the United Nations and its agencies or a relevant international organization, can call EU Civil Protection Mechanism for help.

The assistance can include specialized search and rescue teams, but also millions of items such as first aid kits, shelter equipment, firefighting equipment, water pumps, power generators, and fuel. While some NGO’s, such as the Red Crescent, are calling for the European Union to lift sanctions on Syria to improve the efficiency of the humanitarian effort, Damascus requests “a long list of items”, such as assistance in their search and rescue efforts, medical items including medicines, as well as food products and “typical aid emergency items”.

The EU already announced it would provide additional emergency support to both Türkiye and Syrian and emergency humanitarian assistance worth 6.5 million euros ($7 million). But the scale of destruction in the region of Idlib, the only UN-approved crossing point between the two countries and the most direct route to reach the northern regions of Syria, which are still controlled by very various actors, makes the delivery of humanitarian aid particularly slow.

What is at stake in the way the EU will respond to that request is the suffering of local population, the potential acceptance of the Damascus government on the international scene, but also the legitimisation of that government inside Syria: if humanitarian help reaches areas still held by rebels through governmental canals, to what extent would it strengthen its grip over those populations?

The EU seems to have multiple options, from refusing any contact with the Damascus government, the policy adopted by the US, to lifting sanctions, to cooperation with Damascus to organise humanitarian help.

According to the Commissioner for crisis management Janez Lenarčič, who shared the news of Syria’s request in the first place, the Commission “shared this request with the member states and [is] encouraging them to contribute the in-kind assistance as requested”. This statement can be seen as a signal that the EU is ready to work with Damascus on this particular matter. But it could also be a way for the Commission to pawn the decision on members individually to coordinate the humanitarian effort with the Damascus government or not: the EU Civil Protection Mechanism merely coordinates the emergency services of the members, for example, by financing transportation. The decision to use these services lies with the states. As of the 9/02, none of the members had answered that request.

The same ambiguity can be seen in Ursula van der Leyen’s statement: “We are now racing against the clock to save lives together. Soon we will provide relief aid, together. Turkiye and Syria can count on the EU”. It seems to put both countries on an equal footing. But if the EU indeed helps the population in both countries, it so far does so through different mechanisms. In Türkiye, the government is the main partner, while in Syria, western partners are NGO’s on the ground.

Beyond the EU Commission ambiguity, the question remains whether, considering that humanitarian help can only be slowly forwarded by NGO’s from the north through the Türkiye-Syria border, the EU will consider the Damascus government as a temporary partner to bring the desperately needed help from the south. But the answer may rather lie with the member states.