Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe - Multiple Choices

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Refugees in Central and Eastern Europe
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
48
1995 the number began to decrease: in January 1998 it was
22,221; in December 1999 it was 13,940; in April 2000 it
was 9,713. Today formally there are 3,000 people who seek
regulation of their residence status on a basis of severe
traumatisation and have been receiving treatment (EMZ
2002 report).
Even while the Bosnian war was in its early stage,
the German government was decisive in “protecting” the
country from the unintended consequences of the large
influx of refugees. The government made it clear that the
refugees were in Germany on a temporary basis only. This
was a fear shared by most of the EU countries. As suggested
earlier, the EU interior ministers met in Maastricht in 1991
where they introduced a new 'temporary' category for the
impending flood of refugees from Former Yugoslavia.
According to this Maastricht regulation, the Bosnians were
never considered Convention refugees because, according
to the ministers, the 1951 Geneva Convention was not
adequate for the mass influx of refugees, nor were they
considered refugees under Article 16a of the German
Constitution which requires a proof that they suffered
individual political persecution issued from the state.
The assigned temporary status (Duldung) paved
the ground for drafting an immediate repatriation plan,
which Germany developed on December 16th 1995, only
one day after the signing of the Dayton Agreement.
Germany claimed extreme generosity in its acceptance of
refugees. Moreover, the Berlin Senator of the Interior Jurg
Shernbom in a radio interview for Voice of America in 1995
stated that they were accepting of the heavy humanitarian
burden because people of his city “knew what it meant to
be a refugee” (EMZ 2002 report). Approximately 36,000
Bosnians arrived in Berlin, which was more than in the
whole of France, the UK and Italy put together. Five hundred
million German marks were allocated then for social
benefits and support (ibid.).
Yet, their legal status was without a federal
regulation: they were not considered for asylum on the
grounds that an inland flight alternative existed within
the territory of the Yugoslav Federation (out of 42,863 not
a single person was granted Asylum in Berlin). Most of the
Bosnians (83,3 %) in Berlin were granted “tolerated residence”
or Duldung, with their passports and identification
cards taken away from them. Neither admitted as part
of a program nor on the basis of formal obligation, the
status of “tolerated residence” in effect was not a legal
residence status. Duldung only means that the state agrees
not to implement a deportation order although this option
remains valid. Deportation is postponed under s. 54
Aliens Act and the refugee is tolerated for up to six months.
In 1996, Berlin had the highest percentage of tolerated
refugees on a national level, Munich had the lowest – 37.6 %
(EMZ 2002 report).
VEILED TRAUMA: BEHIND THE SREBRENICA
ANGUISH
In the face of the 10th anniversary of the
Srebrenica massacre, I joined a group consisting of
survivors from Srebrenica at the SüdOst Europa Kultur
Centre in Berlin, a non-profit organisation situated in
Kreuzberg and closely involved with people from former
Yugoslavia. This centre became a base during my fieldwork
research from February till September 2005. During May
and June 2005, the group met every Friday to collect narratives
on the events in Srebrenica for the 10th commemoration
taking place on July 8th and 9th. The group consisted of
seven women, and was occasionally visited by several male
survivors. Other than the survivors, there was always one or
two of the SüdOst Europa Centre workers and myself,
whose presence and constant inquiries were patiently and
generously tolerated by everyone at the centre since
February 2005. We agreed that the best way to collect the
stories was through casual remembrance: not by asking the
survivors to write up their stories but rather to encourage
them to meet regularly and talk to each other. Most of them
had known each other for a long time – they were neighbours
from Srebrenica, Potočari or Gradačac. My task was
to record their stories and transcribe them in an appropriate
format that would then be read during the weekend of
commemoration.
Indira, a regular member of this group, came
almost every time although she hardly ever spoke a word. I
had a difficulty in determining her age: maybe early 50s or
early 60s; maybe even much younger. I remembered her face
prior to joining the Srebrenica group: she was also a member
of another collective therapy group that I was allowed to
visit a few times. I was drawn to Indira's friendly looking
face: red cheeks, round chin and sad, absent-minded eyes.
Her slender body made sharp contrast to her swollen feet
– as I suspected, she once mentioned that she had had
problems with high blood pressure and water retention
and had been on hypertension medication for years.
While the other members of the Srebrenica group
prolifically recalled many stories from Srebrenica from the
period between 1992 to1995, Indira listened with an absentminded
expression on her face. From time to time she would
repeat the last lines of what the others would say, jerking her
body left and right and swinging her head while her eyes
stared at an undetermined point. I heard from other people
that she lost several close family members although she,
herself, had never talked about it. Only after the footage of
the execution of six young Bosnian men had been shown on
the Serbian TV in June 2005, in an agitated manner she
revealed that one of the executed boys was the son of her
husband's relative. Only then she spoke vocally, asking us
loudly whether it would have been better to have died in
Srebrenica or having to undergo the ordeals of living afterwards.
Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe: Unpacking the Diversity