Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe - Multiple Choices

———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Refugees in Central and Eastern Europe
———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
issued only if no German or EU citizen was able to do the
advertised job. Berlin had especially restrictive work permit
policy when compared to other cities and Laender (EMZ
report, 2002). After many years away from the job market,
the Bosnians I talked to admitted that they were not at all
competitive and the possibility of finding a job outside of
the domain of construction for men or cleaning for women
was virtually impossible.
CONCLUSION
This study, which is still a work in progress, is
both a critique of and a contribution to the vast interdisciplinary
body of literature on refugees. My ethnographic
intervention highlights the discrepancy between the static
and romantic representation of a refugee who becomes
a screen for spectacular media representation in the moment
of suffering, but disappears from popular and political
views as soon as the receiving nation-state is faced with
the problem of integration and support. The anthropological
literature on refugees (Bieber, 2005; Bieber, & Daskalovski,
2003; Daniel, & Knudsen, 1995; Malkki, 1995) has highlighted
the emotional, less formalised aspect of the refugee experiences.
In analysing the perception of refugees, categories
such as trust and fear should be central since “the refugee
mistrusts and is mistrusted” (Daniel, & Knudsen, 1995: 1).
Comparisons can be drawn with what Shahrani
writes on the Afghani Muhajirin Muslim refugees in
Pakistan (Shahrani, 1995), because the Bosnians in Berlin
struggle to adopt to their new status of a refugee but also
to redefine the meaning of their ethnic identity as Muslims
which, after the Bosnian war, has obtained a stronger
religious meaning. The literature that has analysed the
Yugoslav wars as a symptom of the post-cold war period,
inextricably linked to the changing conditions of global
capitalism, emphasises the political importance and the
power shift caused with the regime change in Eastern
Europe and the new meanings attached to being a Muslim
(Goldswarthy, 1998; Hayden, 2000; Zizek, 2002).
The emotional narratives of the Bosnians in Berlin
surrounding the 10th commemoration of the Srebrenica
massacre revealed a striking tension: the genuine pain
stemming from the events that took place during the siege
and fall of Srebrenica was saturated with an equally pronounced
trauma of the people's uncertain residence status
in Germany. I have attempted to underline the complex
situation of these people created by the German legal system
and the civil society sector. I identified an unprecedented
paradox: despite the generous welcome during the war in
Bosnia Herzegovina (1992-1995) when Germany accepted
approximately 320,000 people (more than any other Western
country), the German government has never granted these
people refugee status. It only offered temporary protection
and Duldung, which required an unconditional departure
from Germany when the war in Bosnia ended. The Duldung
ordeal has become a major source of trauma for a large
number of refugees in the past thirteen years fuelling the
pre-existing war traumas. The safest way of
getting a residence permit in Germany was by providing
evidence of severe traumatisation. Hence, these people
have been torn between required (and often exaggerated)
remembering of their past war experiences, and the
contemporary, real, but unrecognised trauma related to fear
of detainment and deportation. This trauma, however, has
become a dominant structuring force in their current lives.
Vocal critics of the German system might successfully
argue that although in terms of overall numbers
Germany allowed the largest number of refugees to settle
in, in terms of proportion per capita, Germany accepted
4 refugees per 1000 inhabitants, less than Sweden (14 per
1000), Austria (10 per 1000) or Denmark (5 per 1000).
Furthermore it is only in Germany where the Bosnians have
not been granted permanent residence and this situation
has continued for thirteen years (EMZ 2002 report).
Moreover, in Germany, refugees in general, and Bosnians
in particular, have been faced with a complex situation
in which Germans and the German government try to come
to grips with racism, xenophobia, and the question of their
own identity (Peck, 1995: 105).
In the attempt to link the Nazi past to present-day
xenophobia, the political and legal discourse in Germany,
strongly divided between the Left and Right, struggles to
develop a politically correct attitude towards refugees and
asylum-seekers. My research in Berlin supports Peck's
argument that even though Germany's liberal asylum policy
was based on the inequities and horrors of its past, it has
been unable to cope with the influx of refugees. Moreover,
the German state has dealt inadequately with the necessity
to develop laws that would accommodate the complex
reality in contemporary Germany by recognising the different
experiences of being a foreigner, refugee, asylum seeker,
guest worker, or immigrant (Peck, 1995: 105).
1 According to the 1951 Geneva Convention a refugee status entails
a number of long-term responsibilities provided by the receiving
state provided as social benefits.
2 Most of the data in this section derives from a report written on
the Bosnian de facto refugees in Berlin by the Europäisches
Migrationszentrum in 2002, hereinafter designated as EMZ 2002
report (http://www.emz-berlin.de/projekte_e/pj2/pj2_1.htm).
3 To encourage the refugees to repatriate, the Berlin Senate offered
financial support. Until spring 2000, from 180,000 returnees from
Germany, 12,000 were from Berlin. 7,000 have moved to other
countries, or repatriated from Berlin without the programs (EMZ
2002 report).
51
Migration Processes in Central and Eastern Europe: Unpacking the Diversity