Category Archives: Bosnia

Football: Callas to Ban Croatian Song

Published by:

Football: Callas to Ban Croatian Song

The French Association SOS Racisme is calling for a ban of the Croatian supporters’ song “Lijepa Li si” a song that was composed by an ultra-nationalist Marko Perkovic, an admirer of the Ustacha. The song also promotes the conquest of Bosnian lands …

Rroma Refugees in Hamburg

Published by:

Rroma Refugees in Hamburg

Rroma who are under threat of deportation to their former “home” country due to the “safe country” regulation are currently occupying a church in Hamburg. This is their last hope. And a shame for Germany, especially in the case of Rroma from Bosnia and from Kosovo, two countries that were ethnically cleansed with Europe watching and doing nothing.

Rroma in Germany Protest Expulsions

Published by:

Rroma in Germany Protest Expulsions

Rroma in Hamburg have occupied a church as a protest against blanket expulsions based on the “safe country” principle. Especially when in the case of Kosovo, Bosnia, this is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Join the protest!

IDPs in Serbia

Published by:

According to the UNHCR, 21 thousands internally displaced (IDPs) Rroma live in utter poverty and a third of them live in buildings not intended for housing. These Rroma were mostly displaced during the Wars between Serbia and Croatia as well as during the Bosnian conflict and the Kosovo war.

05.12.2014 Administrative court of Münster: Serbia not a safe country of origin for Rroma

Published by:

Die Zeit (2014) reports on a recent judgment of the Münster administrative court. When assessing the application for asylum by a Serbian Rroma family, the court reached the verdict that Serbia does not constitute a safe country of origin for the Rroma minority. The judges justified their judgment, among others, by pointing out that unsuccessful asylum applicants can expect to be criminally prosecuted upon return. Thereby, the court also questions the new law, which declares Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina but also Serbia to safe countries of origin. Several administrative courts had agreed to the asylum applications of Romany families in the recent past: “The administrative court (AC) of Münster questions the constitutionality of the new asylum reform of the federal government. The judges granted an urgent application for asylum by a Serbian Roma family, and stopped their imminent deportation, said the AC. The court has thus set itself in conflict with the federal government, which declared the Balkan countries Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to safe countries of origin in November. The AC wants to clarify now in main proceedings, whether the law should be submitted to the federal constitutional court for review. When declaring a state to a safe country of origin, the legislators must make an overall assessment of the significance of political persecution conditions in the relevant country. Decisive are the criteria prescribed by the constitution. The legislator maybe did not sufficiently comply with this regarding the Serbian Roma and the negative Serbian emigration requirements. Moreover, the legislative history did not show that the decisions of administrative tribunals were taken into account. For instance, the administrative courts of Stuttgart and Münster upheld the urgent complaints of Serbian asylum seekers in a variety of cases.” Rroma are not politically persecuted in Serbia. However, that does not mean that they are not exposed to repeated discrimination in everyday life. Particularly the Rroma already economically marginalised. The assessment of the individual case should always be favoured against a reductionist assessment of the social situation in a country. Rroma have been provably integrated in Southeast Europe for centuries – as, Ottoman tax registers, among others, show ­ and form part of all strata of society and professions. However, since the Yugoslav wars and the strengthened nationalism, Rroma increasingly face discrimination. Furthermore, there is the mentioned law of the Serbian criminal code that threatens asylum applicants with criminal prosecution upon return (compare Prantl 2014).

26.11.2014 “De Maizière: discrimination [of Rroma] is not political persecution”

Published by:

Sirleschtov/Birnbaum (2014) spoke with Thomas de Maizière, Germany’s interior minister and member of the Christian Democrat Party. In the talk, De Maizière justifies his successful efforts to declare Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia to be safe countries of origin. He states that although Rroma are badly treated in these three countries, they are not politically persecuted. Therefore, a refugee status for Rroma from these countries can no longer be acceptable: “A part of the Greens criticise me, saying I play people who come to us against each other. But that would mean by implication that Germany has to accept anyone who comes here. […] That is why the distinction between real political persecution and others who leave their homes for other reasons is the rational way and the path laid out by our constitution. A bad treatment of the Roma in some Balkan countries is just no political persecution. This is hard for those affected, but this distinction is necessary.” Rroma are indeed not politically persecuted in Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia. Their integration is historically proven for the Balkans: since centuries, they belong to all social strata and professional groups. However, that does not mean that they are not exposed to massive discrimination in everyday life, especially since the strengthened nationalism of the Yugoslav Wars. The estimate how strong this discrimination is can only be critically evaluated in individual cases. Therefore, asylum applications should not be treated generally, but individually, to do justice to the fate of those persons affected.

19.11.2014 Stereotypes: criminal Rroma clans

Published by:

Guggisberg (2014) reports on criminal Rroma clans that allegedly force children into crime. Parents surrender their children to an omnipotent clan chief – to whom they are indebted – for begging and theft and some even end up in prostitution. Guggisberg uncritically reproduces the perspective of the “Wiener Drehscheibe”, a social service for begging and stealing children who have been arrested by the police. Guggisberg does not question that the social educator Norbert Ceipek – the head of the institution – who identifies each begging or stealing child as a victim of human trafficking, could himself be subject to prejudices and be providing misinformation on Rroma: “Ceipek opens another photo file. It shows a Roma village in Romania, which he recently visited. He tells of houses, cobbled together from planks and plastic sheeting, and dirt roads full of garbage. In the middle is a magnificent villa.It belongs to the clan chief. He rules the villages as a state within a state”, says Ceipek […]. Many of the children dealt with in Vienna belong to the Roma. […] “The phenomenon of Eastern European gangs of beggars is not new. But since a couple of months, it taken new proportions”, says Ceipek. Very active are the Bosnian gangs, he states. Every few weeks, they would bring the children to different European cities, according to a rotating system. The social worker explains that his aim was to provide a perspective to the children, a little education. They might get on better path.”” Alexander Ott, head of the Foreign Police Bern, who has already been quoted repeatedly in articles about criminal Rroma gangs and trafficking of children, has his say. He reproduces the usual prejudices about hierarchical Rroma clans with a clan chief who leads children into crime: “The network of child traffickers reaches from Eastern Europe to Switzerland. “The victims are recruited in Romania, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Czech Republic and Slovakia. Often they come from large Roma families, are purchased or borrowed”, says Ott. One sends the boys to steal, urges them into prostitution, or forces them to beg. The instigators know well that the Swiss justice system cannot prosecute the perpetrators because of their young age. Adolescent burglars are booming in the autumn and winter months. Ott emphasises that they have to deal with highly professional, specialised and hierarchically-run clans, who practice their craft since generations.” Rroma are not more criminal than other ethnic groups. They are not hierarchically organised, as is often claimed, but structured largely egalitarian. So-called “Rroma kings” are self-elected and have purely representative character. Guggisberg and experts’ claim that behind begging children there is inevitably trafficking and organized crime, is wrong.

The characteristics of transnational operating trafficker networks, as presented here, are questioned by social science research. Their existence itself is not denied, something that cannot be in the interest of combating injustice. But their manifestation, their number, their omnipotence and the motivations attributed to them have to be questioned. These are often tainted by ideological fallacies, brought into connection or even equated with ethnic groups such as Rroma. Furthermore, the equation of child migration and trafficking has to be set into context. The stereotype of Rroma as child traffickers dates back to their arrival in Western Europe, and is in part based on the racist notion that Rroma did actively recruit children for criminal gangs. Regarding the topic of child migration, social science studies convey a more complex notion on the subject and point out that crimes such as incitement to beg and steal or alleged child trafficking are often permeated by various morals in the analysis and assessment by authorities, who don’t appropriately consider the perspective and motivations of migrating children and their relatives, and instead force on them their own ideas and definitions on organised begging, criminal networks or child trafficking. Structural differences of the societies involved and resulting reasons for a migration are given too little consideration. In reality, behind begging children there are often simply impoverished families, in which the children contribute to the family income and who therefore do not correspond to bourgeois notions of a normal family and childhood. De facto child trafficking is rare according to the sociological studies. Furthermore, the incomes from begging are very modest, which makes them unattractive for organised crime.  Guggisberg, who states that 200’000 children are recruited annually by the trafficking mafia, contradicts this. 

At the end of the article, Guggisberg quotes another expert opinion by Norbert Ceipek, the director of the “Wiener Drehschreibe”: At 15, many of them would get married and have children themselves, so that the cycle of crime continues. Likewise, Guggisberg reproduces this racist prejudice uncritically. The majority of Rroma, who live integrated, go to work and send their children to school, remain unmentioned (compare Cree/Clapton/Smith 2012, O’Connell Davidson 2011, Oude Breuil 2008, Tabin et al 2012).

  • Cree, Viviene E./Clapton, Gary/Smith, Mark (2012) The Presentation of Child Trafficking in the UK: An Old and New Moral Panic? In: Br J Soc Work 44(2): 418-433.
  • Guggisberg, Rahel (2014) Das Schicksal der Roma-Kinder von Wien. In: Tages-Anzeiger online vom 14.11.2014. http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/leben/gesellschaft/Das-Schicksal-der-RomaKinder-von-Wien/story/14626308
  • O’Connell Davidson, Julia (2011) Moving children? Child trafficking, child migration, and child rights. In: Critical Social Policy 31(3):454-477.
  • Oude Breuil, Brenda Carina (2008) Precious children in a heartless world? The complexities of child trafficking in Marseille. In: Child Soc 22(3):223-234.
  • Tabin, Jean Pierre et al. (2012) Rapport sur la mendicité « rrom » avec ou sans enfant(s). Université de Lausanne.

08.10.2014 Visible Rroma in Serbia

Published by:

Ivanji (2014) reports on visible Rroma in Serbia. In a Belgrade suburb, next to a refugee centre, where even two decades after the war, refugees from Croatia, Bosnia, and Kosovo are living together with other asylum seekers, there is a Rroma camp. Kameraj Sajin lives there with his family. He is one of those who is directly affected by the new status of Serbia of “safe country of origin”. Although the Sajins are not persecuted, they are affected by severe poverty and exclusion: “Eight months the family spent in Steinfurt, this year “three months and eleven days.” A few weeks ago, they were deported to Serbia. The stay was “really nice” tells Sajin. After the family had moved between several asylum homes, they received an apartment and around 1,200 Euros a month. At Caritas they could buy clothing and food for two Euros. The daughter went to school, the two sons to the playschool. “Not like here”, says Sajin […]. Here, in Krnjaca, his daughter has to go to evening school because, she lost her place in the regular primary school and he has no confirmation that she attended a German school. For the boys, there is no kindergarten, and from the state he gets only 10,000 dinars (around 85 Euros) of child benefit.” This article addresses the important question of whether one should not recognise poverty and exclusion as legitimate reasons for asylum, and not only political persecution. It must also be added that Rroma in South Eastern Europe, even though many are affected by severe poverty, are not living exclusively in slums. Rroma, especially in the former states of Yugoslavia, belong to all social classes, but are usually only perceived as Rroma if they conform to the stereotypes of the minority. But there are also Rroma doctors, policemen, teachers, etc., which are fully integrated, and have been so for generations.

03.10.2014 Integration award for Rroma organizations in the Western Balkans and Turkey

Published by:

The European Commission has announced in a recent press release that it awards seven distinguished organisations that are particularly involved in the integration of the Rroma in their countries. The winning organizations include: Roma Active Albania (RAA), which advocates the Rroma civil rights and draws attention to current topics of Romnja; the organization Citizens Association for the Promotion of Education of Roma Otaharin that is committed in Bosnia-Herzegonvina to better educational opportunities of the minority; in Kosovo The Ideas Partnership, which advocates for the integration of former beggars and promotes the enrolment of children; in Macedonia the organization Centre for Integration Ambrela that is committed to the promotion of Rroma in early childhood; in Serbia Hands of Friendship, which operates a parent-child education project; in Turkey the children’s art project Sulukule Roma Culture Development and Solidarity Association; and finally in Montenegro a project against child and forced marriages in Rroma communities, through the Centre for Roma Initiatives. The European Commission justifies its decision as follows: “We all – the European Commission, the governments, civil society organisations – need to send out the same message: Roma integration is an important policy. And it is not only investment for the benefit of this minority but it is also an investment to the benefit of society. Living in an environment in which each member of society contributes with their spirit and work force, will allow countries to grow strong and prosperous, from an economic, social and cultural perspective”, said Štefan Füle, Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy, at the award ceremony.” Concerning the integration programmes of the warded organizations it must be remarked that begging Rroma or child marriages in no represent the norm among the minority.

 

– European Union (2014) Award for Roma Integration in the Western Balkans and Turkey. In: European Union online vom 1.10.2014. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-1064_en.htm

 

Keywords: Rroma, Europe, European Union, integration projects, organization, awards, stereotypes  

01.10.2014 Rroma and Migration in Germany: discussion instead of polemics

Published by:

Dribbusch (2014), on the occasion of the nomination of Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia as safe countries of origin, argues for more discussion culture rather than reductionist polemics. Unfortunately, she mixes economic migration and political asylum and does not questions enough, how these categories intermingle, blend, and are dealt with: “The economic integration of people who have come to stay, must be openly debated because a solely humanitarian appeal is not enough to create acceptance. The question is: should taxpayers in Germany be responsible for offering a Roma woman from Bulgaria and their children, or a young African from Chad, better life opportunities? The answer could be yes. But only if there is also integration assistance, that means, not only should asylum seekers been freed of [current] work interdictions, but should also been paid language courses and qualification measures. […] If one wants to open up new possibilities for a poverty policy, it is also appropriate to set limits. It is acceptable that Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia are now defined as “safe countries of origin”, to speed up the asylum process. The asylum applications from Serbia recently skyrocketed.” Dribbusch is right when she calls for more integration help that consist of concrete offers and not just acceptance. However, she conveys a very one-sided notion of the minority, if she portrays Rroma as “economic refugees”. She negates the well-educated migrants, as well as individual experiences of discrimination that exist spite the safety from political persecution. Moreover, Rroma only constitute a part of the migrants from the Southeast Europe. There are also a lot of ethnic Serbians, Macedonians, Bosnians and others, who migrate to Western Europe (compare Die Presse 2014, Kılıç 2014).  

26.09.2014 European Centre for Antiziganism Research criticizes the status of safe countries of origin

Published by:

Graff (2014) spoke with Marko Knudsen, the head of the European Centre for Antiziganism Research. Knudsen decidedly criticises the new asylum law that defines Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina as being safe countries of origin in the interview. For him it is beyond question that the Rroma are affected by marginalisation and discrimination in the three countries. The opinion that Rroma are not actively persecuted in these three countries, he deems inappropriate and trivialising. Therefore, the European Centre for Antiziganism Research will file a suit against the new law. The centre justifies its charge with the following three points: “Where is Germany’s historical responsibility, which is justified through the Nazi era? Unfortunately, it is nonexistent. For me as a Roma, this decision is absolutely reprehensible. As a German, I am ashamed. For this reason, we, as the European Centre for Antiziganism Research, see ourselves forced to take legal action against this law, because: first, it violates the principle of equal treatment. Second, it violates European anti-discrimination law. Third, there is political persecution of the Roma in Europe because of antiziganism that is passed as an unquestioned European cultural code from generation to generation, whereby it is implemented in the majority of society” (Knudsen 2014). Knudsen sees the strengthened nationalism in many European countries and the exclusion of minorities resulting from it, as well as extreme economic hardships, as equally important reasons for asylum for being open political persecution. Exactly this issue was the core of the political debate: are the Rroma in Southeastern Europe actively persecuted or are they “only” affected by extreme poverty and discrimination. There was no consensus concerning this issue. Knudsen also criticizes the pressure exercised on the part of the European Union on the new member states, that did not improve the situation of minorities in the countries concerned. However, this assessment has to be questioned. It is absolutely the responsibility of the European Union to pressure its new Member States to a better compliance with minority rights. If they are not able to actively implement the requirements, this is not the fault of Brussels (compare Martens 2014).  

19.09.2014 Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are declared safe countries of origin

Published by:

On September the 19th, the decision as to whether Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina will be declared safe countries of origin on part of Germany will be made. The debate about the security against persecution and discrimination in the three states is discussed especially in reference to the fate of the Rroma. In this regard, there are major disagreements whether and how Rroma are exposed to discrimination. While the proponents of the new law assume that the Rroma are indeed affected by poverty in the three countries, they claim that they are free of persecution. Just the opposite is stated by many refugee and asylum organizations, and also by the central council of German Sinti and Roma. These different views concerning the security situation of minorities in Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina reveal that the assessment of marginalization and discrimination are based on very different criteria: supporters of a poor security situation refer to meaningful individual cases of discrimination – famous are cases that proof the difficult access to health care and other institutions, or show the harassment by government officials: “Already now, the reasons people have to flee from Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are examined too superficially, criticises the Frankfurt lawyer Reinhard Marx. […] Especially [application from] Roma of the Western Balkan countries are already now mostly rejected without detailed examination “as manifestly unfounded”, the lawyer says. He tells of hearing reports and decisions of the branch offices of the BAMF [Federal Office for Migration and Refugees]. Refugees have reported “racist assaults, attempted rape of girls and suchlike.” “In reasoning of the refusal, this was not addressed all”, says the lawyer, the reasons for flight are not carefully examined, “which for me is no longer the rule of law” (Grunau 2014). In contrast, the proponents of the new law refer to the recognition of the Rroma by the political establishment of the countries, the appreciation of Rromanes, and the historical evidence in all strata of society of the integration of the minority, especially in the countries of former Yugoslavia. Ottoman tax registers proof this already for the 15th century, where Rroma are listed as lawyers, doctors and policemen (Rroma Foundation 2002). This integration does not mean that there is no discrimination since 1989, through the strong growth of nationalism in the countries of South Eastern Europe. Again, different evaluation criteria are applied: according to the proponents of the new law, there is discrimination but no systematic persecution. How can one accurately measured and assess the severity of discrimination? In Bosnia-Herzegovina, because of the Dayton Agreement, there is only a constitutional protection of Bosnians, Serbs or Croats, but no official recognition of other minorities. But this does not mean that minorities such as Rroma are not discriminated against in everyday life, the critics claim. The different opinions reveal that the knowledge about Rroma is still dominated by a lot of uncertainties and gaps in knowledge, and that the discrimination of a minority in various countries is anything but easily to determine. Therefore, in doubt, the individual experience of discrimination should always be favoured over a general assessment of the security situation. One owes that to persons who indeed suffer of discrimination. – Neues Deutschland (2014) reports that the stricter asylum law is being adopted because of the approval by the red-green government of Baden-Württemberg. The Green minister president of Baden-Württemberg, Winfried Kretschmann, is now criticised because of his decision in his own party. Other German daily newspapers confirm the decision: Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are now safe countries of origin from Germany’s viewpoint. This means that asylum applications from these countries will be handled in an expedited fashion in the future and that discrimination will no longer be recognised as a reason for asylum (compare Brey 2014, Deringer/Lierheimer 2014, Frenzel 2014, Handelsblatt 2014, Lang 2014, Mappes-Niediek 2014, MDR 2014, Möhle 2014, Scholz 2014, Wallraff 2014, Wölfl 2014).

17.09.2014 Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina: safe countries of origin for Rroma?

Published by:

The daily news of the ARD (2014) reports on the ongoing discussions and protests because of the declaration of Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina as being “safe countries of origin”. Accordingly, the federal government will soon enact a law that puts these three countries on the list of countries safe of persecution. Thereafter, minorities like the Rroma will have very poor chances of obtaining asylum in Germany. This is being criticised especially by social democratic politicians and non-governmental organisations. Recently, the Central Council of German Sinti and Rroma has spoken out. Its chairman, Romani Rose, criticised in his statement that the three countries are anything but safe for Rroma: “In the three countries, the argument goes, there is no persecution, torture, violence or degrading treatment. […] Life for Rroma in Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina is anything but safe, Rose declared. “Large parts of the minority in these countries have no chance in the labour market, they are excluded from any participation in social life.” For Roma, which are merely tolerated in Germany, the implementation of the plans could mean deportation.” While it is true that the Rroma in the Balkans were exposed to little discrimination until 1989, and many of the common stereotypes about the minority originated in Western Europe, this does not mean that the exaggeration of ethnic differences and the marginalisation of the Rroma have not become a real issue since then that affect many members of the minority. The adoption of the new law is due to an increase of asylum applications from Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, which are turned down in the majority of the cases as being unfounded. However, these decisions are also criticised, since individual fates of exclusion and persecution get too little attention and are not considered appropriately due to lack of evidence. The status of safe countries puts administrative estimates about the protection of the civilian population, especially minorities, over the individual experiences of those affected. Whether this is a smart procedure that meets the real-life experiences of victims of discrimination, should be critically assessed. What matters in the end is the individual fate and not the official status (compare Amtsberg 2014, Attenberger/Filon 2014, Die Welt 2014, Ulbig 2014).  

Eastern Europe correspondent Mappes-Niediek (2014) contradicts this opinion: He claims that the Rroma in South Eastern Europe are often affected by poverty, but are not persecuted. In Macedonia and Serbia, the Rroma rather build part of local communities and are found in all social classes and positions. Even the Rromanes is widely accepted in Macedonia: “Traditionally, in Macedonia and Serbia, it is far less disparagingly spoken about Roma than in the neighbouring countries of Hungary, Bulgaria and Romania. The major, wearing his chain of office and shaking hands, attend Roma celebrations. In the newspapers one respectfully speaks of “citizens of Roma nationality”, and ethnic Macedonians also attend Roma pilgrimages. The European cliché that Roma steal is unknown in both countries. […] If Roma are exposed to persecution somewhere in the region, then it is the EU-country Hungary, where right-wing extremist groups inflame the atmosphere, literally hunt for Roma and the police looks the other way. However, from EU-countries no asylum applications are accepted in principle. Even discrimination based on ethnicity is likely to be far less in Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia than what Roma have to endure in Hungary, the Czech Republic or France.” Thereby Mappes-Niediek addresses an important point: the difficulty of assessing the discrimination or acceptance of a minority that is already perceived very one-sided in the public in its entirety and complexity. For Mappes-Niediek, the Rroma in South Eastern Europe are particularly affected by poverty. This is certainly true for a part of the minority. But he also hides a part of reality: in particular the integrated Rroma, which can be found in all the countries of Europe and are not perceived as Rroma by the public. Rroma should not be equated with an underclass. They build part of all strata of society. Regarding the aspect of discrimination, the individual fate should still favoured to a reductionist, generalising assessment: because mechanisms of exclusion in a society cannot be read on a measuring instrument. They are subtly distributed in all spheres of a nation and not necessarily occur in the open.    

22.08.2014 Germany: ongoing debate about the status of safe countries of origin

Published by:

Çaliskan (2014), general secretary of the German section of Amnesty International, reports on the upcoming recognition of Macedonia, Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina as safe countries of origin by the German Federal Assembly. On this occasion, she elaborates on the contradictions behind the concept. According to her, the assessment that the countries concerned are free of persecution is not based on in-depth research and analysis, but on statistical findings that there are more applications for asylum from these states while there is a declining recognition of the applications; and are thus rejected by the courts as being unfounded. Çaliskan criticises this practice as a trivialisation of real discrimination taking place that particularly affects minorities such as Rroma: “The fact that only a few of the asylum seekers were recognised is not a proof of the “safety” in Macedonia, Serbia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. It is rather a proof that even now the asylum applications are not examined thoroughly. Because the human rights situation in the three countries is anything from rosy. Especially Rroma are not “safe” from prosecution. They are structurally disadvantaged, living on the margins of society, often literally on the edge of cities, industrial areas, some families on dumping grounds. Often they are virtually cut off from work, medical care, and the children of reasonable education. Moreover, governments do not protect them from racist attacks and politicians partly stir up prejudices against them.” The denial of the status of “safe country of origin” would guarantee a more detailed examination of each case and protect the victims more effectively from discrimination and persecution. Admittedly, each case is still assessed in spite of the status of safe country of origin, but never as thoroughly and detailed, as it would if the status would not exist. Officially, a country can respect the security and rights of minorities. However, this does not mean that this really happens in everyday life and in individual cases, as shocking individual destines show. The legal evidence of an individual experience of discrimination is often difficult to prove, especially when official documents or witnesses are missing.

06.08.2014 Debate on the status of safe countries of origin

Published by:

Rüssmann (2014) reports on the ongoing debate about the status of safe countries of origin, which Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina are scheduled to receive from Germany. The draft law on the three Eastern European countries is currently being discussed in parliament. Because the representatives of the green party have turned against this attempt in all provinces until now, it is still pending. If only one green governed state agrees, the law can be adopted. Councils of refugees and asylum forums are decidedly opposing this attempt and they are reminding green party members of parliaments of the need for their steadfastness. The debate is fuelled by a recent decision of the Macedonian constitutional court: The court has ruled that the passport act, which allows the withdrawal of nationality when a Macedonian is deported due to a negative asylum application, is unlawful to Macedonia’s constitution and to the human rights. Added to this are questionable practices at the border, where potential asylum seekers are prevented from leaving: “Macedonia has, like Serbia, tightened its exit permits more and more. This was done under pressure from the EU to obtain the visa waiver. Therefore, since 2010, Macedonian border guards may prevent people from leaving when they harm international relations – as plain text: if a person wants to seek asylum in the EU. As a result, over 10,000 people, particularly Roma, have been denied exit by mid-2013, according to a pro-asylum reports, with reference to the human rights commissioner of the council of Europe and the U.S. state department.” To deny a citizen to leave his country contradicts international law. However, the German federal office for migration sees this differently and states that the right to leave is not a “basic human right”. As we already stated several times, there is also the problem that with the status of a safe country of origin, official assessments of the security situation of minorities in a given country are put above the real life experiences of individuals. Officially, a country can respect the security and rights of minorities. However, this does not mean at all that this really happens in everyday life, as shocking individual destinies reveal.

13.06.2014 The immigration debate and the discussion about safe countries of origin

Published by:

Hofmann (2014) focuses on the German migration policy based on the currently discussed draft bill to declare Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia to be safe countries of origin. The key point of the debate lies in the estimates of how strong the discrimination of minorities in the states in question really is. While proponents of the draft law point to neighbouring countries who also declared Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Macedonia as being safe countries of origin, refugee organizations and left-wing politicians refer to Rroma slums and repeated reports of explicit discrimination. The federal government takes the position that the situation of the Rroma in the Balkans is difficult but does not fulfil the claim of an actual persecution: “Although the economic, societal and social situation of the Roma in all three countries is “difficult” – however, “ a persecution of Roma does not take place.” Eastern Europe expert Dusan Reljic is quoted stating that in his opinion, there is no direct discrimination by the state, but an indirect exclusion through the weak economies that favour the discrimination of minorities such as the Rroma: “In societies where there is less and less to distribute, it is hardly possible for the less educated to make a living”, said Reljic. For Rom who was rejected as an asylum applicant, the return to a Southeast European country means “a catastrophe that is associated with greatest personal sacrifices.” Finding a job is possible only with great difficulty.” The European Union should therefore attach conditions to the inclusion into the association of states as the strict observance and enforcement of minority rights. As the debate shows, there are no detailed reports on the effective level of discrimination, only general estimates. This is inaccurate for a detailed assessment, if ultimately human fates depend on these political decisions.

Demir (2014) criticizes in his article about the immigration debate, that the term “poverty immigration” is used in the political discussion as a synonym to the immigration of Rroma. The immigration from the Balkans is clearly not limited to Rroma, but also includes a variety of other ethnic groups. Therefore, the term “Rroma problem” is inappropriate and ethnicizes a phenomenon that includes and encompasses much more than a single ethnic group. The complexity behind the migration movements, the structural conditions, the different ethnic groups, the various educational levels of individual migrants, the economic situations, the political values of the different actors, all these factors are lost in reductionist modes of argumentation. Simplicity is elegant, but from the viewpoint of a scientific will to truth, simplicity is very dangerous.

11.06.2014 Controversy over “safe countries of origin”

Published by:

On the occasion of the current political debate in the German federal council on declaring of Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Macedonia as safe countries of origin, Baeck (2014) reports on a demonstration in Bremen. All the federal states have to agree to the request. The protesters called the Bremer members of parliament to reject the application. This application is said to affect especially weak, vulnerable migrants, and to undermine the fundamental right to asylum: “The project is motivated by “racism” and “antiziganism”, said a speaker at the rally yesterday. In fact, people should be deterred to come to Germany by law. This is justified by rising numbers of asylum seekers and a low acceptance rate for people from these countries: In the first four months in 2014, a fifth of all first asylum applications came from people from Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina – 6,682 of 32,949 applications. If the three states (along with Ghana and Senegal) are declared as “safe”, the asylum procedure is shortened. To prove individual prosecution would become more difficult, asylum applications would be considered to be “evidently unfounded.”” Critics see it as particularly problematic that the new draft law recognises the social exclusion of the Rroma, but at the same time rejects their persecution. By this, the government is said to downplay the real situation on site. The reason for the increase in asylum applications from Southeast Europe is said to “be due to the social and societal problems of the Roma, but not because of a persecution of this group.”

The Green Party politician Claudia Roth criticized that it is extremely problematic to conclude on the basis of the definition of safe countries of origin that there is no real political persecution and exclusion. German interior minister Thomas de Maizière (CDU) sees this differently and refers to the support of the draft law through the German population. To which part of the population he refers to and how big this one is, remains unclear (Deutschlandfunk 2014). Wagner (2014) meanwhile reports on the case of a Macedonian Rroma-family, which was deported back to their country of origin in the middle of the night. The family became homeless and the father was charged for the „denigration of the Macedonian state“.

05.06.2014 “As a Rom in Serbia, life is Hell”

Published by:

Schaefer (2014) reports on the fate of the Serbian Rroma family Novakovic. The mother of the family, the 21-year-old Albena Novakovic, lived with her parents in Germany until she was deported as a ten-year-old, back to Serbia. They faced massive discrimination upon arrival and economic hopelessness: “On that day in Serbia, for this young woman, began a life that she would prefer to forget quickly. “I am Roma. And that is the reason why a normal life in Serbia is not possible for me”, she says with a clear expression. “I’m insulted beaten and discriminated against in Serbia. But the worst thing is that I have no future there as a Rroma. No one wants to give me a job. As a Roma, life there is Hell.” That’s why Albena and her husband oppose the plans of the German government to classify Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina as safe countries of origin. The discrimination of the minority is anything but a relic of the past. Currently, the family lives in Germany again, in Heinberg. But the fear remains that the immigration authorities knock at the door and ask the family to come along. To return to a home that is not one for the family. Regarding the assessment of asylum cases, there is still the problem that personal experiences of migrants have no value compared to the official country analyses. Since individual fates are often difficult to prove, the regulatory assessment of the security situation in the countries concerned outweights the individual experience.

30.05.2014 German court decision: Serbia not a safe country of origin for Roma

Published by:

The administrative court of Stuttgart, in what is perhaps a landmark ruling, recognized the refugee status of two Rroma from Serbia. Thus, it challenged the views of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees, which at the end of last year came to the conclusion that no persecution of Rroma could be established in Serbia and deportation was therefore justified: “As reasoning, the judges said that the Roma were experiencing extreme disadvantages in their home country and were forced to live on the margins of society, as a spokeswoman for the court said on Monday. The main reason for the judgment was the restriction of the free movement of Roma in the southeast European country. For Roma, under certain circumstances, it is punishable under Serbian law to apply for asylum in another country. This equals a persecution, the court judged.” The verdict has the character of a precedent insofar, because the Rroma are not persecuted in Serbia, according to a federal decree that will be adopted shortly. Thus, the discussion about the discrimination against Rroma in former Yugoslavia and their status as refugees is once more opened. The decision also highlights that the assessment of discrimination against a minority is far from evident and easy. While some assessment are based on the legal foundations of a country, other evaluations are based on everyday practices, such as discrimination in the labour market and the education system, that are far more difficult to prove than law-related disadvantages (see Focus online 2014/I, SWR 2014).

The federal government wants to take a completely different direction. According to the daily newspaper Neues Deutschland (2014) the government wants declare Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina as safe countries of origin. German interior minister Thomas de Maizière stated that Cabinet would discuss the bill on April the 30th. De Maizière had previously proposed, to also take Albania and Montenegro onto the list of safe countries of origin, but this proposal failed because of the criticism of the SPD: “SPD and the Union had approved in the coalition agreement, to take the three states of Serbia, Macedonia and Bosnia-Herzegovina onto the list. Asylum applications from people from these Balkan countries can then be processed faster – and are usually rejected. […] De Maizière said that Serbia had candidate status as a member state of the European Union. Albania and Bosnia-Herzegovina went for it. “From these states one must expect that they deal well with their own citizens”, de Maizière said.” This contrasts with a perspective that emphasizes the individual destinies of those affected. For the German Institute for Human Rights, the concept of safe countries of origin is problematic in itself, because it greatly complicates the presentation and verification of individual persecutions (compare Focus online 2014/II).

28.05.2014 Flooding in ex-Yugoslavia: Rroma are particularly affected

Published by:

Radio Dreyeckland (2014) reports on the impacts on Rroma of the floods in former Yugoslavia. The problem is that Rroma who lived in destroyed informal settlements have no rights to insurance money, as they violated current law practices. Socially disadvantaged Rroma are therefore particularly affected by the floods. Accordingly, many German refugee councils call for a deportation stop of planned expulsions to the Balkans. These deportations are not reasonable due to the current situation. The refugee council of Lower Saxony further states: “Given the devastating floods in the Western Balkans and the thereby once again extremely difficult living conditions of members of minorities in these countries, the refugee councils of Schleswig-Holstein, Lower Saxony, Berlin and Brandenburg demand an official ban on deportation to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia. […] Even without flooding the situation for Roma in the Western Balkans is extremely difficult. After the deportation, many Roma do not know where they should live, what they should live from and how they will pay for needed medicine. Given the current situation, deportations to Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia are totally irresponsible. […] In addition, the provisional Roma settlements, particularly in Bosnia and Serbia, were especially affected by the destruction caused by floods and landslides. Some settlements were completely washed away or cut off from supply routes. They also fear that Roma living in informal settlements will not receive compensation for their destroyed homes and tens of thousands of people remain permanently homeless. The desolate situation which prohibits deportations will thus persist in the period after the water has dropped” (Flüchtlingsrat Niedersachen 2014). Tesanovic (2014) points out that the Rroma are not only victims of the flood disaster, but also actively participate in assistance programs. The Rroma offered rescue workers their help, including the breast feeding of infants by Rroma mothers.

rroma.org
en_GBEN