The Fate of Refugees and Emigrants from the Territory of Former Yugoslavia

Meeting in Sremska Kamenica
Fakultet za evropske pravno – političke studije

November 27 – 28, 2008.


Download pdf documents:

Svetozar Pribićević – Pariski emigrant. Korespodencija kao izvor za analizu Pribićevićevog odnosa prema državnom uređenju Kraljevine Jugoslavije (kamenica_darko_gavrilovic.pdf )
Assessing Policies for Economic Incorporation of Refugees in Serbia (kamenica_mila_dragojevic.pdf )
Nekoliko napomena o stradanju i iseljavanju muslimanskog stanovništva za vrijeme Kraljevine Srba, Hrvata i Slovenaca (kamenica_adnan_jahic.pdf )
Izbjeglice – novi svjetski pokret. Regionalni razvoj – afirmiranje povratka? (kamenica_vesna_ivanovic.pdf )
Društveni sukobi i njihove posledice: srpske izbeglice i mit o krajini (kamenica_srdjan_sljukic.pdf )
Mit o dijaspori. Postsocijalistički diskurs o emigrantima i iseljenicima iz bivše Jugoslavije (kamenica_vjekoslav_perica.pdf )
Izbeglice i interno raseljena lica u Procesu stabilizacije i pridruživanja (kamenica_ljubica_djordjevic.pdf )
Položaj, perspektive i povratak izbeglica i drugih ratom raseljenih lica na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije u drguoj polovini devedesetih (kamenica_ljubisa_despotovic.pdf )
Odnos vlasti i domaćih političkih snaga prema stranim naseljenicima i naseljenicima izbjeglim povratnicima u Bosnu i Hercegovinu u kontekstu borbe za zemlju u prvom ustavnom periodu 1910 – 1914 (kamenica_edin_radusic.pdf)
Uloga političke emigracije u stvaranju prve jugoslovenske države (kamenica_boris_krsev.pdf )
Srpska i hrvatska kulturna emigracija u XX veku (kamenica_zoran_djeric.pdf )
Prepreke za povratak Srba u Hrvatsku (kamenica_janko_veselinovic.pdf )
Optanti u Nettunskim konvencijama iz 1925. godine (kamenica_zeljko_bartulovic.pdf )
Medijska (zlo)upotreba izbeglica (kamenica_zoran_jevtovic.pdf )
Individual versus Group Rights and the Question of Refugee Repatriation (kamenica_elazar_barkan.pdf )
Krivica domaćih Nemaca i zločini nad nemačkim stanovništvom u Vojvodini posle Drugog svetskog rata – analiza jednog dokumenta (kamenica_nebojsa_petrovic.pdf )


Zaključci sa konferencije u Sremskoj Kamenici, Srbija

Na Fakultetu za evropske pravne i političke studije (FEPPS) u Sremskoj Kamenici 27. i 28. novembra 2008. istoričari, pravnici, politikolozi i sociolozi iz BiH, Hrvatske, Srbije i SAD vodili su diskusiju na temu “Izbeglice i emigranti iz bivše Jugoslavije“. Sponzor konferencije je Sekretarijat za nauku i tehnološki razvoj Autonomne pokrajine Vojvodine. Organizator konferencije je Centar za istoriju, demokratiju i pomirenje (CHDR), Novi Sad, i Institut za istorijsku pravdu i pomirenje (IHJR), Salcburg.

Konferenciju je otvorio dekan Fakulteta za pravne i političke studije, kao instituticije domaćina, prof. dr Ilija Babić, koji je pozdravio naučnike i goste, kao i ambassador Hans Ola Urstad, šef misije OEBSa u Srbiji, prof. dr Darko Gavrilović sa FEPPSa i prof dr Elazar Barkan, sa Kolumbija Univerziteta u Nju Jorku.

Tom prilikom je prof. Gavrilović citirao reči poznatog italijanskog pisca Itala Kalvina, koji je rekao da moramo ući u more, kako bismo razumeli šta je more, a da bi razumeli šta je pustinja, moramo uzeti pesak u ruke. Prof. Gavrilović je rekao kako i naučnici iz CHDR I IHJR takođe treba da se udube u svoju zajedničku prošlost i da u svoje ruke uzmu dokumente koji o toj prošlosti svedoče, nepristrasno i bez predrasuda. Samo tako se može razumeti prošlost i koristiti njene lekcije u budućnosti. Na kraju, prof. Gavrilović je primetio da te lekcije treba da budu upućene ne samo akademskoj zajednici, već i političkim akterima i narodu.

Ambasador Urstad je govorio o važnosti saradnje sa visokim predstavnikom UN za izbeglice (UNHCR) i drugim organizacijama koje imaju dobru volju da rešavaju probleme izbeglica. Ambasador je naglasio da međunarodna zajednica pokušava da pomogne u rešavanju izuzetnih problema koji se odnose na izbeglice. Kao rezultat tih napora, nešto je već postignuto. Međutim, ambassador je takođe izrazio nezadovoljstvo angažmanom na ovim pitanjima i predložio da svi učestvuju u ovom dugotrajnom i napornom procesu.

Posle uvodnih reči, prof. Barkan je održao predavanje, u kojem je sagledao istorijski i globalni fenomen masovnih migracija. Prof. Barkan je napomenuo da je u svetu bilo više od 200 miliona izbeglica, i da je najveći broj izbegao posle II svetskog rata. Od prvih slučajeva izbeglištva u 20. veku do danas, doneto je nekoliko konvencija, kao što su Univerzalna deklaracija o ljudskim pravima iz 1948. i konvencija koja se odnosi na status izbeglica iz 1951. Prof. Barkan je takođe podsetio na skorije talase izbeglica u poslednjih nekoliko godina iz Iraka, Gruzije i Kenije. Na žalost, očigledno je izostao povratak izbeglica koje pripadaju manjinskim grupama, pošto se samo stariji vraćaju. Sve izbeglice imaju pravo na povratak. Prof. Barkan je naglasio da ako je izbeglička kriza rezultat političkog sukoba, onda promena politike može pomoći da se to pitanje reši. Međutim, ako je razlog sukoba pitanje identiteta, bilo etničkog, nacionalnog ili verskog, onda povratak nije verovatan. Prof Barkan je naglasio da on ne ističe neku filozofsku ili pravnu tezu, već jednostavno predstavlja empirijski opis – da se izbeglice ne vraćaju, iako bi trebalo da se vrate. Prema tome, potrebno je da se razume to ograničenje. Međunarodna zajednica treba da se usmeri na pomoć izbeglicama, tako što bi im obećala pravo na dom, pošto izbeglice pate više od drugih u tim krizama. Konačno, prof. Barkan je zaključio da umesto produžavanja krize treba insistirati na ponovnom naseljavanju, ponovnoj izgradnji i rešavanju sukoba.

Tokom dvodnevne konferencije, učesnici su radili u dve tematske grupe. Prva grupa se bavila pitanjima izbeglica, kako najnovijim periodom izbegličke krize u vezi sa raspadom Jugoslavije, tako i rešenjima ovog problema u daljoj prošlosti, dok je druga grupa tretirala emigraciju iz bivše Jugoslavije, sa naglaskom na emigraciju 20. veka.

Grupa koja je obrađivala temu “Izbeglice i raseljena lica na teritoriji bivše Jugosavije”, čiji su koordinatori bili članovi Upravnog odbora CHDR, prof. dr Ana Trbović sa Fakulteta za ekonomiju, finansije i administraciju u Beogradu, dr Vesna Ivanović iz Ministarstva za regionalni razvoj i turizam u Zagrebu, i dr Ranka Gašić iz Instituta za savremenu istoriju u Beogradu, usmerili su diskusiju u tri osnovne teme – istorijske perspektive, savremena pitanja i slika izbeglica u medijima. Referati prof. dr Adnana Jahića sa Filozofskog fakulteta u Tuzli, prof. dr Željka Bartulovića sa Pravnog fakulteta na Rijeci i mr Nebojša Petrović iz Studentskog centra Univerziteta u Novom Sadu bavili su se istorijskim perspektivama problema izbeglica i imigranata. Oni su naglasili ulogu države u stvaranju i rešavanju izbegličkih problema i problema migranata, sa zaključkom da su primeri reagovanja države bili više političke nego čisto humanitarne prirode. Jedna od lekcija koje se mogu izvući iz tih istorijskih primera jeste da je neohodno ohrabriti državu da bude nepristrasnija i da na jednak način tretira pitanja raseljavanja ljudi iz određenih regiona, nacija ili etničkih grupa. Ovi referati su takođe pokazali da je problem izbeglica prisutan na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije tokom celog 20 veka. Prema tome, javnost treba da bude svesnija ovih problema, kojima treba prići bez predrasuda i pristrasnosti. Konačno, konstatovano je da je stanje istoriografije u ovom pitanju generalno loše, mada nekoliko postojećih studija mogu poslužiti kao korisna polazna tačka za buduće projekte.
U drugoj grupi koja je obrađivala temu “Izbeglice i raseljena lica na teritoriji bivše Jugoslavije”, dr Vesna Ivanović, prof. dr Janko Veselinović sa Alfa Univerziteta u Novom Sadu, prof. dr Ljubica Đorđević sa FEPPSa, mr Mila Dragojević sa Braun Univerziteta iz Providensa (SAD), prof. dr Ljubiša Despotović sa Fakulteta za kulturu i medije iz Beograda i prof. dr Srđan Šljukić sa Filozofskog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, govorili su o savremenim pitanjima u vezi sa izbeglicama, kao što su njihov povratak i perspektive integracije. U tom kontekstu, istaknuto je da postoji studija UN u Hrvatskoj, koja je zaključila da ukoliko se trenutno stanje produži, povratnici će verovatno biti sve više izolovani. Takođe, u studiji je zaključeno da je demografska slika i ukupna socijalna situacija povratnika vrlo problematična. Pitanje je da li su države i zajednice koje su pogođene izbegličkim problemom u stanju da efikasno reše te probleme. Jedan od neophodnih činilaca za uspešno rešavanje ovih izuzetnih problema jeste saradnja institucija u čitavom regionu bivše Jugoslavije koji je pogođen nevoljom izbeglica, bilo da je u pitanju mesto porekla ili destinacija ka kojoj su izbeglice išle. Na primer, u Hrvatskoj postoje slučajevi zloupotrebe pravnog sistema na nižim nivoima, gde etnička diskriminacija otežava povratak izbeglica. Među konkretnim predlozima za buduće projekte pomenuto je pisanje knjige, koja bi se odnosila na savremene probleme u vezi sa izbegličkom krizom u bivšoj Jugoslaviji. Takođe, s obzirom na dostupnost vladinih dokumenata, podaci prikupljeni u službama koje su se bavile pojedinačnim izbegličkim problemima bile bi odličan izvor vrednog istraživačkog materijala za buduće projekte. Naučnici sa prostora bivše Jugoslavije trebalo bi da sarađuju sa postojećom mrežom naučnika iz drugih delova Evrope, koje se bave sličnim problemima. Konačno, ova grupa je predložila pravljenje atlasa koji bi sadržao mape izbegličkih puteva u celom svetu.

Odgovor države i medija na probleme izbeglica bila je treća tema unutar ove radne grupe. Prof dr Zoran Jevtović sa Fakulteta za kulturu i medije iz Beograda analizirao je u svom referatu sadržaj srpskih medija tokom devedesetih godina 20. veka. Zaključio je da izbeglice u tim tekstovima imaju pasivnu ulogu i da su često stavljeni u pozadinu sukoba, kao dodatno opravdanje za produžavanje rata. Problemi koji se odnose na izbeglice uglavnom nisu postojali u medijima, a postojeći tekstovi su imali tendenciju da predstave kako država brine o njima. Međutim, kada analiziramo ulogu države u zadovoljavanju potreba izbeglica u to vreme, jasno je da je ta slika daleko od realnosti. Ukratko, izbeglička kriza je zloupotrebljena u medijima radi političkih ciljeva, da bi se zadovoljile potrebe i interesi određenih političkih aktera. Konačno, slika izbeglica koja je stvorena u medijima prikazuje naizgled njihovu uspešnu integraciju, što ne potvrđuju činjenice o stvarnim uslovima pod kojima oni i dalje žive u Srbiji.

Radnu grupu koja se bavila temom “Emigranti na teritoriji bivše Jugoslavije” koordinisao je dr Igor Grahovac iz Hrvatskog instituta za istoriju u Zagrebu. U ovoj grupi bilo je pet referata. Prof. dr Vjekoslav Perica sa Filozofskog fakulteta na Rijeci tretirao je teorijska i konceptualna pitanja u vezi sa dijasporom i emigracijom. Primeri izbeglica koji su postali emigranti tokom 20. veka na teritoriji bivše Jugoslavije predstavljeni su u referatu prof. dr Borisa Krševa sa FEPPSa. Tri faze emigracije kulturnih radnika iz ovog regiona prikazane su u referatu prof. dr Zorana Đerića sa Akademije za pozorište i likovnih umetnosti iz Banja Luke. Prof. dr Edin Radušić sa Filozofskog fakulteta u Sarajevu govorio je o pojedinačnim primerima emigranata u BiH u vreme Austro-Ugarske monarhije. Prof. dr Darko Gavrilović sa FEPPSa prikazao je iskustvo Svetozara Pribićevića u emigraciji, političara koji je potpuno promenio svoju političku orijentaciju prema režimu u Jugoslaviji.

U cilju daljih studija emigracije na teritoriji bivše Jugoslavije, upućujemo na neka otvorena pitanja i probleme koji se mogu tretirati na budućim konferencijama.

Prvo, emigranti čine posebnu kategoriju koja je ponekad suviše strogo, a ponekad nedovoljno razdvojena od koncepta izbeglica i raseljenih lica. Drugo, u proučavanju emigracije nije dovoljno koncentrisati se samo na političku emigraciju, kao najzanimljiviji oblik, nego treba takođe ispitati ekonomske i etničke vidove migracije. Treba naglasiti da je, kada je reč o većem delu 20. veka, u slučaju političke emigracije, a posebno u kontekstu jugoslovenske države, najveći broj emigranata bio antijugoslovenski orijentisan. Jedini izuzetak je informbirovska emigracija, čija je projugoslovenska orijentacija, međutim, imala u vidu prosovjetsku Jugoslaviju. Treće, kada je reč o socijalističkim državama, uključujući bivšu Jugoslaviju, važno je preispitati unutrašnju emigraciju kao realnost i kao koncept. Za nedavni period devedesetih godina 20. veka, možemo se zapitati da li je uopšte postojala “jugoslovenska” emigracija na Zapadu. Četvrto, u tom periodu postoji novi tip političke emigracije – regionalna politička emigracija, koja se može naći na celom prostoru bivše države. Ta emigracija ne napušta region, već se nastanjuje u svojim etno-nacionalnim državama. Peto, očigledno je da ovi novi oblici emigracije nemaju veze sa prethodnim. Pojavljuje se nova, ili tzv. “nevidljiva” dijaspora, o kojoj ne postoji zvanična evidencija, dok klasični concept dijaspore polako nestaje. Nevidljiva dijaspora spada u novi tip nacionalističkih mitova. Nove nacionalne države žele da sakriju stvarne razmere emigracije, pošto bi bilo teško pomiriti masovnu emigraciju sa ostvarenjem nacionalnog sna njihovih građana. Ova radna grupa nije se složila oko pitanja da li duži boravak van zemlje treba smatrati emigracijom. Sve u svemu, postoji potreba za preciznijim definisanjem koncepta fenomena emigracije i dijaspore, o čemu treba diskutovati na narednim sastancima.

Postoji nekoliko mogućih pravaca budućih istraživanja izbeglica i emigranata na teritoriji bivše Jugoslavije. Prvo, ima li sličnosti između tretmana izbeglica u BiH, Hrvatskoj i Srbiji. Npr, prof. Barkan je skrenuo pažnju na mogući nesklad između zahteva za predstavljanjem države kao zaštitnika nacije i nacionalne politike rešavanja izbegličke krize, koja nije zadovoljavajuća. Tako bi još jedna moguća tema istraživanja mogla biti komparativna regionalna studija tenzija između nacionalne retorike i nacionalne politike.

Na kraju konferencije, predstavljen je zbornik radova sa prethodne konferencije “Srpsko-hrvatski odnosi u 20. veku. Prošlost i perspective”, koja je održana u Golubiću kod Obrovca, 18-20. septembra 2008. Na promociji održanoj u Teatru mladih u Novom Sadu govorili su prof. dr Elazar Barkan, prof. dr Darko Gavrilović, dr Igor Grahovac, prof. dr Janko Veselinović i dr Vjekoslav Perica. Između ostalog, govornici su istakli značaj pojma “pomirenje”, ne kao procesa harmonizacije mišljenja, već kao procesa dijaloga između strana koje ne moraju obavezno deliti mišljenje, ali koje su u stanju da razumeju i saosećaju jedna sa drugom. Samo putem takvog stalnog dijaloga odnosi između strana koje su nekad bile su sukobu mogu biti normalizovani, ne do tačke potpunog slaganja, več do tačke kada svaki potencijalni oružani sukob među njima postaje potpuno neizvodljiv.

Conclusions from the Conference in Sremska Kamenica, Serbia

Historians, jurists, political scientists, and sociologists from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia, and the United States gathered on November 27th and 28th at the Faculty of European Legal and Political Studies (FEPPS) in Sremska Kamenica, Serbia, to debate the issues under the theme “Refugees and Emigrants from the Former Yugoslavia.” The conference was sponsored by the Provincial Secretariat for Science and Technological Development of the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. It was organized by the Center for History, Democracy and Reconciliation (CHDR), Novi Sad, Serbia, and the Institute for Historical Justice and Reconciliation (IHJR), Salzburg, Austria.

The conference was opened by the President of the host institution, FEPPS, Prof. Ilija Babić, Ph.D. who welcomed the scholars and the guests, and the Ambassador Hans Ola Urstad, the Head of Mission to Serbia of Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Prof. Darko Gavrilović, Ph.D., from FEPPS, and Prof. Elazar Barkan, Ph.D., from Columbia University (New York, United States).

On that occasion, Prof. Gavrilović, mentioned that a well-known Italian writer Italo Calvino said that in order to understand what sea is, we need to immerse ourselves in it, and in order to understand what desert is, we need to take sand into our own hands. Prof. Gavrilović drew an analogy to this statement by saying that the scholars from the CHDR and the IHJR also need to immerse themselves into the shared past and to take into their own hands the documents that serve as its evidence, impartially and without prejudice. Only then, Prof. Gavrilović emphasized, it would be possible to understand the past and to carry its lessons into the future. Finally, Prof. Gavrilović noted that those lessons are not only to be directed toward the academic community, but also toward the political actors and the people.

Ambassador Hans Ola Urstad spoke about the importance of the collaboration with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other organizations that have good will to work on the resolution of the refugee-related problems. The international community, as the Ambassador underlined, tries to help in resolving the outstanding issues with respect to refugees. As a result, certain achievements have already been made. However, the Ambassador also expressed his dissatisfaction with the intensity with which these issues are addressed and suggested that everyone should take part in this protracted and arduous process.

The opening remarks were followed by a lecture of Prof. Barkan, who reviewed the historical and global phenomenon of mass migrations. Prof. Barkan mentioned that there were over 200 million refugees across the world, and that the largest number of refugees occurred following the WWII. From the first cases of refugees in the 20th century until today, several conventions were passed, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 and the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees from 1951, among others. Prof. Barkan also reminded us about the more recent refugee waves in the past several years from Iraq, Georgia, and Kenya. Unfortunately, according to the existing statistics, the failure of minority refugees to return to their original territories is evident. All refugees have a right to return. The lack of return of minorities is more than obvious, as only the elderly are returning. Prof. Barkan posited that if the refugee crisis resulted from the conflict with political causes, then the change of politics could help in resolving the refugee issue. However, if the source of the conflict is the question of identities, whether ethnic, national, or religious identities, then the return to the previous state is unlikely. Prof. Barkan emphasized that he was not making a philosophical or legal argument, but simply presenting an empirical description – while the minorities should return, they do not return. It is, thus, necessary to recognize this limitation. The focus of the international community, should be to help the refugees by promising them a right to home, as refugees suffer more than others in these crises. Finally, Prof. Barkan concluded that rather than protracting this crisis, it is necessary to insist on the resettlement, the reconstruction, and the resolution of the conflict.
During the two days of the conference, the participants worked in two thematic groups. The first working group addressed the issues related to refugees, both in the most recent period of the refugee crisis following the dissolution of Yugoslavia, as well as the solutions to refugee problems from the more distant past, while the second group examined the emigration from the former Yugoslavia, with emphasis on the 20th century emigration.

The working group, “Refugees and Displaced Persons on the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia,” which was coordinated by the three members of the steering committee of the CHDR, Prof. Ana Trbović, Ph.D., from the Faculty for Economy, Finance and Administration (Belgrade, Serbia), Vesna Ivanović, Ph.D., from the Ministry for Regional Development and Tourism (Zagreb, Croatia), and Ranka Gašić, Ph.D., from the Institute for Contemporary History (Belgrade, Serbia), categorized their discussion into three main themes – historical perspectives, contemporary issues, and the media portrayal of refugees. Papers by Prof. Adnan Jahić, Ph.D., from the Philosophy Faculty (Tuzla, Bosnia and Herzegovina), Prof. Željko Bartulović, Ph.D., from the Law Faculty (Rijeka, Croatia), and Nebojša Petrović, M.A., from the Student Center of the University of Novi Sad (Novi Sad, Serbia), dealt with historical perspectives of the refugee and immigrant issues. These papers stressed the role of the state in generating and resolving the refugee or migrant issues, with a conclusion that the examples of the state responses were more of political nature than of purely humanitarian nature. One of the lessons that may be taken from these historical examples is that there is a necessity to encourage the state policy that is more equitable and impartial when addressing the displacement issues of the members of particular regions, nations, or ethnicities. The papers also showed that the refugee problem is present in the region of former Yugoslavia throughout the 20th century. Hence, the public should be made more aware of the refugee problems, which in turn, need to be addressed without preconceptions and bias. Finally, the state of historiography on the issue of refugees is generally poor, although several existing studies may serve as a useful starting point for future projects.

Within the working group “Refugees and Displaced Persons on the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia, Vesna Ivanović, Ph.D., Prof. Janko Veselinović, Ph.D., from Alfa University (Novi Sad, Serbia), Prof. Ljubica Đorđević, Ph.D., from FEPPS (Sremska Kamenica, Serbia), Mila Dragojević, M.A., from Brown University (Providence, United States), Prof. Ljubiša Despotović, Ph.D., from the Faculty for Culture and Media (Belgrade, Serbia), and Prof. Srđan Šljukić, Ph.D. from the Philosophy Faculty (Novi Sad, Serbia) spoke about the contemporary issues related to refugees, such as their return and perspectives for their integration. In this context, a study that was conducted by the United Nations (UN) in Croatia concluded that if the current situation continues, the returnees will likely be increasingly isolated. Also, the demographic picture and the general social situation of the returnees are problematic. It remains questionable whether the states and the communities that were affected by the refugee problems are able to resolve these problems effectively. One of the factors that may be necessary for the successful resolution of the outstanding issues is the collaboration of the institutions throughout the region of the former Yugoslavia that is affected by the plight of refugees, whether it is a region of origin or a region of the destination of the refugee flows. For example, in Croatia, there are cases when the legal system was sometimes misused at lower levels, where ethnic-based discrimination that discouraged the return of refugees resulted. Among the several concrete suggestions for future projects is the book project, which would address the contemporary problems related to the refugee crisis in the former Yugoslavia. Also, given the accessibility to government materials, the data collected by the offices that managed individual refugee cases would be an excellent source of valuable research material for future projects. Scholars from the region of the former Yugoslavia should collaborate with the existing network of scholars in other parts of Europe, who are working on similar issues. Finally, this group suggested to create an atlas, in which the refugee flows throughout the entire region would be mapped.

The media and the state response to the refugee issues was the third theme within the working group “Refugees and Displaced Persons on the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia.” Paper by Prof. Zoran Jevtović, Ph.D., Faculty for Culture and Media (Belgrade, Serbia) analyzed the content of the Serbian media throughout the 1990s. The article concluded that refugees had a passive role in texts and were often placed in the background of conflicts, serving as an additional justification for the continuation of wars. The refugee-related issues were generally absent from the media, and the texts that were found tended to present the state as their caregiver. However, when we analyze the role of the state in meeting the needs of the refugees at the time, it becomes evident that this image is far from reality. In short, the refugee crisis was misused in the media for political purposes to meet the needs and interests of particular political actors. Finally, the image of refugees that the media created gave an appearance of their successful integration, which is also not supported by data regarding the actual conditions under which refugees continue to live in Serbia.

The working group “Emigrants on the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia” was coordinated by Igor Graovac, Ph.D., from the Croatian Institute for History (Zagreb, Croatia). In this group, there were five reports. Prof. Vjekoslav Perica, Ph.D., from the Philosophy Faculty (Rijeka, Croatia) examined theoretical and conceptual issues related to diaspora and emigration. Examples of stories of refugees who were transformed into emigrants throughout the 20th century on the territories of former Yugoslavia were presented in the paper by Prof. Boris Kršev, Ph.D., from FEPPS. Three phases of the emigration of cultural workers from this region were illustrated in the paper of Prof. Zoran Đerić, Ph.D., from the Academy of Theater and Fine Arts (Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina). Prof. Edin Radušić, Ph.D., from the Philosophy Faculty (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) wrote about individual examples of emigrants in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy. Prof. Darko Gavrilović, Ph.D., from FEPPS illustrated the experience of Svetozar Pribićević as an emigrant who changed his political orientation entirely with respect to the political regime in Yugoslavia. For the purpose of further study of emigration on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, we point to some open questions and problems that may be resolved in future conferences and workshops.

First, emigrants are a special category that is sometimes too strictly and other times insufficiently conceptually separated from the concepts of refugees and displaced persons. Second, when studying emigration, it is not sufficient to focus solely on political migration, as the most interesting form of migration, but we should also examine economic and ethnic types of migration. It should be emphasized that when speaking about the larger portion of the 20th century, in the case of political emigration, especially in the context of the Yugoslav state, the greatest number of emigrants had anti-Yugoslav orientation. The only exception is the Informbiro emigration that had Yugoslav orientation, but in the form of pro-Soviet Yugoslavia. Third, when speaking about the socialist states, including the former Yugoslavia, it is important to examine the concept and the actual internal emigration. In the recent period of the 1990s, we could ask whether the Yugoslav emigration to the West even existed at the time of the dissolution of Yugoslavia. Fourth, in the same period, there is a new type of political emigration – regional political emigration, which was found across the entire region of the former Yugoslavia. This emigration does not leave the region, but settles in their respective ethno-national states. Fifth, it is evident that the new forms of emigration, which took place on the territory of former Yugoslavia, particularly those from the latter part of the 20th century, do not resemble the earlier forms of migration. The new diaspora, or the so-called “invisible” diaspora, which is not officially recorded, is emerging, while the classical concept of diaspora is gradually lost. The invisible diaspora belongs to a new type of the nationalist myths. The new national states have a motivation to hide the actual levels of emigration, as it would be difficult to reconcile a mass emigration with the realization of the national dream for their respective citizens. One point of disagreement in this group is whether a longer residence outside one’s country should be considered as emigration. In sum, there is a need for a more accurate conceptualization of the phenomenon of emigration and diaspora, which should be discussed in future meetings.

There are several possible directions for the future research on refugees and emigrants on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. First, one question should be whether there are any similarities between the treatment of refugees in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Serbia. For instance, Prof. Barkan brought attention to a possible dissonance between a national claim to present the state as a national caregiver and a national policy to resolving the refugee crisis, which was not satisfactory. Thus, the comparative regional study of the tension between the national rhetoric and the national policy could be another possible topic of research.

The conference concluded with the book release of the edited volume that contained the papers presented at the last conference, “Serbo-Croat Relations in the 20th Century – History and Perspectives,” which took place in Golubić (near Obrovac) on September 18-20, 2008. Elazar Barkan, Ph.D., Darko Gavrilović, Ph.D., Igor Graovac, Ph.D., Janko Veselinović, Ph.D., and Vjekoslav Perica, Ph.D. spoke at the book release that was held in the Youth Theater, Novi Sad, Serbia. Among other issues, the speakers talked about the significance of the word reconciliation, not as a process of harmonization of opinions, but a process of the dialogue between the sides that do not necessarily share the same opinions but are able to understand and empathize with one another. Only through such continued dialogues can the relations between the sides that were once in conflict normalize, not to the point that these sides always agree, but to the point that any potential armed conflicts between them become entirely unfeasible.