Autori u ovom radu donose informacije o organiziranim prisilnim iseljavanjima Slovenaca s područja Štajerske i Dolenjske, na područje NDH, Njemačke i Srbije, na temelju sjećanja kazivača, članova sekcije izgnanaca Slovenskog doma u Zagrebu. Na temelju objavljene literature i polustrukturiranih dubinskih intervjua, autori donose podatke o prisilnom iseljavanju, odvođenju u logore i životu u progonstvu te povratku kućama. ; Based on the testimonies of individuals from the Zagreb Section of the Society of Slovenian Exiles, the authors record various data on the forced exile from Slovenia in 1941. Following the short military conflict in April 1941, Slovenia was divided between Hungary, Germany and Italy. The Germans had a plan wherein they would forcibly deport the local Slovenian population from Styria (and in part Lower Carniola), then resettle migrants of German nationality (primarily from Gottschee) into their homes. The storytellers, most of whom were at the time children, recount their preparations for this forced exile, leaving their homes, and being brought to the labour camp Brestanica/Rajhenburg (ger. Reichenburg) and to Maribor, after which they were deported to Germany, the Independent State of Croatia or Serbia. Life in camps in Germany was very hard for most storytellers, and only few of them were lucky enough to be placed in German homes as help. In German camps, the Slovenians underwent heavy Germanisation, which is recounted by most of the witnesses, who were children at the time. After being forcibly moved to the Independent State of Croatia and its camp in Slavonska Požega, the Slovenians were then reallocated to the estates of Serbs who were previously forcibly deported to Serbia. Research shows that the position of the izgnanci in Croatia was worse than that of the izgnanci in Germany, as they were, for the most part, left to their own devices in Croatia. After the end of the war, most of the exiled Slovenians returned to their original homes. Upon return, they largely found ruined and abandoned houses, and were forced to start their lives over with nothing. Today, there are almost no living izgnanci who were older than 15 at the time of the exile and deportation. Therefore, the statements given by the witnesses in 2019 and 2020 were mostly given by persons who were no older than 8 at the moment of the exile. Collecting their memories is a challenge and it is high time to record their statements about these events from those witnesses who are still alive.
Romsko stanovništvo danas čini jednu od najstarijih manjinskih skupina u Hrvatskoj, a njihovo naseljavanje na ovom području bilježi se od druge polovine XIV. st. Odnos hrvatskih vlasti prema njima često je bio obilježen represivno-asimilacijskom politikom, koju danas neki znanstvenici smatraju dijelom šire europske anticiganističke politike. Stradanje Roma u Drugom svjetskom ratu u Europi, uključujući Nezavisnu Državu Hrvatsku, može se smatrati vrhuncem takve anticiganističke politike. U radu se posebno analizira stradanja Roma na širem bjelovarsko-bilogorskom području, tj. području Velike župe Bilogora. Tako su analizirana pitanja odnosa lokalnih (ustaških) vlasti prema Romima, ali i drugim pitanjima, poput deportacije Roma u jasenovački koncentracijski logor, oduzimanje njihove imovine, primjer otpora Roma (sudjelovanje u Narodnooslobodilačkoj borbi) i razmjeri njihova stradanja. U istraživanju se većinom koriste spisi Državnog arhiva u Bjelovaru i Hrvatskog državnog arhiva, lokalna periodika i relevantna literatura. ; Romani population today forms one of the oldest minority groups in Croatia. Their settlement in our territory began in the second half of the 14th century. The attitude of Croatian authorities toward the Romani was often marked by repression –assimilation policy, which is currently observed as a part of the wider European anti-Gypsy policy by a number of scientists. The sufferings of the Romani during World War Two in Europe, including the Independent State of Croatia, may be considered the climax of the anti-Gypsy policy. The paper analyzes in particular the sufferings of Romani population in the wider Bjelovar-Bilogora area, i.e. the area covered by the Great District of Bilogora. The following issues have been tackled: the treatment of the Romani by the local (Ustasha) authorities; the deportation of the Romani to the concentration camp in Jasenovac; the confiscation of their property; one example of the resistance of the Romani (participation in the National Liberation War); and the scale of their sufferings. For the purposes of this study, the author mainly used the materials from the State Archives in Bjelovar and Croatian State Archives, local periodicals, and relevant literature.
Migracijski val od 2014. do 2016. u kojem je velik broj djece i majki iz država Sjevernog trokuta na putu prema krajnjem odredištu SAD-u bio u tranzitu Meksikom okarakteriziran je krizom. Kriza je podrazumijevala postojanje prijetnje koja opravdava provođenje izvanrednih mjera. Teza rada je da pod utjecajem SAD-a Meksiko migrante u tranzitu smatra prijetnjom sigurnosti građanima Meksika, a ne ugroženim pripadnicima istoga kulturnoga kruga koje treba zaštititi. Stoga se prema njima ne odnosi u skladu s ciljem ljudske sigurnosti, već primjenjuje silu. Rad predstavlja studiju slučaja. U prvom odjeljku dani su prikaz vrsta migracija i poimanje migracija u kontekstu ljudske i građanske sigurnosti, dok su u drugom analizirani potisni i privlačni faktori migracija iz država Sjevernog trokuta. U trećem odjeljku prikazana je politika tranzitne države Meksika prema ilegalnim migrantima. U radu je izložen sud o migracijskoj politici Meksika prema migrantima u tranzitu. Zaključeno je da je iz perspektive ljudske sigurnosti politika bila »loša« jer je bila diskriminirajuća i u neskladu s kulturno-političkim kontekstom te moralnim i zakonskim normama. No gledano iz perspektive nacionalne sigurnosti politika je bila »dobra« jer je bila ostvariva, postigla je rezultate uz prihvatljiv trošak ljudi i sredstva i njome su obranjeni državni interesi Meksika – dobri odnosi sa SAD-om. ; This article will attempt to answer two questions; first, in what way did the Government of Mexico attempt to resolve the influx of a large number of migrants, children and family members, from the Northern Triangle countries (Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras) who were transiting Mexico on their way to the United States in the 2014–2016 period? Second, why have migrants continued to arrive even after the adoption of the Mexican Programa Frontera Sur (PFS) of 2014, which was supposed to resolve the migration crisis and put an end to arrests and deportation? At the same time, the article will try to assess, according to Haines (2013), whether the Mexican post-2014 migration policy has been "good" (in line with the political and cultural context, achievable and effective with acceptable costs of staff and resources), or "bad" (discriminatory and incompatible with existing moral and legal norms). The thesis of the article is that under the influence of the United States, Mexico is treating migrants in transit as a security threat, rather than as members of the same cultural circle who require protection. So, instead of helping them, Mexico uses coercion to suppress them. While traditional threats are endangering the survival of the state, new threats to the state are also endangering individuals. The article consists of an introduction, three sections and a conclusion. The first section will provide an explanation of the relationship between migration and security (traditional national security and human security). The second section analyses the pull-and-push factors of migration from the Northern Triangle countries. This is followed by Mexico's transit policy towards illegal migrants, which is discussed in the third section. Case study research was used as a methodological strategy. The migration wave in the 2014–2016 period, consisting of many children and mothers from the Northern Triangle states transiting through Mexico on their way to the United States, was characterised as a crisis. A crisis implies the existence of a threat justifying the imposition of extraordinary measures. The issue of migrants in transit through Mexico was no novelty. Since the late 1980s, under the pressure of the United States, Mexico has been deporting migrants in transit back to their countries of origin. As Mexico has increasingly associated with the United States, there has emerged a growing need for greater compliance with "American requirements" and for the understanding of "American fears" of illegal migrants. After 11 September 2001, the fear became almost paranoid. Mexican presidents Fox, Calderon, and Nieto brought about and implemented a restrictive migration policy in line with the US policy, according to which migrants posed a threat to national security. Although repeatedly emphasising its intention to protect the migrants in transit, Mexico militarised and securitised its migration policy. This was particularly apparent after the 2014 Frontera Sur programme, which applied the same methods – arrest, deportation and denial of asylum – to the vulnerable population of women and children who largely satisfied the criteria for refugee status recognition. The PFS emphasised the intent to protect migrants, to better manage border crossings and to create security and prosperity zones in the south of the country. However, after two years of the programme's implementation it can be concluded that none of the objectives above have been achieved. Indeed, migrants in transit are additionally exposed to strife, suffering, and violations of their fundamental human rights, both by criminal organisations and the forces of law and order. Therefore, their transit has become much more uncertain than it was before. At the same time, human rights are violated by the state of Mexico itself, which denies migrants the right to asylum or recognition of humanitarian visas. The border in the south of the country has not become more secure. That PFS complies with US interests is apparent from the fact that the United States is its main source of funding, since it has managed to link the combat against drugs and migrants in transit via the Merida Initiative. The question is why have migrants continued to arrive despite everything mentioned above? It was their hope that somehow, they would reach the USA or, in the worst case, remain in Mexico. The most elementary human right, the right to life, is endangered in the countries of the Northern Triangle. In addition to personal insecurity, there are other human security threats in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador forcing the citizens to flee and emigrate from political, economic, environmental, and health and food insecurity. With everything being said, it is not easy to evaluate the Mexican migration policy. From a perspective of human security, it was "bad" because it was discriminatory and incompatible with the cultural and political context, as well as with moral and legal norms. Evaluated from a national security perspective, it was "good" because it was achievable, it has yielded results with an acceptable cost of staff and resources and has achieved state interests – good relations with the United States. At the same time, it is one of the tools Mexico can use in the future if Trump should decide against Mexican interests (significant taxing of Mexican products or deporting the many Mexican citizens illegally residing in the United States). Since Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador belong to the same cultural (historical, religious and linguistic circle), it was presumed that Mexico would pursue a policy that favours migrants and their protection; however, that did not happen. The authors agree with Kimball (2007: 140) that in the long run, Mexico will not be able to simultaneously advocate and implement both the pro- and anti-immigrant policy. The problem of the migrant wave, mostly consisting of mothers and children from the Northern Triangle countries, who were in transit through Mexico during 2014–2016, was attempted to be resolved via securitisation rather than care about their security. Castles de Haas and Miller (2014: 5) state that in the case of Mexico, there is a proliferation of migration transition, since it is turning from an emigration into an immigration country. To be more specific, with Trump coming to power, Mexico is increasingly not just a transit country, but also an ultimate destination country. Trump's immigration policy regarding immigrants from Central America suffers from deep historical amnesia related to the role of the USA in the Central American conflict of the 1980s, which has significantly destabilised the region. Moreover, Trump denounces and demonises as dangerous criminals the families, women and children, who have fled from violence contributed to by the USA (Portillo Villeda and Miklos, 2017: 53–54). This is one of the reasons the number of arrested migrants from Central America on the southern border of the United States has significantly decreased, but the number of asylum seekers in Mexico has increased threefold. There is a hope that new Mexican president Andrés Manuel López Obrador would perceive vulnerable Northern Triangle migrants more as a threat to human rather than national security.
