Search

This article examines the dynamics of constructing current migration from the so-called Global South in ‘risk’, ‘crisis’ and ‘fear’ terms that translate into xenophobic, racialised and gendered processes of ‘othering’ people who are displaced. This is done within the framework of a ‘coloniality of power’ (Quijano 2000b) perspective, understood as the ‘colonial power matrix’ (Grosfoguel 2011). This is how the location from which the current racialised and gendered politics of fear is being constructed. The notion of racialised security leads to racialised masculinity of the ‘Other’, while stigmatising migrant men. These colonial narratives that have created ‘knowledge’ about other masculinities have been invoked and re-articulated within the current racialised processes of securitisation of migration. They have supported construction of the sexual assault of ‘our’ women as the public security concern. Consequently, racially marked rape becomes an important part of State security, linked to national territory and border control.

This chapter analyzes changes in the gender roles and responsibilities of refugee women in the post-Yugoslav states caused by their forced displacement. It begins by addressing the ‘logic’ of the exclusionary politics of ethnic nationalism in the region, and the social and political implications of women’s forced migration. In documenting the experiences of women I interviewed as they became refugees, the chapter examines changes in their roles and social relations caused by the gendered violence of war, flight and exile. The women are of different ethnic-nationalities and have varied experiences of becoming refugees. Nevertheless, the interviews reveal that these women have much in common. The hardships of their survival in exile and the development of successful coping strategies through which they confront their victimization are both the potential spaces for the creation of new narratives of belonging and multiple identities.

This article reflects upon feminist activism and analyses of sexual victimisation of women in war during the 1990s. It critically examines the reasons for the continuation of this type of violence against women, despite its recognition as a war crime, the recognition that marked one of the significant achievements of feminist activism during the last decade of the 20th century. The discussion points to the centrality of sexual violence in war for the system of gender based violence (GBV) against both women and men in war. It argues that a relational understanding of the gendered processes of victimisation in war is critical. This approach enables an acknowledgement that sexual violence in war and rape, as one of its expressions, is a violent political act that is highly gendered both in its causes and consequences, and, as such, it affects both women and men. This article provides an overall argument for the need of feminist scholarship and activism to engage with these differently situated experiences and practices of victimisation in war, to &lsquo, unmake&rsquo, it.

This paper explores the importance of gender sensitive analysis of conflict constructed as ethnic strife for conceptualising and developing new and more effective ways of intervening in this type of war. It points out that because most of the physical violence and suffering in these conflicts occur at the community level, they generate massive refugee movements, causing not only physical and material devastation, but also the destruction of social networks and local communities. This critically affects the prospects for refugee return, which is central to any sustainable peace agreement and post-conflict democratic development. In searching for an answer to the question of how to address effectively the issue of reconciliation in such a context, the discussion highlights the centrality of acknowledging gender dimensions and dynamics of this type of war, as a way of uncovering and recognising a reconciliatory potential of women as women organising and activism that often occurs it these conflicts. By focusing specifically on the initiatives of some women groups during the war in the former Yugoslavia, which aimed at rebuilding trust and broken social networks at a communal level, the paper examines the reasons why women as women often opt for alternative forms of political mobilisation. It argues that this type of activism has an important potential for conflict resolution and should be recognised in a fundamental way in any attempt to build-peace in conflict zones.

The horrors of the war in the Former Yugoslavia and the suffering of more than four million refugees and internally displaced persons, mostly women and children, have already been well-documented (UNHCR 1993). The new states of ex-Yugoslavia have taken the brunt of the refugee burden. According to the UNHCR, as of July 1993 the estimated total of asylum seekers from the former Yugoslavia in European countries was 750,000, whereas 3,380,000 were displaced persons and refugees within the region of the former Yugoslavia itself. Local governments, NGOs, as well as international humanitarian organizations, are providing aid and helping refugees. Although the humanitarian aid is financially significant, this article will attempt to question a problematic assumption in refugee policythat refugees are "taken care of" as long they are free from the immediate dangers that forced them to flee. The pitfalls of such a policy, especially as applied to refugees fleeing from ethnic conflict, become immediately apparent when the policy is contrasted with the political context of the Yugoslav conflicts, as well as the experiences, needs, and problems of refugees themselves. The ultimate search for ethnic-national "oneness" and the creation of a hated "other" led to the violent disintegration of the Former Yugoslavia. Millions of refugees and internally displaced persons now face the problem of reconciling their own notion of belonging and identity with the new realities of their lives. Many refugees have close relatives whose ethnic background differs from their own, or are themselves in ethnically-mixed marriages. As refugees, they live in ethnically-mixed refugee camps in the newly-recognized states in the region