The 30th Anniversary of the Erasure from the Slovenian Register of Permanent Residents

Blog Editor’s Note

By Barbara Gornik, Science and Research Centre Koper

On June 25th, 1991, Slovenia formally declared its independence and adopted legislation related to internal affairs, citizenship, and sovereignty. Article 40 of the Citizenship Act (1991) provided that citizens of other republics of former Yugoslavia could acquire Slovenian citizenship if they met three requirements: they had acquired permanent resident status in Slovenia by December 23rd, 1990; they were actually residing in Slovenia; and they had applied for citizenship within six months of the Citizenship Act entering into force. According to the official data, approximately 171,000 out of 200,000 citizens of the other republics of former Yugoslavia were granted citizenship under Article 40 of the Citizenship Act (Zorn, 2009). 

Guest Contributor

Igor Okunev, Professorial Research Fellow at MGIMO University’s Institute for International Studies

It is customary to distinguish between two major territoriality-defined foundations of statehood. These are common territorial identity and mental maps marking the community through awareness of external security threats. In other words, we are talking about an awareness of the “we”-community and the revision of the “they”-community. Nation building connects geographically separate cultural communities with emerging political institutions, which allows the population to act as a source of legitimacy for the future state. 

Common territorial identity is the internal basis for statehood, while external security threats, or rather, the relevant security discourse, constitutes the external basis. External threats create the image of “them”, and it is by opposing “them” that the nation is built. In addition to political borders, a new political entity needs identity boundaries, which among others arise also through the awareness of a danger from the outside. In addition, security threats mobilize the population, thereby significantly accelerating internal legitimation. Thomas Eriksen contrasted the two mechanisms as “we-hood,” the common identity and the common mission, and “us-hood,” opposition to an external foe, real or imaginary. 

This opinion piece was originally published on Al Jazeera

The 20th anniversary of the so-called “war on terror”, which began with the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, is marked by the withdrawal of United States troops and the “return” of the Taliban to Kabul. In some ways, we are back in 2001, and in others – there is no going back, given that the US war on terror has killed over 800,000 people, and displaced 37 million more.

The events of the past months have forced on us a number of urgent questions. How should we interpret what happened in Afghanistan? How does one express solidarity with Afghans, and what forms of support should be abandoned? (Perhaps, white liberal feminist tears/fears for Afghan women and girls that still yet justify US imperial violence would be a good start.)