CYIL vol. 9 (2018)

CYIL 9 ȍ2018Ȏ THE CZECH REPUBLIC AND SOLIDARITY WITH REFUGEES … from the beginning. The Czech state offered protection, and shaped the project in a way which it found beneficial. The expectations of the beneficiaries were thus formed too, they knew from the beginning that they are going to be asked to return home after the conflict ended. Secondly, it was the state itself that re-shaped the project when it was needed. It was the state that offered a special type of a residency permit to the vulnerable ones; it was the state that did not limit the possibility to ask for a residency permit from its territory (which it did later in a new law in 1999). Therefore, almost all who wanted to stay in the Czech Republic were basically able to do so. Thirdly, the state’s attitude was based on a humanitarian presumption that the state and the society should help if there is a possibility to do so. This approach most probably mirrored the velvet revolution’s spirit which was still present in the country. But at the same time, it shaped the society indirectly through establishing a humanitarian narrative. Today it seems almost unbelievable that it was the government that offered and paid for the transport of a certain number of forced migrants itself, which means that it was the state that helped the forced migrants to come to its territory. The humanitarian narrative in politics had a large impact on the society as well. During the years when the temporary refuge was established, civic society grew and important non-governmental organizations were founded. 62 Fourthly, the state counted on the active role of many stakeholders. The government resolutions repeatedly mentioned cooperation with individuals who were willing to help. Two of the resolutions mentioned the possibility to financially support Czech families that were hosting people in need coming from the former Yugoslavia. Another one emphasised the need to coordinate humanitarian aid which was to be sent by individuals or organizations from the Czech Republic to the countries of the former Yugoslavia. It also seems that individuals played a more important role than it is usually presumed. The laws in the Czech Republic are in many ways the same today as they were in the years 1991–1997. However the mood in the society is different; there is no longer a post- revolutionary enthusiasm from the newly obtained freedom. There are not many people who would arouse feelings of responsibility in the society. The role of leaders is crucial. It seems that the temporary refuge was also not as much of a state plan on how to deal with a mass influx of people in need, as it could have been more of a reaction towards the factual situation which was suggested by a person or persons. A similar pattern can most probably be seen in the following years and following programmes. More programmes were prepared, aimed at helping people in need besides the traditional way of granting protection (refugee status, subsidiary protection) to those who are able to come to the territory of the Czech Republic. There were for instance several resettlement programmes and humanitarian operations. Again, most of them were ad hoc, with an unclear legal basis; there was no plan which would be embodied into a law. 63 All the programmes were realized through government resolutions. The resettlement scheme as a general planned programme was shaped later. 64 An important support factor for launching the temporary refuge programme was the familiarity of the target group. The Czechs were used to travelling to Yugoslavia for holidays; 62 For instance, People in Need, a non-governmental organization founded in 1992. See online at https://www. clovekvtisni.cz/en/who-we-are/about-us [accessed 22 June 2018]. 63 E.g. the first resettlement programmes were aimed at helping more than 30 refugees from Uzbekistan (in 2005) and Cuba (in 2007). The legal basis for this resettlement is not clear, it can be found partly in a Government Resolution which informed about sending an airplane to transfer Uzbek refugees from Romania. 64 Government Resolution No. 745, 27 June 2008 (Concept of National Resettlement Framework).

251