Search results

In addition to national and international armies - armed forces of states and alliances, paramilitary armed formations (the so-called paramilitary) play aprominent role in contemporary international and non-international armed conflicts. They are made up of so-called voluntary fighters (patriots, contracts), i.e. mercenaries or "looters" (so-called war dogs) within armed formations that are not officially part of, and most often not under the command, of regular armed forces. As a rule, they are formed, armed, equipped, trained, paid and controlled by certain political centers of power - foreign governments and intelligence, hostile political emigration, political parties, criminal and other extremist (pseudo-patriotic, nationalist and para-religious) organizations (the so-called warlords) for whose account the paramilitary formations occupied part of the territory of the sovereign state in which the armed conflict took place and established power on it. They are often associated with numerous war crimes, terrorist attacks and robberies. Since the terms 'warlords', 'paramilitary', 'mercenaries', and 'war dog' are oftenincorrectly usedin everyday communication of media, public and even scholars, this paper attempts to conceptualize and make a clear distinction between these phenomena. ; Осим националних и међународних војски – оружаних снага држава и савеза држава, у савременим међународним и немеђународним оружаним сукобима све значајнију улогу узимају паравојне оружане формације (тзв. паравојске). Њих чине тзв. добровољни борци (патриоте, уговорци), односно плаћеници или "пљачкаши" (тзв. пси рата) који су део наоружаних формација које званично нису у саставу, а најчешће ни под командом регуларних оружаних снага. Паравојске по правилу формирају, наоружавају, опремају, обучавају, плаћају и контролишу извесни политички центри моћи – иностране владе и обавештајне службе, непријатељска политичка емиграција, политичке партије, криминалне и друге екстремистичке (псеудопатриотске, националистичке и параверске) организације (тзв. господари рата) за чији рачун су паравојне формације и заузеле део територије суверене државе у којој се одвија оружани конфликт и на њој "успоставиле власт". За њих се неретко везују бројни ратни злочини, терористички напади и пљачке. Како се у животу, а неретко и у теорији безбедности не разликују и погрешно употребљавају термини "господари рата", "паравојске", плаћеници и "пси рата", у раду је учињен покушај појмовног одређења и дистанцирања ових појава.

In this paper it had been started from the question what was in diachronic included in the term Middle Europe, and why it was impossible to define it precisely in any sense. 'New Middle European Concept', actual in the 80s of the previous century, had also political background, but in his creation Middle European intellectuals had part in it, and it meant the fight for cultural unity of Middle European, for the recognition of their European identity. One of the first, and the most important supporter of this concept from Yugoslav area is Danilo Kish in whose literary oeuvre this virtual space is additionally mythologized. The research attention was directed to Kish's essay 'Variations on Middle European Themes', in which he had elaborated in a concise manner his comprehension of Middle Europe, Middle European culture, Middle European writer, and numerous interviews in which he had thoroughly been elaborating these attitudes. There the writer expresses his comprehension of fascism, and Stalinism, Ahasuerus, and Judaism as 'family happiness', nationalism of small peoples, inferiorities of their 'barbarian languages', and attitudes on ironic lyrisms, 'consciousness on form', and stateless people as basic poetic features of Middle European writers. Due to all mentioned, and some universal truths on the mentioned symbolic tops, this essay is rightfully considered as one of Kish's most important self-poetic texts.

The diplomacy of socialist Yugoslavia paid a lot of attention to the international reputation of the country in the sphere of culture, and thus literature. At the same time, Yugoslav writers in the Writer's Union of Yugoslavia, faithfully supported Yugoslav foreign policy, both individually and institutionally. The most impressive example of collaboration between literature and diplomacy was awarding Ivo Andrić a Nobel Prize. The Writers' Union of Yugoslavia nominated the writer in 1958, and Yugoslav diplomacy lobbied in favor of Andrić for several years. The efforts were successfully crowned in 1961. In socialist Yugoslavia, the existence of a special Macedonian nation and its culture and language was insisted on, so in that sense, the greatest challenge was denying the Macedonian identity that came from Bulgaria. The Yugoslav Writers' Union, consistently pursuing state policy, suspended official co-operation with the Bulgarian Writers' Union in the second half of the 1960s due to Bulgaria's refusal to recognize the Macedonian language. Yugoslav writers also adapted to the state policy of non-alignment. They did not reach the level of cooperation with those countries that existed in the field of politics, economics or science, but they maintained ties with writers from those parts of the world in various ways. Among other things, the twentieth anniversary of the Belgrade Conference of the Non-Aligned Nations in October 1981 was a meeting of writers of non-aligned countries in Belgrade.