Suchergebnisse

The author analyzes the future prospects of diplomatic service in the era of globalization. In his analysis, he draws from the German experience & the book Wem dient der auswartige Dienst? The author claims that foreign policy is determined by economic issues so it is pointless to separate the security/political & the economic/political aspects & competences of a government. The same applies to diplomatic corps: they cannot be exempted from economic tasks. Heads of diplomatic offices today have to be partners regarding economic topics when discussing politics & economy of the host country. Concerning the role of nongovernmental organizations, the author thinks that they cannot replace the state & its civil servants. For communicating with them, foreign service needs "generalists" more than "specialists." The key value of the future foreign service includes an overall review of the bilateral relations with the host country; this envisages that diplomats are to retain their central role in the networking of various actors & areas. Besides the legal/consular, economic, cultural & security/political tasks, diplomatic offices regularly maintain contacts & cooperate with the host country in specialized fields such as defense, science, social issues, & agriculture. 16 References. Adapted from the source document.

Foreign policy & diplomatic skills played a key role in the survival & development of the Dubrovnik Republic for more than four & a half centuries. Throughout the period, the Dubrovnik Republic had foreign-policy sovereignty, which was manifest in the fact that it autonomously decided upon its relations with other states (including recognition of other states), signed international contracts, & established & maintained diplomatic & consular relations. Through timely awareness of the advantages of their geopolitical position & through their orientation towards the sea, the people of Dubrovnik entered into numerous international political & trade relations, both with countries in their continental background & with countries throughout, & beyond, the Mediterranean. They were able to assess & utilize such geopolitical & other relevant characteristics wisely & skillfully in the defense of their independence, sovereignty & economic growth, resorting almost exclusively to diplomatic means & diplomatic skill. The Dubrovnik foreign policy was based on the principle of remaining neutral in international conflicts & of stressing its position of the last Christian enclave in south-eastern Europe. As a small country with no military force, Dubrovnik managed to survive by seeking protection of powerful states, such as the Ugric-Croatian Kingdom, the Pope, the Spanish King and, finally, Turkey. In spite of the fact that first the Ugric-Croatian Kingdom, & then Turkey, provided it with "supreme protection," the Dubrovnik Republic succeeded in establishing & preserving for centuries all relevant components of state sovereignty. Adapted from the source document.

The article is an analysis of the metaphor of Munich Agreement in the Czech political & media discourses concerning three foreign policy issues from the last three years: the discord about the diplomatic recognition of Kosovo by the Czech Republic, the discussion of the conflict between Russia & Georgia & the issue of the US radar base in the Czech Republic. The text does not aspire to judge which usage of the analogy with Munich is correct. Instead, it works with it as a specific frame which is intended to mobilize a presupposed national "us" for a specific political agenda. The goal is to depoliticize the political discord -- to solve it by referring to a morally strong precedent & subordinate it to this precedent. Munich is used in this way by the followers of very different political camps. Using the analogy of Munich has two main modalities -- the interventionist modality (it is necessary to intervene against a dictator, not to appease him) & the sovereignist modality (it is necessary to defend the sovereignty of the state against an intervention or against aggressive demands of minorities). The former is more in accord with the use of the Munich analogy by Western politicians, while the latter corresponds more with the Czech context center. Adapted from the source document.