Ethnic minorities and minorities-related conflicts have always been one of the most important security issues for international community. The durability of ethnic conflicts in certain regions and the difficulties in thei resolution, have resulted in the outbreak of many armed conflicts, the collapse of multi-ethnic states, the changes of borders and of demographic relations. Despite the increasing number of security challenges and needs, it is still not possible to talk about a certain uniform and universally accepted model of solving the problems among ethnic minorities. It is obvious that in the postcoldwar period this is going to be an increasingly pressing need of international community. The paper deals with most basic security problems which are caused by the unsettled relationships between ethnic minorities and majority; it also covers the policies of their resolution. By analysing the model of resolving ethnic conflicts in South Tyrol, two groups of ethnic conflicts' resolution policies are looked into: the policy of the elimination of differences and the policy of managing differences. (SOI : PM: S. 59)
Wars and suffering in the 20th century, mostly the consequences of ethnic and religious antagonisms, have been typical for Europe's southeast. That is why the ethnic aspects of security are central to the understanding of the totality of this region's security, particularly in the 21st century. The security of southeast Europe can be analyzed using realistic, idealistic and neo-realistic approaches to contemporary security as its starting point. The security of this region is affected by the internal circumstances of the region's states and by the economic situation and inter-ethnic relations in particular. Similarly, significant influence is exerted by the relations among the states and nations living there as well as by the ethnic-based conflicts which are the outcomes of these relations. A series of problems caused by the east-European transformations includes the unresolved ethnic and minority issues. That is why no southeastern European state today has worked out the issue of the relations with its neighbors. This part of Europe is to remain a volatile region, fraught with economic difficulties and crises, nationalisms and xenophobia. In such circumstances, with the open sores of simmering ethnic feuds and the specter of various nationalisms, is it realistic to expect rational politics which is supposed to lead the countries of southeastern Europe towards the united Europe? This is the question the answer to which is sought not only by this region's states but also by the leading European states and the USA. (SOI : PM: S. 78)
Within contemporary geopolitical processes, respect for the rights of national minorities is no longer the discretion of a state, but rather is an indirect or direct international regulation of the minority issue. In the beginning of the 1990s, the political economical crisis and disintegration of the former SFRY opened the national question, that was considered to be permanently and successfully solved, in the most dramatic way, and ethnic conflicts and clashes followed the desintegration of the country. With the formation of a new states on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the existence of numerous and different national minorities ("old" and "new") required a different approach to their protection and integration in complex political circumstances. Thus, the position of the so called new minorities drastically changed since they formed constituent nations in the former SFRY, while after secession they remained separated from their home nations and became national minorities almost overnight. Out of Serbia, in former Yugoslav republics live nearly half a million persons belonging to Serbian nationality as new national minority. The paper discusses the position and rights of the Serbian minority in the post Yugoslav states (Slovenia, Croatia, Northern Macedonia, Montenegro) as well as in some neighboring member states of the European Union (Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria). In addition to the analysis of basic demographic indicators (number and spatial distribution) that determine the realization of the rights and freedoms of each minority, the paper examines the issue of protecting the national, cultural and linguistic identity of Serbs, as well as the ways of its preservation and improvement. Although the social and legal status of the Serbian minority is determined by European standards, the analysis points to their undefined status, since they still do not recognize the status of a national minority in some countries, and that they are in practice faced with more or less assimilation. In order to fully realize minority rights and improve the position of the Serb minority, ratified international documents, bilateral agreements, national laws, as well as well-designed policies and assistance from the home state are of great importance.Respecting basic human rights and freedom, as well as national minority protection, represent the basic factors of stability, security and democratic and socio-economic development of every country.
The war in Kosovo and Metohia was the result of a decade long tensions between ethnic Serbs and Albanians. It was led from the air in order to avoid more potential victims in case of land invasion. The end of war was the result of mutual concessions: from NATO side and the Serbian one. The sovereignty of FRY was not put into question, but a great autonomy of Kosovo was predicted including the possibility of independence acquisition (secession). The Resolution 1244 was not abolished, but it was being derogated in order to prepare the fundament of Kosovo independence. Serbian military-security forces were withdrawn from the territory of Kosovo and Metohia. NATO intervention was not legal from the point of view of international law, but it subordinated sovereignty to human rights. Intervention was justified in cases of humanitarian need. Event though humanitarian need (catastrophe) is taken as the basis for the intervention, the example of such kind could not be found in the past. So, Kosovo cases were qualified as sui generis one. Thus, the war in Kosovo became an example to be followed in the future, and an unresolved situation may become the threat to the peace and security in the surrounding countries. Democratic countries give themselves the right to interfere and intervene into internal affairs of others differently from the autocratic ones, which was supposed to be neither correct nor consistent. Kosovo conflict and war rattled global power structure, especially with China and Russia as new challengers of the USA power. Both countries are trying hard to reach USA, but they are still in transition with unstable financial systems, migrations and unresolved system of social protection. Regarding Kosovo conflict and war, they engaged themselves rather indirectly than directly. As Security Council permanent members they were voting against the independence of Kosovo, but did not involve themselves into the war directly. Kosovo war showed how China is backward regarding war technique, and Russia regarding financial engagement. In addition, China expected membership in WTO, and Russia a great financial assistance. Russia engaged in negotiations via the Contact Group. With the arrival of Putin, Russia could not engage in Balkan more militarily but only commercially due to the fact most Balkan countries entered NATO or Partnership for Peace Programme. Internal cohesion of Russia with centralistic governance was reinforced, and ethnic tensions were calmed down. The perspective of Russia is United Nations and commerce through pipeline.
The author has tried to prove that interethnic relations in democracy cannot be handled solely by means of legal, economic and institutional means; political culture, i.e. civic democratic political culture can have a significant role. The analysis has shown that there is room for the build-up of a trans-national democratic citizenry, free from all ascriptive criteria and identities such as religion, ethnicity, etc. It has also revealed how classic liberalism neglects various identities (ethnic, national etc.) while communitarian liberalism overlooks the excluding force of various identities. It has also demonstrated that there are several concepts of civic identities (liberal, communitarian and social/group) and that each of these concepts can exert profound influence on the relationship between citizens and their political community. And finally, the relation between patriotism and inter-ethnic relations in democracy are reviewed. Patriotism, in the circumstances of growing social pluralisation, and despite a plethora of political integrations, can play a prominent role in bridging the political and cultural atomisations and conflicts in society. It can undertake this role only if constituted in th civic and not the crude (fixed) ethnic sense - though the national defines the limits and the meaning of this constitution - provided it evolves into the loyalty to one's homeland and going hand in hand with the development of democracy and human rights. In short, the purpose of this paper is to provide evidence that it is necessary to expand democratic political culture which might aid in resolving intricate and sensitive relations among various ethnic and cultural communities. Patriotism can assume a decisive role in this. It lays down the limits and legitimacy to each meaningful political discourse and to each genuine political subject. (SOI : PM: S. 49)
The author analyzes the position of Croatia following the Dayton accord. These accords have secured the integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, based on the consociational principle as stipulated by Arend Lijphart. However, fierce integrational nationalisms still rage in B&H, they spill over into the neighbouring states where they create military and political instability. In Croatia, the populist and vindictive nationalism is on the wane, but not so th original democratic nationalism. The latter is manifested in its twin task: on to join the prestigious union of European states while the other is to go on w the unification of the entire Croatian ethnic corpus. The first brand of nationalism has been trying by hook or by crook to ensure a place for Croatia the Council of Europe in order to escape the trap of a community of Balkan states as envisaged by Eurostrategists and their latest "globally regional European" policy. Thus, the post-Dayton Croatia will be marked by fault-lines and conflicts between these two types of nationalisms; one, pro-European and the other integrational (aimed at bringing together the entire Croatian ethnos). (SOI : PM: S. 149)
Recent historical developments in the relationship between Croats and Serbs are discussed, refering to an article by V. Vujacic (Theory and Society, No. 6, 1996). The idea of an Illyrian and later a Yugoslav commonwealth of all South Slavs, originating in Croatia in the 19th century, had its legitimating psychological foundation in a "illusion of centrality", developed at the time by a part of the Croatian political and intellectual elite, a view of the preeminent position of Croatia and the Croats among all the Slav ethnic groups in the region and, therefore, of a natural central role of Croatia in the future commonwealth. In a similar way, the armed struggle of the Serbs for independence from the Ottoman empire in the 19th century and for the expansion of the Serbian State in the 19th and 20th century has generated a Serbian belief in the dominant role of Serbia and the Serbs in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes established in 1918, later Kingdom of Yugoslavia. These incompatible illusions are believed to be the roots of a number of political positions and decisions taken by both Croats and Serbs in the 20th century. The views of Max Weber on nationality and nationalism are discussed in relation to the problem of cooperation and conflict between Croats and Serbs in the 20th century. (SOI : PM: S. 17)
An analysis of the US foreign policy strategy shows that a more intensive advocacy of human rights and democracy is us usually a characteristic for democratic American presidents and their administrations. The numerous challenges of the new world order which Bill Clinton was faced with, required the redefinition of the role, goals, and interests of the sole remaining superpower in the new international community. The promotion of democracy and liberal market values and the protection of universal human rights have been the guidelines for Clinton's administration's foreign policy during both of his mandates. Due to the specific features and intensity of geopolitical changes, which resulted in armed conflicts in the South-Eastern Europe, the consequence of the American policy towards the newly-created countries (the so-called young democracies on the Old Continent, including the new Russia) was that the first NATO's military "out of area" campaign on Kosovo was justified as an attempt to stem the flood of refugees and to make an end to the violation of ethnic and other human rights. Since the US have announced their intention to intervene when and if (and based on their interests), they deem that basic human rights and democratic values are violated, it can be said that a new pattern of behaviour has emerged which would have to be adopted by the other members of the new world order as well. (SOI : PM: S. 122)
