Suchergebnisse

The new security paradigm of the modern world, created in 1990s, led to a security organization of a number of countries of the former Soviet bloc. Also evolving, at varying pace, was the contractual relationship of collective security, which, due to the escalation of activities of extremist groups on the territory of Central Asia, the deterioration of Russia-NATO relations, as well as the emergence of the US military bases in the region, resulted in a decision to form the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) in 2002. The basic declared purpose of the organization is a desire of the signatory countries to increase the effectiveness of their cooperation in the field of security. Established as a typical military alliance with characteristics of multifunctional organization for securing peace, CSTO aspires to the role of a regional leading organization in the field of security cooperation, with many open questions concerning its functioning and future development. Whether the new security organization raises the level of collective security of its associate member countries, and whether the said organization contributes to the security of the region and the world, only time ahead will tell.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization was founded in 2001 under a Declaration signed by the leaders of five independent states from the territory of former Soviet Union and the President of the People's Republic of China. The Charter, adopted by the organization's member states as their basic document, emphasizes their commitment to strengthen their mutual trust and good-neighborliness and friendly cooperation; to keep and maintain the peace, stability and security of the region; as well as to fight together against all forms of terrorism, separatism and extremism. Although there are significant differences between the member states in almost all matters of social and governmental organization, over its ten-year existence the Shanghai Cooperation Organization has proved its vitality and has become respectable entity not only of the regional but also of international cooperation on the whole. In recent years all main actors of contemporary international relations have tried to establish and develop the cooperation with this important intergovernmental association. What the further development of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization will be like and where the organization will be positioned within the future world order is difficult to be definitely determined. Apart from the role of the two leading states of this organization - Russia and China, its eventual position will be greatly influenced by other major international factors as well, which, in the era of unstable energy and other forms of security, find the area of Central Asia ever more significant and attractive.

Based on the experience of former rightist and communist dictatorships in Europe regarding different forms of opposition - both open and hidden within these regimes' structures - the author analyzes the role of the opposition in the process of the sweeping democratic change that has taken place the "new democracies" of Central and Eastern Europe in the direction of the state of law and civil society. His conclusion is, that in today's Central European countries political multi-party pluralism which includes viable parliamentary opposition was given a smooth start and has since taken root. However in the countries with only superficial democracy and an obvious "democratic deficit" - for example Croatia (and Slovakia) - parliamentary opposition plays the second fiddle. The prime movers of the change - and of the democratization as well - are still the ruling parties (not unlike during the communist single-party regimes). Changes occur only when the ruling party or its major fraction opt for them considering them the lesser of two evils, either because they are no longer satisfied with the distribution of power and goods within the existing status quo or because they are aware that it cannot be maintained in its present form. This happened in the Soviet Union , first under Nikita Khruschev and then again under Mihail Gorbachev. Changes, however, when imposed from above get out of hand and backfire against those who have set them off (remember Gorbachev); what emerges is usually a compromise between tbe vestige of the old and the emerging regime. (SOI : PM: S. 92)

The author points up the proverbial complexity of Yugoslavia and the inadequacy of its political structure, officially made up of six republics, five peoples, four languages, three religions, two alphabets, and one party. That is why the subjective orientations of its many peoples went counter to its existence, leading to its disintegration following the first multiparty elections. Serbs and Montenegrins were its partisans and due to a lack of democratic political culture they launched the war for the preservation of Yugoslavia. The properties of the political culture of the peoples living on its territory had acted as trip-wires for that war, defined its form, course and intensity. Due to their national identification with Yugoslavia and insufficient democratic political culture, Serbs and Montenegrins started the war for the territories of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The aggressors belong to the Eastern civilisational sphere, speak the Serbian language, write in the Cyrillic alphabet. are culturally tribally oriented, want to live in Yugoslavia and Greater Serbia which would be socialist, and are adherents of repressive types of political culture. The victims belong to the Western civilisational sphere, they are Catholics and Moslems, speak Croatian, write in the Latin alphabet, are culturally communally oriented, and favour the participatory political culture. During the Serbian and Monetenegrian aggression, two civil wars erupted in Bosnia and Herzegovina: (1) between the Muslims and the Croats and (2) between the Muslims. The participants of this war all swear their allegiance to the state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, but differ in their visions of its political structure. The Moslems wish a unitarian state of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Croats want it to be a federal state, while the Serbs are against any separate state of Bosnia and Herzegovina. (SOI: PM: S. 242)

The end of the "cold war" brought about the emergence of geopolitics which has not been to such an extent burdened with the former international geopolitical views. One of the most significant shifts has been the recognition that geopolitical events cannot be limited to national states and their borders. Of course, states are still central for the world's geopolitical map, but no longer as the sole factors in the global geopolitical system. On the one hand and under the influence of globalization, new conditions have arisen, influenced by geopolitical factors; on the other, new entities are emerging whose influence is very similar to that of the central factors - contemporary states. These similarities are primarily reflected in the claims of sovereign control over a certain territory, the organization of government on it, the shaping of a particular national identity by the majority population, and so on. It is these new territorial and political units that contribute to the deconstruction of the geopolitical order; the disintegration of the Soviet Union is the best illustration. (SOI : PM: S. 88)

More than a decade has passed since the momentous events of 1989 that changed the world order and redefined the geopolitics of Central Europe. This is just the right moment to assess the results of these changes and discuss the future of that region. Based on the past comparative studies or those currently going on, we may say that Central Europe differs from the post-communist East (the former Soviet Union) and the South-East (the former Yugoslavia with the exception of Slovenia) and Albania. First, Central-European states overthrew their communist regimes earlier and in a more decisive manner than the USSR; second, the economic transformation of Central Europe, though not completely smooth, is nevertheless much smoother than the transformation of the member countries of the CIS; third, the post-communist societies differ in the pattern by which their systems of social stratification have changed after the collapse of their communist regimes; fourth, there are big differences between the Central-European post-communist states, including the Baltic states on the one hand, and the CIS members and Serbia/Montenegro-Yugoslavia on the other regarding their international orientation. The author highlights three significant events that are going to leave their trace on the regional geostrategic situation: NATO's eastern expansion, NATO's campaign against SKY and the election of Vladimir Putin for president of Russia. The regional geopolitical picture may become more stable with closer ties between the states of Central Europe and Germany. (SOI : PM: S. 11)

Pavković vidi nestanak Jugoslavije kao niz činova otcepljenja republika i jedne pokrajine. Nasuprot tome, tvrdi se da je proces raspadanja jugoslovenske države kompleksna pojava, da je prouzrokovan nedostatkom političke legitimnosti nakon Titove smrti, nestankom geopolitičke uloge Jugoslavije, ugrađenom malfunkcionalnošću savezne države, ekonomskim teškoćama koje su spontano tumačene kao pojave proizašle iz navodne privilegovanosti drugih jedinica unutar sistema, nesposobnošću stare elite da modifikuje institucionalni, posebno privredni sistem, transformacijom elita u republičke i nacionalne građanske elite, širenjem straha za opstanak nacija i u suštini spontanim prestankom delovanja savezne države. Slovenija i Srbija prve su 1990. g. preuzele uloge nezavisnih država, pošto je savezna institucionalna ravnoteža bila poremećena oduzimanjem ovlašćenja pokrajinama. Jugoslovenska država prestala je da postoji prestankom njenog efektivnog delovanja, njene efektivne vlasti. Sami činovi otcepljenja u tome imali su malu ulogu. Čak ni ceo subjektivni faktor (htenja, namere, akteri, izvršioci) nije imao znatniju uzročnu težinu. ; Pavković understand the dissolution of Yugoslavia as a series of acts secession by republics and a province of the former SFRY. Contrary to this, here, it is asserted that the process of dissolution of the Yugoslav state was a complex one, involving the failure of political legitimacy after Tito's death, the disappearance of Yugoslavia's geopolitical role, the built in malfunctioning of the federal state, economic difficulties which were spontaneously interpreted as pursuing from the alleged privileged position of other units within the system, the inability of the old elite to modify the institutional, particularly the economic system, the transformation this elite into republic and national bourgeois elites, inciting of fears in lower strata on the possibility of the very disappearance of nations and, not least, the substantial cessation of operation of the federal state. Slovenia and Serbia were the first in 1990 to take over roles of independent states, after the federal balance was disturbed by the stripping of jurisdiction of provinces. The Yugoslav state disappeared by the cessation of its effective operation, its effective power. The acts of secession played a small role in this process. The entire subjective factor (will, intentions, actors, executors) did not bear a major causal weight.

The dissolution of the great Soviet empire and the demise of the socialist system in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe has undoubtedly been one of the most significant political developments at the turn of the 20th century. Whether this has been brought about by international factors or has been the consequence of the internal cave-in of the system, has been the subject of numerous and extensive analyses. It is obvious that the geostrategic shifts and the completely altered position of the new state (the Russian Federation) have made it necessary to look into the political aspect of the problem. That Russia is not faced with an imminent threat from abroad is certainly an extraordinary change, unprecedented in the long Russian history. This particularly applies to the western Russian borders, which used to be almost continually threatened. Political relations that have been developing between Russia and the West, despite all the obstacles, have been improving and both sides demonstrate a willingness to continue with this trend. (SOI : PM: S. 167)