Suchergebnisse

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.

The author analyses the symbolism of the concepts such as stick, rod, club and birch in the metaphorical political terminology. The author shows that these symbols are present both in the language of the Western political philosophy and the non-Western cultures, while their connotations vary: they are reminiscent of a phallus, of a warrior's spear and arrow, a cudgel which a master uses on his disobedient slaves and family members, a shepherd's staff for managing his herd and the accoutrements used both in black and white magic. (SOI : PM: S. 169)

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)

Most Croatian Serb organisations were established between 1883 and 1903. In that period Serbs created the Serbian Bank, 56 various financial institutions, the Association of Serb Agricultural Societies, and the economic organisation Privrednik (Economist). The Serbian Bank was the strongest financial institution in the Monarchy, which backed the economic and cultural development of Serbs inside and outside of it. On the other hand, Serbs had not created significant cultural institutions, but did establish numerous literary and singing societies and reading halls, which were instrumental in promoting national identity. Culture was a framework for political activity. It should be noted that all those organisations were identified as Serb, had their statues written in Cyrillic alphabet and in Serbian language, which testifies that they organised quite freely and without obstruction. (SOI : CSP: S. 509)

In numerous European countries, majority nations and national minorities that live in them, aware of the complexity of relations between majorities and minorities in the ethnic sense, and the ensuing dangers, have engaged in mutual accommodation and compromise, thus fashioning certain models of coexistence. Constitutional provisions of European states prove that there is no single model of the recognition of the rights of national minorities. Still, European states may be divided into three groups. The first group includes those states which advocate the constitutional principle of the integral nation and refuse to recognize any other ethnic origin of their citizens. The second group comprises those states which do not divide its ethnic communities into majority and minority ones, which practically means that they do not recognize the category of the national minority; they protect the ethnic identity of their members by dividing their equal citizens by the languages they use. The third group includes those countries which recognize the notion of the majority nation and national minorities. This group has elaborated the provisions regarding the rights of national minorities, particularly the protection of their national, cultural, religious and linguistic identity, with major differences in the scope of individual rights. (SOI : PM: S. 84)

Зборник који је пред читаоцима садржи радове претходно представљене на међународном научном скупу Музички модернизам - нова тумачења који је у организацији Музиколошког института САНУ и одељења ликовне и музичке уметности САНУ одржан у Београду од 11. до 13. октобра 2007. године. Чињеницом да је радни језик скупа био енглески, објашњава се објављивање текстова на том језику (с једним оправданим изузетком). Циљ скупа био је да се подстакну и прикажу нова сагледавања стваралаштва музичког модернизма, сложеног покрета чије је деловање обележило развој музике скоро целог XX века, а првенствено да се на свеж начин протумаче естетичке дилеме и расправе о карактеристикама, смислу и значењу разноврсних и често контрадикторних стремљења у овом раздобљу. Тематски спектар приказаних радова био је изузетно широк: кретао се од преиспитивања музичког модернизма помоћу категорија носталгије и присвајања, преко сагледавања односа центара и периферије, до разматрања сложених веза између модернизма и политике. Као што смо и очекивали, пажња је била усмерена не само на значајне личности и појаве у међународним музичким токовима, већ и на оне у српској музици. Аутори радова нису себи поставили циљ - нити су то могли - да понуде чврсте закључке, дефиниције, класификације. Уместо тога, они су донели вишеслојна и иновативна разматрања ове узбудљиве уметничке епохе окренуте будућности и прогресу, из перспективе XXI века који је остао без многих илузија, неминовно остављајући широк простор за нова тумачења. ; The articles collected in this volume were presented at the conference Rethinking Musical Modernism that took place in Belgrade from 1 1-13 October 2007 and was or ganised by the Institute of Musicology and the Department of Fine Arts and Music of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts. The working language of the conference was English which explains the publication of the contributions in that language (with one justifiable exemption). As the title of the conference indicates, the main aim of the organisers was to stimulate novel investigation of musical Modernism. The papers were thus focused on discussions of the ideas, characteristics, and meanings of the diverse and often contra dictory tendencies that existed in that period. The thematic scope of the papers was wide: from new approaches to musical Modernism using the categories of nostalgia and appropriation, and novel observations on the relationship between centres and peripheries, to questioning of the ties between Modernism and politics, the problems of terminology, and analysis of important aspects of the modernist achievements on the international and Serbian modernist scene. The contributors did not - and could not - pursue the aim of reaching firm conclusions, definitions, and classifications. They instead offered rich and complex examinations of this exciting musical epoch turned toward the future and progress, seen from the perspective of the disillusioned twenty-first century, necessarily leaving vast space for new rethinking. ; Зборник радова са научног скупа одржаног од 11. до 13. октобра 2007. године