Suchergebnisse

The often controversial discussions about the problem of the Jewish refugees from Central European countries since 1938 - held at the level of the Government of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but also at different "lower administrative levels" (provinces, districts, and local municipalities), with the participation of various directly or indirectly interested parties, whose numbers grew considerably on the eve of the war in 1941 - including the issue of the status of several categories of persons with foreign citizenship (or with no citizenship at all). Apart from the "real refugees" and immigrants, these discussions also dwelled on the issue of the status of "Jewish tourists" from Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic, the neighboring Yugoslav states as well as Palestine. The attempts to find the most favorable solution for the state of Yugoslavia reflected all the dilemmas of the Yugoslav authorities about how to "neutralize the problem" of the Jewish refugees from Germany, who after the National Socialists' rise to power, in 1933, began arriving to the Yugoslav borders, too.

All Israeli governments since the beginning of the break-up of Yugoslavia have adopted a consistently pro-Serbian stand. Israeli public opinion has failed to respond to Serbian atrocities in a way comparable to the response in many other countries. The author argues that an important part of the explanation of this remarkable state of affairs, which puts Israel at odds with most of the western world and the Jewish diaspora, is to be found in Israel's history. Israel was set up at the price of turning the larger part of native Palestinian population into expellees or refugees. Its continued existence as an ethnic, Jewish state is predicated on not admitting the exiled Palestinians back. Collective repression and denial of these facts help explain the unwillingness or inability of Israeli society and its political establishinent to condemn the Serbs' war of expansion and "ethnic cleansing". (SOI : PM: S. 23)

The basic problem that the process of Euro integrations faces today is the absence of the European identity. There are ideas how it could be built, on what it should be based, but the basic problem is the EU has give up in a great extent from the real European values - the ideals like freedom, equality, solidarity, social justice, etc. Human rights are the European achievement, but a distinctive, therefore identity difference between the European and the Anglo-American interpretation is that the European variant guaranteed social-economic rights, which was actually a concretization of the great ideal of solidarity. Today, with prevailing ideology of globalism, just this element of human rights has been brutally waded, a part of the European identity with it. A similar situation is with what the Europeans consider the greatest achievement of the EU - free movement of people, goods and capital. Free movement of people is questioned by building barbed wires and creation of a new ante murale christianitatis, even in Islamic states, far away from the Schengen Area that is proclaimed untouchable. Moreover, all those people swarming to the Europe actually have close connections with it - they originate from former European colonies, brutally exploited by their metropolises for decades and centuries. Not only that, but recently their new 'Europeanization' has been attempted through the initialization of the 'Arab Spring' , which resulted with increase of the Islamic fundamentalism, disintegration of certain Arab states and tribal war in them, increase of terrorism and, of course, migrants from those areas. Although it would be justified to try to return the evil gotten to them at least partly, by refusing to accept the miserable the Europe gives the mortal strike to some of the main values that are considered its identity characteristics - free movement of people and solidarity. All this, actually, indicates on the absence of the European identity consciousness. There is no clearly defined content of the idea of the Euroidentity, nor there is consciousness of it with the citizens of the EU. The citizens of the EU are still more French, Englishmen, Germans, Italians, Spaniards, Poles, Czechs rather than the Europeans. Their Europeanism exists only on the level of usefulness and efficacy, therefore, the prediction is that the model of the EU as an international organizations generis will be kept for a long time, while identities in future will be tied for (European) nations.

The author deals with one of the most pressing problems of the 20th century - the problem of migrations. The essay is divided into four parts. In the first, the author presents empirical findings; in the second, he deals with the causes of the intra- and inter-national migrations; the third part is an outline of feasible perspectives, while the fourth offers possible options as countermeasures. The 20th century is characterized by the shift of the regional focal points of migrations. In the first half of the century, the inter-national migrations of refugees largely took place in Europe. However, in the second half of the century, the hub of the migrations shifted from the northern to the southern hemisphere. One of the major causes of migrations are wars and the accompanying violence. Other important causes are economic hardships, population boom, ecological disasters and the erosion of traditional values. Judging by the characteristics of the major causes of migrations, it is very unlikely that the situation at the turn of the millennium is going to change significantly. The only thing international organizations and states can do is to alleviate this problem by creating long-term strategies that might strike at the roots of the migration issue. (SOI : PM: S. 59)

International pressure prevented Croatia from ending the occupation of eastern Slavonia by military means. The author claims that the policy of peaceful integration and the UNTAES mandate are rife with risks which might jeopardize the eventual Croatian control of that region. He points out a set of contentious issues related to the occupied territory: the incomplete demilitarization, dual government (parallel UNTAES and Serbian authorities), no return for the non-Serbian refugees, staying on of the Serbs from other parts of Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia. Particularly risky for Croatia are the efforts of the local Serbs to retain absolute ethnic majority as the grounds for establishing territorial autonomy which would enable the militant accolytes of Greater Serbian politics to remain in the region and push for the secession and annexation by Serbia, the efforts which would in all probability be given military support by Serbia, this time under the circumstances which would be much more unfavourable for Croatia than in 1995. The author concludes that for Croatia the only acceptable solution is the total integration of eastern Slavonia and the establishment of full Croatian sovereignty while the creation of a Serbian autonomous province in that region must on no account be permitted. (SOI: PM: S. 188)

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)