After the cold war, when the Eastern block collapsed, considerable changes were made in the world security architecture. Althought it seemed like a beginning of more certain and secure era, cold war ending didn't fulfill expectations neither the main actors in the cold war conflict, nor the expectations of the rest of the world. Besides, collapse of one block, didn't stop growth dynamic of new power centers. Tendencies for power are not new and unfamiliar to human. When bypolar system collapsed, other subjects started fighting for the positions. PRC role with her enormous people potential, growing economy and strengthened military is evident. Soviet Union, accordingly Russian Federation, believed that there was no more need for strenghtening the other block, especially when the opposite doesn't exist. But, former partners included the opposite side, and that made more tensions between Russia and United States. Rest of the world didn't get better chance to create own future. On the contrary, especially for the peripheral and semiperipheral countries, new threats appeared that destabilized individual and collective security. Efforts to make human community rational, were always idealism and those efforts were considered utopian, but under the given circumstances, for the international stability, the most accseptable model is model of global triangle - China, Russia, USA. Reason why this three countries is ther specific potention: USA is powerful technological, military and political center, RF is worlds warehouse' and China is the worlds manufacture. In the globalism domination over nationalism era that model could be the optimal 'braking and balance' system in the international relations- political ideal that all liberal schools wanted to acchievestarting Lock, Montesquieu, Rousseau till today.
United States participation in international politics during the period between the two world wars, come not only from the general and often declarative interest in peace, but was also a consequence of extremely rapid expansion of their foreign trade and overseas capital investments. It was a period of intense financial diplomacy, when efforts to maintain the gold standard, to determine the amount of reparations and the manner of payment of war debts, brought confusion not only in relations between victors and vanquished, but also in relations between the United States and its former European allies. Abandonment of the gold standard and the creation of the tripartite agreement between the United States, Britain and France, in the 1936, was a milestone in the development of international monetary cooperation and the role of United States in international economic relations. .
Autor se bavi odnosima Sjedinjenih Država i Venezuele zaključno sa aktuelnom predsedničkom krizom ne bi li odgovorio na pitanje kako i zašto je Venezuela postala problem za spoljnu politiku SAD koji zahteva pojačanu pažnju i radikalne mere. Analiza ovih odnosa u toku 20. veka pokazuje da su oni zasnovani na naftnoj međuzavisnosti dveju država. Kada je krajem veka višedecenijsko loše upravljanje naftnim bogatstvom u Venezueli izazvalo društvenu i ekonomsku krizu koja je dovela na vlast Huga Cháveza, spremnog da koristi prihode od nafte protiv interesa regionalne hegemonije SAD, ove su Venezuelu označile kao problem. Američki establišment je prema tom problemu nastupio oportunistički – naftna međuzavisnost je sprečavala da sukob eskalira sve dok aktuelna ekonomsko-politička kriza u Venezueli nakon Chávezove smrti nije dala Washingtonu priliku za konačni obračun sa režimom, po cenu privremenog prekida u trgovini naftom. Godinu i po dana od izbijanja predsednička kriza u Venezueli još nije razrešena, jer se čavistički režim održao, a SAD odustale od vojne intervencije, pa autor nastoji da ukaže na perspektive problema i mogućnosti njegovog prevazilaženja nakon što tekuća pandemija korona virusa bude obuzdana. ; The author deals with the United States and Venezuela relations up to the current presidential crisis, in order to answer how and why Venezuela became a problem for U.S. foreign policy which requires increased attention and radical measures. The analysis of these relations during the 20th century shows that they were based on oil interdependence of the two states. When a decades-long mismanagement of oil riches in Venezuela at the end of the century caused a social and economic crisis that brought to power Hugo Chávez, who was ready to use oil revenues against U.S. regional hegemonic interests, it marked Venezuela as a problem. American establishment treated the problem with opportunism – oil interdependence prevented the conflict from escalating until the current economic and political crisis in Venezuela after the death of Chávez gave Washington an opportunity for the final clash with the regime at the price of a temporary break in the oil trade. A year and a half after the presidential crisis in Venezuela erupted, it has not been resolved yet, for the chavista regime remained in place, while the U.S. gave up on military intervention. The author points to the perspectives of the problem and the possibilities of its overcoming once the current coronavirus pandemic gets contained.
The current article introduces the issue of race and racism in the United States of America with focus on two specific contemporary concepts that have a big attention and have formed the discussion in the last years. The first one is laissez-faire racism from Lawrence D. Bobo who stresses the reluctance of government and political parties to engage in racial questions. The second one is concept of white privilege of Peggy McIntosh who points at advantages and privileges of white race. Both concepts attempt to raise awareness about still present racial discrimination in the United States of America, although in the last years this topic has begun to be perceived as clichet and for some the problem is considered to be solved.
Hladni rat je predstavljao rat ideologija bez presedana u istoriji. Nijedan drugi rat, ni pre ni posle ovog višedecenijskog hladnog sukoba između Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i Saveza Sovjetskih Socijalističkih Republika, nije bio rat koji se vodio u tolikoj meri u sferi meke moći kao Hladni rat. Odsustvo neposrednog oružanog sukoba između Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i Sovjetskog Saveza učinilo je da se Hladni rat odvija kao takmičenje u sferi ekonomije, tehnologije i nauke, kao trka u nuklearnom i konvencionalnom naoružanju i kao svemirsko nadmetanje. Pored takmičenja u sferi tvrde moći, Sjedinjene Američke Države i Sovjetski Savez vodili su intenzivnu bitku u oblasti meke moći. Ovo je bio sukob između američke liberalno-demokratske ideologije i sovjetske marksističke ideologije. Svaka od ove dve zemlje težila je tome da ubedi građane one druge zemlje da je njen društveni i ekonomski sistem idealan i da je bolji i pravedniji od sistema njenog glavnog suparnika. Uzrok propasti Sovjetskog Saveza i komunizma u istočnoj Evropi nikada sa sgurnošću neće moći da bude određen. Okolnosti koje su dovele do raspada Sovjetskog Saveza, pada Berlinskog zida 1989. godine i urušavanja komunizma u Evropi ne mogu se svesti na skup vojnih, političkih, ekonomskih i društvenih činilaca koji su, nezavisno jedni od drugih, doveli do tektonskih promena u međunarodnim odnosima. Svi ovi činioci zajedno, isprepletani u kompleksnu mrežu poluga, učinili su da se Sovjetski Savez uruši i da Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama prepusti ulogu pobednika u Hladnom ratu. Pritom, Amerika nije bila samo vojni i ekonomski pobednik. Amerika je iz Hladnog rata izašla kao moralni i ideološki pobednik. Hladni rat predstavlja temu izuzetno velikog broja radova, ali mali broj tih radova se bavi analizom američko-sovjetskog sukoba u sferi meke moći. Stoga je cilj ovog istraživanja i rada rasvetljavanje, objašnjene i tumačenje poluga meke moći koje su Sjedinjene Američke Države institucionalizovale, pokrenule i upotrebile u ideološkoj borbi protiv Sovjetskog Saveza u vreme Hladnog rata. Međutim, Sjedinjene Američke Države nisu od svog nastanka u drugoj polovini 18. veka do Hladnog rata osmišljeno primenjivale svoju meku moć. Do Hladnog rata upotreba poluga meke moći bila praksa kojom su se Sjedinjene Američke Države bavile isključivo u vreme učešća u oružanim sukobima. Tek sa Hladnim ratom u Americi se javlja potreba za namenskom i osmišljenom upotrebom poluga meke moći. Odmah nakon Drugog svetskog rata Sovjetski Savez je počeo da vrši uticaj na druge zemlje šireći marksističku ideologiju i komunističke ideje. Osim širenja marksističke ideologije Sovjetski Savez je vodio i dobro osmišljenu kampanju protiv Sjedinjenih Američkih Država i američkog načina života. Američka administracija je kao odgovor na sovjetsku spoljnu politiku u periodu od 1946. do 1950. godine stvorila politiku obuzdavanja Sovjetskog Saveza i sovjetskog uticaja u svetu svim sredstvima. Ovo je podrazumevalo kako upotrebu poluga tvrde moći tako i primenu poluga meke moći. U to vreme u američkom društvu postojao je konsenzus o upotrebi političkih, vojnih i ekonomskih oruđa u borbi protiv Sovjetskog Saveza, ali je upotreba poluga meke moći bila predmet duge javne rasprave. Jedna od izuzetno važnih poluga meke moći su državni programi informisanja, odnosno ono što se u Sjedinjenim Američkim Državama smatra propagandom, a propaganda se od nastanka Sjedinjenih Američkih Država do danas smatra nečasnom delatnošću autokratskih režima. Sjedinjene Američke Države su u periodu neposredno nakon Drugog svetskog rata sprovele zakonske, institucionalne i strukturalne promene koje su omogućile trajno ustanovljavanje poluga meke moći zarad širenja američkih vrednosti, ideja i kulture i zarad ideološke borbe protiv Sovjetskog Saveza i sovjetske marksističke ideologije. Zakoni doneti u to vreme su na snazi i danas i pružaju okvir za mnogobrojne programe i aktivnosti na polju primene poluga meke moći po celom svetu. ; The Cold War was a war without precedent in the history. No war before this prolonged cold conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union was waged that much in the realm of soft power as the Cold War. In the absence of an immediate armed conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, the Cold War was conducted as a competition in the areas of economy, technology and science, nuclear and conventional weapons, as well as the space race. Besides the competition in the realm of hard power, the United States and the Soviet Union pursued an intensive battle in the realm of soft power. This was a conflict between the American ideology of a liberal democracy and the Soviet Marxist ideology. Each of the two attempted to persuade the citizens of the other country that its social and economic practice was an ideal one, better and more just than the other one. The source of the collapse of the Soviet Union and communism in Eastern Europe will never be fully determined. The circumstances that brought about the break-up of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, and the fall down of communism in Europe cannot be summarized as an aggregation of military, political, economic and social factors that independently from each other led to the colossal changes in the world order. All of these factors, entangled together in a complex net, caused the implosion of the Soviet Union which left the United States as the winner in the Cold War. Yet, the United States was not only a military and economic victor, it resurfaced as a moral and ideological champion, as well. The Cold Was has been a theme of numerous papers but only a handful of these papers tackled the American-Soviet conflict in the realm of soft power. Thus, the objective of this research and dissertation is to shed the light, explain and construe the instruments of soft power that the United States institutionalized, put into motion and deployed in the ideological battle against Soviet Union in the Cold War. However, since its birth in the 18th century until the Cold War, the United States had not wielded its soft power strategically. Up to the Cold War, the soft power instruments were used exclusively during the times when the United States was involved in an armed conflict. Only in the Cold War, the need for intentional and thoughtful use of soft power instruments emerged. Soon after the end of the Second World War, the Soviet Union got set off to exert its influence by diffusing its Marxist ideology and communist values. In addition to spreading its ideology, the Soviet Union led a well-planned campaign against the United States and the American way of life. From 1946 to 1950, in response to the Soviet policy towards the United States, the American administration coined the policy of containment of the Soviet Union and the Soviet influence in the world. The policy of containment included both the use of the instruments of hard power and of soft power. At that time, there was a consensus in the American society on the use of political, military and economic means in fighting the Soviet Union, while the use of soft power instruments was a subject of a prolonged public discourse. Government information programs, perceived as propaganda in the United States, have always been a very important soft power instrument, and propaganda has been considered by Americans to be a dishonest activity of autocratic governments. In the period right after the Second World War, the United States implemented legislative, institutional and structural changes that allowed for permanent establishment of the soft power instruments. These foreign policy instruments made it possible for the United States government to diffuse American values, ideas and culture and to wage an ideological war against the Soviet Union and its Marxist principles. The acts adopted at that time are in place nowadays, and provide a legal framework for numerous programs and activities in the realm of soft power.
In this paper, we consider the relationship between the entrepreneurial state and the crisis (caused by economic and non-economic reasons and vice versa). Thus, it is about the interactive attitude of the entrepreneurial state in resolving the crisis and the impact of the crisis on the further development of new economic competencies and competencies of the state in the economy. The entrepreneurial state is seen as an entrepreneur and one of the most important economic actors, which accepts long-term investment risks, bearing in mind the broader picture and the common good. The development of new technologies and new technology companies in the United States and other developed countries has been possible, thanks to the investment of the American entrepreneurial state and its agencies. We start from the assumption that the American crisis, in 2008. caused by high debts, the private sector, not the US public debt, which today is enormously high and skyrocketing. At the heart of this consideration is the thesis that the classical economic theory of non-interference of the state in economic life, which stands aside in the recent era of the development of global capitalism, does not hold water. On the contrary, it turns out that government risky investment in the long run is the basis of a modern economy in which the private sector can develop only on the premises of this huge investment in the development of modern new technologies. Most innovation today and research institutes in the United States are due to the investments of the American state. The paper discusses the impact of the crisis on the understanding of the entrepreneurial state and its role in innovation, the role of new technologies and innovations in economic growth, entrepreneurial state and risks, entrepreneurial state and knowledge economy, entrepreneurial state in "pushing" versus "pulling" the green industrial revolution and the cost of investment, innovation, and development of the American entrepreneurial state. ; U ovom radu razmatramo odnos preduzetničke države i krize (izazvane ekonomskim i neekonomskim razlozima i vice versa). Dakle, riječ je o interaktivnom odnosu preduzetničke države u rješavanju krize i uticaju krize na dalji razvoj novih ekonomskih ingerencija i nadležnosti države u ekonomiji. Preduzetnička država se posmatra kao preduzetnik i jedan od važnijih ekonomskih aktera, koji prihvata rizike ulaganja na dugi rok, imajući na umu širu sliku i opšte dobro. Razvoj novih tehnologija i novih tehnoloških kompanija u SAD i drugim razvijenim zemljama bio je moguć zahvaljujući investiranju američke preduzetničke države i njenih agencija. Polazimo od pretpostavke da su američku krizu 2008. godine izazvali visoki dugovi privatnog sektora, a ne javni dug SAD, koji je danas enormno visok i vrtoglavo raste. U osnovi ovog razmatranja stoji teza da klasična ekonomska teorija o nemiješanju države u privredni život, koja stoji po strani u najnovije doba razvoja globalnog kapitalizma, ne drži vodu. Naprotiv, pokazuje se da je državno rizično investiranje na dugi rok u osnovi savremene ekonomije u kome privatni sektor može da se razvija samo na premisama tog golemog ulaganja u razvoj modernih novih tehnologija. Većina inovacija danas i istraživačkih instituta u SAD duguje ulaganjima američke države. U radu razmatramo uticaj krize na shvatanje preduzetničke države i njene uloge u inovacijama, ulogu novih tehnologija i inovacija u privrednom rastu, preduzetničku državu i rizike, preduzetničku državu i ekonomiju znanja, preduzetničku državu u "guranju" nasuprot "podbadanju" zelene industrijske revolucije, koristi i cijene investiranja, inovacije i razvoj američke preduzetničke države.
