Suchergebnisse

Rozwój koncepcji amerykańskiego systemu obrony przeciwrakietowej jest procesem sięgającym w swej historii epoki zimnej wojny. Szybki rozwój techniki wojskowej i skomplikowana sytuacja polityczna na arenie międzynarodowej sprawiły, iż groźba ta była jak najbardziej realna. Odpowiedzią na narastające zagrożenie stały się kolejno tworzone programy Nike-Zeus, Nike X, Sentinel oraz Safeguard. Przełomem w tworzeniu coraz to nowocześniejszych systemów obrony stał się podpisany 26 maja 1972 roku w Moskwie roku "Układ między Związkiem Socjalistycznych Republik Radzieckich a Stanami Zjednoczonymi Ameryki o ograniczeniu systemów obrony przeciwrakietowej". Powrót do idei stworzenia systemu obrony przeciwrakietowej nastąpił za prezydentury Ronalda Reagana i trwa do dzisiaj. Zmianie uległy jednakże zadania stojące przed takim programem. Po zakończeniu zimnej wojny i upadku ZSRR zagrożenia nie stanowiło już jedno wrogie państwo komunistyczne, lecz tzw. "państwa zbójeckie. Rozmowy na temat rozmieszczenia "tarczy antyrakietowej" w Polsce i Czechach wywołały protest w Rosji, która obawia się zbliżenia infrastruktury amerykańskiej do swoich granic, co znacznie skomplikowało proces negocjacyjny. Dodatkową trudność spowodowała decyzja Kongresu, który przyznanie pieniędzy na projekt uzależnił od podpisania z krajami europejskimi odpowiednich umów międzynarodowych, a także zmiana partii rządzącej w Polsce. Przyszłość amerykańskiego systemu obrony przeciwrakietowej zależeć będzie przede wszystkim od wyniku wyborów prezydenckich, które odbędą się w USA w listopadzie tego roku. Podejście kandydatów ubiegających się o ten urząd jest różne i od tego, kto zwycięży, zależeć będą dalsze losy koncepcji obrony strategicznej. ; Развитие концепции американской системы противоракетной обороны – это процесс, корни которого исходят к эпохе холодной войны. Быстрое развитие военной техники и сложная политическая ситуация на международной арене делали реальными многие угрозы. Ответом на возрастающие угрозы было соз- дание программ Nike-Zeus, Nike X, Sentinel и Safeguard. Переломом в гонке за всё более современными системами обороны стал подписанный 26 мая 1972 года в Москве «Договор между Союзом Советских Социалистических Республик и Соединёнными Штатами Америки об ограничении систем противоракетной обороны». Возвращение к идее создания системы противоракетной обороны наступило во времена президентуры Рональда Рейгана и продолжается по сей день. Изменились однако задачи стоящие перед такой программой. После окон- чания холодной войны и развала СССР опасность уже не представляет одно вражеское коммунистическое государство, а так называемые «государства оси зла». Переговоры на тему размещения «противоракетного щита» в Польше и Чехии вызвали протест России, которая опасается приближения американ- ской инфраструктуры к своим границам, что значительно осложнило перего- ворный процесс. Дополнительные осложнения вызвало решение Конгресса, который признание финансирования проекта сделал зависимым от подписания с европейскими странами соответствующих международных договоров, а также смена правящей партии в Польше. Будущее американской системы противора- кетной обороны, прежде всего, будет зависеть от результатов президентских выборов в США, которые состоятся в ноябре этого года. Подход к проблеме кандидатов на этот пост остается разным и от того, кто победит, будет зависеть дальнейшая судьба концепции стратегической обороны. ; The development of the concept of American National Missile Defence (NMD) system is a process rooted in the time of the Cold War. The fast development of military technology and the complex political situation on international stage made the threat of attack real. The response to the permanently escalating threat have been a succession of programmes: Nike-Zeus, Nike X, Sentinel, and Safeguard. The breakthrough in the development of increasingly modern defence systems was the Treaty Between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems signed on 26th May 1972 in Moscow. The return to the idea of developing a missile defence system took place under Ronald Reagan. Even though the programme has continued to this day, its objectives have changed. With the conclusion of the Cold War and the fall of the USSR, the threat was no longer a single enemy communist state but the so-called 'rogue states'. The talks on the deployment of the elements of the NMD system (the so-called 'US missile shield') in Poland and Czech Republic resulted in a protest from Russia fearing the approach of American infrastructure to own borders, which greatly complicated the negotiations process. Additional obstacles arose when first US Congress made signing appropriate international agreements with the European states the condition for awarding the money to the project, and later the governing party in Poland changed. The future of the American system of missile defence system will primarily depend on the results of the Presidential Elections that will be held in the US this November. The positions of US presidential candidates on the NMD system varies, and it is on the winner of the presidential race that the future of strategic defence hinges.

An American model of peace in the Middle East, which evolved from Kissinger's 'little steps' to the separatist agreements of Camp David, was to serve the purpose of regulating the Arab-Israeli conflict and strengthening Washington's influence. In the address delivered on January 23, 1980 (that provided the foundation for the so called 'J. Carter doctrine') the US President said that every "attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America" and thus it "will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force". The abandonment of the Nasserian tradition did not help A. Sadat to win supporters in internal matters. The protest of Nasserists and the Association of Muslim Brothers against the reconciliation with Israel resulted in a tragic attack against the Egyptian president. A. Sadat's death on October 6, 1981 was a blow for the advocates of the peace process. Whether to continue the separatist policy towards Israel or not was up to the will of the new political authorities in Egypt. ; An American model of peace in the Middle East, which evolved from Kissinger's 'little steps' to the separatist agreements of Camp David, was to serve the purpose of regulating the Arab-Israeli conflict and strengthening Washington's influence. In the address delivered on January 23, 1980 (that provided the foundation for the so called 'J. Carter doctrine') the US President said that every "attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America" and thus it "will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force". The abandonment of the Nasserian tradition did not help A. Sadat to win supporters in internal matters. The protest of Nasserists and the Association of Muslim Brothers against the reconciliation with Israel resulted in a tragic attack against the Egyptian president. A. Sadat's death on October 6, 1981 was a blow for the advocates of the peace process. Whether to continue the separatist policy towards Israel or not was up to the will of the new political authorities in Egypt.

Suzerainty and independence of state and its territorial integrality and inviolability of borders are fundamental problems of extrenal seciurity policy in politics programme polish liberal parties. In relations to alliance with United States of America and Common European Security and Defence Policy are the main politcal problems this policy. Platforma Obywatelska presents the most rational standpoint. The present moment ofshows programm a sensible equilibrium between both ofinternational subjects. Unia Polityki Realnej univocally declares strict colaboration with United States ofAmerica. This party perceptions European Union as a threat for Poland. Instead political programm ofPartia Demokratyczna makes activiy of Poland to create Common European Security and EU Defence Policy. This policy is a safeguard to security ofWestern and Central Europe. In all programme ofthese two parties NATO IS PERCEPTIONED as very important element ofsafety, no only regional but global too. All parties detect necessity build matter ofPoland in alliance. For Platforma Obywatelska and Unia Polityki Realnej military implement is important an element of formation the external security. Both of parties perceive necessity to modernize of equipment and organic structure ofarmy. The most fudamental problem is formation ofprofesional army but with elemets ofcivil guard. For both ofparties the main target oftechnical modernization of army is attained level ofmodernity so that is could co֊operare with most best army on The World wihtout problemms. ; Projekt Operacyjny Polska Cyfrowa POPC.02.03.01-00-0039/18

The political relationship between the United States of America and the USSR determined the international relations during the period of the "cold war". The election of Mikhail Gorbachev to general secretary of the Communist Party was a turning point in international relations. Boris Yeltsin signed the agreement to disband the Soviet Union, which according to legal regulations was then transformed into Russia. B. Clinton, who accepted all of the decisions of Russian president, and also supported financially a number of new initiatives from B. Yeltsin, continued the good relationship between Russia and the USA instigated by G. Bush. The election of W. Putin to the Russian presidency was followed by a new strategy from Russia towards western countries, particularly towards the USA. Instead of following the strategy of partnership Putin tried to limit the influence of the USA on Russian policy. The situation changed after the terrorist attack on 11th Sept. when W. Putin, President of Russia, was one of the first world leaders to assure G. Bush in an official phone call that Russia intended to support all military action taken by the USAagainst the perpetrators. If Russia intends to have a great influence on the international political relations and take part in international policy it should change its position towards USA into one of partnership and co-operation.

Monografia zawiera liczne ryciny. ; The end of the 80-ties and the beginning of 90-ties years is the period when new trends occur in the wandering movements of the population in Poland, including considerably higher inflow of foreigners than up to now. For the first time in the post war history of our country we have to do with a considerable selected temporary as well as permanent immigration. Thus Poland has emerged as an attractive country to live and to manage business activity and is able to draw more and more immigrants. While examining the phenomenon of permanent immigration to Poland since 1946 (Fig. l), few phases can be shown. The first is 1946-1960, the second one lasts until 1990 and the third immigration phase is beyond 1990. The subject of our analysis is the third immigration phase after 1990, because from that time markedly increased the inflow of foreigners to Poland. Jointly during the period 1990-1995 over 35.1 thousand persons have settled in Poland (Fig. 1). Analysing the inflow of population from abroad we can say about the permanent escalation of this process. It is indicated by the comparison of the immigration magnitude in following years and by the fact that from 1989 to 1995 the yearly inflow has grown al most four times, from 2.2 thousand to 8.1 thousand persons, respectively. A characteristic feature of the immigration from abroad is the great disproportion in the scale of inflow to towns an villages. Majority of the foreigners proceed to larger centres, therefore in the country this is only a marginal phenomenon. Since 1989 over 30 thousand foreigners have settled in towns, thus this makes 83% of the inflow in this period, while in the country less then 7 thousand. In the structure of the inflow to Poland (1991-1995) al most half of the persons have secondary education (45%), 33% university education and 7%. So almost 85% of the immigrants are persons with secondary or university education (Fig. 2). Of this about 80% of the persons are at productive age, the rest makes of children up to 18 years of age and persons over 60. (Fig. 3). The proportions between the number of men and women are al most equal (55% and 45%, respectively), but according to the origin country some differentiation can be observed (Fig. 4). In the structure of inflow according to countries 65% of the immigrants come from European countries and the former Soviet Union. 3.5% from Northern America and 8.6% jointly from Asia and Africa. The highest number of immigrants come from Germany (24.1 %), from the USA (16.2%) and from the form er Soviet Union (15%). Examining the problem summarily for the last 6 years, from 1990 to 1995, we can notice that the greatest inflow of foreigners was noted in the voivodeships: Warszawa (4.9 thousand), Gdańsk (2.9 thousand), Katowice (2.5 thousand) and Wrocław (2.1 thousand). In the next five voivodeships (Szczecin, Poznań, Opole, Kraków and Łódź) the inflow was for l to 2 thousand persons. Generally these voivodeships are characterised by a high degree of social-economical development and low degree of unemployment. In the shadow of the immigration streams there are such voivodeships as Bielsko-Biała, Chełm, Piotrków Tryb., Sieradz, Leszno and Ciechanów voivodeships. The joint inflow over the period 1990-1995 was 35.1 thousand persons (Fig. 7). Reassuming, we can state, that starting from the 90-ties years the immigration to Poland is continuously growing.

A politological analysis is presented in this book of the more than seventy year long period of US — Panama relations. Particular interest is devoted to the diplomatic and international law aspects, since in the author's opinion they are of paramount, fundamental significance. The main stream of these considerations is preceded (section 1) by a description of the circumstances governing the founding od Panama as an independent state. The author sees this as the resultant of a number of causes, both internal and also external, and hence not merely as a product of US policies. In section 2 is presented the initial state of bilateral relations, in particular the circumstances accompanying the signing of the Hay — Bunau-Varilla agreement, analysis of its clauses and also the legal and practical consequences of this agreement as the plane of the links between' Panama and the United States. Panama — US relations in the years from 1904—1964 are shown (section 3), analysing selected problems in a dynamic conception. Dealt with here are such problems as: guaranteeing independence and the policy of intervention, titular and eminents sovereignty military and economic questions and also matters concerning the conflict of 1964. It is the author's view that the situations analysed determine the principal lines of division and differences in the interests of the two sides, and also make it possible to discern — in a negative sense — future and desired foundations of these bilateral relations. Also comprehended in the field of interest is the question of the interpretation of the 1903 convention^ the evolution of Panama's attitude towards its principal terms and also certain legal modifications. The last two sections deal with the story of the negotiations lastingover many years and also the analysis of the currently binding agreements on the Panama Canal. Attention is drawn to the internal and international determinants governing the attitudes of the two sides. The author evaluates the new foundation of US — Panama relations in finding answers to the question: to what degree have the three groups of already historical controversies between the two sides been eliminated. These involve: 1) the legal and factual position of the Canal Zone; 2) the legal situation of the canal; 3) the rights held by USA extending over the whole Panamese relations results from the overcoming of a certain barrier, impossilbe to surmount in the earlier period, which determined the limiting (referring both to intentions and also to pacts negotiated) to modification of the Hay — Bunau-Varilla agreements without making any changes in its basic terms. In this sense the actual treaties are an incomparable qualitative state (chiefly due to annulling the clause on the permanence and titular sovereignty of Panama over the Canal Zone) that is achieveable due to the determination of the Torrijos government and also of the Carter administration. The present situation is of a clearly temporary character (up to 2000 AD). Although many anachronistic regulations have been annulled and in many cases conditions for cooperation have been created, intractable problems for the future are discernible. These result from the different interpretations by the two sides of the function of the Panama Canal. Panama aims to extract maximum direct and indirect advantages from the canal. As a small country its policy is to achieve demilitarisation and neutrality understood as the elimination of foreign bases and the obtaining of international guarantees safeguarding against external intervention. For the USA the economic question, although important (the advantages are rather indirect), does not play such a dominant role. Moreover, the canal itself has a strategic significance, the more so in view Of the lack of stability in Central America. From the aspect of Panamese rights further doubts are raised by the plans for building a canal at sea level. Among the varied problems to be confronted in the coming decade, these major items are most likely to govern US — Panama relations: the economic viability, of exploiting the canal, the method of implementing its strategic function and matters relating to the plans for building a new canal.

The principal trends in US foreign policy in Central America during the nineteen eighties are described. The Central American crisis, which has most acutely affected such countries as San Salvador and Nicaragua, has deep social roots and the military dictatorships ruling there now for many years are largely responsibile for the appearance of its most severe form — civil war. As long as the military dictatorships ensured stability, the United States treated this region as a peripheral sphere. It was the deepening of this crisis situation at the end of the nineteen seventies and the beginning of the eighties together with the victory gained by the Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua which urged the Reagan administration to unprecedented US involvement. From the outset this administration, true to its conservative doctrine, put its faith in military type actions as one of the principal instruments to bring about a change in this situation. The military aid programmes for local regimes have been substantially increased and the network of military bases in the region has been extended. The US assessment of the situation in Central America has always been based on the assumption that the chief instigators of this crisis are the left wing forces, supported and inspired by the socialist countries with the object of widening their sphere of influence. Hence also the cornerstone of US policy has been to recognise the regional conflict as a direct threat to US national security. The new strategy involved principally the neutralisation of the left wing, including the change of the regime in Nicaragua and its organisation as far as possible on a formally democratic system of government operated by the centre parties. To attain this end they not only support military actions (always seen as the major lever) but also economic aid is increased, elections are arranged (El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala), regional inter-government cooperation is promoted together with diplomatic isolation of Nicaragua and undermining of the government of that country. Also the possibility of direct military action has not been ruled out.

The scholarly attractiveness of the subject has been prejudged by the fact, that the United States of America was the first country in history which had constitutionalized the principle of division of governmental power. However, this principle has hitherto found rather a humble reflex in the literature. In Chapter I the author discusses the significance of the aforementioned principle in contemporary constitutionalism, dealing at the same time with some terminological questions. Chapter II concerns the general origin of the theory of separation of power from ancient times till the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Chapter III has been dedicated to the institutional background of the doctrine of division of governmental power of the "Founding Fathers", namely, to the governmental experiences stemming out of binding of the Articles of Confederacy, the colonial constitutional charters and the state constitutions. Chapter IV regards the ideological and social background of that doctrine. Chapter V affects the motivation of constitutionalization of the principle of division of power in the views of the Framers. In Chapter VI the author presents the very doctrine of division of power of the "Founding Fathers", especially its foundations concerning the coordination of governmental powers (i.e. Congress, the President, and the Supreme Court), their functions and competences, structure, procedure of creation as well as term. Chapter VII refers to the problem of guarantees of the division principle, both formal (checks and balance system) and material ones (James Madison's conception of pluralism and social distribution of power). Chapter VIII comprises some conclusions.

Latin America has played at all times a significant part in the foreign policy of the United States. Its geographical proximity, colonial descent, as well as common interests of all American countries toward the policy of the European colonial powers - these are historically primordial factors that have determined their relations. In course of time, as USA investments in Latin America grew, and the system of the political-military relations consolidated, also with respect to the USA global policy, the countries of Latin America got interrelated in a peculiar way with their northern neighbour. At present their mutual relations are noticeable at the arena of culture and propaganda. The present work perceives the cultural policy and foreign propaganda pursued by the United States as a broad complex of phenomena involving both the passage of wealth, values, and standars of culture, and the political purposeful persvasive actions, affecting the views, attitudes, and conduct of the pe.ople, as an instrument applied to put into effect the strategical aims of the. USA foreign polioy. At the same time it represents a stable integrator of the western hemisphere. The two decades (1960s and 1970s) of cultural policy and foreign propaganda discussed in the present work are' a period that allows to trace the characteristic manifestations, and to regard the trends appearing as the regularities of this sphere of social activity. The conception of tjie culture and propaganda influence, elaborated in the beginning of the 1960s has been modified in accordance with new occurrences taking place in Latin America, and with their perception by the particular administrations. The political function of this influencing, its aims,¡contents and implementing methods have not undergone any change. The work is composed of three fundamental sections - chapters. The first one "The determinants, and the programmatic directions of the USA culture-propaganda influence in Latin America" attempts to present the foreign policy programmes, and their stageB to define the place and role of the culture-propaganda influence in the USA strategies adopted to Latin America. Chapter two "The organization of the administration machinery" illustrates the extremely complex, multisectorial, and hierarchical system of the state and non-state organizations programming, coordinating, and implementing the actions under discussion. The third chapter "The forms, and techniques of the culture-propaganda influencing" describes the big business activity in Latin America in the field of mass-communication, its dominance at the information market, and its impact on the mass culture and education. Moreover the author discusses the state institutions activity in the field of radio, TV and film propaganda, face-to-face communication, bi-national centres and military schooling stations, as well as public utilities operation. Latin America constitutes too differentiated area to adopt preferential techniques to the entire region. Nevertheless the preference is noticeable. This refers to the radio-TV propaganda, face-to-face communication, bi-national centres operation, and arises from the influencies directing mainly onto middle classes predestinated to adopt foreign standards and values.

The author attempts at formulating certain hypotheses concerning basic developement trends in a contemporary capitalist society. The United States are selected as an example. Two significant concepts advanced by J. K. Galbraith and D. Bell functioning in the contemporary American thought are reconstructed in the article. Limitations of these concepts are indicated on the grounds of Marxian theory of policy, they neglect a real effect of the increacing role played by a political sphere in social life. Criticized authors focussing on bureaucratic processess do not admit the fact that a study in categories of bureaucracy indicates only at formal features of transformations. It is only the indication at real functions of bureaucratic organization which can facilitate perception evolutionary trends of contemporary capitalist society. In this context prognoses formulated by A. de Tocqueville in his "On Democracy in America" are still up-to-date. ; Digitalizacja i deponowanie archiwalnych zeszytów RPEiS sfinansowane przez MNiSW w ramach realizacji umowy nr 541/P-DUN/2016