Suchergebnisse

The "May Declaration" of the Yugoslav Club (Vienna, 1917), regardless of its original intent, enabled various political parties and groups in the South Slav areas of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy to promote the "Yugoslav idea" and work toward the creation of a unified Yugoslav state. In Croatia, as well as in Bosnia and Hercegovina, the most vociferous advocates of the "May Declaration" were members of the Croatian Catholic Seniorate, the leading organization within the Croatian Catholic movement. In Bosnia and Hercegovina, the Franciscans were the leading proponents of the "May Declaration" alongside the Seniorate. The greatest opposition to the "May Declaration" was voiced by the "Frankist-Rightist" circle centered around Archbishop Josip Stadler. Especially prominent among this group was Ivo Pilar, author of the "Memorandum" (July 1917), wherein he called for the creation of a "united administrative territory," or, the political unification of Croatian lands elevated to the status of a "condominium" relative to both component halves of the Monarchy. In his "Declaration" (November, 1917), Archbishop Stadler and his supporters came out in favour of the unification of "Croatian historical lands" within the boundaries of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, but on the basis of a subdualistic formula. Considering the existence of the dualistic system in the Monarchy a historic reality, they believed that this was the best possible resolution of the problem of political/constitutional fragmentation of the Croatian lands. The dissolution of Austria-Hungary and the formation of the Kingdom of Serbs , Croats and Slovenes rendered irrelevant the demands voiced in Stadler's "Declaration". Symbolically, the death of the Archbishop occurred at precisely the same time as these ominous events befell the Croat people. (SOI : CSP: S. 71f.)

The author claims that all major efforts concerning European security have always been linked with the end of a war. Thus the end of the cold war has been marked with the expansion of NATO and an attempt to create a new security. By analysing the political scope of the expansion, the military and strategic framework, the Russian reactions, and the economic significance, the author comes to the conclusion that the expansion is not conducive to the establishment of an integral system of European security. The purpose of this development by Clinton's team was primarily to outline the new European borders (the key aspect of Clinton's foreign policy) and, in the future, to create the conditions for further expansion and admittance of new members. Only in the remote future, through constant expansion and links with other European organisations, NATO could turn into the central system of European security. (SOI : PM: S. 97)