Заказ работы

Каталог тем
Каталог бесплатных ресурсов


The West created new type of state which main instrument of dominance over its own people and in the ‘spheres of influence’ became manipulation of conscious. This phenomena has got the name of ‘transition’ — from the ‘old regime’ tyranny, based on the open violence and constraint, to freedom and democracy. To justify this type of dominance there was formed new political philosophy as well as the necessary instrument — ‘forth power’, mass media.

As the main instrument of this type of state dominance modern media are turned virtually into mobile private enterprises — state contractors. In these private TV and publishing companies new technologies of conscious manipulation are developed, tested and used on a mass scale. The chain of this process includes professional specialists who constitute already a considerable part of cultural strata of modern society. One of the most significant characteristics of this process and its participants — total lack of shame — and shamelessness as such has turned into special technology of disarming ‘average’ human being at the face of conscious manipulation and qualitative shift in moral delimitation.

One French philosopher defined this new type of human existence based on interaction of the modern political and informational technologies as ‘society of show’. And Italian culturologist G. Agamben proposed to call the contemporary condition of the world ‘society of show’ as ‘Epoch of Timishoara’ — by the name of small Rumanian ton where the first act of Chaushesku overthrow show was staged with the help of tremendous falsifications. And though these falsifications were used against the regime considered to be evil personified, such technologies cannot be justified by any good intention.

Through other examples S. Kara-Murza shows in the article real purpose of raising mass media influence as a new quality of Western culture and important aspect of the new ‘World Order’ with all the dangerous results. Most detailed part of this analysis is dedicated to the Western — and mass media campaign against Belgrade and Serbs at large and total unwillingness to give history and reality a proper place. The author underlines as well the dangers of such developments in Russian mass media, especially concerning situations linked with internal conflicts.


(by Andrey Fetissov, p.33)

By the end of XX century contemporary forms of nationalism assumed absolutely disastrous character on vast scale. Unfortunately scaring nationalistic inspirations were more than often provoked by flagrant and unreasoned steps of the Western Powers and international bodies. Nevertheless, with quite a few exceptions, this century cannot provide real examples of successful prevention or total resolution of ethnic conflicts. Moreover, the international community has not succeed in elaborating proper criteria to define real intentions of the parties involved in such conflicts.

Balkan wars of the last decade demonstrated futility of the attempts to divide conflict participants by the wrong-right principle. And this is despite the existence of a lot of international bodies created with the aim of peaceful resolution of various contradictions between states and nations. Almost always the formal laws fail to work in cases when disputable issues have to be solved. Thus two fundamental principles of contemporary international relations — right to self-determination and priority of territorial integrity — come into irreconcilable conflict. And current situation around Yugoslavia turns into the most striking example here.

It seems now that the existing law systems aren’t able to guarantee political stability as well as disintegration of Imperial structures doesn’t necessarily leads to desired strengthening of the World order, as it was previously considered.

NATO’s aggression in the Balkans is fraught with the danger of negative changes in the field of international law and previously indisputable human values. Today the law of precedents is being formed and details of the future World order are being defined — very much to the selfish interests of very few main ‘players’ on the international arena. Countries and nations aren’t the subjects of the World politics any more — such are the blocks and alliances, formed by those ‘players’. It is more and more obvious that notorious ‘open society’ is meant only for them — self-selected ‘World Judges’, replacing humanistic ethics by ideologically grounded pragmatism.

The author raises some profound questions concerning the role and place of Russia in the world at the face of these ‘innovations’, including the proper peacemaking image — the most appropriate for Russia in the XXI century.


(by Mohan Menon, p.49)

Modern leaderships today, whether in Europe or elsewhere, betray little command over their political economies and often ignore history. They tend to overlook the fact that the march of political forces during and after the IInd World War had created only an unstable political equilibrium in parts of Europe which needed to be sedimented into firmer forms within the concerned polities. In postwar Europe outward resolutions of problems of ethnic divides concealed hidden contradictions based on ethnic multiplicity as in some special regions like Kosovo. In this background the veritable breakdown of the socialist structures in Europe had clearly necessitated certain “preventive” and “specific” responsibilities for the international community, mainly the United Nations and military structures like NATO, that sought a unique status of their own besides independent expositions of a fervent, almost nervous ideology defending their own self-interest on the European stage.

Were this preventive responsibilities suitably addressed by the international fora? If the Kosovo ethnic problem magnified into an international crisis, in fact an unpleasant ware in 1999, who is to blame for currents of escalation that displaced as it were saner counsels that sought to avert the escalation? Did the UN try hard enough, it is difficult to answer; did the US and the NATO alliance strive hard enough, equally difficult to answer, or was Slobodan Milosevic solely to blame for aggravation, again no answer can be readily proffered. Unfortunately, perspectives of rationality were lacking both within Belgrade leadership and among international forces spearheaded by NATO, or

Размер файла: 22.96 Кбайт
Тип файла: htm (Mime Type: text/html)
Заказ курсовой диплома или диссертации.

Горячая Линия

Вход для партнеров