Автор работы: Пользователь скрыл имя, 23 Декабря 2012 в 18:31, курс лекций
Политология – новое название политической науки, утвердившееся в 60-е – 70-е годы ХХ века сначала в Германии и Франции, затем в России. Во многих западных странах, и в первую очередь в США, этот термин не приобрел столь широкого применения, хотя там и признают его речевые удобства – краткость и понятность. В становлении всего обширного комплекса знаний о политике выделяются три последовательно опосредующие друг друга системы или уровни интеллектуального освоения политической практики.
Лекция первая, вторая
ПОЛИТОЛОГИЯ: ПРЕДМЕТ, ОБЪЕКТ, ЭТАПЫ РАЗВИТИЯ
Лекция третья, четвертая
ПОЛИТИКА КАК ОБЩЕСТВЕННОЕ ЯВЛЕНИЕ
Лекция пятая
ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ ВЛАСТЬ
Лекция шестая
ИНДИВИД КАК СУБЪЕКТ ПОЛИТИКИ
Лекция седьмая
ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ СОЦИАЛИЗАЦИЯ
Лекция восьмая
ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ЭЛИТЫ
Лекция девятая
ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЕ ЛИДЕРСТВО
Лекция десятая
ГОСУДАРСТВО КАК ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЙ ИНСТИТУТ
Лекция одиннадцатая
НЕГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЕ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ИНСТИТУТЫ
Лекция двенадцатая
ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ СИСТЕМЫ И РЕЖИМЫ
Лекция тринадцатая
АВТОРИТАРНЫЕ И ТОТАЛИТАРНЫЕ ПОЛИТСИСТЕМЫ
Лекция четырнадцатая
ДЕМОКРАТИЧЕСКАЯ ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ СИСТЕМА
Лекция пятнадцатая
ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЕ СОЗНАНИЕ И ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ИДЕОЛОГИИ
Лекция шестнадцатая
ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ КУЛЬТУРА
Лекция семнадцатая, восемнадцатая
ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ ПРОЦЕССЫ, РАЗВИТИЕ И МОДЕРНИЗАЦИЯ
Лекция девятнадцатая
ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ КОНФЛИКТЫ И ПОЛИТИЧЕСКИЕ КРИЗИСЫ
Лекция двадцатая
ПОЛИТИЧЕСКАЯ КОММУНИКАЦИЯ
Лекция двадцать первая
ВЫБОРЫ И ИЗБИРАТЕЛЬНЫЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИИ
Лекция двадцать вторая
ВНЕШНЯЯ ПОЛИТИКА И МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЕ ОТНОШЕНИЯ
Лекция двадцать третья
МИРОВАЯ ПОЛИТИКА В НАЧАЛЕ XXI ВЕКА
After December, 1991 foreign policy strategy of Russia changed some times. At the first stage, per 1992-1993, Moscow carried out strongly pronounced westernized to the policy. At a fact-finding meeting with collective of the USSR which was the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the end of 1991 the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation A.V.Kozyrev has underlined that henceforth Moscow will carry out a course on sanguineous partnership with the West, integration with it. In turn, the president of Russia B.N.Yeltsin, acting on January, 31st, 1992 at UN Security Council session, has especially allocated that circumstance that Russia “considers the United States and other countries of the West not only as partners, but also as allies”. He asserted that Moscow divides with the West basic foreign policy principles - “domination of the democratic rights and personal freedoms, legality and morals”. Sobering up has come with the announcement of plans of expansion of the NATO on the east that has been apprehended in Russia as demonstration of mistrust and even animosities to Moscow as West attempt to be fenced off from Russia new "Iron Curtain", at last, as threat of safety of the Russian Federation. E.M.Primakov, at that time head of the Russian investigation, has declared in November, 1993: “This expansion will approach the largest military group in the world directly to borders of Russia. There is a necessity of fundamental revision from our party of all defensive concepts”. B.N.Yeltsin in the autumn of 1995 warned that expansion of a NATO alliance at the expense of the East Europe countries can unleash a war flame across all Europe. Correction of foreign policy strategy of Russia in developing conditions became more and more necessary.
To the same conclusion the analysts familiar with a state of affairs in the CIS came also. With the beginning of economic reforms in Russia, especially after clearing of the prices for energy carriers and changes of structure of the Russian export, the Commonwealth has endured the first serious crisis, the exit of the CIS countries from a rouble zone has begun. Since 1993, the majority of the CIS countries have strengthened the political sovereignty, have turned out serious communications with the nearest neighbours who were not entering into Commonwealth. In frameworks of the CIS their relation to accepted joint decisions became more and more rigid and critical. There were outstanding arrangements on creation of the economic, payment unions and many other things. However between the separate countries the aspiration to establish more close connections was shown also. It was expressed in formation of the Customs union and the central-Asian economic community.
Since 1997 all participants the crisis state of the CIS which is shown in default of basic decisions, refusal of some countries of cooperation on many economic problems and in the structural organisations of Commonwealth admits. "Revolved" including plans разноскоростной integration. Contradictions between Commonwealth member countries became aggravated in connection with not hidden desire of the USA and EU to minimise influence of Russia in the CIS, their support of the modes which were carrying out Antirussian policy, инспирирированием and financing of "colour revolutions” in Georgia, Kirghizia, Ukraine. Russia thereupon has appeared before necessity of search of the new uniting purposes, more effective ways of perfection of collective activity with those from the CIS countries which really aspired to association of the efforts in the decision of economic, social, political and defensive problems.
In formation of new foreign policy strategy of Russia in second half 90th years of the XX-th century the choice needed to be made between three basic models of this process:
- The first assumed that the foreign policy is fragmentary, as the state departments and various groups of elite realise outside of the country own, no means always coinciding interests, and the centralised control over them and coordination of their actions are weak or and at all are absent;
- The second recognised that between the basic groups of elite there was a full or almost full consensus on the foreign policy problems, reflected in strategic installations, documents of the state and in its activity. The maintenance of such consensus often associated with national interests of Russia;
- According to the third model the foreign policy became result of realisation of various ideological concepts - neoimperial, sotsial-revanchist, liberal, conservative etc.
Internal circumstances of reforming of the country and external conditions of this process declined the Russian political elite to a choice of the second model of formation of strategy of foreign policy. It meant that Russia meaningly refuses from экспансионистской strategy, is realistic estimating the cardinally decreased foreign policy potential. So clear there was also that the Russian Federation could not spend and to the politician of the further concessions to external forces as it was fraught with decomposition of the country and destruction of the state. It is unique rational there was a balancing strategy between influential forces of the modern world, the policy based, first of all, on national interests in relation to leading powers and the unions.
Politicians adhering such sights underlined: Russia does not have enemies, it can and should co-operate with the majority of the countries of the world, especially with the next states. They considered thus that Moscow should not "be declined" in this or that party for owing to the geographical position, the size, power, history Russia should maintain the balanced relations with the West, the East and the South, without searching for the unions with one against others. The Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation E.M.Primakov who underlined called for similar equation in foreign policy also: “It is necessary to spend диверсифицированную, the active policy on all azimuths where interests of Russia … are infringed It is simply vital necessity to create the best conditions for internal development - more dynamical, more effective in our changing world”.
In 1996-1997 the balanced approach began to be fixed in the Russian foreign policy, bringing it long-awaited dividends. Russia did not have other exit how to continue a course on development of communications with the West in interests, first of all, the internal development. But simultaneously Moscow has found the major partners on east and southern directions. In this strategy that circumstance was considered also that failure in relations with the nearest neighbours - the CIS countries can deprive Russia of access to transport highways, natural and to a manpower, economic and cultural cooperation without which can seriously become complicated and progress of Russia. In the modern interdependent world Moscow supports idea of multipolarity in the international relations. Contribution to world community advancement to multipolarity also has made an essence of the Russian foreign policy strategy in the end of ХХ - the beginning of the XXI-st centuries.
For movement streamlining to new system of the international relations Moscow has suggested all countries to observe a number of conditions:
- First, not to suppose occurrence of new dividing lines in a world policy. For example, Europe should not be divided on "NATO" and “not NATO”, because of becoming more active extremist groupings in the Islamic world it is impossible to do conclusions about “Muslim threat to Europe” etc.;
- Secondly, it is not necessary to allocate winners and won in “cold war” for the Russian democracy at all does not feel lost and will not suffer the haughty relation to;
- Thirdly, it is necessary to democratise the international economic relations, not to suppose to use economic levers for reception of the egoistical purposes of political character;
- Fourthly, encouragement of cooperation of the international community in the decision of the actual problems connected with settlement of conflicts, the further reduction of armaments and realisation of measures of trust in military area, strengthening of humanitarian and legal aspects of national and international safety, rendering assistance and supports to the countries experiencing various difficulties in development.
Bases of foreign policy strategy of the Russian Federation are stated in “the Concept of foreign policy of the Russian Federation”, the Russian Federation confirmed by the president V.V.Putinym in 2000