27989-1 (661486), страница 2

Просмтор этого файла доступен только зарегистрированным пользователям. Но у нас супер быстрая регистрация: достаточно только электронной почты!

Текст из файла (страница 2)

The nation emergence and existence goes along with transformation of territory into the ideology value. The territory beside the natural resources significance gains a specific ideology value. From the point of view of the nationalistic ideology carrier each part of the territory has some value which in its turn comprises the ideology and material values.

This paper deals with precisely the ideology value of the area (territory), which exists as the consequence ideology component of the nation itself.

Territory Component and Territorial Claims

Territory component of a nation gives it the principal political advantage over the majority of other social unities – the possibility of political territorial self determination. From the point of view of a nation only the achievement of possibility to be the arbiter of its own destiny can fully guarantee the development of the national values. Therefore, it is the demand of national self determination of various types, that constitutes the main part of political demands of any nationalism. Evidently, that the creation of the national state is the possibility for the nation to provide most radical control over the national territory and freely mobilize its members to accomplish the goals of the nationalistic ideology.

As nationalism, being an ideology, does not have the scientific objectiveness, but signifies the national political demands (including territorial), the determination of the borders of the national state is also quite subjective. There are many cases when the territories claimed as national are inhabited with people not associating themselves with this nation. Most often it is the result of cultivation of the perception of the nation’s «golden age», which is in its turn associated with the period of maximum territorial expanse of the national state or the possessions of the nation(ethnos)’s representatives. In this case the territorial claims require justification and foundation. It is necessary to prove to the nation’s members the «loftiness» and «vital necessity» of the claims to be realized. These justifications can also decrease possible obstructions coming from the outside world. Nationalistic ideology bringing forward certain territorial claims simultaneously produces their justifications as convincing as possible.

Possible territorial claims of nationalistic ideologies are, as a rule, motivated by goals common for any nationalistic ideology:

1. Creation of a nation state which includes all the territories of the compact settlement of the nation’s representatives.

2. Maximum possible political, military, economic power of this state.

3. Minimization of the power of the competing (hostile) states.

4. Spreading of the national culture through the world.

The latter of the listed goals represents the extreme manifestation form of the national consciousness, reflected in the nationalistic ideology. It can hardly be reasoned rationally.

Accepting one of these tasks as goals of actual policy implies producing certain territorial claims as well.

Below we shall try to find the uniform rational foundations for the possible (potential) territorial claims of any Eastern European nation in case nationalistic movements arise. In other words we intend to measure the potential ideological value of the territories of Eastern Europe for all possible nationalism forms. This value can also serve as the indication of relative grade of the nationalistic territorial claims risk for different parts of the territory being studied. It needs to be stressed that we shall be in the least interested in the analysis of the real existing nationalistic movements and ideologies, claims and conflicts as well as in discussing the probability of their appearance. We aim to find out what territorial claims are possible in principle. It is this that shall allow us to answer the main issue here – how and where the contact zone of civilized integral alliances can potentially turn into the real political conflict.

Hierarchy of the Possible Territorial Claims

Without the foundation of territorial claims the effective propaganda of nationalistic ideology cultivating these claims is not possible, and accordingly not possible their accomplishment. The nationalistic propaganda is aimed at the mass support of this ideology in the nation (ethnos). Without the support the ideology becomes pointless for its carriers and propagandists. Therefore the aspiration for taking possession of some territory should be more or less validated or at least justified. To tell the degree of this validity it is important to note the following:

1. The more distant in the past is the tie of a nation (ethnos) with the territory the less valid is the claim.

2. The greater area of the «wishful» territory, the less valid it is.

To speak on specific validity of territorial claims we can highlight three groups of validity. We arbitrarily call them «Ethnic», «State» and «Strategic».

1. «Ethnic»

• areas of the compact settlement of the population belonging to a certain ethnos (nation) at present;

• territory inhabited by a certain ethnos in the past;

• territory inhabited by the ancestors of a certain ethnos (nation);

• territory occupied by the ethnoses close to a certain one by their language, culture, confession.

1. «State»

• territory that belonged to the nation state of a certain nation (ethnos) in 20^th century;

• territory that belonged to the nation state of a certain nation (ethnos) since the reliable historic evidences became available;

• territory that did not belong to the nation state of a certain nation (ethnos), but that did fall under some control of it (i.e. vassals);

• territory that belonged to the state which can not be called the nation state, but which elite partly consisted of the representatives of a certain ethnos.

1. «Strategic»

• territory that was several times occupied by the nation state of a certain nation (ethnos);

• territory, effective control over which was continuously declared as the goal of the foreign policy of a certain nation’s nation state (like Dardanelles and Bosporus flows for Russia).

In light of nationalism’s subjectivity not excepting the issue of control over the territory it is impossible to build up a gradation of possible territorial claims according to their force within the framework of any single group. The combination of the most often used foundations looks more preferable. Several variants of gradations are possible here and the arrangement suggested below represents the variant we believe as most logical. For the specific purpose of this study there were chosen the specific criteria for the estimation of comparative validity of the possible claims as follows:

1. Territory of the compact settlement of a certain nation (ethnos) in the 20^th century which is not part of the contemporary national state.

2. Territories that used to be part of the nation state in the 20^th century and that do not belong to it at present. This does not include the territories occupied by this nation state only for the wartime period.

3. Territories that used to belong to a national state of this nation and do not belong to it at present.

4. a) Territories that never were the part of a nation’s nation state but fell under its effective control.

1. Territory that used to be inhabited by the ancestor ethnos or that used to belong to its state.

2. Territory of the compact settlement of the ethnoses close to a certain one by their language, culture, confession.

3. Territories that were several times occupied by the nation state of a certain nation (ethnos);

4. Territories, effective control over which was continuously (in different times) declared as the goal of the foreign policy of a certain ethnos’ nation state.

Next step of our study is to build up the electronic map, where we going to plot all the territories which according to mentioned above criteria are subject to potential nationalistic territorial claims of various nationalism forms. Overlapping zones of potential claims of various nationalism forms can reflect, on one hand, the territories that are most exposed to the danger of territorial conflict, and, on the other hand, zones of maximum historical–ethnical opposition. It is precisely among these zones that the possible border between East and West can take place. In order to produce this map we need to graduate the given instrumental criteria, so we have to agree on following.

Illustrating the potential territorial claims on the map according to the described criteria of determination of comparative «wish» of a territory, the more valid claims absorb the less valid. Given above criteria of the claims strength (validity) estimation correspond to the following 4 grade scale:

• criterion 1 corresponds to grade 4;

• criterion 2 corresponds to grade 3;

• criterion 3 corresponds to grade 2;

• each criterion out of the 4^th group corresponds to grade 1. If several out of criteria a, b, c, d, e take place all together, the final grade stays 1.

Possible Territorial Claims in Eastern Europe

Prior to determining the areas of greater or smaller tension of possible territorial claims in Eastern Europe it is necessary to expose the subjects of these claims and the claims themselves potentially coming from the subjects. As it was determined earlier, the subjects of possible territorial claims are nations – ethnoses, affiliating themselves with some territory and having the articulate political demands including the ones in regard of the territory. In this case the political demands are seen as the inspiration for creation of the independent national state, for strengthening its political, economical and military might. For each nation we need to determine the territories, control over which could be desired within their nationalism. What are these territories and how valid is the desire for their control will be determined based on mentioned above criteria and 4 grade scale.

As subjects of claims we chose the nations having their own sovereign bodies, as having in major part realized their political demands, as well as the nations which do not have them, but aim to have, where we noticed active mass actions in that direction². To such subjects and zones of possible nationalistic territorial claims we attributed: 1. Austrians and Germans, 2. Albanians, 3. Bulgarians, 4. Bosnians, 5. Hungarians, 6. Greeks, 7. Danish, 8. Italians, 9. Latvians, 10. Lithuanians, 11. Macedonians, 12. Norwegians, 13. Polish, 14. Rusins, 15. Romanians and Moldavians, 16. Russians and Bielorussians, 17. Serbs, 18. Slovaks, 19. Slovenians, 20. Crimean Tartars, 21. Kazan Tartars, 22. Turkish, 23. Ukrainians, 24. Finns and Karels, 25. Croats, 26. Czechs, 27. Swedish, 28. Estonians.

Having determined the borders of possible territorial claims for all outlined subjects, we plot them on the map³. On each of listed above nations there is a layer of information in a geo-information system (GIS) in regard of possible nationalistic territorial claims. As an example of such a layer map-diagrams 1-3 are enclosed. Then we overlay the cartographic layers for all the nations. As a result the studied territory has been divided on 388 areas, borders of which are the borders of possible claims crossing each other. For each area we sum all the grades that are assigned according to the hierarchy of possible claims of interested in this area subjects. Having counted these sums, that is having determined the tension indexes of the possible territorial claims for each area, we group these areas conforming to the index value. Sums or tension indexes of the possible territorial claims are ranging from 0 ( Northern Urals area, for example) to 24 (in the Carpathians). Map-diagram 4 conveys all 388 areas, colored with intensity according to the index value of total tension of possible nationalistic territorial claims.

The Border Between East and West?

It is obvious from Map-diagram 4 that almost all the territory of Eastern Europe is subject to the possible if not territorial claims but propagandistic use by the potential nationalistic ideologies. The general look on the resulting map shows that there exists a sort of a «mountain chain» of the highest tension of claims from Baltic to the South dividing on two straps leading to Adriatic and Black sea. On both sides from it the tension of possible nationalistic territorial claims considerably drops. What does this «chain» correspond to in reality?

Based on the method of our study two facts can be maintained with much of a confidence. First, this zone is at maximum risk of potential nationalistic territorial-political conflicts. Second, it follows the maximum intensity zones of ethnic-political opposition in the past and at present.

Thus, our main finding is, as follows: our resulting map seem to point at what can be thought as historical boundary zone between East and West. This zone is by no means only history-geographic one – it can actually transfer into contemporary European politics bringing about significant revisions in plans of united Europe and conflict free world creation.

Looking at the map one can notice that the areas with maximum tension, they can be defined as tension knots, in the world of actual politics are subject of close attention. These are the areas of particular political tension up to the armed conflicts – territory of former Yugoslavia, Dniester area. Based on the map it can be tried to foresee the areas of possible toughening the political conflicts up to transformation into the stage of armed conflicts. In this regard we could mention Macedonia, Trans-Carpathians, Bukovina.

Beside the tension knots we can outline the opposite phenomenon, which can be defined as the cores of resistance to the claims. These are the areas with lower tension in contrast to the surrounding territory. There stand out the cores which can arbitrary called: «German», «Scandinavian», «Polish», «Czech», «Hungarian», «Montenegro-Serbian», «Romanian», «Greek», «Bulgarian», «Lithuanian», «Estonian», «Russian», «South Ukrainian» and «Albanian». The causes for these cores can be:

1. Concentration of the resistance forces to the control from outside;

2. Difficulties to take control caused by physical-geographical conditions in the area;

3. Less political value in comparison with other areas (note, the timeframe under consideration was since 9^th to 20^th century).

In our case the first cause looks as most important. The majority of the outlined cores of resistance to claims can be considered as consolidation centers of some nations we outlined.

Характеристики

Список файлов реферата