In the context of the discussion of Russia's foreign policy, it is necessary to return to the question of the preparation, adoption and implementation mechanism in this crucial area of \u200b\u200bnational security, which has already been stated in the fourth chapter of this manual.
For professional diplomats and serious foreign policy experts, there is no doubt that an effective mechanism for the adoption and implementation of foreign policy decisions is one of the key conditions for effective foreign policy. Subjective solutions that are praised forward and are based on conjunctural considerations, they are absolutely not allowed here, since any step may have a strategic nature and to wear long-term consequences, even if the decision makers do not realize this in this time. Therefore, all successful countries seek to make a maximum effort in order to create and improve the mechanism of adopting foreign policy decisions.
What are similar mechanisms in countries such as United States, France, Germany, United Kingdom and others? You can call five key signs.
The first is the collegial nature of the development and adoption of foreign policy decisions, involvement in this process of all or whenever possible of all subjects of international activities.
The second sign is a support when making and developing foreign policy decisions on a deep analyst, an examination, which is provided not only by government research centers, but also non-governmental organizations. That is, support for a broad expert community.
The third sign - such a mechanism, as a rule, is based on strategic planning, which, in turn, is based on short-term, medium-term and long-term forecasting. For example, American foreign policy idea is based on serious forecasts for the development of the global situation, including a long-term nature. And without forecast, as you know, it is impossible to build any strategy. Thus, strategic planning for successful foreign policy is absolutely necessary.
The fourth sign is the transparency of the mechanism of making foreign policy decisions. In turn, this transparency is associated with painstaking work with the media. We are talking about holding regular briefings by subjects of international activities, including, of course, and foreign policy permits. In the above-mentioned successful countries, it is believed that this kind of transparency of the adoption and implementation of foreign policy decisions ensures the achievement of national consensus on foreign policy issues, since certain procedures and "logic" of the adoption and fulfillment of such decisions by the executive authority become available for understanding by the general public.
And finally, the fifth sign is a strict performing discipline in the fulfillment of foreign policy decisions. Alternatively, only disputes are considered inside the country about certain foreign policy orientations, one or another foreign policy. Completely unacceptable disagreements and public discussion of these disagreements between representatives of various executive bodies and even between representatives of the executive and legislative authorities abroad, at international conferences, are considered completely unacceptable. Once again we mention the US foreign policy practice. There is considered, for example, that the Americans who leave abroad and participate in international conferences, must defend the national interests of the United States in a uniform front, about which there is no national consensus, then broad national consent within the country. Disposal to public discussion abroad is considered unacceptable, even indecent.
If we compare the foreign policy mechanism with the specified signs with the domestic foreign policy mechanism, we can easily see that we have nothing or almost any of these components.
It is known that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is in formally for coordination of foreign policy activities, but, to be honest, in recent years, with V.Putin, there were many signs that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in some cases was simply ejected from the process of preparation, making and implementing decisions In the field of foreign policy, from foreign policy activities in general. First of all, it concerns our relationship with the countries of the post-Soviet space. Everyone knows examples of our extremely unsuccessful, uncombounded actions and in Ukraine, and in Georgia, and in Moldova, and so on.
As a result, no one can understand - neither in our society, nor abroad - who decides on these foreign policy issues? In any case, if we talk about Ukraine, about the "Gas War" with Ukraine, about Georgia, about having failed with the Crack of the Russian-Belarusian Union, then it seems the impression, and this impression is sustainable that the Foreign Ministry in these cases is not at all a subject of foreign policy.
About how the Security Council works, was told in the fourth chapter of the manual. This work is simply not visible. Of course, we have another subject of foreign policy activities - the presidential administration. But it is clear that the administration serves first of all the measures of the president himself and is at least in accordance with our legislation, unconstitutional, i.e. The technical authority that the president's events discusses. No more. This authority is neither for its status, nor in its capabilities simply can not take on conceptual foreign policy work. His tasks are others.
The next moment. The expert community, we practically turned out to be thrown out of the process of developing foreign policy solutions. The fact that our executive power does not rely on the expert community, obviously to everyone. Moreover, the state of affairs here, even compared to the 90s of the last century, worsened. Then, at least, some analytical and expert groups on foreign policy were created under the presidential administration, and even presidential advice on international activities. Now this is not at all. How not and strategic planning.
The state of affairs has deteriorated compared to the 90s and in the sense that the level of transparency of foreign policy decisions has sharply fell. We will not stop at this in detail, but this is a fact known and striking everyone, including our foreign partners. We also do not see regular work with the media.
Now in the sense of state discipline in the execution of foreign policy decisions, the situation is probably better than in the 90s of the last century. But there are blatant examples of non-attornection in foreign policy, which are already referred to as a new presidential cycle, and which will probably include in this quality - as classical examples of non-attorneal foreign policy - in the textbooks of world diplomacy.
Two of them occur at the end of 2003. The first is our maneuvering around O. Tuzla. It is still incomprehensible to which agency made a decision on the construction of the dam in the Kerch Strait. It can be assumed, of course, that this, so to speak, Samostroy began the governor of the Krasnodar Territory. Moreover, we saw him all the time: he then did not get out of the TV. But many people say that he could not act independently, and was some kind of "otmashka" from the Kremlin. But who gave such a "otmashka" from the Kremlin, still not clear. There was a four-day symptomatic background, at least, if not weekly, the silence of our Foreign Ministry, who must say straight, simply did not fulfill his work, did not create a clear legal framework for holding strengthening work, not to mention that simply not I agreed with the Ukrainian side and brought the case to the next crisis in relations with Kiev. At the same time, we all remember how our ambassador in Kiev, Viktor Chernomyrdin, stated the need to urgently stop working in the Kerch Strait. This was announced by our Prime Minister, then - M. Kasyanov. And our well-known deputies, on the contrary, demanded continuation and even intensifying construction and uttered formal declarations-Philippiks to the official government. As a result, according to experts and in general opinion, Russia in front of the whole world completely lost the information war, which Kiev imposed her.
No less perplexity of foreign and domestic experts caused our attempt at the end of the same year to resolve the situation in Transnistria. Recall how it was. At first, the Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration (D.Kozak), who did not have any attitude towards international activities went to Transnistria. He, as reported, allegedly achieved a long-awaited compromise between Cinema and Tiraspole to resolve the problem of Transnistria. He spent negotiations with Kiev. Kiev seems to be also agreed with this. Against this background, the position of the Foreign Ministry was completely incomprehensible. There were no official statements. At the last moment, President of Moldova Voronin - after a strict OSCE instruction - refused to sign this "compromise agreement". As a result, the problem of settlement in Transnistria was postponed indefinitely, and those events that we witnessed today became a consequence of this irrehected in time and frozen situations on three years. After the unequivocal results of the referendum in Transnistria last Sunday, when 97.5% of the population voted for independence (read - for joining the Russian Federation) the Kremlin turned out to be in the most difficult and foreign policy: he does not have any legal and moral grounds for the will of the people. But it's not enough to go for this step in spirit and political poly. The established political impasse is a consequence of non-professional and uncombound foreign policy in this direction.
Another example is our inadvertising policy towards South Ossetia, in which, by the way, the next unpleasant referendum on independence is being prepared for the Kremlin. Only one thing is understandable: neither the strategy, no position in relation to, say, South Ossetian (not to mention Abkhaz), we have no conflict. We cannot even state that essentially here it is not about separatism. The thesis about the separatism of South Ossetia is a myth. We are not talking about separatism, but about the irrident, that is, about the reunification of South Ossetia with its historical homeland. There is even Russia here. Here, the most important thing is that South Ossetia wants to reunite with North Ossetia. No one can say whether we are ready now (and is it now) to denunciation of Dagomyskiy agreements of 1992, which I constantly say M. Saakashvili. What will we do if such agreements are really denounced? After all, Russian peacekeepers will in this case will have the status of invaders. We will have to withdraw from there our troops. In this case, 80% of southeetin, which are citizens of Russia will be in the position of the rogue, with all the consequences arising from here. They will be deprived of salaries, pensions, social guarantees, and so on. Essentially, it will be Chechnya for Georgia, destabilization of the entire region. We are clearly not ready for such a variant of the development of events.
The way out of this extremely unfavorable situation, as mentioned in the fourth chapter, is that a special law on the mechanism of developing, adopting and implementing foreign policy decisions should be adopted, which should ensure clear coordination of the activities of various foreign policy departments under the direction of the president. Naturally, in accordance with our Constitution, in accordance with the constitutional authority of the President and in the coordinating role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In any case, the question of the mechanism of developing, adopting and implementing foreign policy decisions should be part of a nationwide discussion about the new foreign policy doctrine and on foreign policy as a whole. There is no doubt that if such a discussion begins at the level of legislative and executive power and in the expert community, it will only benefit our foreign policy.
In the summer of 2015, in the European Union, the influx of immigrants has ever grown. In this regard, the EU countries are delivered to the need to maintain a unified development strategy. For supporters of Euroskepticism and radical struggle with an increase in the number of refugees, an increasing political influence is fixed. So, in Poland, a conservative "right and justice" party bypassed the ruling "civil platform". The results of the recent parliamentary elections in Portugal and Croatia also show that the importance of national identification has increased for citizens of Europe. Against this background, when evaluating the role of Brussels in the issue of migration, part of the experts indicates direct involvement of the latter to the current situation due to several basic miscalculations.
Among the most significant mistakes, the decision to terminate the embargo on the supply of weapons of the Syrian opposition in May 2013
Supplying the free army of Syria by European military equipment made it possible to create a stable internal structure, to achieve parity first, and then the advantage in quantitative and qualitative terms. The escalation of the conflict led to the fact that the "Islamic state" came to the fertile land - ruined the tightened war and overflowing freely available weapons. Nothing could prevent terrorists to take the extensive territories of Syria and Iraq, devastated by combat actions (which resembles the occupation of Afghanistan without a combat on the Taliban in the 1990s). In turn, it pushed the indigenous population to look for safer habitats - in Turkey and European countries.
Another significant miscalculation is that today the European Union has no acting levers to reduce the refugee flow
It is important to draw attention: in Brussels at the moment there is no clear distinction between saving from war and economic refugees. This suggests that the arrival of new migrants is currently not controlled; At the same time, European politicians report on all new quotas, the latter of which involves the creation of an additional 100,000 places for receiving refugees.
It is worth remembering one of the economic principles arguing that among the factors affecting the amount of demand, is quite serious to be a subjective expectation for the nearest time stage. By analogy, with an increase in the volume of the proposed quotas of the refugee refugees in them also tend to increase. It follows from this that any application for new places for asylum seekers is detrimental due to the lack of or inefficiency of stabilization and limitation mechanisms, since this process is able to lead to an unregulated growth of costs for maintenance and, as a result, the destruction of the EU economy.
Finally, the pursuit of his own goals is put into the guilt of Brussels without taking into account the ultimate consequences.
First of all, the European Union expect a gradual decline in gas supplies from Russia in favor of more profitable proposals from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. At the same time, the influence of the United States, which conducted an intervention policy around the world and had their own interests in Syria affected Syria. States that do not agree with this course or those who want to preserve neutrality did not pay due attention to a potential threat, not to take into account possible risks, and again in accordance with local tasks. For example, Germany, which has a dominant economic and political situation in the region, from the very beginning of the conflict chose a neutral position. This is due to two reasons, namely the struggle for the electorate of the Christian-Democratic party of Chancellor Merkel and the confrontation of the popularity of the Alternative for Germany, and representing European Spagtees.
Summarizing, it is necessary to emphasize that in front of the combined European states is the prospect of the full loss of control over the situation both in the Middle East and directly inside its borders. The ability to restore the balance is becoming less real, since if there is a moderate opposition at least ready to sit at the negotiating table, then for IGIL, a different method of resolving the conflict will be required. This means that only the completion of the war in Syria will reduce immigration to Europe. It remains to express hope that European politicians will not allow a critical position, choosing the permission faithful for this problem.
On the active development of domestic tourism in Russia, they spoke back since 2011. However, in view of the latest economic and political changes, this topic rises especially often both in the media and at the state level. The Ministry of Culture is already planned to increase the financing of the Federal Target Program for Tourism Development, the Government discusses the possibility of creating new tourist destinations, such as the Arctic, and the introduction of a bill to return the tax paid for the purchase of tourist vouchers in Russia. The Coordination Council for the Development of Internal and Entry Tourism in Russia, chaired by Olga Golodets, began.
In general, the state really affected this problem at the official level and for the first time in many years began to take at least some actions. Such a lively interest is dictated not only to concern that in the summer of 2016, the Russians may not have to rest. The benefit from the developed internal tourism for the country is obvious, because it can play a huge role in the economy, providing revenues of very rather money in the budget, and become the strongest developer of development during political and economic crises, which confirms the experience of the United States and China.
The United States ranks first in the world in tourism receipts (in 2014 - 177.2 billion dollars). Tourism in the United States not only is 8% of GDP, but also provides jobs about 15 million people, and this is about 10% of the entire working-age population. According to U.S. Travel Association, Each American would pay more taxes for $ 1,147 if the country had benefited from the tourist sphere. But it is important to note that most of this benefit is not coming from international tourism, but from the internal. About 80% of the receipts in GDP from tourism is the contribution of Americans, not foreign tourists. Accordingly, about $ 141 billion brought America internal tourism in 2014. In the States, a large role in the domestic tourism is played by a developed system of national parks (in 2014, more than 292 million people visited them). In total, they are 59, and manages the service of national parks of the United States, established in 1916, which indicates that the inner tourism here was thought of here for a long time. The system of national parks brings about $ 27 billion to the economy (for comparison, the volume of arms exports of the Russian Federation in 2014 amounted to 15.5 billion dollars).
China ranks third in the world in tourism income - about $ 57 billion, in Russia, about the same income brings oil exports (January-July 2015, 56 billion dollars). The share of tourism in the formation of PRC GDP is 9.4%. Tourism in China allows you to provide employment about 66 million people (8.6% of the entire working-age population). At the same time, as can be seen from the graph below, the inner tourism is 76%. In 2014, he generated almost a co-rolled dollars for the Chinese economy.
Over the past 10 years, the internal tourism market has increased by an average of 10% each year, and the trend continues. The Chinese government also announced that it was going to double the cost of domestic tourism and reach 894 billion dollars to 2020. A significant role in the development of domestic tourism of the PRC was played as a continuous increase in the standard of living of the entire population, and the competent state policy on the development of the tourist infrastructure, transport (passenger transportation capacity is currently increasing a year by an average of 20-30%) and the adoption of rather innovative solutions. The example of the policies of the 4.5-day working week can be introduced to stimulate inland tourism and consumption within the country. While the only city that has already increased the duration of the weekend is Chongqing's city. It is assumed that the expanded weekend will give an opportunity for large spending and trips around the country, which will have a positive effect on its economy.
In Russia, Oleg Safonov said, the head of growth, the head of growth, one can already talk about a significant restructuring of the tourism industry. According to the results of the outgoing year, the growth of internal tourism amounted to 20-25%, and exit tourism decreased by 31%. But it is possible, simply by calling the need for the beach and the sea with an imposed stereotype, banning the two most popular tourist destinations and stopping the support of travel agencies that are engaged exclusively by visiting tourism, expect to continue this trend? What is able to prevent the development of internal tourism in Russia?
One of the main factors that can oppose travel around the country is the high cost. Batch tourism in the regions of Russia decided to implement relatively recently, and it is still unknown when it becomes a really attractive alternative to cheap burning tours to Turkey or Egypt that is no longer inaccessible to us. The same can be said about the system ALL INCLUSIVE, Which actively proposes to introduce growth. Moreover, against the background of increased demand, experts predict an imminible increase in prices for hotels and hotels in the most popular regions (Crimea and Krasnodar Territory) to 15%. Maya Lomidze, Executive Director of the Association of Tour Operators of Russia (Ator), at the International Tourism Forum in St. Petersburg expressed concern that prices could rise to 30% next summer, which will undoubtedly kill demand. Of course, in addition to the Crimea and Sochi there are many other places that could potentially be interesting to the Russians. However, to talk about the developed infrastructure in all these regions, which would attract massive tourist flows and could have come to compete with foreign resorts, it is not yet necessary to speak. Many Russian tourists simply will not be able to abandon the service package and the quality of service that they are used to getting, resting abroad. According to the recent study of the ator, the main complaints of Russians for tourist facilities in the country in 2015 are still reduced to dirt, repair that leaves much to be desired and gross personnel.
The second important factor is transport and transport accessibility. The high cost of airfares around the country can really scare the average Russian. If the cities of the Golden Ring and the Krasnodar Territory can still be somehow reach, without going beyond the planned budget, then to Kamchatka or Yakutia will have to pay a decent amount. A good alternative could be a developed network of Lookers - budget airlines by type of European Ryanair. or american Southwest Airlines. (The largest airline of America, which commits travels within the country). The low-budget airline "Victory" should be promising in this regard, which belongs to Aeroflot, but while "victory" flies to a rather limited number of cities. At the St. Petersburg Tourist Forum noted that almost every type of transport in Russia has certain problems that may affect the tourism industry and which you need to solve somehow. For example, river companies complain about a sharp increase in fuel excise taxes from the beginning of 2016, which can directly affect the organization of river cruises and increase their cost.
One thing remains obvious: internal tourism will develop in Russia or not, it depends not only from government agencies, but also from the Russians themselves, their interest in travel and desire to see their country with new persons and from new places. One method of prohibitions and instructions "over" is really a stable and steady market of internal tourism not to form. Yes, while the ruble rate is experiencing noticeable shocks, Russia is surrounded by sanctions, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not recommend that we leave the country, the people will not remain anything but to seek holidays at home. But it is always necessary to look far ahead and form interest in domestic tourism since school bench, as they do in the already mentioned China and the United States. The same scout movement in America, which is very common among young people, brings up patriotism and interest in his homeland. The US National Park Service is actively cooperating with scout organizations and organizes educational and entertainment tours.
THE USSR. In 1985, E. Shevardnadze became the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. He was a realizer of reconciliation policies with Western Europe and the United States. The new foreign policy rate was called "new political thinking."
For him were characterized by several main principles:
M. Gorbachev tried to reconcile with the West to reduce the country's military expenses. He became the author of a number of initiatives on disarmament. Relations between the USSR and the United States significantly improved. During 1985 - 1991 Several meetings of the leaders of both countries took place. As a result, agreements were reached on liquidation in Europe of Soviet and American rockets of medium and low range in Europe, the introduction of a moratorium on the test of nuclear weapons, on the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, the German Democratic Republic and the non-interference of the USSR into the process of combining Germany. Such measures have significantly reduced military spending. They found support among the world community.
The negative consequence of foreign policy agreements was to reduce the financing of the defense industry, which led to a reduction in the production of near the factories, the growth of unemployment. Part of the party leadership regarded M. Gorbachev's actions as a betrayal of Lenin's ideas.
Significant changes occurred in the relationship between the USSR with the countries of the People's Democracy. In Central-Eastern Europe in the second half of the 1980s. Activated democratization processes. Despite the attempts of the communist leadership of individual countries, enlist the support of the USSR in suppressing opposition speeches, M. Gorbachev announced non-interference in the internal affairs of the states of the Warsaw contract. The new foreign policy of the USSR with criticism was perceived by the leaders of the GDR, Romania and Poland.
During 1988 - 1989 In the countries of Central-Eastern Europe, the leadership has occurred, and later the social and political system. In 1990, the GDR and Germany united into one Germany. In the spring of 1991, the Council of Economic Communication and the Organization of the Warsaw Agreement has ceased operations. Soviet troops were discharged from the countries of the former "People's Democracy". As a result, the level of economic and political cooperation of the USSR with the countries of Central-Eastern Europe decreased dramatically.
In parallel, the normalization of the relations of the Soviet Union with the countries of South and Southeast Asia took place. The conclusion of the Soviet troops from Afghanistan and Mongolia contributed to the establishment of cooperation between the USSR and China. Improved relationship with South Korea, Israel, Vietnam.
Note 1.
During 1990 - 1991 The leadership of the USSR adopted a number of laws in accordance with the norms of international law on the protection of human rights and freedoms. The symbol of the new foreign policy of the Soviet Union was non-interference in local conflicts, in particular in the War in the Persian Gulf.
In July 1990, during a meeting of Gorbachev with a collars in Moscow and later in the Caucasus, the issue of membership of the United Germans in NATO was finally resolved. A month later, Gorbachev told the US President Bush, which he cost this concession, and how little understanding he found from his compatriots.
Thus, Gorbachev's group refused to the Western lookout of the Soviet Empire, the construction of which its predecessors considered the most important result of the Second World War. To this, in essence, the revolutionary decision of Gorbachev came because the tension in the East-West relationship, not least due to the Gorbachevsky "new thinking", significantly decreased.
And in the East, and in the West, the feeling of threat from the "class enemy" began to gradually disappear. Normalization in relations between the two superpowers also occurred after the USSR and the United States signed an agreement on the elimination of the rockets of the average radius of action (from 500 to 5,500 km). In May 1988, the conclusion of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, ended in February 1989, began. Only in this new atmosphere became possible overcoming the split of Germany and Europe. June 28, 1991 was dissolved in 1949 and controlled by Moscow Council of Economic Communication (CEV), and a few days later - the Warsaw Agreement.
Note 2.
The refusal to Soviet Hegemony in Eastern Europe and the reunification of Germany were perceived by many critics of restructuring as a betrayal of the interests of the Soviet Union.
In vain, supporters of restructuring tried to convince their conservative opponents in the fact that the new political course meets the interests of the country. For example, in December 1990, Shevardnadze stated that the Soviet Union was now a full member of the civilized community of peoples. In his opinion, external threats for the country disappeared for decades for decades, and no states will try to use the internal difficulties of the USSR to achieve their benefit.
32. Record the term about which we are talking about."Several monarchs from the same kind (family), which replaced each other on the throne on the right of inheritance."
40. The oldest of those who came to us the collection of the laws of the ancient Russian state "Russian True"consists of three parts. There is a point of view that, despite the presence of general features, in the norms of the "Truth of Yaroslav", "Truth Yaroslavichi" and "Charter of Vladimir Vsevolodovich" there are significant differences. Give at least two any facts confirming these differences.
49. You are instructed to prepare an expanded answer on the topic. "The influence of the adoption of Christianity on the development of ancient Russian culture."
The plan should contain at least three points. Write a brief explanation of the content of any two items.
The explanation plan should reflect the main events (phenomena) associated with the development of art in the ancient Russian state.
If you find it difficult to draw up a plan that would fully revealed this topic, you can choose one of the essential questions (sections, directions, problems) themes.
Write a header of the Plan for your chosen question (section, direction, problem) and make a plan that reveals its content, following all requirements for the number of points and explanations.
54. All of them, with the exception of one, denote the categories of the population of the Old Russian state, which were in full or partial dependence. 1) Chelyadin; 2) ordinary; 3) procurement; 4) merchant; 5) Hop.
55. Below is a list of terms. All of them, with the exception of one, denote the elements of the clothes of the residents of the Old Russian state. one) ports;2) Zipun;3) casing;4) Epancha;5) Purchase.
