DOCSLIB.ORG

EU-Russia Watch 2012

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EU-Russia Watch 2012 April 2012 EU-Russia Watch 2012 Edited by Ahto Lobjakas, Martin Mölder The Centre for EU–Russia Studies (CEURUS) is a multidisciplinary centre for research and teaching at the University of Tartu, Estonia. It serves as a contact point for scholars, students and experts who share an interest in the evolving relationship between the European Union and the Russian Federation. CEURUS coordinates and sponsors a variety of activities related to research, teaching and public outreach in the area of EU–Russian relations. For more information, see http://ceurus.ut.ee. The Centre for EU–Russia Studies undertakes quality control in editing its publications. However, the opinions expressed in the Centre’s publications are those of the authors and contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of CEURUS, the University of Tartu or the organisation with which the authors are affiliated. Centre for EU-Russia Studies, University of Tartu http://ceurus.ut.ee Language editor: Stewart Johnson Cover design: Kalle Paalits Layout: Tiia Ilus Copyright: authors, University of Tartu, 2012 ISSN 2228–1940 Tartu University Press www.tyk.ee TABLE OF CONTENTS Eu–Russia Watch 2012..........................................................................................................3 Eu–Russian Relations In 2011: A Four-Dimensional Space ...................................4 Austria......................................................................................................................................17 Belgium...................................................................................................................................22 Denmark.................................................................................................................................29 Estonia.....................................................................................................................................36 France......................................................................................................................................44 Germany ................................................................................................................................50 Greece .................................................................................................................................... 57 Hungary..................................................................................................................................63 Italy........................................................................................................................................... 71 Latvia.......................................................................................................................................77 Lithuania.................................................................................................................................85 Poland..................................................................................................................................... 92 Portugal................................................................................................................................102 Romania................................................................................................................................109 Slovenia................................................................................................................................ 115 Sweden.................................................................................................................................123 Turkey.................................................................................................................................... 131 United Kingdom................................................................................................................138 LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS The opinions expressed in EU-Russia Watch 2012 are those of the contributors and do not necessarily reflect those of the organisations with which the authors are affiliated. Austria Latvia Gerhard Mangott Karlis Bukovskis Department of Political Science, Latvian Institute of International Affairs University of Innsbruck (LIIA) Belgium Lithuania Laetitia Spetschinsky Mindaugas Jurkynas Institute of European Studies, Associate Professor, Université catholique de Louvain Institute of International Relations and Political Science, Vilnius University Denmark Mette Skak Poland Associate Professor, Elżbieta Stadtmüller Department of Political Science and Institute of International Studies, Government, Aarhus University University of Wrocław Estonia Portugal Ahto Lobjakas Alena Vysotskaya Guedes Vieira Centre for EU–Russia Studies, Assistant Professor, University of Minho University of Tartu Laura C. Ferreira-Pereira Associate Professor, ISCSP, France Technical University of Lisbon Laure Delcour Senior Research Fellow, IRIS/Training Romania Adviser, Directorate for European Affairs, Marian Zulean ENA Associate Professor, University of Bucharest Germany Slovenia Iris Kempe Danijel Crnčec Country Director, OXFAM in the Russian PhD candidate/Teaching Assistant, Federation Department of International Relations, University of Ljubljana Greece Dimitrios Triantaphyllou Sweden Director, Centre for International and Ingmar Oldberg European Studies (CIES), Kadir Has Research Associate, Swedish Institute of University International Affairs Hungary Turkey András Rácz Burcu Gültekin Punsmann Senior Research Fellow, Senior Foreign Policy Analyst, Economic Hungarian Institute of International Affairs Policy Research Foundation of Turkey Italy United Kingdom Michele Comelli David J. Galbreath Senior Fellow, Istituto Affari Internazionali Reader in Politics and International (IAI) Relations, University of Bath EU–RUSSIA WATCH 2012 The EU–Russia Watch is an annual report on the relations between individual EU member states and the Russian Federation. Targeted at policy-makers, ­academics and the general public, the Watch focuses on dominant themes and recent developments in bilateral relations, and provides an overview of member states’ perspectives on issues structuring the EU–Russian relationship. The project is coordinated by the Centre for EU–Russia Studies at the University of Tartu, Estonia. The rationale for the Watch stems from the often-lamented inability of the European Union to speak to Russia with one voice. The Russian Federation has been one of the most divisive issues on the EU’s foreign policy agenda, with member state objectives ranging from engagement to containment. In the absence of a coherent and consistently implemented common policy, much of the action in EU–Russian relations takes place outside of the framework of the EU– Russian partnership. However, the EU’s internal disunity in dealing with Russia is not a constant. Positions and policies change – sometimes rapidly – and the ability of member states to act in concert varies greatly across the spectrum of issues. This dynamism highlights the need for up-to-date, nuanced and comprehensive information about the sources and directions of national policy, as well as the pattern of relations at the bilateral level. The first issue of the Watch covers nearly two-thirds of EU member states as well as the largest candidate country – Turkey. Due to the diversity of national experiences with Russia, the country reports have a deliberately flexible structure. The contributors to the 2012 edition of the Watch were asked to reflect on: ─ themes dominating the relationship between the country in focus and Russia in the context of the broader EU–Russian relationship; ─ significant developments in bilateral relations in 2011 (political contacts, economic and commercial links); ─ the country’s positions on the main issues structuring Russia’s relationship with the EU (foreign policy issues, energy policy, visa liberalisation, etc.); ─ domestic reactions/debates as regards the Putin–Medvedev switch at the helm of Russia in March 2012 and the December 2011 Duma elections. EU–RUSSIAN RELATIONS IN 2011: A FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE Ahto Lobjakas Centre for EU–Russia Studies, University of Tartu Four factors emerge from the 2012 edition of the EU–Russia Watch as key determinants in most, if not all, European countries’ relations with Russia. They are proximity, history, size/ global reach, and trade. The impact of any one factor is rarely linear, the four can combine in various ways, cross-compensate, or cancel one another out. But in nearly all cases, the roots of trouble or springs of promise in Russia’s relations with its Western neighbours can be located in an area which is loosely marked by these four dimensions. Proximity inevitably brings with it Russian attention, modulated by the object country’s size, political inclination, economic ­prowess, etc., but rarely in a straightforward fashion. A trouble-free history with Russia by itself guarantees nothing, but even a conflict-prone past can ground mutual respect (an important word, this, in dealings with Russia). Size also helps to secure Russian attention, especially if it is accompanied with some degree of global clout. Small countries are at a disadvantage, but that can be overcome. Finally, trade and transit opportunities matter to Moscow, in the first instance as leverage for political ends, and in the second­ for generating funds and know-how for its “modernisation” drive. The surprising (or perhaps not so surprising) near-absence in Russia’s relations with its Western neighbours
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Download Download
    Ajalooline Ajakiri, 2016, 3/4 (157/158), 477–511 Historical consciousness, personal life experiences and the orientation of Estonian foreign policy toward the West, 1988–1991 Kaarel Piirimäe and Pertti Grönholm ABSTRACT The years 1988 to 1991 were a critical juncture in the history of Estonia. Crucial steps were taken during this time to assure that Estonian foreign policy would not be directed toward the East but primarily toward the integration with the West. In times of uncertainty and institutional flux, strong individuals with ideational power matter the most. This article examines the influence of For- eign Minister Lennart Meri’s and Prime Minister Edgar Savisaar’s experienc- es and historical consciousness on their visions of Estonia’s future position in international affairs. Life stories help understand differences in their horizons of expectation, and their choices in conducting Estonian diplomacy. Keywords: historical imagination, critical junctures, foreign policy analysis, So- viet Union, Baltic states, Lennart Meri Much has been written about the Baltic states’ success in breaking away from Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, and their decisive “return to the West”1 via radical economic, social and politi- Research for this article was supported by the “Reimagining Futures in the European North at the End of the Cold War” project which was financed by the Academy of Finland. Funding was also obtained from the “Estonia, the Baltic states and the Collapse of the Soviet Union: New Perspectives on the End of the Cold War” project, financed by the Estonian Research Council, and the “Myths, Cultural Tools and Functions – Historical Narratives in Constructing and Consolidating National Identity in 20th and 21st Century Estonia” project, which was financed by the Turku Institute for Advanced Studies (TIAS, University of Turku).
    [Show full text]
  • Book XVIII Prizes and Organizations Editor: Ramon F
    8 88 8 88 Organizations 8888on.com 8888 Basic Photography in 180 Days Book XVIII Prizes and Organizations Editor: Ramon F. aeroramon.com Contents 1 Day 1 1 1.1 Group f/64 ............................................... 1 1.1.1 Background .......................................... 2 1.1.2 Formation and participants .................................. 2 1.1.3 Name and purpose ...................................... 4 1.1.4 Manifesto ........................................... 4 1.1.5 Aesthetics ........................................... 5 1.1.6 History ............................................ 5 1.1.7 Notes ............................................. 5 1.1.8 Sources ............................................ 6 1.2 Magnum Photos ............................................ 6 1.2.1 Founding of agency ...................................... 6 1.2.2 Elections of new members .................................. 6 1.2.3 Photographic collection .................................... 8 1.2.4 Graduate Photographers Award ................................ 8 1.2.5 Member list .......................................... 8 1.2.6 Books ............................................. 8 1.2.7 See also ............................................ 9 1.2.8 References .......................................... 9 1.2.9 External links ......................................... 12 1.3 International Center of Photography ................................. 12 1.3.1 History ............................................ 12 1.3.2 School at ICP ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Narcotics Funded Terrorists/Extremist Groups
    A GLOBAL OVERVIEW OF NARCOTICS-FUNDED TERRORIST AND OTHER EXTREMIST GROUPS A Report Prepared by the Federal Research Division, Library of Congress under an Interagency Agreement with the Department of Defense May 2002 Researchers: LaVerle Berry Glenn E. Curtis Rex A. Hudson Nina A. Kollars Project Manager: Rex A. Hudson Federal Research Division Library of Congress Washington, D.C. 20540−4840 Tel: 202−707−3900 Fax: 202−707−3920 E-Mail: [email protected] Homepage: http://www.loc.go v/rr/frd/ Library of Congress – Federal Research Division Narcotics-Funded Terrorist/Extremist Groups PREFACE This global survey, based entirely on open sources, is intended to provide an assessment of the nexus between selected anti-U.S. terrorist and extremist groups in the world and organized crime, specifically drug trafficking, and how this relationship might be vulnerable to countermeasures. More specifically, the aim is to help develop a causal model for identifying critical nodes in terrorist and other extremist networks that can be exploited by Allied technology, just as counterdrug technology has been used in the war against drug trafficking. To this end, the four analysts involved in this study have examined connections between extremist groups and narcotics trafficking in the following countries, listed by region in order of discussion in the text: Latin America: Triborder Region (Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay), Colombia, and Peru; the Middle East: Lebanon; Southern Europe (Albania and Macedonia); Central Asia: Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan; and East Asia: Philippines. These are preliminary, not definitive, surveys. Most of the groups examined in this study have been designated foreign terrorist organizations by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Greece: Media Concentration and Independent Journalism Between
    Chapter 5 Greece Media concentration and independent journalism between austerity and digital disruption Stylianos Papathanassopoulos, Achilleas Karadimitriou, Christos Kostopoulos, & Ioanna Archontaki Introduction The Greek media system reflects the geopolitical history of the country. Greece is a medium­sized European country located on the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula. By the middle of the nineteenth century, it had just emerged from over four centuries of Ottoman rule. Thus, for many decades, the country was confronted with the task of nation­building, which has had considerable consequences on the formation of the over­extended character of the state (Mouzelis, 1980). The country measures a total of 132,000 square kilometres, with a population of nearly 11 million citizens. About 4 million people are concentrated in the wider metropolitan area of the capital, Athens, and about 1.2 million in the greater area of Thessaloniki. Unlike the population of many other European countries, almost all Greeks – about 98 per cent of the popu­ lation – speak the same language, modern Greek, as their mother tongue, and share the same Greek Orthodox religion. Politically, Greece is considered a parliamentary democracy with “vigorous competition between political par­ ties” (Freedom House 2020). Freedom in the World 2021: status “free” (Score: 87/100, up from 84 in 2017). Greece’s parliamentary democracy features vigorous competition between political parties […]. Ongoing concerns include corruption [and] discrimina- tion against immigrants and minorities. (Freedom House, 2021) Liberal Democracy Index 2020: Greece is placed in the Top 10–20% bracket – rank 27 of measured countries (Varieties of Democracy Institute, 2021). Freedom of Expression Index 2018: rank 47 of measured countries, down from 31 in 2016 (Varieties of Democracy Institute, 2017, 2019).
    [Show full text]
  • Christopher A. Pissarides [Ideological Profiles of the Economics Laureates] Daniel B
    Christopher A. Pissarides [Ideological Profiles of the Economics Laureates] Daniel B. Klein, Ryan Daza, and Hannah Mead Econ Journal Watch 10(3), September 2013: 551-556 Abstract Christopher A. Pissarides is among the 71 individuals who were awarded the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel between 1969 and 2012. This ideological profile is part of the project called “The Ideological Migration of the Economics Laureates,” which fills the September 2013 issue of Econ Journal Watch. Keywords Classical liberalism, economists, Nobel Prize in economics, ideology, ideological migration, intellectual biography. JEL classification A11, A13, B2, B3 Link to this document http://econjwatch.org/file_download/760/PissaridesIPEL.pdf IDEOLOGICAL PROFILES OF THE ECONOMICS LAUREATES Phelps, Edmund. 2010a. Short-termism is Undermining America. New Perspective Quarterly 27(4): 17-19. Phelps, Edmund. 2010b. Interview by Argyris Tsiaras. Yale Economic Review, Winter/Spring: 56-58. Phelps, Edmund. 2013a. Interview by Caroline Baum. The Ticker, Bloomberg.com, February 11. Link Phelps, Edmund. 2013b. Mass Flourishing: How Grassroots Innovation Created Jobs, Challenge, and Change. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Phelps, Edmund, and John B. Taylor. 1977. Stabilizing Powers of Monetary Policy Under Rational Expectations. Journal of Political Economy 85(1): 163-190. Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. 2006. The Prize in Economic Sciences 2006. Press release, October 9. Link Samuelson, Paul A. 1948. Economics: An Introductory Analysis. New York: McGraw- Hill. Tomasi, John. 2012. Free Market Fairness. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. Zoega, Gylfi. 2008. Phelps, Edmund (born 1933).
    [Show full text]
  • Dissertacao Xaman Minillo
    UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASÍLIA RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM RELAÇÕES INTERNACIONAIS ENFRENTANDO O NORTE - DISCURSOS E IDEOLOGIA COMO FONTES DE PODER PARA O REGIME DE ROBERT MUGABE XAMAN KORAI PINHEIRO MINILLO BRASÍLIA 2011 XAMAN KORAI PINHEIRO MINILLO ENFRENTANDO O NORTE - DISCURSOS E IDEOLOGIA COMO FONTES DE PODER PARA O REGIME DE ROBERT MUGABE Dissertação de Mestrado apresentada ao Programa de Pós-Graduação em Relações Internacionais da Universidade de Brasília como requisito parcial para obtenção do título de Mestre. Orientador: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Adolf Karl Döpcke BRASÍLIA 2011 FICHA CATALOGRÁFICA Minillo, Xaman Korai Pinheiro Enfrentando o norte - discursos e ideologia como fontes de poder para o regime de Robert Mugabe / Xaman Korai Pinheiro Minillo. Brasília: UNB, 2011. 224 f. Orientador: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Adolf Karl Döpcke Dissertação de Mestrado, apresentada ao Instituto de Relações Internacionais – Universidade de Brasília – UNB. 1. Relações Internacionais 2. Zimbábue 3. Poder 4. Discurso XAMAN KORAI PINHEIRO MINILLO ENFRENTANDO O NORTE - DISCURSOS E IDEOLOGIA COMO FONTES DE PODER PARA O REGIME DE ROBERT MUGABE BANCA EXAMINADORA Prof. Dr. Rafael Villa Departamento de Ciência Política – DCP-USP Instituto de Relações Internacionais – IRI-USP Prof. Dr. Pio Penna Filho Instituto de Relações Internacionais – UNB Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Adolf Karl Döpcke Instituto de Relações Internacionais – UNB Brasília, 01 de Julho de 2011 Dedico este trabalho aos meus pais, amigos e orientador que sempre estiveram ao meu lado, acreditando no meu potencial; aos afro-brasileiros e ao povo do Zimbábue. AGRADECIMENTOS Este trabalho foi possível graças à colaboração direta ou indireta de muitas pessoas. Manifesto minha gratidão a todas elas e de forma particular: Ao Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Invest in Greece Forum 2020 Directory
    INVEST IN GREECE ONLINE FORUM 2020 June, 4, 2020 09:00-11:30 Athens time, 14:00-16:30 Beijing time “THE “DRAGON HEAD” OF THE NEW SILK ROAD INTO EUROPE UNDER THE AUSPICES OF: ENTERPRISE GREECE , ATHENS CHAMBER OF TRADESMEN WITH THE SUPPORT OF: CHINA OVERSEAS INVESTMENT FAIR (COIFAIR), The Belt and Road Global Chambers of Commerce and Associations Conference (GCCAC), China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) COMMERCIAL SUB-COUNCIL MEDIA SPONSORS: ATHENS NEWS AGENCY - MACEDONIAN PRESS AGENCY (ANA-MPA) 新华社 CHINA XINHUA NEWS, 中国国际⼴播电台 CRI (CHINA RADIO INTERNATIONAL), 中 国新闻社 CHINA NEWS, 中国经济导报 CHINA ECONOMIC HERALD, 亚太⽇报 ASIA PACIFIC DAILY, 经济观察报 THE ECONOMIC OBSERVER, PR NEWSWIRE GOLD SPONSOR VSQUARE, NO.1 DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN GREECE 2 HOSTS-ORGANIZERS-SPONSORS 3 CO-HOSTS CO-ORGANIZER GOLD SPONSOR NO.1 DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN GREECE INVEST IN GREECE FORUM 2020 June, 4, 2020, GREECE - CHINA GREECE - CHINA 4 INVEST IN GREECE FORUM 2020 June, 4, 2020, GREECE - CHINA GREECE - CHINA 5 INVEST IN GREECE FORUM 2020 June, 4, 2020, GREECE - CHINA MINISTER OF DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENTS Mr. ADONIS GEORGIADIS 6 «Our relations are warmer than ever. Greece and China derive from ancient civilizations and both countries are proud of their cultural heritage. Mutual respect, cooperation, open mind, inclusive growth and determination to move forward in the future, unite our countries. Greece and China are partners for the establishment of one belt, one road. We will contribute to strengthen Piraeus’s role, which is becoming a major transit hub and we look forward to implement partnerships in many areas.
    [Show full text]
  • The Name Dispute in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia After the Signing of the Interim Accord
    THE NAME DISPUTE IN THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA AFTER THE SIGNING OF THE INTERIM ACCORD Aristotle Tziampiris 1. Introduction The issue of the precise name of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM)1 dominated foreign policy in both Greece and its newly constituted neighbour throughout the first half of the 1990’s. The unwillingness of both sides to a mutually acceptable solution created an explosive, emotionally charged situation. Its consequences were far-reaching for international relations and for the domestic political scene in both countries.2 –––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1. Use of the term FYROM is in conformity with UN Security Council Resolution 817 of 7 April 1993, according to which “this State [will be] provisionally referred to for all purposes within the United Nations as “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” pending settlement of the difference that has arisen over the name of the State”. 2. For analyses of diplomatic and political developments during this period, see Evangelos Kofos “Greek Foreign Policy Considerations over FYROM Independence and Recognition” in James Pettifer (ed.), The New Macedonia Question, London, 1999; Michalis Papakonstantinou, A Politician’s Journal, 226 Aristotle Tziampiris The signing of the Interim Accord in New York on 13 September 1995 proved to be the turning point for the subsequent rapprochement between Greece and FYROM.3 This article/ chapter analyses developments in FYROM relating to the name dispute during the period that followed the signature of the Interim Accord. The diplomatic problem and ensuing conflict began on 8 September 1991, when the Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia held a referendum on its independence.
    [Show full text]
  • Sub-National Report for Serbia and Montenegro (SCG): Events, Forecasting and Analysis
    Sub-national Report for SCG: Events, Forecasting and Analysis s Sub-national Report for Serbia and Montenegro (SCG): Events, Forecasting and Analysis FINAL REPORT Report Prepared by: Liz St. Jean With support from: David Carment Adam Fysh Stewart Prest Copyright: not to be cited, duplicated or circulated without permission Feedback is welcome, and may be sent to [email protected] http://www.carleton.ca/cifp Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP) Project, July 2006 The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University Sub-national Report for SCG: Events, Forecasting and Analysis PART A: OVERVIEW 3 1. NOTE 3 2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 3. EVENT TRENDS SUMMARY 6 4. FORECASTING 8 PART B: DETAIL 9 5. PROFILE 9 6. STAKEHOLDERS 11 7. SUB-NATIONAL RISK INDICATORS 13 7.1. SUMMARY 13 7.2. RISK INDICATORS BY CLUSTER 14 8. EVENTS DATA: TRENDS AND ANALYSIS 18 8.1. SUMMARY 18 8.2. PRIMARY DRIVERS 19 8.3. SECONDARY DRIVERS 22 PART C: ANNEX 23 9. SUMMARY OF DATA 23 10. TREND LINE CHARTS 24 10.1. ALL EVENTS 24 10.2. STABILIZING EVENTS 25 10.3. DESTABILIZING EVENTS 26 11. MAPS 27 12. BIBLIOGRAPHY 28 12.1. EVENT SOURCES 28 12.2. BIBLIOGRAPHY 30 13. METHODOLOGY 35 13.1. DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS MONITORING 35 13.2. DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS DATA COLLECTION 37 Country Indicators for Foreign Policy (CIFP) Project, July 2006 2 The Norman Paterson School of International Affairs, Carleton University Sub-national Report for SCG: Events, Forecasting and Analysis Part A: Overview 1. Note About this Report decided to adopt some elements of GEOPOL to meet the needs of policy This sub-national report has been makers, the academic community and the produced by the Country Indicators for private sector.
    [Show full text]
  • What to Do About Trepca
    TREPCA: Making Sense of the Labyrinth ICG Balkans Report N° 82 Washington – Prishtinë/Priština, 26 November 1999 Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1 II. THE STRUCTURE OF THE TREPCA CONGLOMERATE................................. 4 A. From Mine to Factory ............................................................................................4 B. The Environmental Concerns at Zvecan ...............................................................4 III. CLAIMANTS AND QUESTIONS OF OWNERSHIP............................................ 5 A. Société Commerciale de Métaux et de Minéraux (SCMM) ....................................5 B. Mytilineos Holdings S.A.........................................................................................7 IV. UNMIK’S DEVELOPING POSITION................................................................... 9 V. THE KOSOVAR ALBANIAN LEADERSHIPS .................................................. 11 VI. SERB VIEWS.................................................................................................... 12 VII. REGIONAL IMPLICATIONS............................................................................. 13 A. Montenegro.........................................................................................................13 B. Serbia .................................................................................................................13 VIII. CONCLUSIONS...............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Nõukogude Tsensuuri Mehhanismid, Strateegiad Ja Tabuteemad Eesti Teatris
    Ajalooline Ajakiri, 2018, 4 (166), 283–304 Nõukogude tsensuuri mehhanismid, strateegiad ja tabuteemad Eesti teatris Anneli Saro Kas mõistab järeltulev sugu uus kauge Mihkel Mutt et tema põlve ajalugu on teinud Olaf Utt.1 (Juhan Viiding) Kuna teater pidi Nõukogude Liidus olema eelkõige propaganda- ja hari- dusasutus, siis olid nii teatrite tegevus, repertuaar kui ka iga üksik lavas- tus allutatud kindlatele ideoloogilistele ja kunstilistele ettekirjutustele. Aja jooksul üha pikemaks kasvanud sõja- ja riigisaladuste loetelud – Nõu- kogude tsensuuri alustala – kunstide valdkonda palju ei puudutanud. Seega võib öelda, et teatriinimeste jaoks ei eksisteerinud ametlikku regulatsiooni selle kohta, mis teemasid või kuidas avalikult käsitleda ei või. Tsensuuri olemus väljendus nende jaoks eelkõige praktikas. Eksisteerisid vaid keelatud ja soovitatavate autorite ja teoste nimekirjad, mis mõjutasid repertuaarip- oliitikat – 1950. aastate keskpaigani üsna tugevasti, hiljem järjest vähem.2 Tsensuuri uurimise teeb keerukaks asjaolu, et see oli suuresti suuline, st põhines telefonivestlustes või nelja silma all antud korraldustel, ning Artikli valmimist on toetanud Euroopa Liit Euroopa Regionaalarengu Fondi kaudu (Eesti-uuringute Tippkeskus). 1 Olaf-Knut Utt (1929–2016) tegutses 1950. aastail kirjandus- ja teatrikriitikuna, 1955– 1961 oli Edasi toimetuse asejuht, 1961–1964 Sirbi ja Vasara toimetuse juht, 1964–1969 EKP Keskkomitee kultuuriosakonna juhataja asetäitja ning 1969–1983 selle juhataja, seejärel venekeelse ajakirja Tallinn toimetaja. Viidingu
    [Show full text]
  • The Unresolved 'Difference Over the Name':1 a Greek
    THE UNRESOLVED ‘DIFFERENCE OVER THE NAME’:1 A GREEK PERSPECTIVE Evangelos Kofos I. THE COURSE OF A NAME DISPUTE: FROM INDEPENDENCE TO UN MEDIATION AND THE INTERIM ACCORD 1. Introduction The Interim Accord between Greece and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), which was signed in New York on 13 September 1995, initiated a process of normalising and laying the foundations for constructive relations of co-operation and trust between the two countries. Equally important, however, was its missing dimension: how to address a problem which had bedevilled the two countries for the previous four years (from September 1991 to September 1995). That problem was none other than the ‘difference over the name of the state’ — as the UN –––––––––––––––––––––––––– 1. ‘The difference over the name of the state’ was the phrase used in UN Secu- rity Council resolution 817/7.4.1993, which called upon Greece and FYROM to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Ten years on, ‘the difference over the name’ persists. 126 Evangelos Kofos Security Council phrased it — which ‘needs to be resolved in the interest of maintaining peaceful and good-neighbourly relations in the region’ (UN S/RES 817/1993).2 During the preceding period, 1993–5, the failure to resolve it had had a detrimental effect both on bilateral relations and on the wider Balkan region. This was especially the case when a Greek blockade was forced upon FYROM from March 1994 to September 1995. This study investigates the reasons why - despite a decade of diplomatic endeavours and a new era of constructive bilateral relations initiated in 1995 with the signing of an Interim Accord under UN auspices - the 1993 Security Council resolution on the name issue has not been resolved.
    [Show full text]