Головні статті

№8 / 2016
07.12.2016, 11:30

Escape of "Trojan horse"

Vyacheslav Tsivatyy, Lyudmyla Chekalenko


The authors presented their vision of the causes of the Brexit of the UK, tried to explain the motivation of the UK, to predict the consequences this decision for the EU and UK, enlisting the findings of foreign analystsKey words: UK, Brexit, European Union, motivation, "Trojan horse" The unwillingness of some countries to cede part of sovereignty in favor of supranational institutions of governance gave rise to problems of development of European integration. To cede part of sovereignty did not mean to sacrifice national interests. The national interests of certain countries is weak and lay in the integration movement, which used them for survival and preservation as a subject of international law. European countries integrators in the first stage failed to unify the military, security and political spheres. In 1950 the winning idea of economic integration rather than political, which insisted Paul Spaak. Failed project security and military unification plan René Pleven. As a result, projects of the European Defense Community and European political community were not implemented. Notably, the first integration solution implemented by the political elite, which, as it turned out, was not ready to take responsibility for the future of the integration process. This phenomenon was a surprise for integrators because political elites of Europe the threat of World War II and the complete elimination of sovereignty, the threat of takeover by Nazi Germany were ready to unite. So as you can see, the threat of leveling disappears urgent need to deepen integration. Recall that the first steps of the unification process was actively supported by the United States. It was under the leadership of the State created by the European Organization for Economic Cooperation, later transformed into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). In 1948, from Hague begins his move European movement that laid the foundations of Europe. In 1948, the country "six" affirm the Western alliance directed against the threat of German revanchism, and in 1949 at the initiative of the US to resolve the security problems of Western Europe created NATO. Consequently, it is only the United States needed a strong Europe. What prompted the UK - strategic partner of the United States - to leave the EU? Against the background of these massive landslides that era idea of two French - Minister of Foreign Affairs of France Robert Schuman and Jean Monnet politician looked quite quietly and seemed purely technical solution - combine steel and coal industries. All other matters from the sphere of political aspirations were over capacity formed the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). Inspired indisputable successes, the leaders of the ECSC made the next step by offering the Europeans to unite in defense alliance. However, this idea was not realized. And interestingly, the French proposed European Defense Community (YEOS) was blocked by the French. The first lesson was beneficial to creators EU - as a result was chosen tactic of gradual action, not hurry in decision-making and farsightedness. We emphasize: in the first stages of European integration. Treaty of Rome in 1957 was a milestone for the future of Europe and the world - has created the European Atomic Energy Community and the European Economic Community, politely refrained from direct references to political and security guidelines, focusing on further economic steps. Treaty of Rome in 1957 made a decisive step towards the implementation of the Customs Union, leading to full liberalization of mutual trade. The complexities added agricultural sector, as in all countries, agriculture was subsidized because the Treaty of Rome included three golden rules agricultural integration: the single market, the preferences of farmers participating in solidarity financial responsibility of the association. All of this proposed transition period of 12 years. French President General de Gaulle played a significant role in the development of the EU and the emergence of this association UK. According to some assumptions, it was de Gaulle made clear threat to British presence in the EU. What guided general? According to available explaining the reasons of his unwillingness to see the UK as it was called then EEC warning union penetration in the US factor and, consequently, the appearance panamerykanizm in the ranks of European integration. But at its core the concept of de Gaulle's almost no different from the British vision of the EU - only a free trade area, common market. The UK negative appeared when considering issues related to establishing the European Atomic Community (Euratom). We emphasize that this issue was most painful for the head of the French Republic, as de Gaulle did everything possible for nuclear weapons countries - France, dictating, based on this armada, their conditions of world (read - USA), and not to the world dictates of France rules. Of particular irritation caused de Gaulle ambitious nuclear projects that the United States implemented in the UK, equipping the country with all the then innovations nuclear weapons. So, France together with the weak neighbor in Europe Germany itself sought to manage integration and this, to some extent, it succeeded. Let us recall the fact that almost all projects European integration emerging in French minds and realized France. It is primal, driver, organizer and implementer of the European integration process. The presence of Britons could be confused all the cards ambitious plans for France. At the same time, UK has put forward a number of requirements for its membership, protecting and defending British interests from competitors and their community - the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). This country did everything aimed at neutralizing European associations. The formation of the European Coal and Steel Community the six European countries established UK EFTA formation Euratom - the emergence British counterpart and others. In the UK the ultimate goal was to disrupt the ratification of the Treaty of Rome and subjugate small nations of Europe to the British concept of the Association. In response, France agrees with Germany on a joint Franco-German alliance. Actions of UK answered British creed (Palmerston) steadfastness and the primacy of British interests and concepts of foreign policy (Winston Churchill), focuses on three areas: North America (USA), the Commonwealth and Europe, as part of Atlantic solidarity. What political players supported British membership in the Community? First, the US, which, given the growth in the power of France still weak Germany, saw the need to balance the forces on the European continent. Supported Britain and smaller European integration association members - economically weak states of Europe, as the memory of World War II had not yet subsided. In the same decision for the UK and European integration is not passed on "hurray": Parliament ratified instruments of accession (13 July 1973) the minimum majority vote - 301 to 284 [1]. Britain's entry into EU in period of crisis 1970s brought unification and new problems. Britain demanded reducing the size of their contributions to the Community budget, opposed the significant investment in the common agricultural policy (CAP) and other required preferences British Commonwealth. Since the United Kingdom came to integration is not empty, and increased regional contrasts. Britain managed to convince others, does not hesitate to blackmail exit and receive certain preferences. Britain has made reducing the contribution to the general budget of the Communities by almost three times, shifting the burden to replenish the deficit in France and Germany. In this step, the British managed to recover more than half of their expenditures aimed at the needs of the EEC. "Brussels bureaucracy" constantly criticized and Margaret Thatcher. Not last role in the "reconciliation" of Britain with EEC rules played advances extended Communities. It's no secret that Spain, which covered the bulk of the needs of the British in agricultural products, as well as Portugal and Greece, to which the UK had developed trade relations have gained membership in the EU as through lobbying support of the state of Albion. With the adoption of the Maastricht Treaty UK parliament failed to ratify it in time - that is, until 1 January 1993. Ratification took considerable difficulties in August that year. Signing of the Treaty on European Union has opened its participants freedom of action, since the document was removed the key concept of "federal". Freedom to provide maneuvering and position of a number of protocols adopted in addition to the main document. Yes, Protocol 11 of the Treaty on European Union concerning the United Kingdom said that the United Kingdom will not be forced or obliged to move to the third stage of economic and monetary integration without a separate decision of the government or parliament. [1] The main advantage of this formulation was that the Bank of Great Britain was not involved in the creation and activities of the European Central Bank (ECB). In the case of UK accession to the monetary system of the EU country lose a say in the development of a new future structure of the ECB. Recall that such a provision was included in the document - the Maastricht Treaty - the suggestion is British. Later this idea has a theoretical foundation called "integration of different speeds." Not the least role in this process played willingness UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who noted that the attitude of Great Britain to the European project changes significantly depending on the individual behavior of the government and the prime minister [2]. Particularly sharp debate on integration has caused social security package, namely the provisions on minimum wages and maximum working week, which was potentially dangerous for the competitiveness of British industry. Antiintegration group headed by Margaret Thatcher, who was strongly against the political, institutional and social policy of the EU, although considered FTA acceptable to the WB. The main role in the positive solution of ratification of the EU Treaty (1993, Maastricht) played J. Major, who resorted to threats to resign in the event of failure of ratification. This turn of action would lead to new elections, which was not to hand the ruling party. In fact, ratification led to a split in the Conservative Party in the European question. However, opposition intensified London and Brussels regarding expansion and admission of new states of a common policy in the field of defense and security and so on. The Treaty on European Union the possibility of release under Art. 50, which states that any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union. The document was ratified, but did not release mechanism was developed as a variant of the participants had anticipated. This situation shows the current confused behavior as leaders of the EU and the UK. Thus, the World Bank has created a precedent, because the mechanism out of the EU is not fully developed. Even after the formal registration of release, according to D. Tusk in the next two years, the EU will not change, and the European Council and the Council of the EU only in matters relating to Britain itself will exclude the UK from the discussion and decision-making. However, all the rights and obligations of IDPs remain within the EU [3]. The procedure output as imagined is quite difficult. The final decision to withdraw the country from the EU may decide on appropriate procedures only the European Parliament. Recall that in the case of not signing for a two-year period, the contract is automatically terminated. At the same time, the European Council can extend two years. The reason for this can be, especially, watching the vast mass (27 countries) and contractual acts concluded within the EU. What consequencesoes will have the Brexit for the country itself and its citizens?First, UK citizens (theoretically) should lose citizenship of the European Union. However, Brussels is unlikely to take such a step.Secondly, is not yet clear is the fate of the European Court of Justice for a country coming out.Thirdly, there is the question of the competence of the EU Charter of fundamental rights and freedoms.Fourth, there is a question of cooperation Police and national courts.Fifth, it is unclear how resolved the issue of border control. There are questions of the economy that are already on the surface: what will the rejection of the EU single market and common European standards; to change the status of European companies operating in the UK; disturbing fate of the City of London and others. Brussels officials also decide to grant special status to IDPs, revision of the legal union and the bilateral and the EU Treaty, issues of language, education - Erasmus, the fate of joint research programs and more. It is clear that the UK will not abandon preferences, which it has. Obviously, consensus will be rediscovered, but at what cost? There is broad discussion of the possible effect of scenarios and options have proven relationship according to the "country - the EU" as the Swiss and Norwegian in the expert community. Referred to as the Turkish example. We are convinced that in this case no model does not fall under British version. Definitely, it will be a British scenario with all the possible consequences for the European Community. Certain that the UK will not agree to comply with regulations and directives and will be delighted with the idea to pay substantial monetary contributions to the EU budget, in terms of which it was the third state association. It is unlikely that London will release labor migration quotas / intellectual force EU start entering in February 2017, since the UK is quite loud voices about the threat of mass internal migration - migration in the country of "Polish plumber" [4]. Brexit possible consequences include strengthening the role of Germany and the deepening negative attitudes to the Brussels bureaucracy that has lost a sense of reality, responsibility and creativity, not keeping abreast of the problems of the EU. Of particular concern caused Brexit in Germany, as the EU comes one of the most powerful countries in Europe, the financial capital of the world, nuclear power, a permanent member of the UN Security Council. With the weakening of Europe - and Germany weakened capacity. Germany needs the British market because it is the third export of German goods. For Germany and increase the share of contribution to the overall EU budget. As German society react to all these troubles? Even more so in Germany in 2017 are waiting for elections to Parliament and sounds louder criticism of domestic and foreign policy leadership. REQUIREMENTS. The UK requires to build relationships with the EU based on free trade agreement that does not entail recognition of the supremacy of EU law, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, the free movement of people, significant payments to the EU budget. ECONOMY. The positive scenario. UK GDP will grow annually by 1.6%, and by 2030 the country, find the most favorable trade agreements. Alternatively, the annual growth in 2030 will amount to 0.6% and the annual loss of 0.8%. According to other forecasts, the UK expects a significant decline in GDP - from 6.3% to 9.5%, which is lower than the financial crisis of 2008/2009 was. [5]. Models. No model of relations EU with not members of the Community are not in the interests of IDPs. Norway and Switzerland adhere to many EU rules, including pay significant sums in order to break into the local market. UK Export somehow depend on Tariffs and EU standards. An interesting example is Canada, which has signed an extensive agreement with the EU, which eliminated trade barriers for most items, but not required free movement and budgetary contributions. Contributions. Does the country save on contributions to the EU budget? Given that the EU financial year runs from January 1 to December 31, and in the UK - from April 1 to March 31, can be explained by the emergence of various statistical data in certificates and in the press. At the same time, the UK has received EU annual decline amounts of payment and money back in the form of regional development grants, payments to farmers and others. For information net profit WB in 2014-2015 years was 8.8 billion pounds, which is twice more than in 2009-2010. Contributions to UK EU budget accounted for an average of 1.4% of total public expenditure (less than the annual budget of the Department of Energy and Climate Change). However, the United Kingdom directly financed by private companies and universities to conduct research. These costs are measured financial year EU only in 2014 reached 5.7 billion pounds. Experts are sure that the UK will save significant money on membership fees due to "hidden tariff" paid the tax authorities, "kickbacks", neutralize various frauds and other factors. UK contribution to the EU budget compared to the benefits for business is a drop in the ocean. TRADE. Today the EU is not as important to the UK trade: trade volume is over 400 billion. Pounds a year, as the Eurozone crisis continues to reduce its attractiveness. Even the failure of the free trade agreement with the EU will not be disastrous for the country phenomenon [6]. EU trade successfully and the US, China and India, and Japan even without a free trade zone. And before UK opens opportunities of free trade relations with other countries - such as Singapore, Brazil and Russia in the WTO. But EU membership blocked advancement to other UK rather prestigious markets. UNEMPLOYMENT. Among the safety issues discussed in connection with Brexit most popular was unemployment, which seemed to threaten British. Find a specific figure on the release of workers is difficult, because not reconciled likely threats from foreign companies operating in the UK. Given that the top of its core businesses transferred to weak states, using market stability, availability of raw materials and cheap labor, can suffer a British automotive industry is closely tied to the EU. May suffer financial services sector, which employs about 2.1 million. People, because the financial industry is based on the EU internal market law [7]. Will the effects of access to significant job losses for the British - in the 3-4 million people? In this situation, we must remember that the UK labor market is so dynamic that adapts very quickly to changes in relations with the EU. Migrants. Britain wants to have full control over its borders. Therefore, EU citizens also face visa problems at the entrance to this country. Such an approach would result in additional jobs and increase wages. The result - an increase of social payments for various needs, such as schools, hospitals, consumer services and others. In general, the British vision of a permit migration more inclined to sign "plus" than "minus". Of course, the British wish to legal migration - transparent, predictable and counted. CITIZENS. Britain will get full control over its citizens abroad, because the whole process governed exclusively by British law. Citizens of other EU countries will not be deported under the provisions of the treaty of 1969, under which the rights granted to citizens for a fixed term, can not be repealed other new contracts. Undoubtedly, one of the important benefits of the EU is that Community citizens can work without visas, travel and live in any country of the union. Currently in the EU there are more than 2.2 million British citizens, of which the largest number in Spain, France and Ireland. However, the laws of the EU, British expats now have seen in the EU as illegal, since Britain seized following the withdrawal from the European Convention of human rights provisions of free movement. LEGISLATION. Country released on the European arrest warrant and other provisions of law and order. On the other hand, the UK is unlikely to be able to easily return of its citizens accused of crime in the EU. SECURITY. The UK is one of the main members of NATO and the UN Security Council. Britain is a nuclear power - it is considered the world, and it affects events worldwide. Britain is "the ears and eyes of the United States" in the EU. Some require review the role of the UK as a transatlantic bridge between the US and Europe [8]. Add that in the recent 2003-2004, Germany and France on the eve of the war in Iraq determined its "Trojan horse" of the United States in the European Union, as the then British position nearly led to a split in the EU. Britain, devoid of influence in Brussels, Berlin and Paris, increasingly ignored by Washington and less impact on transatlantic issues of environmental protection, security and trade. However, the risk of loss to Great Britain united Europe are seen larger than the consequences of its release. The US and most EU countries seek to keep Britain in the EU. In addition, the United Kingdom in his aspiration to "unexpected freedom of the EU" risks becoming a dissident and isolated state.


1. Treaty on European Union. 1992. Feb. 7. URL. - Режим доступу: : www.ena.lu; See Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community (EEC Treaty or Treaty of Rome), Mar. 25, 1957, reprinted in 298 U.T.S. 3. The EEC Treaty was followed by the Single European Act, Feb. 17, 1986; the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty), Feb. 7, 1992; the Treaty of Amsterdam, Oct. 2, 1997; the Treaty of Nice, Feb. 26, 2001; the Treaty of Lisbon, Dec. 13, 2007. These treaties have been consolidated. See Consolidated Versions of the Treaty on European Union (EU Treaty) and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), OJ C 326/1, 26.10.2012.

2. Thatcher Biographer: How the Tories Turned Against the EU. Interview Conducted by Christoph Scheuermann. - Режим доступу: www.spiegel.de/international/ europe/brexit-interview-with-thatcher-biographer-charles-moore-a-1099182.html

3. Press statement by President Donald Tusk on the outcome of the referendum in the UK. - Режим доступу: www.consilium.europa.eu/en/press/press-releases/2016/06/24-tusk-statement-uk-referendum/

4. 'Now Europe Is Speaking German:' Merkel Ally Demands that Britain Contribute' to EU Success, Spiegel, "11" day="15" year="2011" w:st="on" Nov. 15, 2011 available online. - Режим доступу: www.spiegel.de/international/europe/now-europe-is-speaking-german-merkel-ally-demands-that-britain-contribute-to-eu-success-a-798009.html; The Deep Deformation of Europe. The Legitimacy of the European Union after the Euro Crisis by Elli Louka. - See Anna Myunghee Kim, Foreign Labour Migration and the Economic Crisis in the EU: Ongoing and Remaining Issues of the Migrant Workforce in Germany, IZA Discussion Paper No. 5134, Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit (Institute for the Study of Labor) (2010).

5. What if...? The consequences, challenges and opportunities facing Britain outside the EU. - Режим доступу: openeurope.org.uk/ intelligence/britain-and-the-eu/what-if-there-were-a-brexit/
6. Steve Jobs: The Man and the Machine documentary bust myths. - Режим доступу: fortune.com/2015/09/04/steve-<wbr>jobs-apple-documentary-2/

7. City lawyer's analysis warns of 'uncertainty' threat of EU exit. By Sam Fleming and Harriet Agnew. - FT.com. - Режим доступу: www.ft.com ' World ' UK ' Politics & Policy.8. Some helpful research and training videos from the Bruges Group Emergency Exit by Marcus Watney. - Режим доступу: campaignforanindependentbritai<wbr>n.org.uk/helpful-research-<wbr>training-videos-bruges-group/


Recognition of an independent Ukraine by Brazil: the role of Ukrainian community

Maryna Bondarenko


The article highlights the role of the Ukrainian community in Brazil in Brazilian recognition of independent Ukraine in 1991. The study presents an analysis of different level events in 1991 in Brazil, where the Ukrainian community took an active part and thus greatly contributed to a positive perception of new Ukrainian state.Keywords: Ukrainian community in Brazil, recognition of independent Ukraine, Ukraine in Brazil. Celebrating in 2016 the 25th anniversary of Ukraine's independence and confirmation of the act at the National referendum gives rise to address the problems of perception newborn state in the world. It was not too easy. Several countries, especially neighboring, quickly recognized its independence in early December 1991 Other emergence of a new awareness in international relations spread over time. It is accelerating in the largest and most influential country far Latin America - Brazil - a major role-played just local Ukrainian diaspora. In addition, it should be noted that in the literature (mainly Help keys) reflects the process of recognition of Brazil's independence Ukraine. This applies both to the general works on the history of Ukraine's foreign policy (S.V.Vidnyanskoho, L.D.Chekalenko et al.), and case studies of relations between Ukraine and Brazil (A.V.Bredihyna, I.O.Laznyeva, I.A. Plevako). The role of Ukrainian diaspora in this process was not specifically studied. Therefore, the purpose of this article is to outline the activities of the Ukrainian community in Brazil to promote the full recognition of Brazil independent Ukraine. The research is based primarily on the analysis of material from the archives of the Ministry of External Relations of Brazil, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine, Ukrainian-Brazilian central representation (UBTSR). Also benefited Brazilian and Ukrainian media. Foreign policy of Brazil early 1990s can be described as pragmatic, aimed at finding places Brazil in a new world that was formed during the collapse of the bipolar system of international relations. It was declared the three main tasks of foreign policy of Brazil, to expand the country's participation in international relations, to avoid political conflict with the US and change my international status, getting rid of the image of Third World countries [1]. As a result, the attitude to the recognition of Ukraine was uncertain and largely conditioned by taking into account the position of the US and the search is of practical benefit to Brazil. At that moment a large Ukrainian community declared itself, which generally consisted of half a million people. Ukrainians Brazil in 1991 conducted a series of public events promoting Ukraine and Ukrainian role in the history of Brazil. Some of them took part delegations from Ukraine. It was effective reminder of the public and local authorities on the importance of Brazil for establishing official relations with Ukraine. It is important that the declaration of independence of Ukraine coincided with the celebration in September 1991 the 100th anniversary of the beginning of Ukrainian immigration to Brazil. Ukrainian community is invited to the feast delegation from Ukraine. It includes the head of the Secretariat of the Association of Ukrainian bonds outside Ukraine S.Yu.Lazebnyk and a group of Ukrainian artists. Apart from the cultural fact into the Ukrainian community organized a meeting with senior delegation of Brazil. Thus, the delegation of Ukraine on September 4, 1991 met the state governor of Paraná, Roberto Rekyao. Representatives of Ukraine accompanied the leader of the local Ukrainian community land Head of the Institute, mapping and forest Vitorio Sorotyuk. The meeting discussed the possibility of establishing commercial contacts with independent Ukraine, as well as the opening of the Brazilian consulate in Kiev and the Ukrainian Consulate in Brazil. As reported by the Brazilian press, the Ukrainian delegation also planned to take part in the opening ceremony of the Square in Ukraine. UNIA's da Vitoria and symbolic laying of the first stone for the foundation of the monument to Taras Shevchenko. However, S.Yu.Lazebnyk said another goal of the visit - training visit to Brazil, Prime Minister of Ukraine V. Fokin, scheduled for October 1991, because it is important that Brazil, like other countries, such as France Canada and the United States considered the opening of diplomatic missions in Ukraine [2]. For his part, the leader of the Ukrainian community Vitorio Sorotyuk at that time Advisor, Government of Parana, appealed to the leadership of the state with a request from the Ukrainian-Brazilian central representation (UBTSR) invited the delegation of Ukraine headed by the Prime Minister to visit the state of Paraná, where home to the bulk of Ukrainian diaspora. Governor Robert Rekyao responded to this initiative UBTSR and September 25, 1991 formally invited Prime Minister of Ukraine V. Fokina during a planned visit to Brazil on 18-19 October 1991 to visit the state of Paraná. [3] This is an invitation and a letter from the Ukrainian-Brazilian central representation at the beginning of October 1991 Chairman UBTSR Marian Tchaikovsky handed to the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine in Kyiv by Chairman Ceremony O. Taranenko. To the stuff headed by the Prime Minister (at that time USSR) V. Fokin entered Minister of foreign economic relations of Ukraine V.Kravchenko, Minister of Environment of Ukraine YU. Shcherbakov, State Secretary of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine V. Piechota, Head of Ceremonial O. Taranenko, Head Therapeutic association of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine A. Vozianov, Assistant to the Prime Minister of Ukraine O. Oleinik, Head of department of Asia, Africa and Latin America in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine A. Nykonenko, translator and others. [4]. The visit of the Prime Minister caused a great resonance in the Brazilian press. A number of newspapers, including One of the most influential - "Folha de São Paulo", describing a meeting V. Fokin with President of Brasil Fernando Kollorom de Mello, October 18, 1991 in Rio de Janeiro, said that the Prime Minister raised the issue of Ukraine the signing of agreements on cultural and economic cooperation between Brazil and Ukraine. V. Fokin suggested to the President of Brazil as a first step to the future recognition of Ukraine exchange business missions. Prime Minister of Ukraine proposed to open a representative office in Ukraine. Curitiba, capital of Parana state, home to most of the Ukrainian Diaspora in Brazil [5]. Prime Minister of Ukraine also met with the governor of Rio de Janeiro Leonel Brizola [6] and governor of Paraná, Roberto Rekyao [7]. In particular, the meeting with the governor of Parana took place on 20 October 1991 with the active support of the local Ukrainian community. During the meeting, the Ukrainian high-ranking official said Ukraine's position on signing the economic agreement between the former Soviet republics [7] and discussed on the establishment of an official representative of Ukraine in Brazil. It was after this meeting, Governor Robert Rekyao noted that "there is great potential for the establishment of cultural, economic and scientific relations between Brazil and Ukraine. The establishment of diplomatic relations between Brazil and Ukraine will create an opportunity for Parana immediately develop a plan for economic and cultural cooperation" [8]. Brazil had a number of economic ties with the Soviet Union, including of Ukrainian enterprises. But rooted in the Latin American country Ukrainian community sought to revive interest in Brazil and Brazilians it to Ukraine and prospects for direct cooperation with it. That is why she took up the wide informing Brazilian society about the economic and cultural potential of Ukraine. This information is published in local media and brought to the attention of local entrepreneurs during various meetings. Ukrainian theme was actively represented in the Brazilian media. A newspaper "Folha de São Paulo" even dispatched to Kyiv its special correspondent in Moscow Jaime Spitskovsky and began to regularly print materials on economic policy of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine V. Fokin, especially in the field of relations with Russia. These articles appeared as Ukraine's second largest republic of the former USSR and granary, as a country with great prospects for economic development. Particular attention is paid scheduled for December 1, 1991 national referendum. [9] The referendum aroused keen interest overall. In reports from Kyiv political commentators stressed the great importance the events in Europe and the world. Ukrainian community of Brazil enthusiastically accepted the results of the referendum in Ukraine. It held its own parallel symbolic referendum, in which one hundred percent expressed support for the independence of their historical homeland, and began collecting signatures under an appeal to the Ministry of External Relations of Brazil concerning immediate recognition by the Government of Brazil independence of Ukraine. There were collected about 10,000 signatures, after which the document was transmitted to the Foreign Minister of Brazil [10]. Ukrainian community of Brazil again actively introduced the topic of Ukraine in the documents of local authorities at different levels. December 3, 1991 Governor of Parana, responding to the initiative of the local Ukrainian community, appealed to the President of Brazil F. Kollora de Mello requesting "immediate recognition of the Federative Republic of Brazil independence of the Republic of Ukraine, which was proclaimed in August the Ukrainian parliament and supported the referendum 90% of the voters of this country. This is a democratic expression of the will of the people through direct voting for independence nation deserves prompt international recognition as well as the peaceful way to resolve international differences and self-determination of peoples ". [8] The governor specifically noted that in his state is home to more than 300 000 people from Ukraine, which thanks to the growing economy and culture of Brazil, and they work through the Ukrainian-Brazilian central representation, express their desire to support Ukraine's independence. The idea of recognition of Ukraine won the support and the Legislative Assembly of the State of Parana, the head of which stated that "the establishment of diplomatic relations will facilitate cultural, economic and scientific cooperation between countries". [8] Thus, not least thanks to the efforts of the Ukrainian community in Brazil's society and its representatives in the government were prepared for the official recognition of the newly independent Ukraine. However, the government has not decided to (for the above reasons) recognize it immediately. It did it after official resignation of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev (25 December 1991), when received this last formal grounds. Federative Republic of Brazil recognized the independence of Ukraine and other former Soviet republics December 26, 1991 - the same day as the US. In a press release, Minister of External Relations of Brazil F.Rezek said that "the Brazilian government is satisfied with the results of Alma-Ata meeting on December 21," "takes note that Russia takes over the international rights and obligations of the USSR" and is willing to develop relations all former republics of the Soviet Union. [11] The study shows that the Ukrainian community in Brazil comprehensively promoted recognition of an independent Ukraine and demonstrated willingness to represent and advance to lobby its interests in Brazil. References1.Bernal-Meza R. A política exterior do Brasil: 1990-2002 / Raúl Bernal-Meza // Rev. Bras. Polít. Int.. - 2002. - No 45 (1).2.Requião recebe uma comitiva da Ucrânia. // Gazeta do Povo. - 1991. - 5 de setembro.3.Carta Oficial do Governador do Estado do Paraná ao Primeiro-Ministro da República da Ucrânia, Of.ATG 0225/91 de 26.09.1991// Arquivo da RCUB ­- Архів УБЦР, ф. б/н.4.Programação da visita do Primeiro Ministro Fokin do Cerimonial do Estado do Parana // Arquivo da RCUB ­- Архів УБЦР, ф. б/н.5.Premiê fica "aborrecido". // Folha de Sao Paulo. - 1991. - 19 de outubro.6.Czaikowski М. 20 anos das Relações Diplomáticas Brasil-Ucrânia [2005] // Arquivo da RCUB ­- Архів УБЦР, ф. б/н.7.Premiê ucraniano critica abstenção. // Folha de Sao Paulo. - 1991. - 20 de outubro.8.Carta Oficial do Governador do Estado do Paraná ao Presidente da República Federativa do Brasil, Of.ATG 0270/91 de 03/12/1991// Arquivo da RCUB ­- Архів УБЦР, ф. б/н.9.Premiê defende uma transição gradual na Ucrânia. // Folha de Sao Paulo. - 1991. - 24 de novembro.10. Sorotiuk V. Comunicado à Imprensa: 20 anos das relações diplomáticas entre a Ucrânia e o Brasil [2005] // Arquivo da RCUB ­- Архів УБЦР, ф. б/н.11. Nota à imprensa de 26 de dezembro de 1991 // Resenha de Política Exterior do Brasil.. - 1991. - número 69. - p. 245.


Paris Congress and the fate of Sevastopol

Alla Lykova


The article deals with they Paris congress in 1856 as a result of the entire foreign policy of the Russian Empire in the period from 1853 to 1856 years. Studied the position of Britain and France in relation to Russia, explained the role of Austria and Prussia. Analyzed the importance of the Paris congress of the results for the further fate of Sevastopol and the foreign policy of the Russian Empire as a whole.Keywords: Russia, Paris congress, Crimea, the Russian fleet, history, Sevastopol, the Eastern question, coalition, international relation, foreign policy, allies. The most important vector of foreign policy of the Russian government in the middle of the XIX century was to decide in their favor so-called Eastern question. The essence of it was in the struggle of peoples oppressed by Turkey, for its release in the rivalry of European countries by the dominant influence in the Middle East and the Balkans. The Russian tsarist government pursued its interests. He wanted to close the Bosporus and Dardanelles were in the hands of Turkish foreign ships, in order to protect the southern borders of Russia and provide free access to their ships from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean. In the future they planned dividing of Turkey and ensure their management over straits. At the same time, Russia wanted to secure influence in the Balkans. In this case, Russia's foreign policy was based on the Suppression of the Balkan nations - Moldovans modern Ukraine, Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians - against the Turkish yoke. Turkish sultan oppressed nations hoped to related and friendly Russian people. Regardless of the desire of the Russian tsar, who did not set out the tasks of liberation, Russian-Turkish wars of the first half of the XIX century were an important milestone in the liberation of the Balkan peoples, and the conquest of independence. Turkey was forced to recognize the autonomy of Moldavia, Wallachia, Serbia and the independence of Greece. After the suppression of the Hungarian revolution in 1849 with the help of imperial troops that saved the Austrian monarchy from collapse, Nicholas I decided to conduct a more active policy in the Middle East. The tsarist government decided that the circumstances of the early 50s conducive to solving foreign policy problems. This opinion was because Turkey was a backward, feudal state and crush it did not require much effort. Nicholas I was counting on the support of the Austrian and Prussian monarchs in appreciation of the services he provided them in the fight against the revolutionary movement. France, according to the king's government, has not yet regained consciousness after the 1848 revolution. Finally, with England Nicholas I had to agree, promising her a part of Turkish territories - Egypt and Crete. However, these calculations were seriously flawed. English bourgeoisie itself willing to establish their entities in the Middle East and the Balkans. The British government pushed Turkey to war, hoping to use it to defeat Russia and thereby eliminate its competitor. French bourgeoisie was also economically disadvantageous to strengthen the position of Russia in the Middle East. French Emperor Napoleon III needed a successful war to strengthen their power. Austria, for its part, was afraid of the growing influence in the Balkans, as it threatened to prevent the approval of the authorities of the Slavic peoples. Turkey, for its part, also wanted war with Russia. She hoped with the help of Western countries to restore their domination over the peoples of the Balkans, sought to deprive in Russia a number of territories in the Caucasus and the Black Sea coast. Thus, on the eve of war tsarist Russia found itself in political isolation. Against it faced a powerful coalition of European states. Against autocracy have been set up and the people of Europe, who saw the Russian government gendarme, strangler revolutionary movement. Under these circumstances, in October 1853 between Russia and Turkey begun the war. Military action that unfolded on two fronts, the Danube and the Caucasus, in the early going well for Russia. The Russian army crossed the border and occupied the Danubian principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Counterattacks of Turkish troops from the Danube were repulsed. More important event of the first phase of the war was a sea battle in November 1853 between the Turkish and Russian fleet at Sinop Bay. This was the last battle in military history of the sailing fleet. The Black Sea fleet completely defeated the Turkish Black Sea fleet and the navy commander was taken prisoner. This great naval victory of Russian art showed immense courage and naval sailors. Russian squadron was commanded by wonderful admiral, hero of Sevastopol Defense Vice Admiral Pavlo Nakhimov (1802-1855). The defeat of the Turkish fleet has caused concern in Western countries. Britain and France, which had completed preparations for war, his squadron entered the Black Sea, and in March 1854 declared war on Russia and openly on the side of Turkey. All calculations Nicholas I proved false. The balance of forces has changed not in favor of Russia. In winter 1853-54 on both fronts - and in the Caucasus, and the Balkans - was calm. Only with the entry into the war England and France steps of the Turkish army were active. Creating the Caucasus a numerical advantage, raised a Turkish attack on Georgia, trying to capture Tbilisi. From north to help them move troops Shamil. But thanks to the heroism and resistance of Russian soldiers and Georgian police forces and Turkish troops Shamil was rejected and the threat of capture Tiflis eliminated. The Russian army went on the offensive and defeated the enemy troops on the Caucasian front. In the Balkans hostilities were sluggish. Russian troops were shackled siege of the fortress of Silistra. Action deployment of Russian army prevented Austria. Focusing huge army on the border with Russia and threatening war, with the support of the Austrian government Prussia demanded to withdraw Russian troops from the Danubian principalities. Russia had to meet this demand and withdraw its troops across the river Prut [1]. Anglo-French ships bombarded Petropavlovsk-on-Kamchatka, Solovki monastery (the White Sea), Odessa. As the number of technical equipment and fleet surpassed Britain and France Fleet. The small Russian garrison gave heroic resistance of the enemy and landings dropped into the sea. A large fleet of allies blocked the Baltic coast, which belonged to Russia, hoping to capture sea fortress Sveaborg and Kronstadt, but their attack did not dare. In the autumn of 1854, the Allies began to carry out military action to capture the Crimea. The Crimean peninsula was of great military importance as ensure the safety of all southern Russia. Seizing him could threaten the enemy and the Caucasus, and the Balkans, and the fertile southern Russian province. In September, more than 60-thousand army allies, which included British, French and Turkish troops landed near Yevpatoria and began to attack the main naval base in the Crimea - Sevastopol. Trying n command to detain enemy at the river Alma failed. At the same time the battle near the river Alma showed the British and the French, who expect easy victory is meaningless. Despite the fact that the Russian army was worse armed and almost twice less than the enemy, the battle was bloody. "Another such victory - said the commander of one of the English divisions - and England will be army" [2]. Anglo-French troops moved to Sevastopol, hoping to strike it with a combined sea and land. But defenders of Sevastopol sailing ships sunk at the entrance to the bay, close to the enemy fleet access to it. Convinced that the fleet can not take part in the storming of Sevastopol, and the Russians are ready to stubbornly defend allies abandoned frontal impact. They went around the city on the east side and located south of it, taking Balaklava. At that time Sevastopol was the largest sea port, the base of the Black Sea Navy. Loss of Sevastopol essentially meant the destruction of the fleet management and end of the Black Sea. Therefore, allies and sent the brunt of this sea fortress. Sevastopol was impregnable from the sea, but very poorly fortified from the land. In September 1854 the Russian army chief prince oldish A. Menshikov took the army to Bakhchisarai to maintain communication with the interior provinces of the country. The city was only a garrison, on whose shoulders lay all the severity of the struggle. Led the defense of Sevastopol Admirals Vladimir Kornilov, Pavlo Nakhimov, Vladimir Istomin. In the construction of fortifications prominent role played by military engineer Eduard Totleben. All people of Sevastopol from small to large have risen in defense of the city. In a short time around it was built defenses. When in October, the enemy attempted to take Sebastopol by storm, he ran into a stubborn defense and was forced to move to a long siege. More than 11 months garrison of Sevastopol and its people heroically repulsed enemy attacks. In the city barrage of artillery fire. Attempts by the king's command to divert enemy forces from Sevastopol and break them were unsuccessful. However, the siege of Sevastopol costly allies. In England and France was growing discontent long war. In late August 1855 began the last, the most powerful bombardment of Sebastopol. Eight hundred guns continually raided the city. Began the assault. The enormous losses the Allies were able to capture the Malakhiv Kurgan - dominant height over the city. After that further defense became hopeless. Defenders through pre-built bridge went across the bay on the north side, leaving the southern part of the city. The fall of Sevastopol caused by the war. The Russian army was bled white and exhausted the country's finances. While Russian troops in the Caucasus were a major victory - took almost impregnable fortress of Kars, this success could not affect the outcome of the war. The main reason for the defeat of this war was economic, and hence the military-technical backwardness. Most of the Russian infantry was armed with flint muskets that were charged from the barrel and fired only 300 steps. Rifle surpassed their allies in range, speed and accuracy shooting. Was weaker and Russian artillery, because it was equipped with old guns. Moreover lacked ammunition. Military factories with their fortress-workers and backward technology could not provide the army weapons and ammunition. Railways linking the center of the country with its surroundings, was not. The main means of transport were used as horses and oxen. Deliveries of food and ammunition on bad roads took a very long time. In Russia, almost no steam fleet - its construction was just beginning. Fishing fleet, completely dependent on the wind and weather, much inferior enemy strong steam fleet. Medical service and supply the army was organized poorly. Embezzlement and bribery in these last years have become catastrophic proportions. The Crimean War was an unjust war on both sides. Tsarist Russia, and its opponents sought to capture new possessions to establish entities in the Middle East. Opponents of Russia failed to implement all his plans - to separate the Baltic States, Poland, Crimea, the Caucasus and transform into a minor state. However, tsarist government was forced to sign the plight of Paris for the peace treaty (Mar. 30, 1856). Under this treaty, Russia lost the mouth of the Danube and southern Bessarabia, lost the right to have a military fleet in the Black Sea. Castles in the Black Sea was supposed to destroy, but the sea itself declared open for commercial vessels of all countries. Russia's southern borders were vulnerable to enemy attack. Its influence in the Balkans weakened. The tsarist government suffered a severe military defeat. His international reputation was blown, it could no longer play the role of gendarme of Europe. The defeat in the Crimean War clearly demonstrated that without the abolition of serfdom in Russia further development impossible. Paris Congress started 13 (25) February 1856 in the French capital. Russia, France, Britain, Austria and Sardinia attended it. Later joined Turkey. Chaired the meeting of the Foreign Minister of France, Napoleon III's cousin, Count A. Walewski. The first authorized Count O. Orlov and the second authorized F. Brunov, who has long served as Russian ambassador in London, represented Russia. Britain was represented lords Clarendon and Kaul. Austria - Buolem, Kingdom of Sardinia - Cavour. The main opponents of Russia in Paris were England and Austria. As for France, it supported many of the Russian delegation, treating the union with England rather formally. Napoleon III rightly believed that his country's already got a lot of war. Moreover, during the Congress there has been a warming of relations between the former enemies. Napoleon III confirmed in a conversation with Orlov that now sees no indigenous contradictions that might impede rapprochement of Russia and France. England now openly sought to weaken in the Black Sea, to undermine its position in the Caucasus, insisted on the demilitarization of the Aland Islands. With the support of the British Austrians demanded even complete Russian fortifications on the Black Sea coast, but thanks to the support of Napoleon III, Eagles prevailed in this matter. Austria demanded the rejection of all of Bessarabia and hoped to join his possessions Danubian principalities. The former allies, however, does not support the Danube empire and Austrians left the Congress without receiving any payment for his ultimatum on December 2, 1855, that forever spoiled relations with Russia [3]. Turkey at the Congress was forced to agree with allies, even when their opinion is clearly at odds with its interests. In particular (but without any serious consequences) Congress addressed the issue of the need for future political union Danubian principalities. As a result, on 18 (30) in March 1856 was signed the Treaty of Paris in 1856, which summed up the Crimean War. By 1871, this Agreement defines the foreign policy of European states. It was the end of the Paris Congress 1856. Russia was asked to return the Turks occupied during the war Kars. By accepting this assignment, Russian authorized demanded compensation, but not having received the support of Napoleon III in this matter were-obliged to abandon its claims by agreeing to the contract was given to the return of the Turks of Kars in exchange for Sevastopol and other cities in the Crimea. The most difficult condition for Russia was the neutralization of the Black Sea, but to accept this condition, it was decided to have a meeting with Alexander II in St. Petersburg. Therefore, this issue caused no controversy. Paris Congress decided that the Black Sea - neutral, passage of ships of European countries through the Bosporus and Dardanelles prohibited. Russia can not keep the Black Sea ships steam over 6 800 t and 4 200 t vessel (for the Turkish Navy established the same limits) and can not, as well as Turkey, have in the Black Sea naval arsenals. In discussing the last item Clarendon tried to bind Russia to destroy the naval shipyard in Nikolayev, but met strong resistance Orlov and was forced to retreat. [4] In connection with the discussion of the question of the Straits and for the neutralization of the Black Sea, it was decided to admit to the Paris Congress representative Prussia because Prussia signed the London Convention 1841 on ducts and now can not participate in the drafting of a new decision on the matter. Paris Congress also adopted several other resolutions and ensure the prohibition of privateering neutral commercial vessels from attacks by countries at war. Treaty of Paris marked the beginning of a new course of Russian foreign policy. The note, prepared on behalf of Alexander II chancellor K. Nesselrode and sent April 17, 1856 in Paris Orlov, said that the Holy Alliance, as the war and especially the behavior of Austria ceased to exist, the relations with Turkey were strained after the conclusion of peace. Hostility to Russia from England, dissatisfied Paris peace, not decreased. Nesselrode believed that creating new threats directed against coalition should try to maintain a loyalty to Russia the emperor of the French, "without commitment, however, follow him in his designs." This new course of Russian foreign policy followed for several years after the Paris Congress. Restrictions on the Russia sovereignty of the Black Sea were canceled October 30, 1870. Major changes in the system of international relations in the Balkans, created by the Paris Congress, made the Russian-Turkish war of 1877-78 and the Treaty of San Stefano in 1878 and the Berlin Congress in 1878 that it completed [5]. References1. Ayrapetov O.R. The foreign policy of the Russian Empire (1801-1914)/O.R.Ayrapetov. - M., Europe, 2006.2. John Sweetman "The Crimean War"/ J.Swetman. - Osprey, 2001.5. Bestuzhev I.V. The Crimean War 1853-1856. / I.V.Bestuzhev. - M .: Publishing house of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1956.6. Pokrovsky M.N. The Crimean War / Pokrovsky. - M., Tsentrpoligraf 2001.7. Tarle E.V. Crimean War. / E.V.Tarle. - M., 2003. Vol.2. Political, diplomatic, and socio-cultural civilizational dialogue in the Asia-Pacific region (or reflection on the purpose of History)Vyacheslav Tsivatyy, Sergiy Pron SummaryThe article analyzes the Asia-Pacific region and leading countries in the region as independent players not only at national level but also in the international arena as a whole, because the modern international political processes in the world and the evolution of political and diplomatic formed in the context of three interrelated trends: globalization, regionalization and institutionalization. One of the most striking manifestations of regionalization has become a trend of growth of sub áctores in international and diplomatic systems. Attention is paid also to civilizational dimension of the world history and the special significance of historical sources in the study of institutional development stages of international political regions.Keywords: diplomacy, foreign policy, institutionalization, international political region, globalization, China, Japan, Asia-Pacific region. The issue of interaction between civilizations most associated with the work of Samuel Huntington. Note that it is in their judgment was not as categorical as it is often interpreted, and does not believe that catastrophic civilizational conflict - inevitable. Over the past two decades many predicted rapid and terrible clash of civilizations (conflict of civilizations) - clash of civilizations. We are convinced that not only challenges but also real possibilities of fruitful dialogue Europe - East and ways to solve the problems between civilizations are achievements polycentric world of the XXI century. These findings are based primarily on the results of years of research, life experience and diplomatic authors of this scientific exploration and study of archival materials. Today, most researchers recognize the diversity of the modern world, updated the diversity of civilizations and sub civilization. At the same time, when it comes to classification criteria, begin scientific debate. Indeed multidimensionality scientific approach requires a retrospective and prospective evaluation of world historical processes. Only in this way can achieve the purpose and direct civilizational processes do not crash, and the integration of societies, ethno-cultural, socio-cultural and intercultural cooperation. The authors try to find value and meaning of modern civilizations horizons for new existential conditions of globalization and political orientations. It should be noted that the methodological dimensions of historical and political sciences today marked some compromise between logical and intuitive analytical and applied approaches within our world representatives of different civilizations prefer cooperation, not clash. Humanity today is, first of all, not of civilizations but of nation states, acting in accordance with their interests, which are complex, multifaceted, diverse and do not always coincide with the civilizational, regional and other vectors. Today, the Asia-Pacific region is one of the world centers of polycentric world of the XXI century. But still an ongoing debate about its definition and geographical boundaries. Researchers-orientalists of post-Soviet space have no absolute unity on this issue. Some - V. Eremin, K. Sarkisov, A. Senatorov - actively use the term "Asia Pacific region". V. Kistanov in the book "Japan in Asia Pacific region" not only writes about "the anatomy of economic and political relations" in the region, but also provides a kind of history of the "Asia-Pacific cooperation" from Pacific Economic Council (TER) in 1967, which consisted of 900 powerful corporations; Conference Pacific Economic Cooperation (CHP) in 1980, in January 1992 was renamed the Council of Pacific Economic Cooperation Council (PECC, which included 20 Pacific Rim nations) to Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC proclaimed the establishment in November 1989 , m. Canberra, in 1994 in Bogor near Jakarta, the Indonesian capital, adopted a declaration on the development of 2020), which brings together 21 States. We know that in July 1997 foreign exchange reserves of APEC totaled 600 billion dollars, including Japan - 280 billion, China - 140 billion Hong Kong - 100 billion; Taiwan - 85 billion. These figures, of course, argue and provide the scientific basis on the need for further study and future prospects of Asia Pacific region. P. Samoilenko, S. Mukhina phrase "Asia Pacific region" brought in the name of their dissertation research in 2004 and by 2006 in Vladivostok and St. Petersburg. But at the same time, there are other approaches to determine the APR. Other scientists, including Doctor of History O. Arin says: "... no whole region "ATR" no economic or political sense does not exist. Then had to prove that politics and economics of Mexico, Chile or New Zealand (which is also part of the "APR") strongly called related to politics or economy of South Korea, China, Russia, in principle, impossible to prove. Build a "common house" of the region nonexistent - it's "Chamber №6". This can only Russians"[1]. Self-criticism, without question - is a great thing, leave it without comment, and back to the leading Asia-Pacific countries - China and Japan, not Creep role and value no less important (and perhaps the main) regional áktoriv - the US, Russia, Canada, Korea, Australia, India, New Zealand, Indonesia ... The authors of this article continue to search for new stories on the history of the leading states of the Asia-Pacific region. Thus, analyzing the materials of Japanese researchers, professionals and the videos of the channel "Discovery", was revealed interesting facts. For example, the grandson of Genghis Khan, Kublai Khan, who in 1274 and 1281 years trying to capture Japan was defeated not so much by typhoon called "divine wind" (in Japanese - "Kamikaze"), but on the fact that a "wooden bridge" Korea across the bay are not used for sea and river boats that technically this was not adapted. And the number of ships was not 10 000, and 4400; people were killed - 70 000. Unfortunately, scientific indifference of some researchers, the traditional Soviet "caution" (so nothing happened), loss of sense of courage today led to the fact that even the name - "Japan" ("Nippon") translates them wrong. Former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, the Soviet ambassador to Japan, Doctor of Philological Sciences, Honorary Member of the Institute of Sinology (Tokyo), member of the Academy of Political and Social Sciences (Philadelphia, USA), Academy of Arts (Florence, Italy), winner of the International Competition sinolohiv world (Foundation professor Miller Illinois University, USA) Nikolai Fedorenko, social and scientific activities which in Ukraine generally not investigated, once cited the example of reasonably wonder professor Ohara, the Russians called Japan "a country going down of the sun," while when all Orientalists know of the two characters "Nippon" - "the roots of the sun" [2]! Or let's take another example. "Unfortunate" territorial problem between Russia and Japan around Southern Kuriles, which actually runs from February 7, 1855, when Vice Admiral E. Putyatin in the Japanese city of Shimoda signed the first Russian-Japanese treaty and concerns four islands Shikotan, Kunashir, Etorofu, Habomai, although the group of islands of Habomai islands are also Polonsky, green, Tanfilova, Anuchina, Demin, Signal, Lys'yi, Cones. Few know that "Kunashir" translated "land outside the country." And both stakeholders much time spent and continue to spend, using political, diplomatic, legal, geographical, historical and other possible and impossible means the return of "their territory"?! This is the first point that pushes the conceptual fallacy of thinking about the question of unreasonableness and "no perspectives" study the history of APR countries. The second thesis. What is the main purpose of history as a science? Before we turn to the "father of history" Herodotus, focus your attention to the statement by Ukrainian researcher Professor N. Yakovenko: "The historian is known to be the carrier is at the crossing between present and past - carries tourists to the other side of the river of oblivion ..." [3]. First, do not want to be a sort of Charon, who, in Greek mythology, carrying the dead (by the way, money) to the gate of the god Hades (according to one version of the ancient myth, the entrance to the kingdom "underground Zeus" was somewhere in the Crimea). Secondly, it is unlikely story of science deserved to be erected, intended to "River of oblivion". Of course, right Ukrainian historian M. Chuhuyenko when he writes: "The classics of historical science Herodotus, Livy, Sallust, Sima Qiang - is, above all, talented storytellers interesting stories about people, country people. That is why even identify them obvious factual errors, inaccurate or unlikely explanations did not affect the overall value of their works. It is thanks to the undeniable literary merit classical historical narrative is not obsolete" [4]. The third argument is organically linked with the previous - can history teach is not interesting? It is now in Ukrainian schools at the primary problem forefront of curiosity in the broadest sense of the process (the acquisition of knowledge, education, attracting attention, discipline, etc.). In their latest scientific or educational research have for students at the beginning of the lecture special section "Interesting facts". Realizing that curiosity, as well as secrets and treasures, always embarrassed and accordingly attracted (and still do) any person providing factual historical material, so to speak, "to live" without comment. For example, an interesting fact from the history of Japan. Shogun Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536-1598) expressed a desire to see the garden tea ceremony master Rikyu (1522-1591), garden which became famous throughout the country for its flowers poviliky. When appointed Shogun in the morning came to the garden, I saw that all Cut flowers. Enraged, he went into the room for the tea ceremony and ikebana saw the one stems poviliky. Rikyu sacrificed the flower of the garden, to emphasize their beauty is one - the best. Hieroglyphics "ICE-ban" literally translated as "flowers". In the book "China: foreign policy and diplomacy in the second half of the XX century" emphasized the following: "When Mao Zedong put to a vote to ban the movement" Hundred Flowers "(1956, the idea of" broad democracy "), the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China all present except one, voted "yes." The only dissent was Deng Xiaoping, which eventually will lead China". Why today, for example, not investigated the interplay of European and Far Eastern civilizations, including their political and diplomatic dialogue through the centuries? Take only communication problem Portuguese culture of the Far East. Examples longer than necessary, the Indian city of Bombay has Portuguese roots and means "good bay"; Taiwan had earlier Portuguese name Formosa, in translation - "beautiful"; in modern Japanese quite a few Portuguese words, including those that are widely used as, say, a "pan" (bread) and others. Interesting? We think so. Fourth thesis. At the time, French writer Honoré de Balzac wrote that "provide significant events of the future ... no more a challenge than a guess ... If past event that occurred, leaving traces, it is legitimate to assume that the future is rooted ". "Dig" to the roots, to understand it, an objective, reasoned assessment, perhaps, this is the one of the main destinations of modern historical science? One of the greatest economists of the world - an American of Russian origin V. Leontief, Nobel Prize 1973, among his awards: the Order Heruvima (Italy), the Legion of Honor (France), Order of the sun going down (Japan), the French Order of arts and Letters and many others - of course, was not professionally connected with history. But pay attention to his proposed methods of studying the history of science (which deserves only the name of the lecture, which he delivered to students at the College of France in March 1962, "When the story should be written backwards"). V. Leontiev writes: "The road that leads from one world to another ... is the road that leads in only one direction. We cannot turn an omelet with eggs purpose of which it was made. By that time, while research remains .. . Descriptive sequence, which covers various stages of development, has significant value to the extent of how the role of causal analysis, explanation in "reverse" can be more productive than traditional explanation is directed from the past to the future" [6]. Interesting is also the scientific opinion that "monistic interpretation of history versus pluralistic ... has a significant advantage." He says: "Turning to the current state of affairs in all sciences relevant to explain the historical process could be noted, first, each of them - such as economics, anthropology, linguistics or geography, have developed their own analytical apparatus and reached some success in explaining the observed phenomena, and, secondly, all these sciences are developing completely independently of each other." Moreover, V. Leontiev believes "when the historical time series show that the gross national product of the country for 60 years quadrupled or the efficiency of transport from 1860 to 1960 increased by 300%, apparently not taken into account the difference between the crew pulled horse railway in 1860, car and plane in 1960". Have thoughts and arguments prominent scientist not require further careful study? Fifth thesis. Well known is that mankind studies past experience to avoid mistakes in the present. To achieve this, we should at least know the history, and, above all, national. Awareness - objective, real, politically distorted, "not combed" journalistic circles - one of the important components of the educational process. Let's return to Chinese history. Unfortunately, few historians, scientists know that the old analogue Tripoli Ukraine is synchronous her Chinese culture Jansa; that in the Middle Ages from China yuan period (1271-1368) to Kyiv Galic, Volodymyr of Galicia-Volyn principality began to receive political and diplomatic information "Celestial Empire" that led to the beginning of the various exchanges between the two peoples; that Kievan Rus "hinovski boom" is likely to have a Chinese origin; later in the Ukrainian language name appears "Kitaika" (red silk kerchief), Chinese rooted not in doubt; spiritual mission in Beijing pupil of Kyiv Mohyla Academy Archimandrite Hilarion (Lezajsk) - 1667-1717; that in 1984 the government of China has made a decisive step to open the country to the outside world 14 Chinese cities gained the status of "public" was created 13 duty-free zones, 32 areas of technical and economic assimilation, 52 and territories develop new and high technology of national importance ; that in 1999 China's GDP, according to the World Bank amounted to 980 billion dollars, and in 2003 - 6.5 trillion; in 2010 China only currency savings totaled 2.8 trillion dollars. More than a century ago, in 1908, the German Professor Bernheim's book "Introduction to historical science", wrote: "We have given the answer to the question of the dignity and benefit of historical science, it teaches us, the people, self-knowledge and self-understanding, it gives us the key to explanation of the present past ..." [7]. This is the purpose of history as science in general, and the study, mastering, study "stimulating nor" the oldest and most modern history of Asia-Pacific region (and perhaps primarily, China and Japan) in particular, which is based primarily in cultural and historical community, and not on the political and economic regional integration. The urgency put to a wide readership question confirms modern scientific and methodological approaches to the assessment of historical and political events of today experts. It seems that the political development of the globalized in the world today is not something special, but like any other development, historically is the stage of evolution where new structures or institutions are built gradually, and the revolutionary phase of rapid and qualitative change some structures and institutions in other . It is obvious that such a revolutionary change of the political system we see today, and therefore should contribute to the study of historical experience, despite its certain historical distance. History teaches even those she does not want to learn - it simply teach!!! Touching historiographical research of institutional Europe, it should be noted that some authors do not accidentally see the analogy between the development of the world at the turn of the XXI century medieval Europe or Europe of the early modern times. In modern scientific theory was new quests Middle Ages in the context of today [8]. And in the relatively distant time, and today felt quite keenly felt and processes related to chaos, poor predictability, and predictability of the political-historical existence. Under prevailing evolutionary development processes that are directly related to streamlining structures and their institutional development, and revolutionary stages, on the contrary - chaos processes that are comparable to the collapse and destruction existing structures, and above all - government and diplomatic institutions. This stage shows historical experiences usually end with the formation of new structures and institutions, a new stage of evolution of statehood. It is worth noting that the two trends of development - and ordering chaos throughout history go hand in hand together, but in a particular historical period from two trends prevail, while not acting alone. The prevalence trend line one over the other is a relatively long-term nature of development and institutional terms. Trends of chaos and regulation have become apparent in all areas of international relations, foreign policy and diplomacy, namely military-political, economic, social and humanitarian. The authors believe that consistency is not only chronologically weighted presentation of factual material, but also to illustrate the logic driving forces of world politics, their strengths, weaknesses and contradictions, which generally show that international relations - complex but a single organism with all inherent historical components. Political and diplomatic circumstances and realities of today, both in Ukraine and in Europe, Asia, the Far East and other international political regions of the world inspire us to think and encouraged to ask the community acute political question: "When will convene to resolve the Ukrainian crisis and Europe's future new international institution?"; "When will Conference diplomacy and diplomatic tool actively act?"; "What today is Europe, where it moves and it moves with anyone - with or without Ukraine?". Implicitly one - today the political-diplomatic dialogue European countries should be conducted around the clock, there should be preventive diplomacy to find a new way to neutralize the pain the security point, remove the aggravation of historical issues and satisfy the need to feel the comfort of a new world, a new Europe, The only major Europe of which we all are. After diplomatic history has extensive experience in implementing and effectively address the above issues in inter-civilizational space today. Everyone already crammed of historical masochism, historic ghost and historical speculation. History cannot change, cannot be judged for it - not guilty; it requires us to see how the day today and tomorrow. Without the arts to think, as without conscience, impossible to understand, to comprehend the significance of history. The authors are confident that this publication will promote awareness, study and practical use of the lessons of history (Based on the history and mastering system - errors, achievements, experience, international relations, foreign policy and diplomacy). So Ad Fontes! To the sources! Historical sources - the key of historical truth and veracity!!! References1. Arin O.A. (Aliev Sh). Strategic contours of East Asia in the XXI century. Russia: a step forward. - M .: "The Alliance", 2001. - C. 135.2. N.T. Fedorenko Kuril archipelago. From the notes of Japan // Modern and Contemporary History. - 1994. - №1. - C. 120-121.3. Yakovenko N. Introduction to History. - Kyiv by "VIPOL", 2007. - C. 11.4. M. Chuhuyenko Ukraine, which is shocking. Mazes history. - Kharkiv OJSC "Bilotserkivska literary factory", 2005. - C. 9.5. The Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M .: "Soviet Encyclopedia"., 1980. - 711 pp.6. V. Leontyev Economic essays. Theory, research, facts and policy: Per. from English. - M .: Politizdat, 1990. - P. 42-43.7. Bernheim. Introduction to the science of history. - Moscow: Edition MN Prokopovich, 1908. - P. 33-34.8. Kaplan Robert D. The Coming Anarchy / Robert D. Kaplan // Mansbach Richard W., Rhodes Edward. Global Politics in a Changing World. A Reader. - Boston, New York Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000. - P. 105-115; Lake D. Hierachy in International Relations / D. Lake. - Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009.


Experience in overcoming the consequences of National Socialism policy

Viktoriya Soloshenko


Robbery, made by National Socialists, the alienated art, trophies of war - all these are the components which today are stirring up the society, professionals and among them not only historians, art historians and museum experts, but politicians and diplomats. The article raises the important and still not solved problem of the permanently displaced or lost cultural values. There is investigated the fate of some of the lost artworks, which for many years were considered as disappeared and which only in the XXI century keep coming back to their owners or their descendants.Keywords: policy of National Socialism, the consequences, alienated art, displaced and lost cultural values. It seems that over time, changes in decades and generations, entering the new historical era, the problems associated with the policies of National Socialism and its consequences will lose its relevance and gradually cease to disturb humanity. However, disgusting displays of cruelty and inhumanity can be seen in our XXI century as a kind of inherited relapses policies of National Socialism. With the wide range of issues related to World War II, important and hitherto unsolved problems remain displaced or permanently lost cultural values. The lost art that for many years were considered disappeared from time to time and now keep coming back to their owners or their descendants. Many of them are kept not only in museums and storerooms, and in private collections and estates around the world. Quite typical are cases where the current owners are works of art do not have information on their origin, not knowing that it is moved during the reign of the National Socialists or stolen items that are unique in its way or is part of the collection, and were once owned by another state or its citizens. Extremely negative consequences for art and cultural values ​​were the events of World War II. Focused state strategy of Nazi Germany during the years 1933-1945. Was intended robbery millennial heritage of humanity. It was a huge array of crimes - deprivation of private property, discrimination and deprivation of civil rights, persecution and, eventually, the physical destruction of millions of people. It should be stressed that the German government then systematically acted against its own citizens, translating into reality the goals and mechanisms crime. Overcoming the consequences of the policy of national socialism in the cultural sphere, Ukraine faced with the new challenges of the modern era. In this context, not to mention the Russian export expansion and the museums of art Crimea - Ukraine's cultural heritage. So in July 2016 at the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow, breaking the law and international law, opened the exhibition of artist Ivan Aivazovsky, brought from the Crimea. The exhibition consists of 38 paintings and graphic images that were stored in Feodosia art gallery Aivazovsky name. Among them, "Niagara Falls", "Storm over Yevpatoria," "Ship "Twelve Apostles". Gallery staff say that 14 graphic works by Aivazovsky, who were in Feodosia, taken for restoration and will be returned to them after the exhibition closed. So, for our country the situation is much broader study updates the international practice, some experience of some countries in addressing these important issues. In this regard, the experience is reasonable policies and activities in Germany last decades of the solution search and restitution of lost, stolen or illegally alienated art. Political and legal basis for many countries in the area of ​​the restitution of works of art and cultural values ​​of the last period began working out of the Washington International Conference on Holocaust assets period (1998). Too important that in the context of the stated problems during during the conference special attention was paid to the problem of plundered artworks. International agreement stipulated that the museum states that signed the agreement be designed to test your funds in terms of their origin and to determine whether they contain cultural objects unlawfully confiscated during the reign of the National Socialists. The fate of many cultural goods that have been confiscated or stolen from their owners during the 1933-1945 without the consent of the owner sold, is not investigated both in the world and in Germany in particular. The reasons for this are quite different. Unconscious, partly consciously in the postwar decades of German historians, culture, art not engaged in problems identification and return of cultural property lost in the days of Nazi rule. Based on the provisions of the Washington Declaration on 3 December 1998, the Federal Government of a united Germany took international obligations - to contribute to the study of the origin and restitution of cultural property. We emphasize that the experience of Germany in solving this important problem - the identification and return of plundered by the Nazis property, cultural values ​​- is invaluable. After solving this set of problems was put on a sound national framework. In 1998 in Germany (c. Magdeburg) was founded Coordination Bureau of Investigation of lost cultural property. Bureau participates actively in search of art and ina bank information stolen or lost cultural values. Much work is being done on the search of the lost works of art, reconstruction collections, lists of works that shed light on the history of art. In addition, with the latest possible to confirm the authenticity or detect counterfeiting. In turn, the German state museums, archives and libraries to facilitate the search for Nazis confiscated works of art produced a series of information materials, allowing found ample evidence to verify the authenticity and ownership for the period of 1933-1945. Thus, through the creation and activities of the German Coordination Bureau of investigation lost cultural values ​​research in this area qualitatively increased. First of all, it is a true professional, the results of significant research, as well as overcoming the lack of information. It should be noted that over the past decade in Germany greatly intensified training of future experts - critics engaged in research the origin of art. Significantly increased the number of scientific-practical conference on the problems of overcoming the consequences of the National Socialist rule in the cultural sphere. Important in this regard is the problem of stolen works of art, trophies of war, the Nazis collections, the history of their origin and movement. German art experts carefully and regularly studying the catalogs of auctions known in terms of the emergence of these works, alienated during the reign of the Nazis. Particular interest are works of art that were from famous collections and works seized by force on Jews. However, keep track of objects of cultural heritage that are in private collections around the world - is extremely difficult. Purchased at auction and in private antiquities collectors do not always have the legal origin is difficult to trace their movement history from the first to the last owner. Some difficulties arise during the search and the origin of captured and looted art. Evaluated before all the data that are directly on the test object or next to it. These inscriptions on the back, mark owners and artists in paintings, handwritten notes marginalia, dedications, initials, seal or bookplates in books and archival materials. The Second World War inflicted great damage to mankind and led to huge losses of cultural heritage of the peoples of the USSR. As rightly noted by the famous Ukrainian researcher S. Cote, during the Second World War, Ukraine has lost 250 thousand. 21 items from the museum and about 50 million books. The scientist says that the value of exported from Ukraine amounted to 55% of all cultural values, the Nazis deported from the Soviet Union. Prominent cultural values ​​echelons exported from its territory of special fascist organizations and departments, including the distinguished Aynzatsshtab reichsleiter A. Rosenberg and special purpose battalion "Group Kyuntsberha." An extremely large number of priceless Ukrainian museum, archive, library collections still considered disappeared without a trace. [1] In the center of the German attack appeared on the rich tradition of the city of Kyiv. Kiev Pechersk Lavra - museum and research center, who after the events of 1917 was reformatted for the purpose of warehousing and storage of antiquities approved by the Soviets. So before the dominance of the National Socialists to Laura imported various collections as "non-religious museum" - this collection of architectural and historical museum St. Sofia Cathedral, Museum of Western European Art, the Museum of Ukrainian Art, libraries and research institutes of the Academy of Sciences, noble library and more. The situation of these cultural treasures has changed dramatically during the Nazi occupation. From museums subordination General Commissariat in January 1942, they moved to a civilian administration. The competence of the Reich Commissariat "Ukraine" on December 7, 1942 was transferred to Kiev Land Office archives, libraries and museums under the direction of George Winter. At the same time the service was created a land of ancient and ancient history. Aspiration to centralize multiple reflows led to a number of museums, libraries and archives of Kyiv. Thus the cathedral at the helm of the cathedral and assembly of noble libraries, brought there by the Soviet authorities, were transported to the land departments and libraries of the province (e.g., San Francisco) were transported to Kyiv [2]. The Nazi occupation was the so-called cultural features elevation. In those years in Kiev and other cities German institutions allow themselves to decorate their premises with paintings looted museums. This is confirmed saved to date records and certificate withdrawn for this purpose works. But painting was returned to the museum collections, should be checked in each case. However, the part of values ​​of illegally displaced able to rotate both in the fighting for the liberation of Soviet territory and the territory of Germany after its surrender. Since E. Denisova reasonably argues that the return of cultural property in general was spontaneous and unsystematic character, which led to difficulties in the identification number of documentary accounting losses and returned home values. This led to what is not included in the roster values ​​fell from occupied Germany to third countries, followed by their often-lost [4]. It should take into account the fact that not all illegally transferred and returned cultural values ​​preserved in museums and archives. Priceless artifacts can be found in private collections, because they purchased, usually at the famous auction world. Another problem is the fact that collectors do not always have the willingness to open their collections to inform them of the state. In this connection, not to mention the discovery in 2012 in private ownership Hurlita Cornelius in Munich, which was "a godsend century" and a renewed ignited debate about the origin of cultural objects. The impressive collection includes about 1,300 paintings by artists of classical modernism. Among them are works by Pablo Picasso, Marc Chagall, Pierre Auguste Renoir, Henri Matisse, Emil Nolde. Experts estimate the total cost of "findings century" more than 1 billion euros [5]. According to German experts several works from the collection Hurlita had a direct bearing on the disastrous consequences of the National Socialists. Increasingly heard accusations against German museums that they have any involvement in the sale of cultural property to descendants senior National Socialists. Rather than return the rightful owners artwork, Bavarian State Picture Gallery allegedly sold them the wife and daughter of Herman Goering. Note that this issue is complex and requires careful study, as well as some evidence for the purpose of committing such acts. Quite rare are the cases of displaced returning to Ukraine works of art, many decades in a row were considered lost forever. In this connection, not to mention the famous Ukrainian patron of our time - Alexander Feldman, which is one of the auctions redeemed at their own expense and returned the lost picture of the museum Bogdan and Varvara Khanenko. Picture of Cornelis Pulenburha "Arcadia landscape" was removed from the museum in August 1943 on the orders of the Nazi occupation authorities and along with many other works transported to Königsberg (now Kaliningrad, Russia). So until recently it was thought that this part of the collection was lost in a fire February 17, 1945 in the castle Vildenhoff near Konigsberg. However, in May 2011 about selling the Pulenburha Cornelis (Cornelis Poelenburch) "Arcadia landscape" (Utrecht, 1594 / 1595-1596 biennium. (Oil on wood)) appeared at a European auction. Alexander Feldman Fund financed all the costs necessary for the return to Ukraine. K. Pulenburha painting comes from the collection of the founders of the museum Bogdan and Varvara Khanenko. In pre-war painting exhibition "Arcadia landscape" occupied an important place as a reference work, signed authentic monogram of the artist. Cornelis Pulenburh was an international celebrity. In the 1620-1621 years. He worked in the service of Cosimo II de 'Medici - Grand Duke of Tuscany, and in 1637 received an invitation to London: English King Charles I ordered a series of paintings the artist himself. Ardent fan of the works of Karl was Pulenburha Utrecht art collector Baron Vincent Willem van Vittenhorst (1613-1674 gg.). To his great collection he acquired 60 works by the artist, among them - our "Arcadia landscape". This is shown by the red baron wax seal on the back of the painting. The work, which was able to return to the national treasury of art, a perfect model of the original Dutch genre painting - the so-called "Arcadia landscape". One of the founders of the genre was just Cornelis Pulenburh [6]. Note that in 1992 in the British Embassy warned Ukraine MFA of Ukraine on a large number of Ukrainian cultural values. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine in August 1992 received a note British Embassy in Kiev, which highlighted concerns about the sharp rise in the London market of art works number, illegally exported from Central and Eastern Europe. The UK government intends to do everything possible to prevent in its territory the development of trade in cultural property stolen from museums, collections, collections of other states. In this regard, the Embassy expressed wishes to receive from the relevant Ukrainian agencies and organizations detailed as possible with photos, descriptions of stolen cultural property in Ukraine. These descriptions were transmitted to members of the London market, which would identify stolen items. [7] Notably, February 15, 1993 was signed the intergovernmental agreement between Ukraine and Germany on cultural cooperation. The document was discussed, including the return to owners or their heirs lost or illegally exported cultural property. July 13, 1993 signed a bilateral protocol on issues of cultural values ​​that have been lost or illegally displaced during the Second World War and in subsequent years. The document called for the creation of the Intergovernmental Ukrainian-German committee on problems of return of cultural property, which included working groups had to act in museums, archives and libraries, as well as a search and refine information about displaced cultural property situated in the territory of the parties. There were provided specific mutual transfer of cultural goods. [8] During this period in the framework of bilateral cooperation in Ukraine gave the German side a number of cultural objects. Archaeological complex of 8 thousand. Pieces of ceramics and glassware that came from the ancient Germans sightseeing settlement-III. With funds Kiev Museum of Western and Oriental Art was transferred three albums with engravings of the eighteenth century to the Dresden Art Gallery. [9] From Germany to Ukraine were transferred during the war lost 83 items Chalcolithic period from the former Kherson historical and archaeological museum. It is the loss of the cultural heritage of the Ukrainian people that make up the whole layers of the national culture. The most important of return of cultural property from Ukraine to Germany are called "Bach Archive" Berlin Choral Academy, archival documents relating to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, several albums of lithographs and engravings of the eighteenth century. Collection of archaeological materials on the history of ancient settlements and Germans other values, drawing from Dresden "Veduta di Valmontone" George Augustus Frederick Lucas. The work of George Lucas belonged to a private person in Ukraine who proposed to submit it to the Embassy of Germany. Subsequently, the German experts were handed lists 248 books from the library "Rozarium" m. Zanherhauzen that after the war entered the Library of the National Botanic Garden of M. Grishko. [9] In April 2011 the Government of Germany to Ukraine presented his works of folk art - 210 Easter eggs and a old ceramic plate. They were removed from the Nazis Kyiv in autumn 1943 and German experts found in a museum in Bavaria. [10] Negotiations on the return of an object - it lasted, it often continues for years. Thus, for our country in solving problems in the field of tracing lost cultural property and works of art during the Second World War is very important to take into account European practice, a German experience of recent decades. First, the reasonable use has become a political and legal framework of the policy of national importance as the cause. It is, therefore, to review and make amendments to the Law on export, import and return of cultural values ​​that prevent the illegal import and export of cultural property, modeled on modern German law on the protection of cultural property, adopted July 31, 2016. Second, appropriate to create a profile of research institutions, whose task would be to identify, return alienated and displaced Ukrainian cultural values ​​and active renovation of the National Commission for the return to Ukraine of cultural values ​​at the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. In a sample of public institutions should take gained experience: Kulturgutschutz Koordinierungsstelle Magdeburg - Coordination Center for protection of cultural property in the city. Magdeburg (Germany). Research institutions would be able to make a perfect and most complete directory of displaced cultural values ​​of Ukraine. Thirdly, mandatory, the goal is to connect the museums of Ukraine to the Lost Art (lost art), taking into account the work of colleagues from Germany and taking into account innovative approaches museum Bogdan and Varvara Khanenko, which cooperates closely with foreign counterparts in the search, return protection and displaced preservation of cultural values. Without broad participation in such information search is difficult to conduct an active search for and identification of lost cultural property. Fourth, the level of state policy in this sphere should be translated search work with a wide range of private collections, which are known world auctions to sell their interests Ukrainian cultural heritage. By sight has come and moral side of things - even if international agreements do not affect the private sector, private collectors, art dealers, auction houses should not avoid responsibility. Fifth, in overcoming the consequences of National Socialism in the cultural sector and projects to repurchase and return of cultural heritage of Ukraine lost during the Second World War, we consider it appropriate to create a special state fund. The presence of such a fund, the widespread involvement in the growth of its business assets, sponsors make it possible compensation payments and accelerate the return to private collectors of national cultural values. Thus, the return of displaced cultural values of national importance has weight, it should take into account official level (if possible, with the involvement of top officials of the country and required experts). It is the capital, creating a positive image of the state, gives grounds for further fruitful cooperation in this area on a par with a wide range of partners. This policy will significantly accelerate overcoming the consequences of the Nazi rule of force, finally flipping page of the era.


1. The historian Sergei Kot in program of historical value. BBC Ukrainian. July 11, 2009. [electronic resource]. Access mode www.bbc.com/ukrainian/indepth/story/2009/07/090711_kot interactive_is.shtml

2. Ulrike Hartung Verschleppt und verschollen. Eine Dokumentation deutscher, sowjetischer und amerikanischer Akten zum Kunstraub in der Sowjetunion (1941-1948). Kultur und Gesellschaft im östlichen Europa. Hardcover. Edition Temmen. 1. Jan. 2000. - S. 37-38.

3. Alexander Freiherr von Reitzenstein Itinerar durch Krieg und Kunst (1940-1948) [Tilmann Breuer] Privatdr. X. - S. 60-61.

4. Eugeniya Denisova. Legal basis for the restitution of cultural objects displaced during and after the Second World War // Bulletin of the University of MGIMO. - Vol. Number 1 / 2012. - P. 281-287.

5. V. Soloshenko Research on the origin of lost cultural values ​​(the experience of Germany). /V.V. Soloshenko // Proceedings of the Faculty of History Zaporizhzhya National University. - Zaporozhye: News, 2015, no. 44, Volume 2. - C.140-143 ..

6. The National Museum of Art named after Bogdan and Varvara Khanenko. Picture Cornelis Pulenberha "Arcadia landscape."

7. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. Letter №9 / 37-13110 from 06.08.1992. On the note of the British Embassy in Ukraine. Fund №1., Description 4, conjugation. № 6932 . - Arc. 72-73.

8. History and Archives Department, MFA of Ukraine. F. "International treaties of Ukraine on a bilateral and multilateral basis." Agreement between the Government of Ukraine and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany on cultural cooperation. - № 236 of 15 February 1993. - Arc. 1 .;  Coloshenko V. Ukrainian-German relations in the 90 years of XX century. The thesis for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. Specialty 07.00.02 - World History. - K .: 2005. - S. 149-153.

9. S. Cote Ukrainian-German relations on the return and restitution of cultural property (1991-2012rr.). / C. Cote // International Relations of Ukraine: Scientific Search and Findings. - 2012. - Vol. 21 - P. 165, 175.

10. E. Solonyna Ukrainian pysanky returned from Germany / are. Salt [electronic resource]. Access: www.radiosvoboda.org/a/3554073.html


Twilight uncertainty: Brexit and its consequences

Sergiy Tolstov


The 2016 referendum on the question whether the UK should leave or remain in the European Union resulted in a "limbo" status of this country, at least for the next two years. The expected termination of the UK membership in the EU indicates a serious crisis of the European integration project and leads to significant changes in its further evolution. However, the rebalancing within the EU and strengthening the role of Germany and France in decision-making provide opportunities for deeper integration in monetary, financial, political and security spheres. The joint Franco-German plans stipulate the development of a "two-tier model" of relations within the Union, which will be rejoined by a less integrated outer peripheral area enveloped by the neighbourhood and association ties.Keywords: integration, subsidiarity, monetary union, political union, security, referendum, the EU. Before the financial crisis in 2008 as a project of European integration managed to avoid significant disruptions and failures. Naturally, not all the intentions of European politicians and theorists integration implemented quickly and effectively. However, each next stage of integration of European politicians tried to fit reasonably in advance formulating objectives and carefully planning the necessary arrangements, determining their sequence and tentative deadlines. British referendum June 23, 2016 was the wake-up call that showed growing discontent of significant sections of the population of European countries steady flow of power to the executive to the EU institutions. In British referendum results clearly reflected the growing influence of France and Germany as absolute leaders of the euro area, increasing the number of labor migrants from Central and Eastern Europe and the other known factors, such as migration crisis and terrorist threat. However, generally due to the coincidence of various circumstances, the EU has developed specific situation that promotes more active search for further scenarios of reforming the European institutions and strengthening mechanisms of political community. Losing David CameronD. Cameron - British Prime Minister in the 2010-2016 - came to power with an ambitious plan to increase the political autonomy of the UK within the EU and to protect British sovereignty from attacks by Brussels bureaucrats. In January 2013 Cameron promised that if a convincing victory of the Conservative Party in the next parliamentary elections in 2015, he will hold talks with the European Commission of a special status in the European integration groupings and initiate a national referendum on EU membership. Convincingly winning the elections, Prime ambitious positioned himself as a supporter of British membership of the EU, but sought to negotiate a more favorable conditions in the country in the Union than those that are volunteered their time of Margaret Thatcher. In talks with European Council President D. Tusk and European Commission President J.-C.Juncker D.Cameron Government agreed special, preferential, terms of British membership. The deal, approved at the EU summit on 18-19 February 2016, provided that the Kingdom "will never join the euro zone." British companies which are payments in Pounds Sterling, enjoy the right to conduct operations under the same conditions as the companies that work with the euro and the British taxpayers have to pay fees to support the euro and related assets. The economic policies of EU countries outside the euro area, should determine national institutions such as the Bank of England. The British government has agreed to use seven-year moratorium on social assistance for new migrants from continental EU countries, as well as restrictions in benefits for children of immigrants who remained in their homeland. Social benefits for children of migrants were on the continent, had adjusted depending on the living wage in their countries. A separate point agreement provided for the right of Britain to avoid obligations associated with the creation of a political union ("all closer union among the peoples of Europe"). To this end, the European Council specifically reaffirmed the principle of subsidiarity, according to which decisions should be made at a level as close to citizens with regard to national, regional and local opportunities and exclusive powers of the Union apply where its capabilities more effective than the competence of the authorities lower levels. It was confirmed and the British Parliament the right to reject European laws. In interpreting of D. Cameron key principle of EU boiled down to the fact that "Europe has, where necessary, national authorities and - where possible" which completely denied plans to create a European federalist superstate. And while other European leaders were kept from public view promises founding treaties in favor of the requirements of the British government, David Cameron argued that such provisions already approved, and hinted at the desire of negotiations aimed at strengthening British sovereignty. Assessing compromise, it is important to note that encased agreement had to acquire legally binding character, but only if a positive outcome of the referendum on UK membership in the EU. In terms of the British government "special status" to ensure the country had significant benefits in financial and economic field. Along with participation in the European common market and the ability to use free trade agreements and economic preferences from more than 50 countries allow a compromise to strengthen the capacity of London's financial, stock and investment center and granted considerable autonomy in migration, monetary and social policies. At some point even thought that London will play an active role in the development of European reforms in the fields of competition, social policy and economic regulation. However, the will of British citizens on June 23 dashed transactions, causing a significant crisis in the European project and resulted in "suspended" status in the UK at least the next two years. Answering the question "Does the United Kingdom to remain in the European Union, whether it should withdraw from the EU?", the majority of participants supported secession from the community (51.9% vs. 48.1%). With the suspension of EU membership voted 17 million 410 thousand 742 people, and the continuation of membership - 16 million 141 thousand 241 people for a record turnout at 72.2%. New British context Among the obvious consequences of the British referendum should be noted a significant decrease in the value of sterling (course falling to a minimum of thirty), depreciation of the euro and a temporary decline in the quotations on the stock exchanges. However, the main consequences of the referendum will be mostly political significance. Brexit outlined a number of challenges for the world economy and European integration project. For most UK Brexit can turn decrease economic indicators (in the worst case - a reduction of 15% of GDP or 300 billion pounds) and even threatened the collapse of the United Kingdom (in case another attempt separation Scotland). However, the declared withdrawal from the EU will be facilitated non-participation of the country in the Eurozone and the Schengen agreement providing for the free visa-free travel of citizens across the internal borders of the Union. So far, the question remains about the British contribution to the EU budget, which is around 11.3 billion euros per year. In 2014 this contribution amounted to 8.3% of annual EU budget (135.5 Billion euros). Larger contributions paid only Germany (25.8 billion), France (19.6 billion) and Italy (14.3 billion). In 2015 the British contribution was 15.59 billion euros, and grants from the EU budget -7.25 billion euros. It should be noted that the formal results of the referendum did not require British government to action, although London has abandoned the next EU presidency in the second half of 2017 If the situation in the country has changed and if the Prime Minister retained control of the majority in parliament the government could potentially try not to take into account the results of voting on June 23. To start out with the EU, the British government has applied Article 50 of the EC Treaty. Only then can begin the practical implementation of Article 218 (3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which regulates the process of leaving the Union.28 June the European Parliament approved a resolution calling immediately start the release of the UK and the EU and imposing an obligation to conduct appropriate negotiations at the European Commission. The content of this specification is that member governments would reveal more leniency and ease out of Britain than the members of the Commission as a collective executive authority. This approach is consistent with the position of the Government of Germany. After the EU summit on 27-29 June 2016 Merkel reiterated the request to the British government as soon as possible to declare its intention to exit from the EU would launch formal negotiations, since Article 50 of the EC Treaty defines "single release due process." The British government "has the intention to declare the country to leave the EU, and we hope that this will happen as soon as possible." Merkel warned that the official announcement of the decision in London to withdraw from the EU conducted any formal negotiations will not. European Commission President J.-C. Juncker expressed the same position. However, in British political circles are not visible confidence on further steps. D. Cameron thought the idea of ​​a referendum means of political pressure on Brussels and even on the eve of the vote would be excluded from the government of ministers who opposed EU membership. Among the 331 MP House of Commons from the Conservative Party to the Eurosceptic group includes about 50 people. Supporters of EU membership is dominated in both houses of parliament and among deputies of the House of Commons includes the 480 deputies out of 650. Thus, in terms of political expediency referendum results clearly created a problem for the ruling party retained power only through the use of strict discipline. Significantly, the J. Cameron intends to remain as prime minister until October, but under pressure from European leaders had before parliamentary recess to resign. New prime minister and leader of the Conservative Party became Theresa May, the home secretary in the government of D. Cameron, Conservative MP elected in unopposed. It was her office, consisting of opponents of EU membership, will have to start the withdrawal from the Union. Thus T. Mae try to avoid making its approval in parliament. This primarily refers to the official cancellation of the European Communities Act 1972, under which the then government applied for EU membership. Instead, the leaders of the Labor Party - the main opposition party - say that since the June referendum had recommendation, the House of Commons must always approve the application of Art. 50 of the EC Treaty, without which the government has no right to start negotiations with Brussels. With the support of the Labor Party is preparing for October filing a lawsuit on the illegality of the procedure withdrawal from the EU without the abolition of the said Act of the European Communities. So, apart from the suspended status, economic and political difficulties, the United Kingdom may suffer acute constitutional crisis. In addition, despite visits to Berlin and Paris and preliminary soundings situation in other European capitals, T. Mae does not hurry with the adoption of final decisions. Despite its veneer of determination, prime minister did not even know how long Britain will retain access to the common European market [1] Observers note in this regard that the problem is complicated, the application looks referendum to solve it. Therefore, now no one can definitely predict what will happen over the next three years. However, according to economists Brexit cause difficulties for Britain and the EU, albeit to varying degrees. Purely political context of a change of government and uncertainty of future scenarios threaten a major political crisis in the United Kingdom, including the likelihood of early parliamentary elections. In the case of Britain, the EU can once again actualize the problem of the independence of Scotland, the majority of which voted for staying in the EU, and the question of identity and status of Northern Ireland, which is subsidized regions. The impact on European processesExit the UK from EU will require significant changes, but will not be a disaster for the European project. The procedure for withdrawal from the EU can be very long. Procedure sides very superficially governed by the provisions of the EU Treaty and the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU (Lisbon version in force since 2009). Treaties provides that in the next two years London has to negotiate with each of the EU countries' separate terms of coexistence." For a number of signs guiding the EU institutions would like to make a break with Britain the most difficult and painful for the latter. This approach is clearly contrary to the economic interests of the parties, but should serve as a warning to those European politicians of different orientation, lobbying for secession from the Union. In the expert community there is a perception that the "final divorce" Britain and the EU will take place only after two or three years. However, the European institutions strongly demanded D. Cameron, and now - T. Mae as soon as possible to apply art. 50 of the EC Treaty, which will begin negotiations to withdraw the UK from the Union. The leaders of Germany and France stressed that they do not want to be drawn into months and years of controversy status wire Kingdom and European Commission President J.-C. Juncker pathetically reminded that "withdrawal means out." Many European politicians have called up the British referendum bad news. Austrian Foreign Minister S. Kurtz compared the results of a referendum on a "political earthquake." In these circumstances, Europe needs immediate change to become something more than "EU minus Great Britain." Eurogroup Chairman E. Deysselblum said that the main thing now - to keep the stability of the Eurozone. Among the obvious consequences of a British referendum for the EU are the following:- EU appears to need to address structural and institutional contradictions that block political and economic control of the conglomerate and administrative institutions that shape the current complex and asymmetric confederal-type groups;- The EU will have to review the budget and the internal rules of engagement and to seek ways to overcome the crisis tendencies institutional nature;- Supporters EU try to activate the mechanisms of integration in the monetary and financial sectors;- The leaders of Germany and France tend to use the moment to return to the ideas of federalism, including the strengthening of the euro area and the creation of European security mechanisms. In political terms, in the EU marked a significant strengthening of influence of Germany. The main element of the internal decision-making once again becoming a European "big three" (Germany, France, Italy), which will increase the manageability within the association. It is realistic implementation model of "two-speed union" in which "core" system will dictate the rules and standards of the countries of the periphery. Promoting policy harmonization and cohesion, the state leaders of the European project actively trying to deny a number of EU countries keep stipulated in the memorandum of autonomy in certain matters to them are essential. Given the expected change of administration in Washington talks between the US and the EU agreement on transatlantic trade and investment partnership will definitely postponed, and political influence on US policy governing institutions and leading EU countries will inevitably shrink. Example Britain Eurosceptic right and inspires other EU countries to try to shake the unity of the Union. French leader of the party "National Front" M. Le Pen has called for a similar referendum in France. With a similar statement was made by the leader of the Dutch right "Freedom Party" G. Wilders. The tension between Germany and France - on the one hand, and the Visegrad countries - the other, assume the character of a sustainable trend. However, in this group marked internal differences. In contrast, the Polish government, which makes security a unique bid to strengthen the eastern flank of NATO heads of governments of Hungary and Bohemia loyal accepted the Franco-German plan "Strong Europe in a dangerous world" in terms of a common European army [2]. Approaching deadlines next elections in Germany and France, along with Britain phasing out participation in the governing institutions of the EU, Berlin and Paris was forced to hurry up with the movement of the joint project of reforms related to political union, security, integrated migration policy, monetary union and fiscal policies. In a joint plan "Strong Europe in a dangerous world," prepared by the Foreign Ministers of these countries to meet F.-V. Steinmeier heads of foreign offices of the Visegrad Group (27 June 2016) contains clear focus on strengthening solidarity and cohesion of the community. Key priorities relating to the development of "common security and defense policy", which should be the basis of "Global Strategy for Foreign and Security Policy of the EU" as the official doctrine of foreign policy. Integration should be extended to areas such as analysis and understanding of security interests, exchange of information, support for security in neighboring regions, more "flexible and strong" EU participation in resolving the crisis, and the introduction of annual safety within the European Council. Under this plan step by step, the EU should turn into "an independent global player with its own foreign and security policy", able to plan and carry out civilian and military operations, with the co-financed forces of high alert. In matters of monetary union proposed to establish a European Monetary Fund and position of permanent president of the Eurogroup, accountable separate parliamentary body composed of members of the European Parliament and national parliaments. The new institution is to assume authority on all matters relating to the budget and macroeconomic monitoring [3]. In this sense, revealing the position of the Polish government concerning a Franco-German plan, and the prospects for negotiations between the EU and the British Government. Minister of National Defence of Poland A. Matserevych criticized the German-French initiative for the lack of mention of NATO and focus on protection from possible threats from the south, not east. In turn, a spokesman for Polish President M. Maherovskyy suggested that because the EU attempts to create a superpower, the people of Great Britain decided to say Europe "no" [4]. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Poland B. Vaschykovskoho, today no one has the intention to create a superstate, but is trying to make a "special zone within the EU on the basis of the euro area." Realizing that the British government seemed to hold Europe hostage, the minister realistically describes the problems related to divorce the EU and Britain. V.Vaschykovskyy rightly observed that Brexit not yet begun because "Britain is not initiated any formal steps to withdraw from the EU." He said the process when it starts, will be on three levels, including:- UK release process with the EU;- Negotiations on the future status of the UK in the EU (of relations with the EU, as Britain, "even if the EU will remain a European country which is closely related to individual institutions, including NATO";- EU reform process. "At least so says Poland and many other countries" because we can not say that Brexit, if it actually happens, it is only and exclusively whim British. "It is also a mistake of the EU, which" allowed himself to lose such member as the UK, state that is the second largest economy in Europe and fifth in the world, a nuclear power with a nuclear arsenal and a member of the Security Council. However, if the EU for years thinking about how to take Turkey, Ukraine or accepting other countries such as the Baltic States, and at the same time such a serious losing its members as the UK, the European Union is wrong. Therefore, in parallel should think about how to reform the EU" [5]. New trends in the EU directly influence the situation in Ukraine. Ukrainian issues remain on the agenda, but fades into the background. Security issues in Eastern Europe raised at NATO level of competence in line with the decisions of the Warsaw Summit.In the foreseeable future the internal problems will be a priority for the EU nature rather than external. Although the governments of France, Germany and other countries to actively seek the establishment euro army, soon to lack of resources and institutional capacity. EU enlargement to the Western Balkans (Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Albania) will be significantly slowed. Sanctions on Russia to continue the second half of 2016, but in October J.-C. Juncker has promised to conduct extensive internal discussion about the relationship between the EU and Russia. "Global Strategy" of the EU system and requires a joint response to the "strategic challenge" from Moscow. But without the United Kingdom in prioritizing attitudes towards reconciliation with Moscow will push European policymakers to freeze the conflict in the Donbass. Despite opposition from Poland, German business continues to insist on the project pipeline "Nord Stream-2". There softening position on the European Commission and the Russian bypass projects related to "southern energy corridor." Providing the citizens of Ukraine and Georgia visa-free regime for short trips Schengen accompanied proprietary and procedural limitations. Since the Council decided to introduce visa-free regime without signing an additional agreement, its action can be paused or canceled unilaterally. Options of developing situationT. Mae announced that her government will not make attempts to leave the United Kingdom as part of the EU or to join it again, and it does not provide for new parliamentary elections by 2020. His main aim T. Mae sees combined access to the common market of the restriction of the flow of immigrants and rights of citizens from EU countries to live and work in the UK. Based on the initial conditions can provide two basic scenarios for further developments. Regardless of whether Parliament will support the UK TV program May and the beginning of the procedure Brexit (application of Art. 50 of the EC Treaty and negotiations with the European Commission), technical negotiations will lead the Foreign Ministry and specially created department of the British government. British Prime Minister has informed the European Council, made up of heads of state and governments of 27 member states, the United Kingdom intends to withdraw from the EU. In negotiations given 2 years. This period may be extended (by agreement of all 27 member states of the Union), but it is unlikely that this will happen when consider the position of the Government of Germany and the leadership of the European Commission. The result of the negotiations will be the draft agreement, which must reconcile the British government and "supermajority" of 27 EU member states. If approved the draft agreement will not be conditions of economic relations between the United Kingdom and general provisions of World Trade Organization will govern the EU. From 1 November 2014 qualified majority voting in the EU Council considered the votes of at least 55% of representatives of the Member States (15 countries) representing at least 65% of the population of the Union. The Commission expressed its intention to alleviate the status of resident British citizens living in other EU countries, but remains questionable on the protection of EU citizens who live and work in Britain because their rights were still protected only the norms of European law. In this respect, London is trying to start a backstage bargaining and offering to settle issues on the terms agreed D. Cameron and D. Tusk in February 2016. In addition to the rights to residence and movement of the UK and EU countries the main sections of the future agreement must relate to terms of trade, movement of capital and services between the United Kingdom and the EU, and the implementation of WTO rules and terms of trade with over 50 countries with which the EU has concluded free trade agreements or preferential trade relations. It seems that European governing institutions are not willing to give the British government a significant period of the preparatory procedure and preliminary consultations with key partners within and outside the EU. Meanwhile, US President Barack Obama has warned European leaders, including Merkel, the desire of the US administration to ensure the UK "orderly exit." Within the scenario described variable and unpredictable factors relating to possible attempts by the government and parliament of Scotland separate from England, as well as aggravation of relations with London, Berlin and Paris. In this case, the Italian Government expressed the hope that the British government still refuses to exit from the EU. Conditions for the second scenario can occur if the British Parliament denies a country from the EU. At least the referendum on June 23, most members of the British Parliament did not support the idea Brexit. In these circumstances, there is the prospect of early parliamentary elections and even second referendum (after the early parliamentary elections or the stage before signing the agreement on withdrawal from the EU). This perspective can be activated in the event of a split in the ruling conservative party that the government can do to rid T. May parliamentary support. And, finally, an intermediate scenario assumes that the cabinet T. May be able to save enough support in parliament. Such a government will have to negotiate the release of the UK and the EU, but certainly meets an attempt separation of Scotland and the exacerbation of the internal crisis in preparation for the signing of the said agreement. Then, probably in the 2018-2019, political strife can cause early elections and a possible rise to power of pro-European Labor Party or the coalition of pro-European parties. Under such circumstances, despite the completion of negotiations on the exit of Britain from the EU, the new government will try to bring out a draft agreement on a new EU referendum, of course, if this is the unofficial accord of the governments of Germany, France and Italy. However, until this time the governments of Germany, France and the leadership of the European Commission did not take any steps that could ease the British ruling circles rejection of the implementation of the referendum results. This clearly demonstrates the clear intent of the dominant group in the governing institutions of the EU to exploit the situation in order to strengthen federalist tendencies in the formation and functioning of the European institutions.


1. Thaler R. Britain pays the price for a badly designed Brexit choice // The Financial Times. - 2016. - August 17.

2. Pietruszka R. Premieres of Hungary and the Czech Republic advocated the creation of a common European army / Polskie Radio. 08/26/2016. Access Mode: www.radiopolsha.pl/6/137/Artykul/268209

3. Rachoń M. NASZ NEWS: Superpaństwo zamiast UE - ultimatum Francji i Niemiec / TVP Info. 27.06.2016. Режим доступу: www.tvp.info/25939371/nasz-nes-superpanstwo-zamiast-unii-europejskiej--ultimatum-francji-i-niemiec

4. Tanasiichuk O., Sushchenko R., J. Banakhevych "European superstate" scheme Merkel-Hollande. What frightened Poles? / UKRINFORM. 07/05/2016. Access: www.ukrinform.ua/rubric-<wbr>abroad/2044453-evropejska-<wbr>nadderzava-za-shemou-<wbr>merkelollanda-so-nalakalo-<wbr>polakiv.html

5. Kusiński W. Що чекає Євросоюз після виходу з нього Великобританії? / Polish Radio. 23.08.2016. Режим доступу: www.polradio.pl/5/39/Artykul/<wbr>267753

Ukraine's foreign policy at the turn of the millennium (Inside view)

Dmytro Tkach


The foreign policy of Ukraine in 1998 - 2000, when Borys I. Tarasiuk was the Minister, is analyzed in this article. The main directions of transformational change of the Ministry activity that allowed in the short term to make its performance more efficient and result-oriented are defined. The author analyzes in detail the reorganization of Ministry, implementation of electronic document flow, introduction of fundamental changes in recruitment and placement of staff.The characteristic of Minister Borys I. Tarasiuk activity at this position is given, the strengths of his work that became the basis of achievements of Ukraine in the field of foreign policy during this period are highlighted.Keywords: Ukraine, foreign policy, Borys I. Tarasiuk, the structure of the Ministry, e-governance, human resources management. The Foreign Ministry in any country is authorized by the president or government to carry out foreign policy. From an efficient, professional, teamwork diplomatic department of the country largely depends on its success in the international arena. Ukraine in the days of the USSR had its Foreign Ministry, but Ukrainian diplomats of that period were unable to act independently and had to take instructions from Moscow, strictly following the guidelines of the Soviet capital. Gaining independence of Ukraine required immediate transformation of the then Foreign Minister Foreign Ministry in full, which would correspond to international standards. Unfortunately, in the early post-Soviet years and lacked professional staff and funds. I recall that at that time the Foreign Ministry had about 60 diplomats. With the backbone of experienced professionals in the field of multilateral diplomacy, few had experience of bilateral diplomacy.So when in 1991 it is time to build embassies in foreign countries, there are many problems. This writer, at the request of then-First Deputy Foreign Minister, MP Makarevich held a seminar-colloquium with heads of departments of the Ministry, the main theme of which was just bilateral diplomacy. One and a half hour was lecture and one and a half hours to answer questions. By the way, all the participants of the meeting then represented Ukraine abroad. Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Anatoliy Zlenko led the first steps of an independent Ukrainian diplomacy. The next head of the Foreign Ministry of Ukraine in August 1994 was an outstanding Ukrainian diplomat G. Udovenko. Gennady Osipovich in the 1985-1992 worked in the Permanent Representative Office of Ukraine to the United Nations ( New York), from September 1992 to August 1994 - Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador of Ukraine in Poland. August 25, 1994 Gennady Udovenko was appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine. In 1997, he was elected President of the 52nd session of the UN General Assembly (September 1997-September 1998). He represented Ukraine at numerous conferences and sessions of the UN and other international organizations. Chaired the meetings of the UN General Assembly, Security Council, Economic and Social Council of the UN. He was Chairman of the Special Political and Economic Committees of the General Assembly. G. Udovenko was foreign policy strategist, thought for years to come, was known as a diplomat in the international community, its respected colleagues and even enemies of our country. He was a workaholic, working each day to night, and came to work early in the morning. But there were flaws in his work - namely, it is the lion's share of took over, and the device was removed from the Ministry of the strategic objectives, working in the current job. In April 1998, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine became a B.Tarasyuk, who faced the task to completely redesign a job Foreign Minister, to ensure the work of Ukrainian diplomats as a team. From the first days of work on a new position, B. Tarasyuk outlined the main directions of foreign policy service of Ukraine, namely:- Euro-Atlantic and European integration of Ukraine. Just recall that in June 11, 1998 President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma approved the Strategy of Ukraine's integration into the EU, which were priorities of the executive authorities for the period until 2007, during which had to be created prerequisites for Ukraine to become an associate member of the EU [1]. As for the North Union, here the main document was the Charter on a Distinctive Partnership between NATO and Ukraine developed with the active participation B. Tarasyuk and signed at the Madrid Summit of July 9, 1997 [2];- Active promotion of the interests of Ukraine in leading international organizations: UN, CoE, OSCE;- Strengthening the strategic partnership with the US and Russia;- The development of mutually beneficial relations with neighboring countries and the world;- The protection of the rights and interests of citizens and legal entities of Ukraine abroad;- Promote the development of relations with foreign Ukrainian communities and providing support for these communities.For this purpose, it was necessary to restructure the ministry, which was formed spontaneously in the early years of independence of Ukraine. At that time, the MFA worked the first two and four deputy ministers. Each kuruvav certain management and departments. The problem was is that when the manager went on a mission; his unit could not put signature on important documents, and among them were urgent, demanding the immediate response of the Centre. Given this, it was decided to work for the Ministry of block principle, which included two leaders of the deputy ministers in each block. Thus, if one of the trip leaders, the other had the authority to carry out its functions. There were established three major components:- Euro Atlantic bloc and economic cooperation;- Political and legal bloc;- Administrative and financial bloc. Block Euro-Atlantic integration and economic cooperation led by the first deputy E. Bersheda and Deputy A.Orel, and it included the following units:- Department for Economic and Scientific Cooperation .On it was the task of economization of Ukrainian foreign policy. This control is not only responsible for bilateral economic relations between Ukraine, but also about cooperation with international economic organizations like the World Bank and IMF engaged in international assistance in the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster.- Department of the European Union. It was created in 1998 on the initiative of B. Tarasyuk and his appearance showed itself prioritize relations with the EU. Management had to coordinate all government agencies Ukraine and the EU. Another major set of issues - political relations with the EU, which had priority.- Department of Euro-Atlantic cooperation. Also created in 1998 on the initiative of the minister. Its jurisdiction included the issue of relations on the one hand, the military and political institutions - such as NATO and the Western European Union, on the other - with multilateral European institutions as the Council of Europe and OSCE. Accordingly, management is working closely with the Permanent Mission of Ukraine these organizations. Employees of this department regularly were part of official delegations to these talks with the international community, working closely with the secretariat of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the factions and the relevant parliamentary committees.- Second Territorial Department. Responsible for bilateral relations with the countries of Western and Northern Europe. In 1998, the educated. Because of a huge section on the core expertise of the Office of Europe and America.- Department of International Organizations. This is one of the few structural units of the Foreign Ministry, which remained ever since SSR. His main task was to organize Ukraine's cooperation within the United Nations and other international organizations. Diplomats management were great job of preparing the participation of Ukrainian delegations in the work of the UN in the first place, the UNGA and other important international forums, providing the necessary assistance to Ukraine Mission to the UN and other missions to international organizations.- Department of State Protocol. It is also one of the oldest departments of the Ministry. Its jurisdiction included the issue of leadership visits abroad and receiving foreign guests a high level in Ukraine, support for ties with foreign diplomatic missions in Ukraine.- Historical and Archival Department. It collected, documented and preserved documents of Ukraine's foreign policy - both those that acted with the central office, and those sent by foreign institutions.- Fourth territorial department. Also launched at the initiative of the new minister in 1998. Its jurisdiction included North and South America. Of course, first of all they talked about relations with the US and Canada. First Deputy Minister O. Chaly and A. Maidannyk led political and legal bloc. It includes:- Department of Policy Analysis and Planning. It was established in 1991 and its first director was Boris Tarasyuk. He made traditionally the most experienced and creative diplomats who were engaged in the analysis of foreign policy of the country, both current and future, made suggestions for further steps Ukraine in international relations.- Legal department is also very important department of the Ministry. No agreement that Ukraine prepared multilateral or bilateral level, can not be concluded without the consent of this department. After signing the documents kept in the archives of the Office.- Arms Control and Military-Technical Cooperation. This is the most closed of the Ministry and clandestine manner. There were diplomats with a special military-technical training and diplomats with experience in the field of arms control and disarmament. In the division of competence were the issues of nuclear disarmament, adherence to non-proliferation, arms control and implementation of international treaties in this field.- The first territorial department. Management engaged in relations with most CIS countries, primarily Russia, and participant of Ukraine in the work of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Activity B. Tarasyuk and that gave special attention, realizing that the relations with Russia and other NIS play a very important role in the foreign policy of Ukraine.- Department of Information. It was in the old structure, but before it was put to a new task - to engage in the formation of positive image of Ukraine in the world. First of all, it was a gain in this area of ​​diplomatic missions, providing them with relevant information on key issues of foreign policy of the country. It is also important was the work of analyzing information messages foreign institutions, especially those relating to Ukraine.- Consular department. Before this administration, whose functions remain the same, has been tasked to provide consular offices abroad care about the needs of Ukrainian individuals and legal entities. From the fact that every citizen of Ukraine knew that if necessary it will always protect Ukrainian state.- Five territorial administration. Management engaged in relations with the countries of Asia, Africa, the Middle East and the Pacific. It was also tasked to intensify economic diplomacy, the use of the region for the promotion of Ukrainian goods and services. Foreign Minister journal "Politics and the time" also was in this department. Administrative-financial bloc led by Deputy Minister P.Sardachuk D.Tkach. It includes:- General Secretariat with the status management. The unit received and sent tens of thousands of documents from the ministries and departments of Ukraine and from abroad, from our and foreign diplomatic missions, appeals of Ukrainian and foreign individuals and legal entities. It also was set ambitious goal to put all the paperwork in a modern, computer based, introduced in Ukraine first experience of e-government at ministerial level.- Third Territorial Administration. The competence unit included bilateral relations with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucasus. They were and still are extremely important regions of Ukraine.- Department of Human Resources and educational institutions. Office, which was responsible for the selection, training and placement. Before this unit was tasked to make transparent appointment of diplomatic and administrative-technical personnel to support this ministry heads of departments by creating competitive commissions of open competitions for positions.- Department of organizational and technical support. First, there was a problem of computerization of the ministry. This problem was caused by time, every diplomat had to master personal computer, the Internet and have to navigate in today's Internet field.- Central Accounting. This unit ensures internal finance ministry.- Monetary and financial management. Management engaged in monetary and financial support of foreign diplomatic missions of Ukraine.- Administrative Department. Management provided administrative work of the ministry.- Department of diplomatic missions. This unit ensures the needs of foreign diplomatic and consular service of Ukraine.In addition, the administrative bloc includes Diplomatic Academy of Ukraine and MFA representative in Crimea, Odessa and Uzhgorod. The new structure led to the ministries work as transparent and understandable. The new units provide the European and Euro-Atlantic goals of Ukraine's foreign policy.In the period of 1998-2000 Ukraine has sought to play the role of a regional leader. Just to mention a few significant events that were supplied Ukrainian diplomacy:- June 5, 1998 in the city. Yalta summit hosted heads of state and government of Azerbaijan, Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, Greece, Georgia, Moldova, Russia, Romania, Turkey and Ukraine. This forum was created Organization of Black Sea Economic Cooperation [3];- 14-15 May 1999 in Lviv was VI Summit of Presidents of Central and Eastern Europe, which has become a landmark in the modern history of Ukraine. Leaders of the eight CEE countries have focused on the theme "The human dimension of the European and regional integration and its role in building a new Europe" [4];- In September 1999 in Yalta, held a summit of Baltic and Black Sea Cooperation "in an integrated Europe XXI century - without dividing lines." This international forum were the heads of 22 of the Baltic and Black Sea countries [5];- October 1999: in Livadia Palace was held a summit of heads of governments of CIS [6.S.211]. From the first steps of the post of Foreign Minister of Ukraine B. Tarasyuk relevant services to set the task of reforming the payment of workers diplomatic missions abroad. The fact is that the previous management took as a basis the Soviet system of labor. This salary trips abroad paid in the Ukrainian national currency in the Foreign Ministry and the funds abroad paid as compensation for being in the country of accreditation. It was assumed that pay the rent, operate machinery, medical insurance paid the diplomatic mission. The Minister proposed revolutionary changes. First, to provide funds for the maintenance staff of diplomatic missions abroad, taking into account living expenses, including payment for an apartment, operating machinery, medical insurance. Second, using data from the UN Secretariat, biennially index funds for the maintenance staff of diplomatic missions abroad. Third, pay money for child support up to seven years. Fourth, to pay 15% of the content in countries where hostilities are being held or civil conflict. Fifth, to pay 20% of the maintenance of its ambassador's wife / husband for the implementation of protocol functions and loss of earnings in Ukraine. All these proposals, except the first, were supported by the Ministry of Finance and approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. Incidentally, these rules are funding this day. The next problem that urgently need to be solved is to provide compact accommodation units in the ministry building on St. Michael's Square. Over the years in the Foreign Ministry office in this building departments were scattered around the room. For example, monetary and financial management located on five floors, which hampered production. This seemingly simple task, it is difficult to perform. What convinced from experience this writer while optimizing the use of the premises of the Ministry, which was entrusted to him minister. Another area that was under special control Borys Tarasyuk, - introduction of computer technology. In March 2000 the Foreign Ministry presented its own website, created by means of UN Development Programme (UNDP) pilot project "Capacity Building Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine." The next task is concerned with restoring order document. Started from the fact that the head of the general secretariat appointed an experienced diplomat Anna Karmadonova. We understood that to solve this extremely complex problem to apply e-government opportunities. We managed to find specialists in AR technology, which agreed to establish an electronic workflow ministry. Company "Geos-Inform" and "Interactive Systems" have agreed to establish a computer network and "system of electronic document Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine." But while the Internet in Ukraine infancy and for communication between computers was necessary to mount dozens of kilometers of cables. The problem was money. We had to find significant funds for this project. We appealed to the leadership asking UNDP to fund the development and implementation of electronic document MFA. These funds were allocated. Within three months developed a corresponding computer program and carried out all the necessary work on its implementation in practice. January 4, 2000 was launched "Electronic document Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine." Since the work was organized on a "client-server", decreased need for financial expenditures for the implementation of the system and increasing the number of places on the web. It also made it possible to simultaneously work on the large number of users without slowing down the processing of the database. The system made it possible to significantly speed up and standardize the methods of processing documents created conditions for the effective control of their use, fast access to information resources, accumulating the help of databases has proven effective in passing documents and their processing units in the MFA. Especially useful is the use SHM technologies for statistical data, alternative methods of searching for documents, implementing control functions. The system made it possible to quickly locate the document and artists at different stages of its passage. Another positive feature of the system was lability - the possibility for amendments and improvements without interrupting its operation. The successful use of the Foreign Ministry gave reason to schedule the introduction of "electronic document management systems" in foreign missions in 2001 [7]. It was the first in Ukraine introduced at the ministry level, e-government program. The topic on the Ukrainian government was on the agenda only after ten years. Special programs were compiled for accounting, personnel, accounting and control over the activities of ministries and foreign missions, created and actively used search engine "Interdok" to use the ministry database. The implementation of these programs require appropriate training diplomatic and administrative and technical staff of the Foreign Ministry. To this end, created special computer literacy courses, which trained hundreds of employees of the department. Effective implementation of the important tasks set before the Ministry of the President of Ukraine, demanding deliberate work of selection, training and appointment of diplomatic personnel. Minister initiated the creation of two commissions of personnel: the selection of the diplomatic staff, administrative and technical staff. And the work of the commissions was organized in such a way that initially were considered candidates from the central office, and then held open competitions, which could take any citizen of Ukraine. The corresponding message calls for the website of the Foreign Ministry. This system exclude corruption in appointments, made transparent system of recruitment. It should be noted about the style and methods of work of Foreign Minister B.Tarasyuk. Boris was very demanding of himself and demanded the same from all employees of the Ministry. During his weekly meeting held management, where deputy ministers, heads of departments reported about done for the week and scheduled the next. Regularly held board meeting of the Ministry. Issues that were discussed there in detail studied, discussed further with the adoption of specific decisions. The Minister held daily meetings with deputies, which were discussions on topical issues of the Foreign Ministry. However, when it came to training visits at the highest level, the meeting invited all involved in the event. For example, even third secretary, who was responsible for country (now called Desk-officers), which planned visit, and that he started to report on the state of preparation for the visit. Great attention was paid to the Minister of conditions for training of diplomatic personnel, so this time it was agreed with the Kiev city authorities to allocate a house on St. Michael's Square (st. Zhytomyrska, 2) for the purposes of the Diplomatic Academy of Ukraine. It was initiated work to ensure ministry staff housing at discounted prices. Unfortunately, the size of the article do not allow detailed talk about all the innovations and achievements, which failed during operation as head of the Ministry B.Tarasyuk. Of course, he did not act alone - he had a team of associates who selflessly provide Ukraine perform important foreign policy objectives. Many factors are not allowed to implement B.Tarasyuk many of his ideas. According to experts, the then President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma dismissed him from the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs of 29 September 2000 on excessively pro-Western course. Borys Tarasyuk undoubted merit lies in the fact that it is a short period and his team managed to create a strong base for the development of the Foreign Ministry, the Ministry made it to the European level.


1. Presidential Decree №615 / 98 from 11.06.1998, the approval of the Strategy of Ukraine's integration into the EU, 11 June 1998 [electronic resource] - Access: rhttp: //search.ligazakon.ua/l_doc2.nsf/link1/U615_98. html- name on the screen.

2. Charter on a Distinctive Partnership between Ukraine and NATO signed at the Madrid Summit of July 9, 1997 [electronic resource] - Access: zakon3.rada.gov.ua/<wbr>laws/show/994_002- name on the screen.

3. History and objectives of the BSEC - Journal Top Online TV [electronic resource] - Access: toponlinetv.<wbr>livejournal.com/293115.html- name on the screen.

4. Summit Lviv - 99 // Alternative. - 1999. - № 1. - 21 May. - P. 1.

5. Ludmila Rassokha. Baltic-Black Sea partnership: perspectives [electronic resource] - Access: old.niss.gov.ua/book/<wbr>Odessa/Rossoha.htm - Name of the screen.

6. Doroshko M.S. Country Study. CIS: Training. guidances. - K: AIDP, 2007. - 286 p.

7. Features of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine on forming the country's image [electronic resource] - Access: otherreferats.allbest.ru/political/00087436_2.html- name on the screen.


Diplomacy of colonialism: Helgoland-Zanzibar treaty1890 and its consequences

Sergiy Troyan


In the late XIX century German and British Empire signed an agreement on colonial division of Africa. It was the result of complex diplomatic moves and combinations. Agreement in 1890 contributed to the international recognition of German colonial possessions in Africa. Germany also received the island of Helgoland in the North Sea. However, Helgoland-Zanzibar a treaty in 1890 testified that there was a turn of the official Berlin from active colonial policy to strengthen the foundations of European policy.Keywords: German Empire, Great Britain, Helgoland-Zanzibar treaty, colonial policy. 125 years ago, in 1891, the island of Helgoland in the North Sea moved from Victorian England to the Kaiser's Germany and became part of the German state of Schleswig-Holstein. It was the only one won by the Germans in the late nineteenth century in the fight for the colony, the territory which Germany retained the defeat in World War I and conditions of the Treaty of Versailles June 28, 1919. Perhaps not accidentally omnipotent Clio ordered so, because at Helgoland 175 years ago - in 1841 - the German poet August Heinrich von Fallersleben wrote the music of Joseph Haydn's "Song of the Germans", which is August 11, 1922 was proclaimed anthem Weimar Germany . During the Third Reich implemented only the first column with the words "Germany above all, above all in the world." After the reunification of Germany October 3, 1990 Germany became the anthem of the third column "Song of the Germans", which begins with the line "Unity and law and freedom for the German fatherland!" Considering this is still valid diplomatic history of the Anglo-German colonial conflict of the last decades of the nineteenth century, including the conclusion of Helgoland-Zanzibar contract July 1, 1890 and its geopolitical and social consequences. Trying to subdue his task colonial expansion in Europe and avoid sharp conflicts with England, Reich Chancellor Otto von Bismarck in December 1888 declared defiantly: "My map of Africa is in Europe" [1]. He even said, referring to unauthorized imperial leadership unauthorized actions of the German colonial businessman and leader of the Association of German colonization (later - the German East African Company) Carl Peters to capture new territories, preaching the subsequent colonial conquest in East Africa is dictated by the ambitions of individuals and not in the national interest countries. The result of the policy of the German and British governments to resolve the East African colonial conflicts was the conclusion of the agreement. Its foundation was sharing the islands of Helgoland in the North Sea and Zanzibar in the Indian Ocean, which is why it is called Helgoland-Zanzibar. In March 1890 was resigned Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. The new government led by the head of Navy Department General Leo von Caprivi. Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of H.Bismark moved to Marshall von Bieberstein. Interestingly, the prince Bismarck in one of the conversations with correspondents described the Chancellor Caprivi "Caprivi I appreciate more than anyone: it is good, even the best of our generals, regret only that he has become acquainted with politics. It is, however, not much change in policy given me direction. The gauge carved so deep that political chariot must follow them" [2]. However, even at first change the balance of power in the ruling camp of the Kaiser's Germany has made some significant adjustments to its foreign policy. Influential British politicians and economists stressed "the Caprivi takes more loyal attitude towards the British Empire" [3]. As for the colonies, Caprivi openly admitted that, in his opinion, the worst situation that could happen to Germany, if it is presented Africa. The note Reichstag he declared during the raising of the German flag in the overseas territories and unowned contracts with indigenous leaders and warlords complete in order to be able to digest taken. Caprivi believed that there is a need for urgent resolution of the Anglo-German contradictions in eastern Africa. Both sides sought to find a way of settling the conflict, which would satisfy both the UK and Germany, while the minimum touched to the interests of the colonial circles. This British Prime Minister Salisbury used worsening of Russian-German relations and the German assault on the island. Helgoland in the North Sea. May 13, 1890 he offered Germany the island in return for concessions in East Africa. It should be noted that even in 1884 Helgoland clean their hands like Otto von Bismarck. He sent the corresponding draft British government, but the proposal did not meet Chancellor no positive reaction in London. The entire responsibility for the failure of the project Bismarck tried to pass on to England and the German ambassador in London, Count Munster, whom he accused of indecisive negotiations with the British Government. The value of. Helgoland especially for Germany increased after the start of construction of the Kiel Canal in 1887 (completed in 1895). The channel had to connect the North and Baltic seas, so Helgoland as important reference points, assigned a special role in German naval plans. In early 1890, some court circles in England, of Denmark, Germany even hoped by sharing a triple cause of rapprochement between Berlin and Copenhagen. England passed of Denmark to the island of Helgoland in return Antilles archipelago of small islands that belonged to Danes. Exchange Denmark, in turn, for Danish Helgoland areas of northern Schleswig-Holshtyniya. However, the new German emperor Wilhelm II Hohenzollern said that Germany could dispose of their African possessions as her only wanted, but it has no right to give a single inch of land that got German blood. German government liked the suggestion of Lord Salisbury, so he went to the complex negotiations on the division and separation areas in East Africa. In Europe, as the reports of Russian diplomats were even afraid of a possible rapprochement between Germany and Britain. "Now Europe has to reckon with the fact that joint action in Africa two former rivals - Germany and England" [4] - reported May 7, 1890 from London to St. Petersburg, the Russian ambassador E.Staal. July 1, 1890 in Berlin, the two sides signed an agreement that in the historical literature called the Helgoland-Zanzibar pact. Germany gave England much of its colonial possessions in the East African coast and the island of Zanzibar in exchange for the island of Helgoland in the North Sea [5]. British got the former German colonies:1) Viţu who had the status of the Sultanate;2) area located between two rivers in Tana - Juba and south to the borders of Egypt and east of the western watershed of the Upper Nile;3) territory lying west of the lake. Victoria (Buganda) and Upper Nile (Vadelay);4) Nyasaland and north-eastern parts of Northern Rhodesia.Germany also recognized the British protectorate of Zanzibar. In total for Helgoland-Zanzibar, contract territory of the British colonial empire grew to 1 million square miles. Germany received:1) Island Helgoland in the North Sea;2) East African coast strip (with payment of compensation Sultan)3) island Mafia around Zanzibar;4) strip of territory 20 miles wide, which gave German South-West Africa access to the district Zambezi. German colonizers also achieved very favorable increment area to Cameroon and Togo, who were their colonies. In addition, the German East African possessions received international recognition. Total Germany acquired 400 thousand sq. M. miles territories. The agreement established the border between the German Togoland and British colony of the Gold Coast, as well as between the German and British Cameroon Nigeria. It proclaims the freedom of movement and trade in the Lake Chad declared a mutual recognition of the rights of private persons and legal entities, as well as freedom of missionary activities in colonial possessions parties. Helgoland-Zanzibar treaty was amended agreement with France on November 17, 1890 According to Germany it received possession Zanzibar Sultan on the mainland and on the island. Mafia (Zanzibar Sultan renounced his claims). The signing of the agreement was due to the accession of Germany to guarantee respect Zanzibar treaty concluded between France and England is March 10, 1862. Despite the fact that the island of Helgoland played a significant role in future naval development in Germany - it not only increased the safety of the coast, but also became the main base of the German Navy - Helgoland-Zanzibar agreement did not help the German government in addressing two important foreign policy objectives:First, Caprivi cabinet failed to significantly improve Anglo-German relations;Secondly, not justified the hopes of the Wilhelmstrasse diplomats to force Britain to join the Triple Alliance, though for a while she became so close to the Triple Alliance as possible to state that it is not involved. Besides Helgoland-Zanzibar treaty objectively became another incentive to start concrete talks on an alliance between France and Russia. Such an opinion was, in particular, Baron Friedrich von Holstein [6]. Add to those significant territorial losses in German East Africa, despite it getting about. Helgoland and international recognition of the German East African possessions, the contract was so uneven that aroused great public and political response in the country. "Russian Journal" noted that this fact is tantamount to "renunciation of rivalry with Britain for colonial policy endeavor, which has recently proclaimed the imperative and the national task of the German Empire." Assessing the Anglo-German Agreement and the situation in Germany, the newspaper "Moscow News" wrote: "The current situation eloquently characterized in that society and not in secret but openly says, when Bismarck nothing like this could happen" [7]. The colonial and chauvinistic circles of German society were dissatisfied with this contract in 1890 most of all. Sharply negatively reacted to the signing of Helgoland-Zanzibar Covenant Karl Peters. Commenting on Anglo-German agreement, he said that Germany "exchanged three kingdoms - Viţu, Buganda and Zanzibar - a bath in the North Sea" [8]. Therefore, without wasting time, the doctor decided to group himself or herself around the opposition. In Leipzig Colonial Society leaders held a meeting at which stated that the imperial government lost interest in Africa and Germany sacrificed the British heritage of the German people. The opposition even formed a committee that published addressed to "honest Germans' call to make their donations to set up "Fund Peters." Members of the German colonial circle in Zurich decided on behalf of the German patriots make a petition against the Anglo-German agreement and seek the Reichstag to recognize invalid the agreement with Britain. At a meeting of Colonial Society in Cologne July 1, 1890 gave imperial commissioner of East Africa captain Liebert. He said that he was always "a fanatical supporter of" colonial policy of Germany, and therefore extremely dissatisfied with the result of the Anglo-German negotiations that culminated in "a difficult concessions for the British" [9]. Members of the Colonial Society, dissatisfied with the signing of Helgoland-Zanzibar Pact at a general meeting in Berlin adopted the following resolution with three items:1) Express gratitude to the government "for the vigorous promotion ending the slave trade and cultural development in Africa";2) Do not understand the motives that guided the government in the contract with Britain on the division of East Africa, "Society still allows himself to say that, judging by the impression the agreement on public opinion, it has been made at the expense of the German colonial projects in Africa". The Company regrets that thus "dealt a severe blow colonial movement, which has become an important factor in public life in Germany";3) The company wants the future government does not make any colonial concessions. This gave impetus to a sharp rise next wave of chauvinism in the German press, which promoted the cheers and patriotic slogans. According to newspapers, the German extremists demanded the government review the contract, and "patriots" called to start fighting for "their" rights in East Africa. Anti-Helgoland Zanzibar pact drastically German press made of different political orientation. Thus, the newspaper "Kelnishe Zeitung" wrote: "He who understands and sympathizes with the German colonial aspirations, he read an agreement with Britain not only with the horror." Munich "Allgemeine Zeitung" that the body was not any political party, compared Helgoland with lumps of sugar sweetened what England intended for the German bitter pill. The newspaper asked: "Is the situation in Germany is so precarious that for the sake of friendship with Britain needed such great sacrifices?" She did not see reason to make in favor of competitors in the face of British businessmen compromising position relative to Germany and France, and to reject towards German colonial encroachment. The newspaper even published several articles that expressed concern about the lack of deliberate firmness and unity in the actions and intentions of the government since the resignation of Prince Bismarck. "... In place of the subjects of practice inevitably there is a tendency to experiment, the loss of employment positions for excitation Award" - noted with regret "Allgemeine Zeitung". When the loss of "a strong position" in domestic and foreign policy newspaper had in mind, firstly, the transfer of the British African land, which the Germans allegedly had the preferential right and secondly, refusal of anti-socialistic Act 1878. Even Authority liberal-bourgeois party progressives newspaper "Fossishe Zeitung" shortly before the signing of the Heligoland-Zanzibar agreement warned that "even the island of Helgoland is important for Germany, but still, even in marine circles, it's not considered to be extremely important and gaining it did not compensate to the interests of Germany African lakes region." Around the same tone of discontent contract in 1890, it was printed in the publications of conservative parties and the Centre Party ("Noyye Prussishe Zeitung", "position", "Kroytstsaytunh", "Germany"). Among the higher ranks of the German military were unhappy Helgoland-Zanzibar contract. Their sentiments expressed in some way then head of the German General Staff Count Valderzee. He believed that the Emperor for the sake of his long-held desire to seize the island of Helgoland betrayed the colonial interests of Germany. But his criticism was published in print only after World War II, when the Germans under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles had to destroy all military facilities on the island. Against the Anglo-German treaty expressed as Captain Liebert and deputy head of the Colonial Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Major Visman. However, understanding the excitement colonial circles, the latter admitted that Helgoland-Zanzibar treaty - this is just a political maneuver of the German government. Against pact with Britain and the loss of East African territories called Prince Alexander von Bismarck. He took advantage of the mood of public opinion in the country and sharply criticized the agreement. Even during the negotiations between Britain and Germany Bismarck said that the British government asked for the transfer of Germans island Helgoland very high price. Ex-Chancellor through his newspaper "Hamburger Nahrihten" exposed the Caprivi indifference to the interests of imperial Germany. [10] It was a mixed assessment of Helgoland Zanzibar treaty German Social Democrats. In general, the Social Democratic Party condemned the pact, as evidenced by editorials in "social democrat" and "Folksblat Berliner" speech in the Reichstag Social Democrat Shtadthahena. They characterized the agreement as an agreement of colonizers. Shtadthahen, in particular, said: "There is a perception that those who owned land divided between two European countries, does not ask" [11]. This position meant any condemnation of colonial policy, and the one held by the state, and that which carried their own colonial societies. Against the Anglo-German Agreement in 1890 were residents of Helgoland. English correspondent gathered the views of different groups of its inhabitants and concludes that there is no 5% of islanders who would approve of joining Germany. His message published Russian press: "I am convinced that the islanders strongly discouraged and overwhelmed by the unexpected transfer to the island of Germany. They are all against the transfer and did not conceal their indignation this agreement "[12]. The same Engels wrote in a letter to W. Liebknecht June 19, 1890: "So Heligoland should be German. I am glad advance imagining how brave citizens reflected both hands to join the great motherland, barracks. And they are quite right, immediately after the accession of the island will be transformed into a large fortress that dominates over situated northeast of Anchorage him; evicted poor fellows, just as if they were ordinary tenants Irish or Scottish sheep that give way deer" [13].Interestingly, in Germany itself youth group expressed dissatisfaction with this attempt at Germanization. The fact that the Helgoland The church was where married without any issues. German youth who wanted to marry without parental consent, set off round 50 marks exerted wedding. In 1889 it was recorded 93 such marriages. It is clear that the introduction to the German island of stop orders, his fame German Gretna Green, and German young people already pre mourned the loss of opportunities to marry so easy and convenient. To get rid of sharp criticism of the German public and colonial circles Caprivi office issued an official memorandum in support of Helgoland-Zanzibar contract. According to government statements, due to gain as a result of the Anglo-German friendship agreement with Britain, Germany has strengthened its position in Europe. As a government memorandum also noted that the German colonies in East Africa could not compensate the costs and damages, which have faced Germany in case of war with England. Based on statements cabinet Caprivi, Helgoland to Germany was much more valuable than removed from the UK East African regions. Authority, which retained the Empire in East Africa, just for profit, provided that German subjects stop raising flags and begin to cultivate the land. This memorandum fully supports the view of the German-American scientist G. Halhartena that "in terms of the political ideals of the then German government contract was a major political success" [14]. The top honor of the founders of the German-Helgoland Zanzibar signs pact became "royal favor" to its main authors ambassador in London, Count Hattsfelda awarded the Order of the Black Eagle, and the foreign ministers Marshall von Bieberstein received the rank of privy councilor. On the change in the attitude of the German government to colonial policy showed a change in the system of subordination and control colonies. In the spring 1890 the government Caprivi came to a compromise with the German East African Company. Its support Helgoland-Zanzibar contract he agreed to take over the management of East Africa and implement recovery company to save it from bankruptcy and turned into profit. November 20, 1890 German East African company signed a contract with the imperial government on the transfer of sovereignty rights, which the company owned under the "Safe Conduct". The agreement was signed Reich Chancellor Caprivi and four representatives of the company, including its head banker K. Heydt. The government received all rights to the colonies in East Africa. Therefore, Helgoland-Zanzibar treaty in 1890 became the first German public sign that the course of foreign policy of the government has changed. Even Baron Friedrich von Holstein in March 1891 was forced to admit the fact that Germany puts its European colonial interests above case. Criticism of the Anglo-German treaty meant the attempt of political movements, colonial circles and the public to show their attitude to turn in German foreign policy. Having concluding that it alone can not force the government to step course to capture new colonies, the German colonial chauvinist circles decided to unite. This association was to take place on the basis of ideological principles of creation of Greater Germany by an active and successful expansion in Europe, which would be supplemented by new overseas colonial annexation. In the wake of the fight against Helgoland-Zanzibar treaty took consolidation of German colonial and chauvinistic circles. The growth of chauvinism and expansionist tendencies in German society, their influence on the ideological and political foundations of colonialism decisive manner characterized the political situation in terms of maturation and transition Kaiser's Germany's "global politics" in the 90's. XIX century. Active agents it became not only the government and political circles, but also a certain part of German society, which rallied around created while the Pan-German Union. All this led to a sharp aggravation of the international situation and the approach of the Great War among the then powerful international actors.


1. Die Grosse Politik der europäischen Kabinette 1871-1914: Sammlung der diplomatischen Akten des Auswärtigen Amtes. Bd. 1-40. - B.: Deutsche Verl.-Gesellschaft, 1922-1927. - Bd.4. - S. 176.

2. The Moscow News. - 1890. - on 21 May.

3. Economist. - 1890. - 17 may. - P.614.

4. Archive of Foreign Policy of the Russian Empire. - F. Office. - Number 133. Op. 470 - D. 64 - 1890 - L. III.

5. Das Staatsarchiv. Sammlung der offiziellen Aktenstücke zur Geschichte der Gegenwart. - Bd. 51. - Leipzig: Verlag von Duncker & Humblot, 1891. - S.151 u. w.

6. Holstein F. Die geheimen Papiere: In 4 Bde / F.Holstein. - Göttingen: Musterschmidt, 1956-1963. - Bd. 3. - number 339.

7. Russian Gazette. - 1890. - T. 209. - № 7. - S. 335; Moscow News. - 1890. - on 15 June.

8. Sell M. Das deutsch-englische Abkommen von 1890 / M. Sell. - Bonn: Dümmler, 1926. - S. 39.

9. Official Gazette. - 1890 - 8 July.

10. Bismarck O. Thoughts and memories: Trans. with it .: In 3 Vols. / O.Bismark. - M.: Sotsekgiz, 1940-1941. - TZ - S. 117-120.

11. Stenographische Berichte Über die Verhandlungen des Deutschen Reichstages. - B .: Norddeutsche Buchdruckerei und Verl.-Anst, 1871. -. - Bd. 2 - 1890 - 9 December. - S. 815.

12. The Moscow News. - 1890 - 17 June.

13. F. Engels - Lіbnehtu B. - 1890. - 19 chervnya // Marx, Engels F. create. 2-d look. - V. 37. - P. 337.

14. G. Halgarten Imperalializm until 1914. A Case Study of German foreign policy before World War / G.Halgarten [Trans. with him.]. - M .: Publishing House of Foreign. l-ry, 1961. - S. 158.