Tərcüməçi

Baxış sayı

6/25/2017

Minority Rights in Europe - James Mayall (kitabdan qeydlər)

(Enoch Powell)

     Nation is a necessary precondition of democracy, since only where a people share an underlying sense of community and values will the minority be prepared to acquiesce in rule by the majority.

Sovereignty and self-determination in the new Europe (James Mayall)

     Woodrow Wilson had originally conceived Article 10 of the League Covenant in a way which would qualify the permanent freehold of the European successor states. He envisaged circumstances arising, either as the result of demographic change or as a consequence of a major shift in public opinion, which would justify a change in territorial boundaries. This idea was so radical that it was opposed even by his own delegation and would certainly have been strongly resisted by the other major powers at the Peace Conference. The draft was so quickly forgotten and the final version of the Article asserted the primacy of territorial integrity, although an attempt was made to soften the impact of this major concession to the sovereignty principle by including a system of minority guarantees.


     Joint Downing Street Declaration (1993) laid particular emphasis on the issue of self-determination and on the absence of any continuing strategic or economic British interest in retaining Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. – Tom Hadden, Northern Ireland

The rest of the Balkans (Hugh Poulton)

     Since the Ottoman Empire did not attempt to assimilate Christian or Jewish minorities, the peoples of the Balkans managed to retain their separate identities and cultures. Many of them also retained a sense of a glorious history when they controlled a particular area, often at the expense of their neighbors who likewise made (and still make) historical claims to the territory in question.

     In Bulgaria there was a continuation of the noticeable large-scale emigration of the ethnic Turks and other Muslims which had been encouraged by the authorities from the outset of the modern state. Turkish schools, especially primary schools, were closed. The advent of dictatorship in 1934 saw a further deterioration, with a ban on the use of the new Latin script and the reinstatement of the Arabic script for all Turkish publications and classes. This was an apperent attempt both to dissuade mother-tongue expression and to hinder links with Ataturk of Turkey.

     It was reported that the Orthodox Greek hierarchy initially relieved Archimandrite Nikodimos Tsarknias of his duties in his parish outside Thessalonika because he had identified himself as a Macedonian, and that it then expelled him from the church.

     In comparison with the previous way of life, the future offered by the reform-minded political parties was quite terrifying. Their standard election messages included phrases such as ‘open market economy’, ‘competition’, and ‘the struggle to achieve European standards’. People were simply not ready for such a vision. The institutions of a civil society could have played a role in soothing people’s fears of an unknown future and solving conflicts, but they were virtually non-existent. One might argue that after so many years of comfortable collective identity within the system, the average Yugoslav was simply unprepared to take responsibility to exercise individual freedom.

     The easiest option was therefore to seek another form of collective identity, another protective shield against the confusion. This was nationalism. Many politicians quickly realized that the nationalist ticket was a life-line for them too. It could be used as a tool to homogenize people and to create the constituency that, in the one-party system, they had never had.

Hiç yorum yok:

Yorum Gönder