Дискурсы забвения в исторической политике Восточной Азии: Индонезия и Япония
The article examines the tactics of forgetting as a strategic instrument of the politics of memory of East Asian countries. These types of forgetting are explicated on cases of Indonesia and Japan. In the case of Indonesia, the phenomenon of forgetting is manifested in the historical memory of the violence against the political rivals of the ruling regime and ethnic minorities in the 1960s and 1980s. In the case of Japan, the phenomenon of forgetting was studied in the politics of memory of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Japan — South Korea bilateral relations. To reveal the specifics of the approach of East Asian countries to the implementation of their politics of memory, the typology of forgetting proposed by the English sociologist Paul Connerton was used. Authors demonstrated specific features of the East Asian approach to the politics of memory. This research revealed similarities and differences of Japanese and Indonesian approaches to the forgetting. Analysis of these cases helped to identify difficulties of East Asian countries to find mutual understanding in issues of interpretation of their historical past. The possibility of reaching mutual agreements in the medium-term agenda is not visible.
During the XVIth century Japan acquires Western geographical knowledge for the first time. The adaptation went on comparatively fast, and thinkers of the Edo period (1603 - 1867) started to offer their own view of the world. Unevitably different systems of knowledge were mixed, and also Japan was compared to China, India and Europe. As a result the idea of Japan's supremacy was supported in a new way. Nishikawa offered one of the most original explanations, which is compared to of the other thinkers'.
A monograph about Ikkyu Sojun (1394-1481), Japanese Zen monk, poet, artist, calligrapher and the embodiment of cultural and spiritual life of his time, Muromachi epoch.
The article focuses on the ethnic and confessional diversity of Indonesia, as well as mechanisms of supporting it in the framework of the country’s rapid economic development and active involvement into globalization processes.
Russian federal agencies have created a variety of consultative bodies during the last decade, but their role in the agency's decision-making process is yet to be evaluated. Relevant experience of other countries proposes two major political factors of consultative bodies' influence. The political culture orientation towards compromise and positive perception of interest groups' participation in the decision-making process seem to contribute to that influence.
The article deals with the processes of building the information society and security in the CIS in accordance with modern conditions. The main objective is to review existing mechanisms for the formation of a common information space in the Eurasian region, regarded as one of the essential aspects of international integration. The theoretical significance of the work is to determine the main controls of the regional information infrastructure, improved by the development of communication features in a rapid process.The practical component consists in determining the future policies of the region under consideration in building the information society. The study authors used historical-descriptive approach and factual analysis of events having to do with drawing the contours of today's global information society in the regional refraction.
The main result is the fact that the development of information and communication technologies, and network resources leads to increased threats of destabilization of the socio-political situation in view of the emergence of multiple centers that generate the ideological and psychological background. Keeping focused information policy can not be conceived without the collective participation of States in the first place, members of the group leaders of integration - Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. Currently, only produced a comprehensive approach to security in the information field in the Eurasian region, but the events in the world, largely thanks to modern technology, make the search for an exit strategy with a much higher speed. The article contributes to the science of international relations, engaging in interdisciplinary thinking that is associated with a transition period in the development of society. A study of current conditions in their relation to the current socio-political patterns of the authors leads to conclusions about the need for cooperation with the network centers of power in the modern information environment, the formation of alternative models of networking, especially in innovation and scientific and technical areas of information policy, and expanding the integration of the field in this region on the information content.
This special publication for the 2012 New Delhi Summit is a collection of articles by government officials from BRICS countries, representatives of international organizations, businessmen and leading researchers.
The list of Russian contributors includes Sergei Lavrov, Foreign Minister of Russia, Maxim Medvedkov, Director of the Trade Negotiations Department of the Russian Ministry of Economic Development, Vladimir Dmitriev, Vnesheconombank Chairman, Alexander Bedritsky, advisor to the Russian President, VadimLukov, Ambassador-at-large of the Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry, and representatives of the academic community.
The publication also features articles by the President of Kazakhstan NursultanNazarbayev and internationally respected economist Jim O’Neil, who coined the term “BRIC”. In his article Jim O’Neil speculates about the future of the BRICS countries and the institution as a whole.
The publication addresses important issues of the global agenda, the priorities of BRICS and the Indian Presidency, the policies and competitive advantages of the participants, as well as BRICS institutionalization, enhancing efficiency and accountability of the forum.