Scientific life

On June 7-8, 2005, the international forum "From Terror to Planetary Thinking: Religions and Peace"was held in the Column Hall of the House of Unions. It was held under the patronage of the Russian Public Relations Association, the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Russian Presidential Academy of Public Administration, the Council of Muftis of Russia, the Congress of Jewish Religious Communities of the Russian Federation, the Turkish Journalists and Writers Foundation, and more than a dozen other public organizations. The main organizers of the forum were the international non-profit organization "Dialogue of Eurasia Platform", created on the initiative of Turkish journalists and writers, and the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Information support for the forum was provided by the RIA Novosti and Rosbalt news agencies, as well as the Vremya Novostei newspaper.

The forum participants were welcomed by I. Ortayli, Chairman of the Eurasia Dialogue Platform, K. Tashkent, Ambassador of the Republic of Turkey to the Russian Federation, R. B. Rybakov, Director of the Institute of Information Technology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Ch. Aitmatov, writer, and representatives of the Orthodox, Muslim, Jewish, and Armenian-Gregorian confessions of Turkey, Russia, Syria, and Indonesia. A documentary on the fight against terrorism was shown and a children's choir performed. The forum was decorated with an emotional song with a protest against terror, performed to the applause of its participants by a young Turkish singer M. Kirmyzigul.

A distinctive feature of the forum was its representative character: 274 delegates from scientists, journalists, writers, government and public figures from 24 countries of Asia, Europe and America. The most numerous (30 people) was the Turkish delegation. Its members, along with well-known scientists-I. Ortaily (Bilkent University), K. Gursoy (Galatasaray University), G. Aktan-President of the Center for Strategic Studies of Eurasia, H. Bagji (Middle East University),

B. Ersanli (Marmara University), S. S. Ogun (Uludag University), M. Milen (Istanbul University), D. Ergil (Ankara University), N. Oktem (Bilgi University), journalists of leading Turkish media and prominent public and political figures were represented: H. Jindoruk-Chairman of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey (retired), Y. Cetin-Metropolitan of the ancient Assyrian Orthodox Church of Turkey, I. Haleva-Chief Rabbi of Turkey, A. Bardakoglu-Chairman of the Committee on Religious Affairs, M. Saglam-Chairman of the Council on Ethical Issues of the Turkish Parliament, President of the Foundation of Journalists and Writers of Turkey. Tokak, M. Chagriji - Mufti of Istanbul, M. Mutafya-Patriarch of the Armenian-Gregorian Church in Turkey, Y. Sag-patriarchal Catholic vicar of the Assyrian society. The next most representative delegation was that of the Russian party hosting the forum. Its members also included prominent scientists: R. B. Rybakov (Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences), L. Syukiyainen (Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences), V. G. Sirotkin, S. V. Chernichenko (Diplomatic Academy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation), M. A. Chlenov (President of VAADa), L. N. Pankova (Moscow State University),. GU), public and religious figures - A. Lebedev (Ambassador, Chairman of the Russian-Turkish Council of the Russian Federation), A. Aslakhanov (Deputy of the State Duma of Russia, Assistant to the President of the Russian Federation), R. Zakirov (Chairman of the Executive Committee of the World Congress of Tatars), F. Galimullin (Chairman of the Union of Writers of Tatarstan), A. Shayevich-Chief Rabbi of Russia, Z. L. Kogan (Chairman of the Congress of Jewish Religious Organizations and associations of Russia), G. Iskhakov (Mufti of Tatarstan), Father Anastasia (Archbishop of Kazan), etc.

Next in number after the Russian delegation were the Indonesian - 23 and the Indian-9 people. The members of the Indonesian delegation were M. S. Shamsuddin (Secretary of the Scientific Council of the Academy of Sciences of Indonesia), M. A. Abdullah (Rector of the Islamic UNI-

page 174

A. H. Adyvysastra (State Secretary of the Government). The Indian delegation was represented mainly by religious figures, as well as the president of the Art of Living Foundation S. R. Shankar and U. Kapoor, the wife of the Indian thinker D. Kapoor.

The CIS countries were represented, the most numerous were the delegations of Azerbaijan-10 and Tajikistan - 6 people. Among them were Mufti of the Caucasus Muslims A. Pasha-zade, Azerbaijani Ambassador to Russia R. G. Rizayev, deputies of the Azerbaijani Parliament R. Aslanova and N. Jaferov, Chairman of the Writers ' Union of Tajikistan M. Bakhti, President of the Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan M. Ilolov and others. The forum was also attended by delegations from Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Metropolitan Vladyka Vladimir of Tashkent and Central Asia, and A. Dichek, Chairman of the Board of the Ukrainian international public organization "International Anti-Terrorist Unity" (MAY).

The forum was attended by representatives of Switzerland, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Bulgaria, the Vatican, France, Belgium, Albania, Poland, Macedonia, the United States, Iran, Egypt, Great Britain, Canada, the People's Republic of China and Taiwan. Among them are Sheikh A. al-Pallovicini-President of the Islamic community of Italy, V. Augustadt-Chairman of the European Association "Peace through Culture", researcher of the Roerich family and propagandist of their teachings, D. Kitsikis-Professor at the University of Ottawa, Bulgarian scientists S. Teofanov and M. Todorov, American D. Whitehouse-chairman of the Center for Dialogue between Muslims and the Adventist Church, Belgian scientists R. Torfs and H. B. Warnink of the University of Luvain at the Faculty of Canon Law, B. Zagorski-Director of the Polish Ibn Khaldun Institute, H. Hemati-theologian and Professor at the University of Tehran, H. Legrand-Professor at the Catholic University of Paris, B. Hershfield of the American Jewish Center for Education and Cooperation, S. Waner-Director of the French Center for International Studies, and S. Lazarev - Head of the Department UNESCO Director for Tolerance and Non-Violence, D. Marovic-Vatican Representative in Turkey, E. Adamakis-Metropolitan of the Greek Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Europe, head of the Buddhist community of Taiwan Hsin Tao Shih, Professor at Cairo University. Hanafi, Macedonian Ambassador to Russia R. Nikovski.

The Forum lasted for two days, during which five meetings were held. Its participants made presentations and exchanged views. Sometimes the exchange of opinions turned into heated discussions. The meeting topics were as follows: 1) " Obstacles to planetary ethics. Critical view", 2) " Religion, faith and tradition. Contribution to the formation of planetary ethics", 3) " Religion, faith and tradition. Contribution to the formation of planetary ethics (continued)", 4) "Individual and public civil movement and planetary ethics", 5)"Ongoing and viable peacekeeping projects".

At the first meeting, the reports of K. Mofield (Great Britain) " Violence or dialogue? Time to form a Global no"; H. Hanafi (ARE) " Violence and countering violence. Phenomenological analysis of the thesis on violence based on Enlightenment theory" and D. Kapoor's "Challenges to Peace". At the second session, presentations were made by: D. Kitsikis (Canada) "The role of religions in shaping the world in the context of globalization", B. Hershfield (USA) "The Jewish perspective on the coexistence of religions: the inevitability of an ancient basis", K. Gursoy (Turkey)"Can Sufism become the basis for planetary ethics?"

The third session included reports by Sheikh A. Al-Pallovicini (Italy) on " What is European Islam?", Vladyka Vladimir (Uzbekistan) on "Religions as the basis of planetary ethics", and Z. Kogan (Russia) on " Synagogue. People. Morality".

According to A. Al-Pallovicini, Islam is a universal religion, and it is difficult for the West to understand it, and Arabic is a ritual moment. According to him, the main difference in Islam is between Muslims and Muslim fundamentalists, although fundamentalism is not the perspective of Islam. The problem is that the latter do not recognize other Muslims as Muslims. At the same time, Muslims do not have a single religious head and center of religion, as, for example, Catholics have the Pope and the Catholic Church itself. There are misconceptions in the West about Islam and its concept as such. The concept of "umrah", i.e. the presence of God within society, is universal. The idea of freedom from religion, as the speaker notes, rather than freedom of religion itself, originated in Europe, and the Muslim world did not know this. To that

page 175

However, it is incorrect to assume that the Muslim religion originates from the activities of the Prophet Muhammad, since its origins are much deeper and come from Adam , the progenitor of mankind, the speaker concludes. Vladyka Vladimir's speech was dominated by the idea that the basis of human morality and planetary ethics can only be a religious worldview. Z. Kogan's speech was held in the same vein. In his opinion, the contradictions of the modern world between globalization and the sovereignty of each individual country can be resolved only with the help of religion. G. Kerimov (Russia) disagreed with Al-Pallovicini's interpretation of the role of the Arabic language among European Muslims. K. Muhida (Great Britain) highlighted the question of the perception of Islamic values in the European youth environment.

The meeting concluded with a speech by its Chairman, Sh. S. Ravi Shankar. The significance of the forum, he noted, is to unite different faiths-diamonds in one crown of world spirituality.

At the fourth session, presentations were made by M. Ilolov (Tajikistan) "The individual, civil society movement and planetary ethics", L. Syukiyainen (Russia) "Problems of democracy and human rights in the dialogue of Western and Islamic legal cultures", A. Dichek (Ukraine) "The role of civil society in preventing terror", A. Bulach (Turkey) "The Madina Treaty". L. Syukiyainen's report on the legal aspects of Islam aroused great interest. The speaker emphasized that the ideological potential of Islam can and should promote dialogue with civilizations. And the differences between the Islamic and Western understanding of human rights are not a reason for the lack of dialogue between them, especially since for Muslim law-Sharia-there is always a close connection with other legal cultures. This process was mutual, in turn, the legal culture of Europe borrowed the provisions of Sharia. A. Dychek's report was devoted to the strategy of preventing terrorism in Ukraine, because, in his opinion, there is a tendency to spread terrorism on the territory of Ukraine, which may well cause the participation of Ukrainian troops on the side of the United States in the occupation of Iraq, migration, aggravation of internal socio-economic factors, as well as the Crimean Tatar problem. The speaker spoke about the need to formulate a Ukrainian national program on preventing terrorism within Ukraine. The discussion was sparked by the report of Sukiyainen, who was asked about the status of dialogue between Muslims and Catholics and the role of the Pope in this.

At the fifth meeting, the report of H. was presented. Legrand (France) " Ethics of interreligious dialogue. Proposals", which raised the question of the political level at which the dialogue of religions and civilizations - Muslim and Catholic-will be carried out. If the Pope is the representative of Catholics, who will represent Muslims at the same level? The forum participants listened with great attention to the report of S. Lazarev (UNESCO) "UNESCO's place in the development of tolerance and intercultural dialogue", in which the speaker called on religions and civilizations to move from tolerance and tolerance to dialogue and noted indifference as the greatest evil in the relations between different civilizations.. In conclusion, K. Aktam announced the final resolution. A. Aslakhanov noted the relevance of the issues raised at the forum.

The forum offered a rational, serious, scientifically based analysis of events in order to maintain a dialogue of civilizations and religions in order to combat global terror.

In his closing remarks, R. B. Rybakov noted that the mere fact of holding an international forum at such an intellectual level will increase the international prestige of the "Eurasia Dialogue Platform". In this regard, a coordinating center, a kind of headquarters, is needed. The task of the Eurasia Dialogue is not only to publish the forum's materials, but also to monitor the forum's impact in other countries.

The main meaning of the forum is not in its name, but in the alternative offered to terrorism by planetary ethics. The key to it lies in combining the opinions of representatives of various faiths and not only confessions. We are talking about the ethical foundations of the attitude to the world, to the positive and negative in it.

So, the forum "From terror to Planetary Ethics: Religions and Peace" was successful and became a significant event in public life. The important and invaluable role of the Eurasia Dialogue Platform and the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences in identifying and solving problems caused by events in the modern world was once again emphasized.

A. Sh. KADYRBAYEV

page 176

INSTITUTE OF ORIENTAL STUDIES OF THE RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

On June 29, 2005, a symposium dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Bandung Conference of Asian and African Countries (1955) was held, organized by the Institute's Southeast Asia Division. It was attended by employees of the Embassy of Indonesia in the Russian Federation, as well as about 50 representatives of various scientific and practical organizations, students and teachers of Moscow State University, MGIMO(U) The Ministry of foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and Eastern University Institute of Oriental studies RAS.

Organizer of the symposium, zav. Dmitry Mosyakov, Head of Southeast Asia, welcomed the participants of the symposium and noted the relevance of Bandung's ideas.

The symposium was opened by the Director of the Institute R. B. Rybakov. The theme of the symposium, he noted, is not just "memorial". It is an attempt to look back into the past to see into the future. I remember the time when the word "Bandung" suddenly entered our daily lives. "It was an amazing time," Rybakov said, " and there really was a thaw in international relations. And although the Soviet Union did not participate in the Bandung Conference, it was still a breakthrough, a turn, fresh winds! And it seems to me that at that time the word "Indonesia" was heard with a new force in the world, the country literally came to the forefront of world politics. The following years are the emergence and formalization of the "Non-Aligned Movement". A lot has changed in 50 years. Now we are faced with the task of finding out what is alive from Bandung and how the participating countries have overcome their contradictions."

Representative of the Embassy of Indonesia in the Russian Federation A. Hermin described the international situation on the eve of the Bandung Conference in 1955. She also described two Afro-Asian conferences held in Jakarta and Bandung in April 2005. The first of them was a meeting of the heads of state and Government of Asia and Africa, the second was dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Bandung Conference and was held under the slogan "Revive the spirit of Bandung for a new strategic partnership between Asia and Africa". The anniversary conference was attended by 109 States and 19 regional and sub-regional organizations. (Recall that 29 states participated in the Bandung Conference in 1955.) At the meeting in Jakarta, the Declaration on the New Strategic Partnership of Asian and African Countries and the Joint Statement of the Heads of Afro-Asian States in connection with the tsunami, earthquake and Other Natural Disasters were adopted. A. Hermin stressed that the Declaration on the new Strategic Partnership of Asian and African Countries, which includes cooperation in political, economic and socio-cultural fields, is an important outcome of the 2005 meeting. In conclusion, she expressed the hope that our two countries, our two peoples will be able to maintain even closer ties and cooperation.

A. Drugov (IB RAS) focused on how the ideologists of the" first Bandung " saw the process of globalization and how organically the principles of Bandung fit into modern systems of moral, legal and spiritual values, without coming into conflict with any of the existing civilizations. Analysis of the final documents of the Bandung 2005 conference and the decision on the permanent status of this forum (holding conferences every four years), according to A. Drugov, allows us to hope that - despite all the differences in the 109 participating countries-the Bandung process will be fruitful.

J. B. Widodo, Political Adviser at the Embassy of Indonesia in Moscow, noted that the new partnership strategy adopted this year is based on the similarity of interests, feasible ideas and pragmatic programs that will contribute to peace, prosperity and progress on both continents. In the 50 years since Bandung, most of the countries of Asia and Africa have been able to achieve freedom and independence. However, in the economy, despite significant achievements, many countries in Asia and Africa are still lagging behind.

J. B. Widodo also spoke about his understanding of Russia's policy and position: "Given that on the Russian coat of arms one head of a double-headed eagle looks East and the other West, Russia should look more towards Asia: more than 60% of its territory is located in Asia."

V. I. Pechkurov (Dip. acad. MFA of the Russian Federation) made a report "The role of Bandung in the redistribution of power and property in the world". A witness to the preparation and holding of the Bandung Conference in 1955, V. I. Pechkurov shared his memories. He noted that there was a struggle going on, during its preparation, no one knew how it would go, what its consequences would be, its impact on the world in the future. In the USSR Foreign Ministry, the younger generation was full of enthusiasm, but the older generation was doubtful. There was uncertainty, uncertainty about what would happen next.-

page 177

In particular, the results of the conference will have an impact on the balance of power in the international arena. Nevertheless, the conference's welcome message was eventually signed by the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, Konstantin Voroshilov, and the heads of the five Central Asian Union republics. The most important outcome of the conference is the recognition of new independent states. The Soviet top leadership was worried that the balance of power in the world would shift towards the West. There were reasons: some leaders dependent on the United States, such as Nuri Said of Iraq, tried to turn the conference into a propaganda tool against socialism and communism. But the conference went smoothly, which was not expected by its participants. And of course, its impact on the balance of power in the world was positive, since many countries that gained independence opposed colonialism. We can and should pay tribute to Indonesia and its great sons, President Sukarno and Prime Minister Ali Sastramijoyo, who directly guided the work of the conference.

L. F. Pakhomova (IB RAS) spoke about the" architects " and ideologists of Bandung. Along with the contribution of the leaders of the young liberated countries, she highlighted the special role of Ali Sastramijoyo, devoting a significant part of her speech to him, as well as the role of Foreign Minister Subandrio. She also shared her memories of a trip to Indonesia in 1965 to celebrate the tenth anniversary of the Bandung Conference, as part of a delegation of women personally invited by Subandrio. The delegation met with President Sukarno.

T. L. Shaumyan (Center for Indian Studies of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences) noted that the Bandung Conference was prepared by all the previous developments in political processes in the East. In 1954, an Agreement was signed between India and China on trade and relations with the Tibet region of China, the preamble of which included the well - known five principles of peaceful coexistence-the principles of "pancha shila". These principles and the Declaration on the Promotion of Universal Peace and Cooperation adopted at the Bandung Conference became the fundamental norms of the Non-Aligned Movement. In the five decades since the Bandung Conference, Asian participating States have experienced wars and peace agreements, rapid economic growth and continued extreme poverty, become victims of terrorism and conflicts on religious and ethnic grounds, and participate in the creation of military alliances and regional organizations for political and socio-economic cooperation. Many of these events can be regarded as following the principles adopted in Bandung, and many as violating them. However, even today, the principles of peaceful coexistence, respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty, non-interference in the internal affairs of other States, mutual non-aggression, equality and mutual benefit remain relevant.

A.V. Yegorov (Russian Foreign Ministry) thanked the leadership of the Embassy of the Republic of Indonesia in Moscow for the opportunity to participate in the Bandung-2 conference together with Deputy Chairman of the State Duma A. N. Chilingarov. : the alignment of our country's interests with those of Afro-Asian countries in creating a new, more democratic world order; efforts to strengthen our traditionally close relations with Asian and African countries; the Russian proposal (expressed earlier in the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization) to establish interinstitutional contacts in Asia and Africa.

Then A.V. Yegorov spoke about the priorities of Russia's foreign policy in relation to Asian states. In this regard, significant efforts are being made to develop cooperation with Asian countries, primarily with the CIS countries, with the largest Asian countries-China, India and Japan. The next direction is to establish relations with integration associations of Asian countries. Russia is actively involved in security and conflict resolution processes on the Asian continent, particularly in the Middle East (in the work of major organizations of Asian states, including the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and in the 32nd meeting of Asian Foreign Ministers in Yemen).

V. I. Lichaev (Russia-ASEAN Cooperation Foundation, Russia) aviastroit. Irkut Company) spoke about the largest cooperation projects in the field of high technologies and their application, in particular, in civil aviation.

Dmitry Mosyakov summed up the results of the meeting.

E. A. CHEREPNEVA

page 178

Saint Petersburg

A. I. HERZEN RUSSIAN STATE PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY

On May 13, 2005, the All-Russian Scientific and Practical Conference "Humanitarian Geography in the XXI century" was held, dedicated to the 85th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding Russian geographer, the first honorary Africanist of Russia Yuri Dmitrievich Dmitrevsky (1920 - 2001) *. Representatives of research institutes, universities and other educational institutions of Moscow, St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg, Nizhny Novgorod, Orenburg, Penza, Cherepovets, as well as Yuri Dmitrievich's daughters Marina Yuryevna and Vera Yuryevna took part in its work. The meeting was opened by Yu. N. Gladky (St. Petersburg State Pedagogical University). Dean of the Faculty of Geography of RSPU V. G. Mosin addressed the conference participants with a welcoming speech.

In the first part of the meeting, colleagues, friends and relatives of Yuri Dmitrievich made memoirs about different stages of his life and scientific and pedagogical activities. They noted, in particular, that Yuri Dmitrievich's interest in Africa was manifested in his pre-war youth years after reading the geographical anthology "Africa", compiled by D. I. Leikin for teachers of incomplete secondary and secondary schools and published in 1940 in the publishing house "Uchpedgiz".

After the war, this interest developed into a serious scientific hobby and largely determined the future fate of Yuri Dmitrievich as a researcher of geographical problems in Africa. In 1946, he entered the graduate school of the Geography Department of Leningrad State University and in 1949 defended his PhD thesis " Anglo-Egyptian Sudan-a colony of British imperialism (basic issues of economic geography)". His first scientific publication on this topic was published in 1949 in the Bulletin of Leningrad State University. In 1951, he published his first monograph, "The Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Economic and geographical essays".

Why exactly has Sudan become the subject of Yuri Dmitrievich's special interest? Perhaps because Sudan is the largest country in Africa by territory and it clearly shows all the contradictions and difficulties of development that have been inherent in most countries of this continent for several decades. It can be assumed that the study of Sudan gave Yuri Dmitrievich the opportunity to form a methodology for approaches to the analysis of continental geographical problems, both economic and physical.

One of the most important among them was and still is the problem of water resources. The main waterway of Sudan is the Nile River, which merges together on its territory from the White and Blue Niles. From studying the country, Yuri Dmitrievich moves on to studying the river that flows through the territory of not only Sudan, but also several other African states. The result of these studies was the fundamental work "Nil, essays on economic use" (Vologda, 1958).

In 1959, a new book by Yuri Dmitrievich "Sudan"was published. The structure of the book remained the same as in the "Anglo-Egyptian Sudan", and all chapters without exception were revised. In some chapters and sections, the text has been almost completely revised, a number of new sections have been written, and outdated material has been removed.

The long-term accumulation and generalization of materials on the Nile and other sources of water resources of the Black continent, their systematization and analysis allowed Yu. D. Dmitrevsky to prepare and defend his doctoral dissertation on the topic "Inland waters of Africa (experience of economic and geographical characteristics)"in 1963. From today's perspective, this looks like a scientific feat of a man who not only never plunged into the internal waters of this continent, but also, unfortunately, did not set foot on the territory of any African state.

African problems occupy an important place in the scientific and pedagogical activity of Yuri Dmitrievich. As a professor, he began teaching courses in Ethiopian and West and East African country studies at LSU, along with courses on the physical geography of parts of the world, including Africa.

After some time, Yuri Dmitrievich was invited to head the Department of Economic Geography of LGPI, where he worked until 1971. Then, for 26 years, he was a teacher at the Department of Economic Geography of LGPI.-

__ * For more information about Yu. D. Dmitrevsky, see: Vostok (Oriens). 2000. N 4. pp. 174-175; 2001. N 4. pp. 215-216.

page 179

He studied at the Voznesensky Leningrad Institute of Finance and Economics (now Saint Petersburg University of Economics and Finance). Here he taught a wide variety of courses, including economics and geography of Africa, supervised the work of graduate students and graduate students, mostly Africans. In recent years, he has taught at the Saint Petersburg University for the Humanities of Trade Unions.

In total, during the period of his teaching activity, Yuri Dmitrievich taught more than 15 disciplines. No matter which of them he touched, it always took on new facets and a new shine, passing through the prism of his brilliant mind and captivating new generations of students with its ideas.

Yu. D. Dmitrevsky's main research interests are country studies and the economy of developing countries, primarily Africa. Monographs, pamphlets, articles, and other publications on Africa account for a third of the approximately 800 papers he has published.

A significant part of Yu. D. Dmitrevsky's works (about 100) is devoted to theoretical issues of geography. These are problems of ecology( nature management), ocean geography, population and settlement. It was he who introduced the concept of "natural resource potential"into scientific circulation. Theoretical publications are joined by works on the history of economic and geographical science.

Yu. D. Dmitrevsky paid much attention to the problems of teaching geography in secondary and higher schools, popularizing geographical, socio-economic and environmental knowledge. This is evidenced by numerous reviews and reviews. In addition to Moscow and St. Petersburg, his works were published in Arkhangelsk, Baku, Vologda, Gomel, Irkutsk, Kiev, Perm, Saransk, Saratov, Smolensk, Khabarovsk, and Chernivtsi.

Yuri Dmitrievich himself, summing up on the eve of his 80th birthday the results of what he had done for many decades, modestly wrote about himself in the collection "Images of Geospatial Space "(St. Petersburg, 2000, p. 9), dedicated to his anniversary: "Personally, I believe that the most useful thing I have done is the following:

1) I drew attention to the problems of the geography of Africa and remain the last of the Mohicans of Russian geographical African studies;

2) drew attention to the problem of creating regional geography textbooks for schools and wrote a "regional textbook";

3) first introduced the concepts of "natural (natural resource) potential" and "natural resource area";

4) drew attention to the role of geography in the development of ecology."

Yu. Dmitry Dmitrevsky was an honorary member of the Russian Geographical Society, the first honorary member of the Association of Russian Africanists, an academician of the Russian Ecological Academy, an Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation, and the owner of many other honorary titles, titles and awards.

Speakers at the conference noted the scientist's benevolence, love for the people around him, and selflessness.

In the second part of the conference, a discussion was held, during which the speakers considered and analyzed both individual works of Yu. D. Dmitrevsky, as well as his methodology and approaches to the analysis of various processes and phenomena of the world and domestic economy and geography. One of these phenomena was international tourism, the problems of which he has been actively engaged in in recent years.

V. I. Gusarov (Moscow) and E. L. Faibusovich (Saint Petersburg) discussed the issues of tourism geography in the works of Yu.D. Dmitrevsky. They, in particular, noted that the most important work of Yuri Dmitrievich in this area was his monograph "Tourist areas of the world" (Smolensk. 2000. 223 p.). In this paper, Yuri Dmitrievich formulates the following definition of a tourist area:"...This is a territory that has certain signs of attractiveness and is provided with tourist infrastructure and a tourism management system." Different tourist areas differ, in his opinion, in the following main features:: 1) the time of origin, historical features of the formation; 2) natural, population, historical, cultural, socio-economic prerequisites for the formation; 3) the level of development of tourist infrastructure; 4) tourist specialization.

According to these characteristics, Yuri Dmitrievich classifies tourist areas by the time of their occurrence, by the prerequisites for their formation, by the level of development of tourist infrastructure, and by tourist specialization. It analyzes the world's tourist areas based on a detailed review of the natural resource, historical, cultural, ethno-confessional, and socio-economic characteristics of various countries and regions. Based on these features, it identifies the following tourist and recreational zones and areas: CIS countries, Europe (outside the CIS), Asia

page 180

(outside the CIS), Africa, Australia and Oceania, North America and Latin America.

The book "Tourist areas of the World" contains a large number of valuable statistical data that allow us to judge the scale of this global socio-political and economic-geographical phenomenon. A certain place in the work of Yuri Dmitrievich is devoted to the consideration of tourist and recreational zones and regions of Eastern Europe, the CIS, including Russia.

In conclusion, Y. D. Dmitrevsky gives advice to the leaders of the tourist industry: "In the conditions of the current very difficult international situation, in the conditions of a difficult domestic situation in a large number of countries, political instability in some of them, in the conditions of criminalization of the socio-economic and political situation in many states, knowledge of the political picture of the world, knowledge of the political balance of power is of paramount importance when organizing tourist tours. Hence the role of political country studies, the role of political geography."

E. L. Faibusovich also stated that for a long time the carrier of the ideas of recreational geography was the Geographical Society, and the initiator of teaching the course of such a subject was A.V. Darinsky. Yuri Dmitrievich inherited and created the theory of recreational geography, one of the main research results of which was the book "Tourist areas of the world".

V. D. Sukhorukov (St. Petersburg) noted that Yu. D. Dmitrevsky possessed encyclopedic knowledge in all areas of geography, including the geography of agriculture, since the ancient times of the formation and development of this industry.

D. D. Dengin (Nizhny Novgorod) emphasized that the works and ideas of Y. D. Dmitrevsky still help researchers to study the constantly emerging problems of the economy and geography of the Russian Federation. In his report "Economic and geographical aspects of studying the competitiveness of Russian regions", D. D. Dengin, in particular, said that at present, when the market in the Russian Federation dictates its own rules of the game in the economic and social life of regions, their present and future depend primarily on the level of their own competitiveness. Some regions manage to successfully overcome all the "barriers" and obstacles by effectively mobilizing their own resources and attracting external ones.

Other regions remain on the periphery of the investment process. Some regions develop only in certain specific areas (for example, tourism). Thus, the competitiveness of regions has pronounced socio-economic territorial differences, which, using the methodology and methodology of economic and social geography, can be relatively reliably identified, analyzed and outlined specific, constructive ways of their effective and rational development.

A.V. Stepanov and V. S. Rabinzon (both from Yekaterinburg) in their report "Structural transformation of the economy of Thuringia as a result of the unification of Germany (1990-1994)" noted that Y. D. Dmitrevsky's methods and approaches to studying the economy and geography of developing countries are quite applicable to the study of problems of developed countries and their individual regions. They came to this conclusion after studying the economy of the German state of Thuringia in the new historical conditions that emerged after the reunification of the two parts of Germany into a single state.

A. I. Chistobaev (St. Petersburg) read out excerpts from the recently published 1st volume of his trilogy "About Life and Geography with Love" (Smolensk. 2004. 400 p.), dedicated to Yuri Dmitrievich, with whom he was friends for 40 years.

Many well-known scientists and postgraduates from universities in different cities of Russia took part in the discussion about the creative heritage of Yuri Dmitrievich and its significance for the development of modern science.

Finally, it was decided to hold the next conference in memory of Y. D. Dmitrevsky in his hometown of Cherepovets in May 2008.

V. I. GUSAROV

* * *

XV annual International Conference " Man and Nature. Problems of Socio-Natural History "was held on September 5-8, 2005 in the St. Petersburg branch of the Institute of Historical Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences (co-organizers of the conference are the editorial board of the journal "History and Modernity" and the Institute of Oriental Studies of the A. Mickiewicz University. Poland). The conference discussed not only oral reports, but also articles published in the journal "History and Modernity", the results of current research recorded in the annual collections of articles in the series"Socio-natural History". Go to the top

page 181

IAC Energia Publishing House has released the 25th book in the series "Nature and Society in a Globalizing World".

The conference organizer E. S. Kulpin-Gubaidullin (IB RAS) read out the report "The problem of mentality and historical science", which spoke about the latest research in the field of the world economy, which faced the impossibility of explaining modern world processes without a historical analysis of the evolution of the mentality of civilizations, countries and peoples. It is in this direction that research in socio-natural history has been conducted in recent years. The main purpose of the research is to reveal the evolution of the mentality of Russian civilization in comparison with the Far Eastern and Western European ones. E. S. Kulyshn-Gubaidullin also presented a report on the results of work in this direction in the collective project " Theoretical and experimental modeling of socio-ecological crises in the history of Russia "(grant of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research in 2002-2004). E. S. Kulpin-Gubaidullin (project manager), climatologists V. V. Klimenko and A.M. Sleptsov, soil scientist L. O. Karpachevsky, philosopher and political scientist V. I. Pantin, psychologist L. M. Smirnov. The project was implemented with the assistance of the Director of the Institute of Oriental Studies K. Petkevich.

Plenary reports on four topics were discussed at the conference.

Six reports were devoted to the topic "Globalization and the genesis of mentality": V. V. Bushuev, V. S. Golubev (both-Institute of Energy Strategy) "Structural Energy, information, progress"; J. Wisniewski (A. Mickiewicz University, Poland) and Jan Suh (Higher School of Humanities. PhD, Poland) "The fate of modern civilizations in the perspective of the unification of the world economy"; L. E. Grinin (Zh. History and Modernity) "Globalization: Economy and National Sovereignty"; V. A. Zubkov (Center for Interdisciplinary Research on Environmental Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg) "Analysis of the evolution of nature and society in the XXI century"; L. M. Smirnov (Psychologist. Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences) "Globalization and universal values"; T. F. Stolyarova (Ryazan Radio Engineering Institute). acad.) "Ecological worldview on the edge of centuries".

The second topic, "History of Civilizations", was presented by scientists from the Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences:" The Pearl Tree of Huangdi and the Death of Longshan Cities "(S. I. Blumchen); "Network model of organization of Neolithic communities in the Eastern Mediterranean" (E. S. Bondarenko); "Three socio-economic crises in the history of Central Asia: a comparative experience" (E. V. Burnakova); "On the reason for the 'late' transition to the Neolithic and productive economy in Egypt "(D. B. Prusakov).

Six reports are devoted to the topic "Russia between the West and the East":" Jagiellonian policy on the placement of cities under German law in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania " (k. Petkevich-Institute of Oriental Studies); "Natural and historical situations and the mentality of Russians" (A.V. Antipova, S. K. Kostovska-Institute of Geography of the Russian Academy of Sciences); "On the Origins of Russian Anti-Americanism "(A. Burganov-RSUH); "Kaliningrad Region as a zone of Special relations between Russia and the EU" (A. Krazhevsky-Institute of Oriental Studies); "Ecosystems of the West and East" (L. O. Karpachevsky, T. A. Zubkova, Yu. N. Ailinov - all MSU); "Problems of civilizational and geopolitical self-determination of Russia in the modern world (V. I. Pantin-IMEMO RAS).

On the topic "Theoretical problems of socio-natural history", five reports were read: "On the concepts of the social unconscious and the DNA of civilizations" (E. S. Kulpin-Gubaidullin); "Why do we need historiography? The role of history in modern culture ". Wrzosek - Higher School of Humanit. sciences); "How to explore les mentalites? Historical Anthropology in the Search for Human Thinking" (K. Polasik University named after A. Mickiewicz); "Soils and Religion" (And A. Sokolov, L. O. Karpachevsky - both MSU).

Business negotiations with our Polish colleagues allowed us to outline a program for further cooperation.

E. S. KULPIN-GUBAIDULLIN

Permanent link to this publication: