Search results

The article starts criticizing the common theories about the origin of the Tamils and Sinhalese in Sri Lanka. On television, in several newspapers and even in scientific publications the conflict is explained in monocausal and unhistoric ways. Gabriele VENSKY, correspondent of the "Frankfurter Rundschau" and the "Zeit", describes the conflict as consequence of wrong decisions within the present Srilancan government which came to act under the influence of group of Buddhist-Sinhalese chauvinists. Other writers see the origin of the conflict in the social disintegration and poverty of the people in Sri Lanka (J.DONNER), in the state-controlled economy of various SLFP-governments (Newton GUNASINGHE) or just in the process of becoming independent (Tessa HOFMANN). Some other explanations go far more back into history. They refer to the "Mahavamsa", the great chronicle of Sinhalese, dating back to the sixth century. The "Mahavamsa" is mythological glorification of the "Sinhalese race" who came first to the island and made it paradise before it was destroyed by the "tamil babarians". The history of the island is described as permanent fight between Tamils and Sinhalese. Those explanation often are expressed by the common people of Sri Lanka, but also by serious scientists as for instance Heinz BECHERT who presumes that the Sinhalese nationalism has started in the second century B.C. Against these theories the present paper holds that nationalism is a modern a concept. In Sri Lanka nationalism has started as an ideology of the Sinhalese elite who claimed that their struggle for self-determination would be the struggle of the whole people - the nation. Under the British administration different possibilities to reach elite status emerged: The control of commercial agriculture, arrack production or graphite mines. The number of the Ceylonese elite is estimated by Michael ROBERTS to be 5-6 percent of the adult population. Their economic success led them to claim political participation, too. But in the colonial environment ...

The shift in discussion among Australia political and intellectual elite over the last decade could be aptly summarized with the words It the geography, stupid! Today question of concern is no longer about British heritage and Asian geography, as was the case three decades earlier. Instead, the burden (and opportunities) due to the country geography have finally prevailed. There is currently one question in Australian foreign and strategic policy that matters more than any other: How should Australia respond to the shifting dynamics of the great powers in the region? The starting point of this discussion was the publication of Hugh White analysis Power Shift: Australia Future between Washington and Beijing in 2010. After more than two years of extensive debate, the options appeared to be clear: Stakes had been set anywhere between armed neutrality and an even closer strategic partnership with the United States, or rather, between massive rearmament and pragmatic no worries policy. In fact, discussion about the matter revealed that power shift means more than relative decline in US power and the rise of China. How are India, Japan, Korea, and Indonesia reacting to this changing political situation? Which new coalitions could possibly emerge, and what role can the region security architecture play? Australia is currently in an unstable international environment: Military expenditures are on the rise (not only in China, but in the whole region), numerous territorial disputes remain unsolved, the lack of conflict-resolution mechanisms is evident, and nationalism is getting stronger while the future role of the USA in the region is unclear. The discussion of these questions is therefore more than just friendly academic exchange of opinion for the Australian security-policy community. ; The shift in discussion among Australia political and intellectual elite over the last decade could be aptly summarized with the words It the geography, stupid! Today question of concern is no longer about British heritage and Asian ...

The shift in discussion among Australia's political and intellectual elite over the last decade could be aptly summarized with the words "It's the geography, stupid!" Today's question of concern is no longer about British heritage and Asian geography, as was the case three decades earlier. Instead, the burden (and opportunities) due to the country's geography have finally prevailed. There is currently one question in Australian foreign and strategic policy that matters more than any other: How should Australia respond to the shifting dynamics of the great powers in the region? The starting point of this discussion was the publication of Hugh White's analysis "Power Shift: Australia's Future between Washington and Beijing" in 2010. After more than two years of extensive debate, the options appeared to be clear: Stakes had been set anywhere between armed neutrality and an even closer strategic partnership with the United States, or rather, between massive rearmament and a pragmatic "no worries" policy. In fact, discussion about the matter revealed that "power shift" means more than a relative decline in US power and the rise of China. How are India, Japan, Korea, and Indonesia reacting to this changing political situation? Which new coalitions could possibly emerge, and what role can the region's security architecture play? Australia is currently in an unstable international environment: Military expenditures are on the rise (not only in China, but in the whole region), numerous territorial disputes remain unsolved, the lack of conflict-resolution mechanisms is evident, and nationalism is getting stronger while the future role of the USA in the region is unclear. The discussion of these questions is therefore more than just a friendly academic exchange of opinion for the Australian security-policy community. (Asien/GIGA)

Der am 29.7.1987 von Sri Lanka und Indien unterzeichnete Vertrag zur Beendigung des Bürgerkrieges sieht eine beträchtliche Autonomie für die Tamilen innerhalb des Staates Sri Lanka vor. Die tamilischen Rebellen waren nicht an den Verhandlungen und der Vertragsgestaltung beteiligt, so daß die indische "Friedenstruppe" den Vertrag schließlich mit Gewalt durchsetzen mußte, dem Ziel der Befriedung aber nicht näherkam: Im Osten, wo Tamilen nur die größte Minderheit bilden, bleibt die Lage unklar, im Süden hat sich die extremistische JVP die Unzufriedenheit der singhalesischen Mehrheit mit dem indischen Einsatz zunutzegemacht und unter dem Vorzeichen des singhalesischen Nationalismus einen neuen Bürgerkrieg entfacht. Der Autor sieht in der anti-demokratischen Haltung der UNP und der aufgrund der UNP-Wirtschaftspolitik erfolgten sozio-ökonomischen Polarisierung des Landes die Hauptgründe für die heutige Lage. (DÜI-Ptk)

Biographische Informationen Dr. Nicolai Besgen ist Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für Arbeitsrecht. Er ist Mitautor des "AnwaltKommentar Arbeitsrecht" sowie des "Handbuch Kündigungsrecht", beide im Deutschen Anwaltverlag erschienen. Ferner ist er Referent diverser arbeitsrechtlicher Seminare. Thomas Prinz ist als Rechtsanwalt bei der Bundesvereinigung Deutscher Arbeitgeberverbände e.V. tätig. Er ist Mitautor des im Deutschen AnwaltVerlag erschienen "AnwaltKommentar Arbeitsrecht" und Autor des Werkes "Die Wahl der Arbeitnehmervertreter in den Aufsichtsrat nach dem DrittelbG