|
In Brief...
World News Review
Will Germany take reins of European Leadership?
Long perceived to be a leading European nation, is Germany poised to become
the EU's undisputed leader? The intelligence group Stratfor reported a significant
development in its December 18, 2000, briefing that, in their words, "may shift
the European balance of power."
It's no revelation that Russia is heavily in debt to many European nations, Germany
included. With no hope of repayment in the foreseeable future, Germany has proposed
to accept most of its compensation in shares of Russian companies. Russia and Germany
have already agreed in principle to the pact, which is worth several billion dollars.
The climate for forging a fiscal alliance is enhanced by the fact that President
Putin speaks German.
Russia is disaffected with how it believes its relationship with the U.S. has gone-many
cheers from the U.S. about the end to communist rule, but no real economic help.
It's not in the interest of the EU or Germany for Russia to fail. Beyond economic
concerns, the EU views Russian strength and viability as added security on the EU's
eastern border at a time of increasing power among Islamic radicals.
A German-Russian economic "marriage" would benefit the EU in another way.
Russia affords the EU with a Euro-Asian commerce corridor, cheaper and faster than
any other.
Russia has few options. China can't afford to help, even if it was so inclined, and
Japan won't in the face of unresolved territorial disputes with Russia.
How significant might this developing agreement between Russia and Germany be? Once
in a great while, a single pact is so significant it has the potential to alter history's
course. This might be such a time.
Stratfor summarizes, "Assisting in Russia's integration into Europe would
result in Germany's emergence as the larder of a united Europe with Russia on
its side. Such a development would significantly weaken the U.S. influence
in Europe. On the other hand, Chinese positions will be weakened as well, with
Russia drifting away from it and toward Germany and Europe" ("Shifting
Europe's Power Balance," December 18, 2000, Stratfor, Inc., emphasis added).
Brits give Nod to Stem Cell Research
By more than a 2-to-1 margin, Britain's Parliament voted December 19, 2000,
to amend an existing law to allow stem cell research to go ahead. Stem cells can
be engineered to become any kind of cell and are touted as providing a potential
quantum leap forward in the treatment of such terribly debilitating diseases as Parkinson's
and Alzheimer's.
Have the Brits legally sanctioned cloning? "No," promised Public Health
Minister Yvette Cooper. "The idea of cloning babies is completely unacceptable
to the House and public opinion as well." Ms. Cooper assured the House of Commons
that it was not being asked to "cross the Rubicon" and sanction human cloning.
That is not entirely true.
A close inspection of the science necessary to accomplish stem cell research reveals
that the British government has glossed over profound ethical issues. In fact, current
stem cell research does require human cloning. A cell from the patient under treatment
is fused with an egg cell taken from a donor, after which an electrical stimulus
"tricks" the egg into "thinking" it has been fertilized. Thus,
the life of a clone of the patient is begun. Parsing words, one could claim that
human life hasn't been cloned only because the embryos are not allowed to develop
into fetuses and be born.
The early cells produced by the new embryo are the precious stem cells for which
medical scientists are searching.
Another "ethical Rubicon" is crossed when the embryos thus created are
destroyed within 14 days. No one seems willing to say, "the emperor has no clothes"-that
is, none dare call it murder. Life is begun and ended in the name of medical science
assisting in the cure of diseases.
The proposed amendment was supported with emotional testimony from people suffering
from chronic illnesses, who pleaded with the Commons to give license to the medical
community to go forward with stem cell research. No one gainsays the suffering of
the diseased and their families, but framing the amendment in both the white coat
of medical research and this emotional cloak obscures other issues that are involved.
Liam Fox, Shadow Health Secretary, opposed the amendment, saying that he was not
convinced that the same benefits could not be realized by other means. He eloquently
summarized, "...the medical revolution carries with it moral, ethical and philosophical
consequences and our ability to deal with these matters sometimes lags behind our
technical knowledge. Just because we can do something does not mean we have to"
(emphasis added).
The moral, ethical and philosophical consequences Dr. Fox mentioned are monumental,
and yet they're brushed aside as mere political debating points that can be negotiated
away.
Sources: "MPs Give Go Ahead for Embryo Research," by Philip Webster and
Greg Hurst, the London Times, December 20, 2000; "Wanted: Women's Eggs
for Research," by Anthony Browne and Gaby Hinsliff, The Guardian, December
17, 2000.
Wierd Twist in Nativity Scene
In the name of marketing in a way that the public will be drawn to purchase
their products, British merchants have changed how they present the traditional nativity.
Some have removed Joseph altogether, presenting Mary as a single parent to appeal
to single parent customers.
Other merchants have changed Joseph into a woman, portraying him "as a figure
with rosy cheeks and curly hair, donning a headscarf and cloak...." Such displays,
say British shop owners, were designed to appeal to customers with "Sapphic
(lesbian) inclinations."
Thereby an already flawed tradition, the unscriptural nativity scene, is distanced
further from the teachings and principles of God's Word.
Source: "Nativity Story Retold PC Style-Minus Joseph," UPI, December 17,
2000.
"Pray for Me" Has Different Meaning in India Than
in U.S.
President-elect Bush called upon U.S. citizens to pray for him, his family,
Vice President Gore and his family in his acceptance speech before the nation. Americans,
whether or not they actually pray, understand and warm to such a request.
However, not all the world's citizens think the same way.
An Indian columnist wrote that liberals and leftists in India would not want to be
seen or thought of as praying themselves, much less asking others to pray for them.
"They would die of shame if they ever admitted to praying."
The columnist continues, "For many in India, modernism is negation of religion
and God. So, anyone who turns to God or to religion is treated as an evolutionary
vestige."
This is a small, but realistic demonstration of the challenges in communicating to
the world community.
Speaking to diverse beliefs and interests within the United States in a way that
all are comfortable with and responsive to, is a profound challenge for the president-elect.
However, he speaks to a much broader constituency, as the leader of the world's most
powerful nation. The challenges are proportionately multiplied.
Source: "The Hour of Compassionate Conservatism," by Parsa Venkateshwar,
Tehelka.com, December 14, 2000.
Has Israel Chosen to Have War?
Columnist Don Feder drew upon the piercing warning Churchill gave to (then)
Great Britain in 1938 to describe Feder's perception of the current Israeli position
vis-à-vis the Palestinians. "You were given the choice between war and
dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war."
Feder believes that none of the candidates for prime minister have the heart to confront
Palestinian terrorist violence-not the outgoing prime minister, Ehud Barak; not former
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; and not the hawkish Ariel Sharon-all of whom have
responded with little more than words to Palestinian aggression. (Feder's column
ran on December 20, 2000. In the fast-breaking situation in the Middle East, Netanyahu
has since dropped from the race and Shimon Peres has both attempted to join the race
and been rejected.)
Perhaps the columnist's indictment is unfair, for he allows no leniency for the pressure
that the U.S. has brought to bear on the Israelis to negotiate with Yasser Arafat.
Nonetheless, his echoing of the Churchillian indictment is sobering.
No Churchill exists among the current choices for Israeli prime minister. Or, does
he? Some historians believe that circumstances make the leader, rather than vice
versa. We may not have long to wait to see the theory tested.
Daniel Pipes, director of the Philadelphia-based Middle East Forum, says, "Arab-Israeli
relationsÖresembles the bad old days of pre-1967." Overconfidence on the part
of Arab nations spurred them into all-out war in June 1967.
A current UPI piece quotes Arab weekly Al-Zawraa, reporting Iraqi Defense
Minister Lt. Gen. Hashem Ahmed's boast that Iraq could destroy Israel and that Iraq
would not hesitate to commit its armed forces to defend any Arab country targeted
by Israel. The general plainly stated that there would be no Middle East peace until
Israel returned the Palestinians' land to them. He wasn't referring to disputed territory
presently under negotiation, but rather to the long-standing mantra that all Jews
must leave Palestine entirely. UPI also reported that between 1.5 and 2 million
people responded to a recent call by President Saddam Hussein for "volunteers"
to fight against Israeli forces in an Arab-Israeli war over Palestine.
Daniel Pipes describes a believable scenario of Palestinian terrorist attacks and
Israeli responses that could spark a full-scale war. The present climate calls for
patience and wisdom, coupled with firm and appropriate governmental action.
As the outgoing U.S. president pushes Palestinian-Israeli peace negotiations, hoping
to accrue to himself this positive legacy in the annals of history, the present reality
implies that war is more likely than peace.
Sources: "Israel's Leaders Choose Dishonor, Will Get War," by Don Feder,
www.jewishworldreview.com, December 20, 2000; "Iraq Can Destroy Israel, Defense
Minister Says," by Ghassan al-Kadi, UPI, December 21, 2000; "The Winds
of War," by Daniel Pipes, The Jerusalem Post, December 20, 2000.
News From the Vatican
Reflecting the Roman Catholic perspective that the Kingdom of God is brought
about on the earth by the actions of people who have the love of God motivating them,
the pope invited an audience of 30,000 to join in bringing about the Kingdom of God
in the world.
The invitation was followed a day later with a statement that is viewed as a modification
of an earlier, unpopular pronouncement that no one outside of the Roman Catholic
Church would find spiritual salvation. In his most recent statement, the pope said
that the way of salvation was virtually open to "all of the just on Earth, including
those who ignore Christ and his Church (by which the pope meant the Roman Catholic
Church)."
Weighing in on one of the hottest current political debates, the pope called recently
for globalization of the world's economy. He is reportedly troubled by the self-serving
definition of globalization espoused by the wealthier countries and economies of
the world, and envisions instead a world without tariffs or quotas. He believes that
it is appropriate for the Catholic Church to involve itself in the politics of economics.
He sees it as an integral part of bringing the Kingdom of God to the world in the
way described above.
It's easy to see how present world conditions could quickly transition into fulfilling
the prophecies of Revelation 13 and 17-18.
Sources: "Pope's Invitation to Cooperate in the Coming of K.O.G.," Noticias
Eclesias, December 7, 2000; "Pope: Heaven to Everyone," The London
Telegraph, December 8, 2000; "A Gospel of Freedom," by William Mcgurn,
Wall Street Journal, December 22, 2000. wnp
Contributor: Cecil E. Maranville
© 2001-2022 United Church of God, an International Association
|
