Tag Archives: Burma

GLOBAL HUMANITARIAN CRISIS

BBC World is an international news channel, based in London.   With more correspondents around the globe, it is certainly the best source of world news.  It’s nightly news program made especially for American audiences is shown on PBS channels across the country

Increasingly, it has become the best place to go for humanitarian news.   At a time when many people are tired of seeing disaster after disaster and weary of refugee news, the BBC is consistent in highlighting the sufferings of people around the world.   If it wasn’t for the BBC, most people would be unaware of the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, the continuing tragedy in South Sudan,  or the half a million Rohingya refugees, who have fled Myanmar (Burma) in the last few weeks, for the safety of neighboring Muslim Bangladesh. Thursday their nightly news program for American audiences had an in-depth report from the Democratic Republic of Congo, a major humanitarian  and worsening disaster.

The BBC is almost a century old, having been launched in London in 1922.   During World War II, it gained an unrivaled reputation as a reliable news source, even upsetting Britain’s wartime leader, Winston Churchill, who didn’t like its negative reports on the country’s war effort.

Undoubtedly, Burma’s most prominent politician and Nobel Peace Prize winner, Aung San Suu Kyi, once thankful for the BBC’s championing democracy in her native Burma, is now wishing the organization did not exist.  Why?   Because it has been relentless in trying to get her to condemn the “ethnic cleansing” of the country’s Muslim minority, the Rohingya.   For some reason, she refuses to do that.

A negative consequence of the BBC’s relentless coverage is that people in the West are made uncomfortable witnessing all the suffering.   Many react by donating to charities that help those suffering; more vocal and radical people will call for “resettlement” into their own countries, which will only add to ethnic tensions at home.

The nightly scenes of columns of “Syrian” refugees (many actually from African countries) marching through snow and rain to reach western countries, led to those nations opening their doors.   Some are now regretting it.   Not far from the BBC’s headquarters in London, an attempt was made to blow up a subway train recently by a Syrian refugee. Similar attacks are likely to follow.

The world has always had ethnic conflict, but, after decades of organizations like the BBC, the European Union and the United Nations, supporting globalization efforts, while glossing over ethnic conflict, and singing Kumbaya at international gatherings, the world is waking up to the fact that ethnic consciousness has not gone away and ethnic conflict is surfacing everywhere.

Christians, who have often been at the forefront of trying to bring ethnic groups together, should be aware that this problem is set to get worse.   Asked by His disciples what would be the signs of His (Second) Coming, Jesus said: “nation will rise against nation” (Matthew 24:7) and “kingdom against kingdom”.   A kingdom is a political unit, like the United Kingdom or the United States.   The word “nation” here is from the Greek ethnos, meaning ethnic group. Ethnic group will turn on ethnic group is what this verse is saying.

The Bible also helps us understand why.

In the Old Testament Book of Deuteronomy, written by Moses, we read:

“When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance,   When He separated the sons of man,   He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the sons of Israel.”   The word “nations” here is a Hebrew word meaning “people”.   (Deuteronomy 32:8) “According to the number of the sons of Israel” is telling us that God wanted the Israelites to be separate from the pagan nations around them, so that they would not be encouraged to follow the pagan gods.

In the New Testament we read the following words spoken by the Apostle Paul, a Jew who was also a Greek and a Roman citizen: ” . . .  and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation.”  (Acts 17:26)

From these verses we can understand that God set boundaries between different ethnic groups, to help them avoid conflict.   This also meant that religious groups were separated.   The presence of Shi’ite Muslims in predominantly Sunni Yemen is the root cause of that country’s problems.   Little attempt is made to help people understand the depth of this animosity by organizations like the BBC that are always trying to promote multiculturalism and the idea that there is one faith, one God and that all worship Him in different ways.

Some are waking up to this reality.   It’s nothing new.   For centuries different religious and ethnic groups separated themselves from one another.   But now, after decades of increasing strife as groups were forced to mix, there are an increasing number of people questioning the whole idea.

Daniel Pipes is one of them.   Mr. Pipes is an American historian, writer and commentator.   He is also President of the Middle East Forum and publishes its Middle East Quarterly Journal.

In a recent interview, Mr. Pipes was asked by a German publication, Achse des Guten, for his solution to the problems caused by multiculturalism and specifically the attempt to assimilate millions of Muslims into German society:

What, then, is the answer?

The 100,000 permanent, almost-always empty tents in Saudi Arabia can hold 3 million migrants.

“Practically speaking, see the world in terms of cultural and geographic zones:   Westerners in need should stay in the West, Middle Easterners should stay in the Middle East, and so forth around the globe. Is it not strange that migrants from Syria and Iraq move to places like Germany and Sweden?   They would be better off going to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, where the climate, the language, the religion, and the mores are all like their own; plus, these countries are much closer to Syria.”

Cultures and customs change. Perhaps Muslims will adapt to European cultures if given the opportunity?

“In theory, yes;  in practice, no.   Experience shows that the first generation of Muslim immigrants to Europe is more adaptable than its children and grandchildren, as cultural separation increases over time. It is hard to find any place in Europe where Muslim immigrants have assimilated, leading me gravely to doubt that this will take place in the future. Chileans, Chinese, and Congolese fit better into European culture than do Muslims.”

Let’s be clear – Mr. Pipes is advocating the separation of the “Christian” West and the Islamic world.   Muslims should live in the Middle East; they should not be allowed to flee to western Europe when there are 22 Arab countries closer to them, some of them fabulously wealthy nations.

I would like to suggest we take it a step further.

Western nations need to urgently call for an international meeting of Islamic and western leaders.   The West needs to openly confess that it’s made a horrible mess of the Middle East since the Treaty of Paris a century ago.   Western leaders need to promise to stay completely out of the Middle East in exchange for Muslim nations taking in the Muslims who are living in the West.

Is this likely to happen?

Once again, we can look to the Bible for the answer.

Daniel, a book written in the sixth century BC in Babylon, not only predicted the coming of the Messiah six centuries later, but also prophesied of future empires – Persia, Greece and Rome.   Much of the book has already been fulfilled, but parts are set in the future. Chapter 11 deals with Alexander the Great and the four kingdoms that succeeded him.   The prophetic timeline brings us down to the present.   In verses 40-43 we read of a coming clash of civilizations between a united European power and the “King of the South,” a revived caliphate to the South of Jerusalem.  The Jews (the nation we call Israel) will, once again, be caught up in this conflict.

 

Advertisements

REMEMBRANCE DAY OBSERVANCE

queen_lays_wreath_remembrance_day 2008

Late night arrests at the weekend foiled a terror plot in London, England. Speculation was rife that the plot involved an attack on the Queen and other members of the Royal Family at the Cenotaph on Sunday morning. This did not deter the Queen from carrying out an annual duty, which she has never missed.

This was the occasion of the annual commemoration of Armistice Day, the day that ended World War I. “At the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month,” was exactly when the war ended, having claimed almost a million British lives.   Observance is held on the Sunday closest to the actual day.

The Queen not only leads the nation at this ceremony. She is also leading the Commonwealth, that quarter of mankind that comprised the British Empire and Commonwealth during both wars. Without their contribution, the allies might never have won. Together with Britain, they were the only allied nations that were in both wars from beginning to end.

It’s hard to imagine now but a century ago when the Great War (World War One) began, hundreds of thousands of people around the world volunteered to fight. Many faked their age to qualify.

I read recently that many were motivated by deep religious convictions.   According to this website, a significant number of men in the trenches believed in British Israelism, that the British Empire and the United States were the fulfillment of the promises made to Joseph in Genesis chapter 48:

“15 And he blessed Joseph, and said:  “God, before whom my fathers Abra

ham and Isaac walked, The God who has fed me all my life long to this day,

16 The Angel who has redeemed me from all evil, Bless the lads;
Let my name be named upon them,

And the name of my fathers Abraham and Isaac;
And let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.”

17 Now when Joseph saw that his father laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him; so he took hold of his father’s hand to remove it from Ephraim’s head to Manasseh’s head. 

18 And Joseph said to his father, “Not so, my father, for this one is the firstborn; put your right hand on his head.”

19 But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great; but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his descendants shall become a multitude of nations.”

20 So he blessed them that day, saying, “By you Israel will bless, saying, ‘May God make you as Ephraim and as Manasseh!’” And thus he set Ephraim before Manasseh.”

The United States is big at 3.9 million square miles but the British Empire was vast at 13.9 million square miles. Many believed it was the prophesied “multitude of nations.” Its formal name was the British Empire and Commonwealth, the latter being the independent countries of the Empire that remained loyal to the Crown. These nations, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, together with the self-governing colony of Southern Rhodesia, all sent troops to help “mother England” when the country was threatened by the Axis powers of Germany and Austria-Hungary.   As Germany had colonies close to South Africa and Australia, these nations also brought about German defeats on a regional level.

The independent nations that formed the Commonwealth were known as Dominions. Canada was the first country to become a dominion in 1867, independent but loyal to the Crown. The word “dominion” was taken directly from Psalm 72:8: “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea.” The fact that the term dominion was inspired by scripture shows the founders of Canada were far more biblically aware that most recent leaders, the current prime minister being an exception.

It wasn’t just the dominions that sacrificed for Britain.   In World War II, two million Indians volunteered to fight for Britain, the biggest volunteer army in history.

Even India’s sacrifice was not as great as that of Southern Rhodesia, proportionate to population.   Sir Winston Churchill lauded the central African nation’s loyalty by describing it as “the most loyal colony.” Sadly, twenty years later, one of his successors was to betray the country, which now no longer exists.

Other colonies also contributed. The Gold Coast, now Ghana, raised up the Royal West African Frontier Force, which saw action in Burma and Ethiopia.   Nigeria also sent troops to Burma. It was felt that Africans could handle the heat a lot better than the British in the steaming hot jungles of Burma and Malaya.   Indian troops comprised the majority of soldiers fighting against the Japanese in this particular theater of war. Many sacrificed their lives for King and Country.

The Queen appreciates the sacrifice of all these nations more than most, as she lived through World War II and knows how easily Britain could have been defeated. Memories of the bombing of Buckingham Palace will still be with her. She will also remember that the wartime leader, Winston Churchill, had lunch with her father, King George VI, every week, keeping the king abreast of all developments in the war. It is said that Churchill would give the young Princess and future Queen informal history lessons. Churchill was later to write his monumental “History of the English speaking peoples,” a book that thankfully was written before political correctness and revisionist history.

At the Cenotaph, the war memorial in the center of London, the Queen remembers, at 88, far better than most of her subjects, the sacrifices made and the struggles that still continue. Her grandson, Prince Harry, missed the service in London, choosing instead to commemorate the day with British troops in Afghanistan, where he served three years ago.

The Commonwealth will likely survive the Queen’s passing. Prince Charles, who will take over as king upon the death of his mother, is getting more involved with the organization while his son, Prince William, together with his wife, the Duchess of Cambridge, are immensely popular, especially in the Commonwealth Realms, those member countries that retain the Queen as Head of State.

The organization may survive but it will never again be in unison in fighting a global conflict. It is no longer a military force and its members now have conflicting loyalties that preclude action on a universal scale. And, with the Queen’s passing, remembrance of two world wars will further diminish.