SHORTAGES OF WHEAT AND OTHER COMMODITIES PREDICTED

Wheat prices surge after Russia launches full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24. (https://news.icourban.com/crypto-http-5suna-sho.koto.ed.jp/news/photos/world/a-look-at-how-russia-ukraine-crisis-may-impact-wheat-prices-8159781.html)

This is, in fact, a war between two superpowers … of agriculture. The world’s number one exporter of wheat has invaded the world’s number five exporter of the grain – together Russia and Ukraine provide about 30% of wheat in global markets. Ukraine has now banned exports entirely as a wartime security measure, and financial sanctions on Russia are making global buyers wary of purchasing Russian bushels at all.

The sunflower side of it. That yellow band on the Ukrainian flag is meant to depict the country’s vast golden fields of sunflowers. Ukraine is the single largest exporter of sunflower oil, accounting for more than 40% of the global supply. Russia isn’t far behind at about a quarter of the market. Sunflower oil is a crucial cooking oil for households in many developing countries (and it’s also the source of the crisp in potato chips.) The war has already halted activity at Ukraine’s sunflower crushing plants, causing a knock-on surge in demand for substitutes like palm oil, which is now also seeing soaring prices.   (Gzero Signal, 3/16/2022)

“When Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine, he dreamed of restoring the glory of the Russian empire.  He has ended up restoring the terror of Josef Stalin.”  (The Economist, 3/12/2022)

“Today Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is unleashing the biggest commodity shock since 1973, and one of the worst disruptions to wheat supplies since the first world war.  Although commodity exchanges are already in chaos, ordinary folk are yet to feel the full effects of rising petrol bills, empty stomachs and political instability.    But make no mistake, those things are coming.  – and dramatically so, if sanctions on Russia tighten further, and if Vladimir Putin retaliates.  Western governments need to respond to the commodity threat. as determinedly as to Mr. Putin’s aggression.”   (The Economist, 3/12/2022)

The global food system could be tipped into “disaster” as a result of the war in Ukraine, experts have warned, leaving millions facing severe hunger.

The Covid-19 pandemic had already pushed up the cost of food prices before Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. But the “additional strain of war” could be catastrophic for global food supplies as it threatens “supplies of key staple crops”, said The Guardian.

“We were already having problems with food prices,” Maximo Torero, chief economist at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, told the paper. “What countries are doing now is exacerbating that, and the war is putting us in a situation where we could easily fall into a food crisis.”

UN Secretary General António Guterres also warned that the crisis in Ukraine, a country often described as “the breadbasket of the world,” would impact food supplies, saying there is a “sword of Damocles” hanging over the global economy, especially in the developing world.  (The Week, 3/21/2022)

CHINA CLOSER TO DOMINATING SE ASIA

“[T]his presents a security risk to all countries in southeast Asia… where China has now built itself the capacity to control the skies and control the sea lanes through that region very effectively… It reflects the overall growth of the Chinese military… control of the South China Sea would be a major step for the PRC in prosecuting a military campaign against Taiwan. It certainly makes it much harder for the United States for example to get its military forces closer to Taiwan… it really becomes a mechanism to control all of southeast Asia, this is a region of ten countries, 650 million people… if you are the military dominant power in the South China Sea you dominate south east Asia. That at least was the strategic thinking of the Japanese in the Second World War and I think it is the strategic thinking of China right now.” — Peter Jennings, Executive Director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, interview with ABC Radio Australia, March 22/2022)

——————————————————————

TO THE POINT

• Vladimir Putin’s press secretary has refused to deny that Russia could resort to using nuclear weapons. Speaking to CNN, Dmitry Peskov was asked under what conditions Putin would use Russia’s nuclear capability. He replied:  “If it is an existential threat for our country, then it can be.”  The Pentagon denounced the statement as reckless, saying “it’s not the way a responsible nuclear power should act” – but also said its officials “haven’t seen anything that would lead us to conclude that we need to change our strategic deterrent posture.”  (The Week, 3/23/2022)

• Official forecasts have shown that Britain is facing the biggest fall in living standards since records began in 1956. The Office for Budget Responsibility said they would fall by 2.2% in the next tax year, the largest reduction in a year and twice the size of the falls during the oil shocks of the 1970s and 1980s. It also predicted that household energy bills will surge to about £2,800 a year from October, when the price cap on standard tariffs is expected to rise by a record £830.  (The Week, 3/24/2022)

• Prince William has spoken of his “profound sorrow” about slavery during a speech at a dinner in Jamaica. The Duke of Cambridge said slavery “should never have happened” and “forever stains our history.”  His words followed protests in Jamaica, and an open letter written by 100 prominent citizens, calling for William to apologise for the royal family’s role in the slave trade.  “Some will be disappointed” that the Prince did not give a formal apology, said the BBC.  (The Week, 3/24/2022)

• Editor of Saudi Daily:  ‘Biden Is Becoming A Master At Losing Friends And Alienating Allies’; Everyone Harmed By The Current Oil Crisis Should Realize Biden’s Foreign Policy Is Responsible For Their Plight  (MEMRI, 3/24/2022)

• As NATO leaders arrive in Brussels for today’s NATO summit, there’s a big question: which side is Turkey on? Its president, Recep Erdogan, regards himself as a Putin ally but that hasn’t stopped his son-in-law selling drones to Ukraine. Joe Biden wants Turkey to fully side with the West. The power map of Europe is being redrawn, says Owen Matthews in his cover article – but Turkey is positioning itself as the powerbroker. (The Spectator, 3/24/2022)

————————————————

PRINCE WILLIAM AND SLAVERY

It wasn’t his first official visit to Commonwealth countries but it was certainly the most difficult for Prince William and his wife, Kate.  Quite a baptism of fire, in fact.

The second in line to the throne and his wife were sent on a visit to commemorate the queen’s Platinum Jubilee.  They were visiting Belize, Jamaica and the Bahamas, all Commonwealth Realms, meaning the Queen is Head of State of each country.

The threat of a demonstration against slavery forced a change to the itinerary in Belize; while in Jamaica, the Prime Minister of the country chose to give them a public dressing down, an almost unheard of diplomatic insult.  

There’s just one problem, those intent on disrupting the royal tour are 250 years too late.

It’s exactly 250 years since the famous Somerset decision made it a crime to keep anybody as a slave in the United Kingdom.  That was a first for the UK. 35 years later the UK became the first European country to abolish the slave trade.   A quarter of a century further on and slavery was abolished throughout the British Empire.  From 1810 until 1861 the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron stopped ships of all nationalities and freed 250,000 slaves. Britain’s progressive credentials cannot be beaten by any other nation.  

Note the following letter from the Washington Post:

The July 4 editorial  “What ‘America First’ should really mean” portrayed the United States as “a nation that long ago set itself against tyranny.” But this ignored the elephant in the room:  The American Revolution was motivated in part to preserve slavery.

In 1772, four years before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the English court decision Somerset v. Stewart was generally interpreted to mean that slavery had no legal basis in England. In contrast, the laws of the southern American colonies defined slaves not as people but as property. The contrast between these laws and the public’s view of the Somerset decision could not be starker. The southern colonies feared that Somerset would eventually apply to them and abolish their way of life. In their view, the only way to preserve slavery was to become independent of Britain. Their support for independence was essential to the Revolution’s success.

The moral impact of Somerset eventually led Britain to abolish slavery in nearly all of its colonies. It did that in 1833, 32 years before slavery was abolished in the United States by the 13th Amendment. Had Britain succeeded in suppressing the Revolution, slaves in the United States might have been freed a lot sooner.  John L Hodge, Jamaica Plain, Mass.

Certainly, in the 16th and 17th centuries Britain profited from slavery, but so did every other nation.  And it wasn’t just European nations that benefitted.  Europeans simply cashed in on an already thriving African slave trade.   John Kufour, President of Ghana, reminded Ghanaians of their role in the slave trade on the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the trade by the British government.  The expression “sold down the river” emanates from this time, when African chiefs would sell captives of other tribes, “sold down the river” to meet the slavers taking them to the New World.

Additionally, we should mention that at least one million white people were held as slaves mostly by Arabs in the Middle East.   The book “White Gold” tells their story.  The book is by Giles Milton and was published in 2004.  (He puts the figure at between one million and 1.25 million.)

Perhaps Caribbean leaders could read up more on their own history before they embarrass more royals on future visits!

Remember:  “The truth will set you free” (John 8:32).  By denying these facts the Caribbean could be in danger of replacing the Brits with another nation, which would be far worse, maybe China?

BRITISH EMPIRE WAS A BLESSING

It has been suggested that citizens of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms be given their own “fast lane” at UK Points of Entry.   This will be good news for citizens of Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the smaller realms.   If the idea is approved, it will be a first step toward restoring closer Commonwealth ties that ended when Britain joined the EU.

While Britain has been a member of the European Union, EU citizens were able to go through the fast lane, while the rest of us waited for up to two hours, slowly inching forward in the “Aliens” line.

Post-Brexit, it will certainly be in Britain’s best interests to enter into closer trade and defense ties with the countries that share Britain’s parliamentary system and all have the same Head of State, Queen Elizabeth II.   Other Commonwealth countries have opted for a republican form of government, recognizing the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth but not retaining her services as their own sovereign.

It will also mean that, for the first time, the United Kingdom is reversing five decades of history and turning its attention again to its former Empire.

The word “Empire” has been a pejorative for two generations.   Before World War One, there was a great deal of enthusiasm for the British Empire around the world in territories that constituted the “empire upon which the sun never set.”   Over a quarter of the world’s people lived under the British flag.   Imperialism was in vogue and inspired millions of people to help develop other nations.

Today, people forget what a blessing the Empire was.  Let’s take a look at a few of those blessings.

1.  The Bible and religious freedom.

The fourteenth century philosopher and theologian, John Wycliffe, was the first man to translate all the scriptures into English.   His favorite verse was Philippians 2:12: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”   He struck the first blow for religious freedom and democracy by encouraging people to study for themselves and make up their own minds.

Two centuries later, the English Queen Elizabeth I, secured the Protestant Reformation by bravely sending her smaller fleet against the Spanish Armada.   England defeated the Spaniards, thereby thwarting an attempt by the pope to force the country back into the Catholic Church.

In the nineteenth century, the British and Foreign Bible Society, took the Bible into dozens of different countries.   The Wycliffe Bible Translation Society still exists, sending volunteers into poor and backward countries to develop a written language and then translate the Bible so that all may read it.

The most famous British missionary, David Livingstone, took the Bible with him into central Africa, to “bring light into darkness.”  He was also motivated by a desire to see the end of slavery, perpetrated by Arab slave traders, who were seizing black Africans as slaves.

2.  Britain was the first major country to abolish slavery.

Slavery was universal and had not been questioned until the eighteenth century.   It wasn’t just Africans who were taken as slaves.   One million white people were being held by Muslim slave traders at this time.   (“White Gold”, Giles Milton, 2004.)

In 1772, the Somerset decision by an English court, ruled that British people could not hold slaves, that all people in Britain were free. It took another 35 years before the slave trade was abolished and a further 27 years before slavery itself was ended throughout the British Empire.  (Denmark banned the slave trade in its territories a few years before Britain.)

One year after the abolition of the slave trade, the British government authorized the Royal Navy to stop ships on the high seas and free all the slaves.   Wikipedia has this to say about the West Africa Squadron:

“The Royal Navy established the West Africa Squadron (or Preventative Squadron) at substantial expense in 1808 after Parliament passed the Slave Trade Act of 1807.   The squadron’s task was to suppress the Atlantic slave trade by patrolling the coast of West Africa.   With a home base at Portsmouth, it began with two small ships, the 32-gun fifth-rate frigate HMS Solebay and the Cruizer-class brig-sloop HMS Derwent. At the height of its operations, the squadron employed a sixth of the Royal Navy fleet and marines.

“Between 1808 and 1860 the West Africa Squadron captured 1,600 slave ships and freed 150,000 Africans.^[“1]

Because of its role in fighting slavery, Britain was seen as a Liberator around the world.  Many tribes in Africa asked to be annexed into the British Empire, seeking protection from slave traders.  At one point, so many African tribes were asking to join the Empire that the British were overwhelmed. “The Dualla chiefs of the Cameroon repeatedly asked to be annexed, but the British either declined or took no notice at all.”  (Pax Britannica, James Morris, 1968, page 43)

In the last three decades of the nineteenth century, Victorians were caught up in an enthusiastic desire to see slavery ended in Africa, and the Bible, Protestant Christianity, democracy and the rule of law introduced (“Africa and the Victorians,” Robinson and Gallagher, 1961)

Sadly, in the sixty years since the end of the British Empire, slavery is back in every single African country, according to UNESCO.   The former Ghanaian President, John Kufour, condemned slavery in Ghana a few years ago on the 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade throughout the British Empire; he also apologized for the role Ghana’s own chiefs had played in promoting slavery by selling their own people and members of other tribes.

3.  British capital developed many nations.

The definitive books on British investment around the world are the two volume “British Imperialism” by Cain and Hopkins.  The books highlight “London’s role as the chief provider of economic services during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries” (back cover, volume one).   London remains the world’s number one financial center (New York has the world’s biggest stock exchange).   Not only did British capital develop every country in the Empire, it was also responsible for developing the United States, Argentina, Brazil,Chile, the Ottoman Empire and China.

Interestingly, one reason that members of the European Union are upset over Brexit, is that Britain has been a net contributor to the EU, helping to finance development in other member nations.  When the UK leaves, where is the money going to come from?

4.   Another blessing of British rule was its governmental system and the administration of its various colonies.

Britain’s democratic parliamentary system and its constitutional monarchy is the most stable political system in the world.   It was successfully exported to all its colonies and dominions.  Sixteen of those countries have retained the same system since independence, including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and a number of majority black countries in the Caribbean.  Queen Elizabeth remains as Head of State in all of these countries.

38 other countries, former colonies of Great Britain, did not retain the Queen as Head of State but still look to her as the Head of the Commonwealth.  Many of these nations have suffered through coups and counter-coups and periods of military rule.  In many, corruption is rife and the people are worse off than they were when colonies.

Interestingly, it was recently suggested that the United States join the Commonwealth, as an Associate member.  The Royal Commonwealth Society is opening a branch in New York City.

5.   The free world’s first line of defense.

For two centuries Great Britain was the “policeman of the world.”  The country brought down Napoleon, after which she was the undisputed leader of the world.  A century later, with her dominions and colonies, she brought down the Kaiser.  In World War Two, the British Empire was the only power that was in the war from beginning to end.   With later help from the Soviet Union and the United States, the Empire defeated Hitler and his monstrous Third Reich that was the most racist regime in modern history.  The Empire’s forces also kept the peace on the North-West frontier of India, in what are now Pakistan and Afghanistan and in other trouble spots around the world.

America’s pre-eminent historian, James Truslow Adams, wrote his history of “The British Empire 1784-1939” in the year that World War Two started, 1939.   This is the final paragraph in his book:   “In this world crisis, we in America have a great stake.  We know that stability is impossible without respect for law and order, for the honesty of the written and spoken word.  Without liberty of thought, speech and press, progress is impossible.  What these things mean to the world of today and tomorrow has been amply demonstrated by the negation of them in certain great nations during the past few years.   Different peoples may have different ideals of government but for those who have been accustomed to freedom of person and of spirit, the possible overthrow of the British Empire would be a catastrophe scarcely thinkable.  Not only would it leave a vacuum over a quarter of the globe into which all the wild winds of anarchy, despotism and spiritual oppression could rush, but the strongest bulwark outside ourselves for our own safety and freedom would have been destroyed.”  (page 358)

The Empire has indeed been replaced by “the wild winds of anarchy, despotism and spiritual oppression.”

It’s no wonder that, at the height of the Empire, during Queen Victoria’s reign and the first few years of the twentieth century, many people in Britain and its overseas territories, believed the Empire was a fulfillment of biblical promises made to Joseph, one of the twelve sons of Israel.  In Genesis, chapter 48, we read of howJoseph’s descendants were to become a great “multitude of nations” and a “great (single) nation,” the British Empire and Commonwealth and the United States.  They were to be a physical blessing to the world (Genesis 12:3).  In the late Victorian period, believers published a weekly newspaper called “The Banner of Israel”  — they enthusiastically tracked the daily growth of the British Empire and the United States at the time.

This belief was widely held in the trenches of World War One.  It’s ironic that those same trenches shattered the religious convictions of many, who witnessed the carnage first-hand.

No empire was perfect.  Britain made mistakes.  Often listed by anti-imperialists is the Amritsar massacre of 1919.  This was not deliberate government policy, but rather the misjudgment of the commanding officer.  The 1943 Bengal famine is also often mentioned; overlooked is the fact that this was in the middle of World War II when other nations also experienced famine. Historical mistakes were made in Ireland, which caused problems to this day.

Imperialism had been in vogue before 1914; after two world wars, there was great disillusionment.   Additionally, the colonial powers had serious financial problems.  Decolonization followed.  It was the end of the European empires.

^. 

 

 

 

 

 

BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH AND THE SLAVE TRADE

Benedict Cumberbatch is a British actor who is famous for his radical portrayal of  “Sherlock Holmes.” 

More recently, he has narrated an IMAX documentary on “Jerusalem” and starred in the critically acclaimed movie, “12 Years a Slave.”

The producer of the documentary, interviewed on CBS, revealed that, at the end of making the documentary on the 3,000 year old city, Cumberbatch asked:  “Why didn’t they teach us all this in school?”  I am not surprised that British schools no longer teach the basics of Christianity, another casualty of multiculturalism.  So Cumberbatch shouldn’t feel too bad about his historical ignorance on the significance of the ancient city.

He would, however, not be wise to venture into further comments on history.

He recently made the film “12 Years A Slave,” which tells the story of Solomon Northup, a free black man in New York, who was kidnapped prior to the Civil War and taken into slavery.  While the story is tragic, Cumberbatch was ingenuous when he apologized for his ancestors’ role in the business of slavery.  His apology only fuels the frequently raised demand for financial compensation.

How can we apologize for our ancestors?  The world was a very different place two centuries ago and we cannot sit in judgment of those who came before us.

Slavery was universally practiced throughout history.  It wasn’t just a black and white problem.  In the eighteenth century, one million white people were held as slaves by Muslims across the Middle East.  Considered property, they were called “White Gold.”

To my knowledge, the Muslims have never apologized for this, nor have any of their descendants demanded compensation.

According to a book on the origin of surnames, my family name “Rhodes” owes its origin to the island of Rhodes.  The Rhodes’ were apparently Jews on the island, expelled when the island was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in 1522.  I would very much appreciate it if the Turkish government would apologize for confiscating our family property and offer compensation, adjusted for inflation, of course!

Perhaps the British government should take up the cry and demand the Italians apologize for the Roman occupation of their island that lasted almost four centuries.  As the Italians are currently rather broke, they might have to take an IOU to be claimed at some future date.

As stated, slavery was a universal condition throughout history.

What is significant, and Cumberbatch should know this as a Brit, is that Great Britain was the most progressive of all the major powers two hundred years ago when it abolished slavery.  The abolition of the slave trade in 1807 was a major step forward in liberating mankind from this great evil.  But a change in the law did not change everything.

The Royal Navy was then given the job of stopping ships on the high seas and freeing slaves, white or black.  The famous missionary and explorer David Livingstone went into Africa determined to stamp out slavery.  He was well aware that African chiefs were selling their own people.  The expression “sold down the river” dates back to this time.

The slave trade in Livingstone’s time was carried out by Muslims, who took Africans to be sold in the Middle East.  The Arab slave traders were aided by Africans themselves.

The Royal Navy patrolled the West African coastline throughout the nineteenth century in its determination to end the trade.

Sadly, according to the UN, five decades after independence, slavery is back in every African country!  Only one African leader has apologized for it – former Ghanaian President John Kufour, who recognized that his own people were actively involved in the slave trade – and explained that slavery continues in his own country (a fact further publicized by Oprah Winfrey on her television program).  His apology coincided with the two hundredth anniversary of the British abolition of the trade, sponsored by William Wilberforce.

Actors need to be careful venturing into history.  Mel Gibson made two of the most historically inaccurate movies ever made, “Braveheart” and “The Patriot.”  After making the second one, he snapped at a film critic who challenged his interpretation of history, making it clear where he stood.  As I remember it, he said:  “We’re not in the business of teaching history.  We’re in the business of producing entertainment!”

This, of course, does not mean that movies aren’t influential – “Braveheart” has been very influential in fueling the fires of Scottish nationalism, which may result in Scotland leaving the UK in September of this year.  Few voters will have read that the movie contains a record 87 historical inaccuracies (that’s not my figure, I only realized three – but you can Google it).  (You can also Google “To Kill a King,” described as the most historically accurate movie ever made.)

Let’s all remember when we watch an historical movie to realize that it’s first and foremost entertainment provided to make money; and let’s also realize that no actor is qualified to comment on history any more than a historian is qualified to act.