The Plain Truth About Human Embryo Stem Cell Research

The Plain Truth About Human Embryo Stem Cell Research


From the September 2004 Trumpet Print Edition

Anyone interested in news has heard something about embryonic stem-cell (esc) research. Prior to Aug. 9, 2001, when U.S. President George W. Bush made a public statement summarizing his position to prevent government funding of esc research, it was an uncommon topic in the media. From the time of the president’s address until now, embryonic stem-cell research has become a political football.

Human embryonic stem-cell research is the practice of “harvesting” cells from a fertilized or cloned human embryo. Harvesting the stem cells destroys any opportunity for that embryo to develop and be born.

Typically, people who oppose abortion oppose esc research, while those in favor of abortion, called “pro-choice,” are in favor of it. Though there are a few crossover opinions, most people find their belief for or against esc research is the same as their belief for or against abortions. There is a good reason for that fact.

The same public-relations problem exists for proponents of embryonic stem-cell research as for pro-abortionists. They are faced with the challenge of convincing the public and governmental officials with control of funds for research that embryonic stem-cell research is moral and should be legal. It comes down to a couple of basic definitions: What is life, and when does a human being start to be a human being?

Defining Life

Life is a pretty simple thing to define. It is the opposite of death. But science always tries to enhance the simple by creating complex definitions. And so it has been with the definition of “life.” Through the centuries, scientists arrived at an acceptable definition of life, and it has worked well, until the last few decades when abortion and now esc research have challenged it.

That definition of life has been: “The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism” (American Heritage Dictionary).

In other words, if something reproduces (cell duplication is reproduction), if it reacts to stimuli, if it is not dead, it is said to be alive.

Human embryonic stem cells do each of those things; therefore they are alive, and scientists do not argue that fact.

The problem begins when the question “If they are alive, what are they?” is asked. Well, they are not dogs or cats, they are not bacteria, and they are not tomatoes or carrots. It is really pretty simple: They are human tissue at the very least. But that is not the end of the story. If that was all there is to it, it probably wouldn’t be very controversial.

The real question that sticks in the throat of scientists is, where do they come from? Do they come from a human embryo? Are they harvested from an unborn infant? Therein is the problem.

A brief description of how embryonic stem cells are harvested should clear up this dilemma for anyone with an open mind. Since the first stages of esc research are the same as for cloning, further clarity will come from a brief review of cloning.

First, cloning is an attempt to grow an identical “twin” from an existing being, whether human or otherwise. For this discussion I will refer to human beings only. To clone a human, dna from one of the donor’s, or “parent’s,” cells, maybe a skin cell, is transplanted into a human egg from which the egg’s dna has been removed. That cell, if the cloning is successful, will then reproduce an exact duplicate of the original person. That has not been accomplished by scientists, but that is the theory.

For embryonic stem-cell research, the start is the same. dna is implanted into a human egg and it is allowed to “grow,” or “reproduce.” The dna supplied may be from a donor, as in the case of cloning, or it may come from sperm, as in normal reproduction. For esc research, the cell is allowed to reproduce no more than 14 days. Then its growth is interrupted. At that point, the outer layer is removed and the embryonic stem cells from within are dumped onto a growth medium (petri dish) to continue life as stem cells.

Up until that point, the normal outcome should be the birth of a child. Once the outer layer is removed and the stem cells are harvested, that potential child no longer exists.

From this point, the researchers use chemical and electrical stimulus to guide the growth of the stem cells into some desired tissue for the treatment of a disease.

When a human egg is fertilized inside of a woman, it reaches the uterus somewhere around the 4th or 5th day of life and attaches to the wall of the womb. At that time she is officially pregnant.

The term blastocyst is used to refer to these cells once there are about 16 cells, day 4 or 5, until the age of about 4 weeks. This human blastocyst, if undisturbed, will develop into a human baby and normally be born after 9 months of growth.

To harvest the stem cells for research, the blastocyst must be destroyed. Since researchers don’t want to deal with the interruption of this development as an issue of human life being cut short, they don’t want to call it a human life. In order for the government to smile on this process and to provide money for research, the scientists must avoid the appearance of murder. Their solution: a new word for an embryo that is less than 14 days old is added to the vocabulary of esc researchers and, they hope, to the vocabularies of the public and government officials needed to provide funding for research. The term they have devised is “pre-embryo.”

This is an arbitrary assignment of title and time. In reality, it has nothing to do with any difference in the material makeup of the cells. Scientists take the new embryo and remove the outer layer of cells exposing the inner “stem cells” and dump the stem cells into a petri dish and claim that is was just a pre-embryo, not a person at all.

Murder? There are stem cells other than embryonic, and they are processed differently. For example, some are taken from umbilical cords at birth. But these are not embryonic stem cells the scientific arena claims it needs for research. These do not involve killing an embryo and there is little problem with such research.

The problems arise when human life is interrupted. The scientists know a social-political argument begins whenever they toy with life. That is why they have instituted the definition of pre-embryo.

But in truth, as Shakespeare wrote, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Do scientists really think that changing a name changes reality? Apparently they do. This author does not.

Life begins at conception, a fact that makes abortion murder. The production of an embryo to be “harvested” likewise kills a potential human being.

The fact is that blastocysts are implanted in women at fertility clinics and grow into beautiful human babies. Changing the name to pre-embryo does not alter this fact nor does it justify murder. The International Herald Tribune explained, “The worrisome element is that the blastocyst stage, needed to extract stem cells, is also the stage where fertility clinics typically implant embryos, with a 40 percent to 60 percent chance of producing a baby” (February 14).

As many as three out of five of these “pre-embryos” become newborn babies when allowed to grow—but not if embryonic stem-cell researchers have their way.

When the growth of a developing human is intentionally stopped, it is murder. Calling a developing embryo by the name “pre-embryo” does not change anything: It is murder.

The following statement from the article “A Stem Cell Primer” demonstrates a simple fact: “Human development begins when a sperm fertilizes an egg and creates a single cell that has the potential to form an entire organism. This fertilized egg is totipotent, meaning that its potential is total—it can produce any kind of tissue found in the mature organism” (Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy; Vol. 15, 2000).

To understand the potential of that developing human being, request our free book The Incredible Human Potential. Once you have studied that book, you will have a greater understanding of the severity of murder for embryonic stem-cell research.

Some scientists argue that they should be able to use embryos left over at fertility clinics. They argue such embryos would never mature into people and should be available for research. But some noted scientists disagree. Kelly Hollowell, who has a Ph.D. in molecular and cellular pharmacology, says that “the justification that the embryos ‘left over’ in ivf clinics (reportedly >300,000 in the U.S. alone) will simply be discarded anyway, reflects a chilling absence of moral conscience. We do not consider it appropriate to take organs from dying patients or prisoners on death row BEFORE they have died in order to increase someone else’s chances for healing or cure. Neither, then, should we consider any embryos ‘spare’ so that we may destroy them for their stem cells” (“Ten Problems with Embryonic Stem-Cell Research,”, February 2002).

God’s instruction book for mankind explains it this way: “If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman’s husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” (Exodus 21:22-25).

The phrase “no mischief follow” means that the baby is born prematurely without any other problems. It is healthy. The phrase “if any mischief follow” means there has been some sort of injury to the infant and the payment of life for life makes it clear that an unborn child is equal to a living man. That is how God sees it.

Killing an unborn human being is murder whether it is for stem-cell research or as an abortion. Neither the semantics of scientific terms like pre-embryo nor the arbitrary selection of 14 days of age changes a thing.

The plain truth is that harvesting human embryonic stem cells is murder.

Christian in Name Only

From the August 2004 Trumpet Print Edition

Christian denominations are using every means available to recruit teenagers into their ranks—modern communication, Christian music, online pastors. You can even find Bible translations tailored to teenage lingo.

On the surface, the strategy appears to be working. According to a study cited in the Opinion Journal, 88 percent of teens say they are Christian, and one third of American teens profess to be “born again.” The Barna Research Group, a Protestant research group analyzing Christian trends, found that 60 percent of teenagers believe the Bible is totally accurate in all of its teaching, and 56 percent feel that faith is important in their life.

Another study cited in the same Journal article revealed that 91 percent of “born again” teens do not believe in absolute truth. Josh McDowell, an evangelist and author, claims that nearly 60 percent of evangelical Christian teens say all religious faiths teach equally valid truths. Many teens believe two contradictory ideas—the Bible is totally accurate and there is no such thing as absolute truth.

Society’s message of moral relativism and tolerance—especially prevalent in high school and on college campuses—seems to be having a much stronger influence on teen behavior than religion is. Given society’s moral breakdown, that’s not exactly shocking. But when this breakdown begins to rub off on Christian theology, it reveals the shallowness of religion in our society.

Jesus said that man should live by every word that proceeds out of God’s mouth (Matthew 4:4). Living that way of life is a process of continually striving to overcome sin. The life of a true Christian is one of repentance. Those who refuse to change their behavior—who will not conform to God’s way of living—can still call themselves Christian. But they are Christian in name only.

AIDS Rampant

From the August 2004 Trumpet Print Edition

BBC News, June 21

A new UN report shows that hiv infection is spreading more rapidly than ever, with over 5 million people contracting the disease last year alone. It is spreading most quickly in Eastern Europe and Asia. The report warns that 10 million could be infected in China by 2010. The disease is also spreading unchecked through Africa. hiv infection is now the leading cause of death among military personnel, accounting for more than half the deaths in some African countries’ military or police forces.

Africa is also suffering from a polio outbreak; at least 22 countries are affected, 10 of which were polio-free just a year ago.

The Scary Truth Behind the Milosevic Trial

The Scary Truth Behind the Milosevic Trial


From the September 2004 Trumpet Print Edition

The greatest intelligence failure of the past five years was not about Iraq. It was intelligence about Slobodan Milosevic and events leading up to the Balkans war. But strangely, we hear very little about this subject.

The media and our educational institutions are becoming more and more like Hollywood—they too often live in a fantasy world.

We have said from the beginning of the Balkans war that Germany, aided by the Vatican, led nato into that war. And it did it with blatantly deceptive intelligence.

Germany and the Vatican are the heart of the rising Holy Roman Empire. This is the seventh resurrection of that bloody empire. (Write for our free booklet Germany and the Holy Roman Empire to fully understand this subject.) This empire received its fame by wading through rivers of blood and conquering other nations. And it is going to start World War iii. In a sense, the Balkans are the first victim of World War iii. There will be many more victims.

Germany and the Vatican recognized Catholic Croatia (a Nazi puppet state under Hitler) as a breakaway republic from Yugoslavia. Most nations disagreed with that decision. But Germany prevailed, and it led to a civil war in the Balkans.

German leaders started and sustained the intelligence reports about genocide being committed by Slobodan Milosevic in the Balkans. We have proven that in our booklet The Rising Beast. (All of our books and booklets are free.)

Where Is the Proof?

Here is what Neil Clark, a Balkans specialist, wrote in the Guardian newspaper of London, February 12: “It is two years today that the trial of Slobodan Milosevic opened at The Hague. The chief prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, was triumphant as she announced the 66 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity and genocide that the former Yugoslavian president was charged with. cnn was among those who called it ‘the most important trial since Nuremburg’ as the prosecution outlined the ‘crimes of medieval savagery’ allegedly committed by the ‘butcher of Belgrade.’

“But since those heady days, things have gone horribly wrong for Ms. Del Ponte. The charges relating to the war in Kosovo were expected to be the strongest part of her case. But not only has the prosecution signally failed to prove Milosevic’s personal responsibility for atrocities committed on the ground, the nature and extent of the atrocities themselves has also been called into question.

“Numerous prosecution witnesses have been exposed as liars—such as Bilall Avdiu, who claimed to have seen ‘around half a dozen mutilated bodies’ at Racak, scene of the disputed killings that triggered the U.S.-led Kosovo war. Forensic evidence later confirmed that none of the bodies had been mutilated. Insiders who we were told would finally spill the beans on Milosevic turned out to be nothing of the kind. Rade Markovic, the former head of the Yugoslavian secret service, ended up testifying in favor of his old boss, saying that he had been subjected to a year and a half of ‘pressure and torture’ to sign a statement prepared by the court. Ratomir Tanic, another ‘insider,’ was shown to have been in the pay of British intelligence.

“When it came to the indictments involving the wars in Bosnia and Croatia, the prosecution fared little better. In the case of the worst massacre with which Milosevic has been accused of complicity—of between 2,000 and 4,000 men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995—Del Ponte’s team have produced nothing to challenge the verdict of the five-year inquiry commissioned by the Dutch government—that there was ‘no proof that orders for the slaughter came from Serb political leaders in Belgrade.’”

These are shocking facts about trumped-up intelligence against Milosevic. Germany virtually pulled the whole world into this massive crime!

But what does it mean? It is the strongest sign in recent years that Germany has not repented of its Nazi past. It is the best indicator of where Germany and the European Union are headed.

And now Germany has shown in the Iraqi war that it is not the friend of America and Britain. This bitter ingratitude came after Britain and America, at first strongly against Germany’s recognizing Croatia, caved in to Germany’s war—causing belligerence. And America provided 80 percent of the power to beat Milosevic into submission.

It was also America that rebuilt Germany after World War ii. Still, German ingratitude is overwhelming. Something has gone seriously wrong in Germany—again! How long will it take America and Britain to awaken?

America and Britain had no reason to fear Milosevic. But we have every reason to fear a militant Germany, leading the EU—a coming superpower soon to rival America.

Have we forgotten that Germany started World War i and World War ii? Now it is bullying Europe. And its aggressive tactics will spread around the world. The German Reich (or empire) is back. And the Germans will be expanding their empire, as they have done throughout history.

The media won’t stop screaming about faulty intelligence on Iraq. I’m still not convinced there were no weapons of mass destruction (wmd). Can anyone imagine Saddam Hussein destroying his wmd? Also, there is no evidence he did so. Still the media cling to the Iraqi intelligence failure (and there were obviously some mistakes). At the same time, they avoid the painful truth about the Milosevic trial. And he was a mild dictator compared to Saddam Hussein.

Superpowers have been destroyed in history for refusing to face the hard truths. America and Britain are going to pay a heavy price for deceiving themselves about Germany and the Balkans war. But for the time being, they refuse to face their hideous crime.

Lies to Justify the War

John Laughland is European director of the European Foundation, the leading London-based Eurorealist think tank. He is also the author of The Tainted Source—The Undemocratic Origins of the European Idea—a very ominous title! It is a subject very consistent with what we have been writing about the eu for over 50 years.

Here is what he wrote in the Spectator magazine of Britain, July 10: “For a few hours on Monday, the world’s human rights establishment was seized by terror. Slobodan Milosevic had been due to begin his defense at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (icty) in The Hague, but instead discussion focused on the former president’s fragile health, which has been made worse by the rigors of the trial. When the presiding judge, Patrick Robinson, said that a ‘radical review’ of the proceedings would now be necessary, many do-gooders feared that their worst nightmare was about to be realized—that the international community’s main trophy in its crusade for morality might, if only on medical grounds, be allowed to walk free.”

“Do-gooders” are some of the most dangerous people on this planet! They often have strong views based on little understanding. And this is a dangerous age to have strong influence combined with distorted reasoning.

Mr. Laughland also wrote that “the two-year prosecution case has been a nearly unmitigated disaster. Since the trial started in February 2002, the prosecution has wheeled out more than 100 witnesses, and it has produced 600,000 pages of evidence. Not a single person has testified that Milosevic ordered war crimes. Whole swaths of the indictment on Kosovo have been left unsubstantiated, even though Milosevic’s command responsibility here is clearest. And when the prosecution did try to substantiate its charges, the result was often farce” (ibid.; emphasis mine throughout).

Can that be true? “Not a single person has testified that Milosevic ordered war crimes.” He is a saint compared to Saddam Hussein!

But today the do-gooders are out defending Saddam and prosecuting Milosevic! It’s a very dangerous way to reason in the age of wmd.

Here is another statement by Mr. Laughland: “Serious doubt has also been cast on some of the most famous atrocity stories. Remember the refrigerator truck whose discovery in the Danube in 1999, full of bodies, was gleefully reported as Milosevic was transferred to The Hague in June 2001? The truck had allegedly been retrieved from the river and then driven to the outskirts of Belgrade, where its contents were interred in a mass grave. But cross-examination showed that there is no proof that the bodies exhumed were the ones in the truck, nor that any of them came from Kosovo. Instead, it is quite possible that the Batajnica mass grave dated from the Second World War, while the refrigerator truck may have contained Kurds being smuggled to Western Europe, the victims of a grisly traffic accident. The realization is now dawning that lies were peddled to justify the Kosovo war ….

“In February, the chief prosecutor herself, Carla del Ponte, admitted that she did not have enough evidence to convict Milosevic on the most serious charges” (ibid.).

That is quite an admission from the chief prosecutor. But where are the “truth seeking” media? Most of them are silent on this issue.

All kinds of lies were told to justify the Balkans war! That has now been abundantly proven. Slobodan’s sin is simply that he was an enemy of Germany and the Vatican—the Holy Roman Empire.

Now many critics are saying that lies were told to justify the Iraqi war. But that charge has never been backed by evidence. Iraq, under Saddam, was a terrorist-sponsoring nation. And the only way to win the war against terrorism is to stop terrorist-sponsoring nations. That is the big picture that escapes most of our people.

Such is the world in which we live. But there is more.

“The supposedly impartial judges have been deeply complicit in this prosecution bungling,” Laughland continued. “The icty has long been characterized by an unhealthy community of interests between the judges and the prosecutors; I have myself heard the first president of the icty, Judge Antonio Cassese, boast that he encouraged the prosecutor to issue indictments against the Bosnian Serb leaders, a statement which should disqualify him from serving as a judge ever again. In the Milosevic trial, the judges have admitted a tawdry parade of ‘expert witnesses’ who are not, in fact, witnesses to anything. In Britain, the role of experts is rightly under the spotlight after the convictions of some 250 parents found guilty of killing their babies have been thrown into doubt precisely because they relied on this kind of testimony; but in the icty you can be a ‘witness’ without ever having set foot in Yugoslavia.

“Numerous other judicial abuses have been legitimized by the icty. The use of hearsay evidence is now so out of control that people are often allowed to testify that they heard someone say something about someone else. It is common for the icty to offer reduced sentences (five years in one case) to men convicted of hideous crimes, mass murder for instance, if they agree to testify against Milosevic” (ibid.).

So much for justice coming out of the International Criminal Court in The Hague!

There is a vital lesson here. This gives us a good insight into the justice system of the coming eu superpower. Let the world beware!

But don’t despair. Worldwide justice is coming in this generation, and that is not a fantasy. Request our booklet The Wonderful World Tomorrow—What It Will Be Like.

This whole Balkans affair is a classic example of how human nature rarely seeks the truth. It is very human to seek only the truth that fits into one’s distorted view of the world. Such reasoning is why our number-one problem today is that of human survival! So don’t expect the media and politicians to change their perspective on the Balkans.

The Milosevic history gets even more twisted. Who is really being cleansed ethnically?

Ethnic Cleansing and Genocide

Here is a statement from Stratfor Systems, Oct. 17, 1999: “On March 22 [1999], British Prime Minister Tony Blair told the House of Commons, ‘We must act to save thousands of innocent men, women and children from humanitarian catastrophe, from death, barbarism and ethnic cleansing by a brutal dictatorship.’ The next day, as the air war began, President Clinton stated, ‘What we are trying to do is to limit his [Milosevic’s] ability to win a military victory and engage in ethnic cleansing and slaughter innocent people and to do everything we can to induce him to take this peace agreement.’

As nato’s first intervention in a sovereign nation, the war in Kosovo required considerable justification. Throughout the year, nato officials built their case, first calling the situation in Kosovo ‘ethnic cleansing,’ and then ‘genocide.’ In March, State Department spokesman James Rubin told reporters that nato did not need to prove that the Serbs were carrying out a policy of genocide because it was clear that crimes against humanity were being committed. But just after the war in June, President Bill Clinton again invoked the term, saying, ‘nato stopped deliberate, systematic efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide.’”

But did that ethnic cleansing and genocide really happen? There is no proof. But there is proof that the Serbs are suffering from ethnic cleansing!

Here is what George Jonas wrote in Canada’s National Post, March 22: “The Western powers that went into Kosovo to prevent ethnic cleansing have ended up presiding over it. Last week, nearly 1,000 Serbs fled their homes after Albanian Muslims attacked Serb Christians in their churches and villages. They were the latest of about 200,000 Serbs driven from the province since nato bombed Serbia into submission in 1999. Last Friday, news agencies quoted Admiral Gregory Johnson, U.S. commander of nato forces for southern Europe, as saying that ‘this kind of activity almost amounts to ethnic cleansing.’

“Admiral Johnson added a wistful comment: ‘That’s why we came here in the first place.’ The remark indicates that after 200,000 refugees, the coin may be dropping even for nato’s brass. …

“As justification for nato’s intervention, Mr. Clinton often invoked comparisons with the Holocaust. In a May 1999 speech, for instance, the U.S. president declared the allies were bombing Yugoslavia to put an end to regimes that persecute people on the basis of ‘how they worship or who their parents were.’ It was a good sound bite—except Yugoslavia’s ethnic Albanians weren’t being expelled because of their ancestry or their choice of worship. If the thuggish regime of Slobodan Milosevic was trying to drive them out of Kosovo, it was because they’d been fighting the Serbs for the mastery of the region. Comparisons with the Holocaust were bogus.”

Germany’s Strategy

State by state, the country of Yugoslavia has been conquered. Even the name Yugoslavia is being discarded.

Most of this conquering was accomplished with U.S. military power. But it is Germany and the European Union that are taking control of the former Yugoslavia. And Germany is giving the U.S. no credit, though it does often blame America for many of the problems that have developed.

Former Yugoslavia is a part of the Balkans, or Balkan Peninsula, along with Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece and European Turkey. The Balkan Peninsula is an extremely important strategic area.

The Adriatic Sea is an arm of the Mediterranean Sea. The German-led EU is also working hard to get control of the Mediterranean Sea—of even greater strategic importance.

Look at any map and you can see the strategic value. However, it seems only Germany fully realizes the significance of these areas. The Germans are willing to challenge the whole world to gain control of them. It seems nobody has askedWHYthese areas are so important to Germany!

Where is this leading?

The same spirit that caused Germany to start two world wars still prevails in that land! Soon the whole world will understand. Shocking as it may be, your Bible prophesies that people by the multiple millions will once again suffer from Germany’s violent attacks, as the Germans lead Europe.

This major turnaround in the Balkans has caused Europe to look to Germany once again. The Balkans war was a watershed event in the new direction of Europe. Germany is about to shock the world as it has never done before! And it has a rich history of shocking the world.

Notice what Sir Winston Churchill said, May 31, 1935: “Everywhere these countries are being made to look to Germany in a special way.”

And today all of Europe is looking to Germany in a special way. The outcome will be frighteningly similar to World War ii—except it will be about 10,000 times more destructive!

It seems we have learned nothing from Germany’s history. Even terrifying events like World War ii taught us nothing—just as Winston Churchill warned the world in the 1930s that it had learned nothing from Germany’s history and World War i.

Here is what Churchill said Feb. 7, 1934: “Not one of the lessons of the past has been learned, not one of them has been applied, and the situation is incomparably more dangerous.

And the situation today “is incomparably more dangerous,” with our weapons of mass destruction, than it was in World War ii!

When Germany starts World War iii, we will finally learn some lessons—but only after America, Britain and the little nation called Israel today have become victims.

The booklets we offer you will explain how our nations could be saved from this coming catastrophe. If the nations refuse to respond, you can still avoid this calamity. But there isn’t much time, so we hope you act before it is too late!

Disaster in the Sudan

From the August 2004 Trumpet Print Edition

Sudan is in crisis. Sudanese government-backed militias are committing ethnic cleansing, systematic rape and other atrocities in the Darfur region.

The catastrophe began when black rebels started attacking government targets early in 2003, claiming that the Arab-dominated government was neglecting the region (bbc News, July 7). The government and black populations in the Sudan have been at odds for a long time. By attacking government targets, Darfur’s rebels invited a government response—and what a horrific response they got!

More than a million people have been forced to leave their homes, many setting up temporary camps on the Chad-Sudan border. About 30,000 have already died. Andrew Natsios, head of the U.S. Agency for International Aid, expects that number will rise to at least 300,000 even if conditions do improve because so many are malnourished beyond help (Stratfor, June 29).

At the African Union summit in July, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan warned some 40 African leaders, “Without action, the brutalities already inflicted on the civilian population of Darfur could be a prelude to even greater humanitarian catastrophe—a catastrophe that could destabilize the region” (Associated Press, July 6).

Yet, at this point, the UN won’t declare this as genocide. Why? Because the international community does not want to get involved militarily. Under a 1948 UN convention, genocide in any country requires other member countries to intervene; it would be illegal not to act. Even the 53-nation African Union (AU) has committed only 300 troops to protect its military observers. While there has been diplomatic pressure from the U.S., the AU and the UN, it is too little, too late.

Meanwhile, the Darfur rebel groups have set six conditions for peace talks. By the time these conditions are met, the 1.2 million refugees may already be cut off from food supplies by Darfur’s rainy season. As of this writing, early rounds of peace talks have collapsed completely.

Africa cannot get the type of world attention it needs today. In the future though, the African people will receive the attention of the world’s great powers, which will come not as saviors but to exploit African resources.

After the European “king of the north” overcomes the Islamic “king of the south” (Daniel 11:40), the natural wealth of these African nations will be at Europe’s disposal. “But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps” (verse 43). This is a major reason the many problems in Africa can only be solved in one way: by the return of Jesus Christ to Earth.

EU’s Four Latin Cards

From the August 2004 Trumpet Print Edition

The EU already has four cards up its sleeve ready to play in the free-trade war with the U.S. over Latin American markets. Four countries stand out, despite their existing structural weaknesses, as having the potential to offer real attraction to EU investment. Of all EU member nations, Germany in particular has already significantly penetrated these four nations both economically and politically.


The EU is the largest single investor in Mexico. Between 1999 and 2003, Mexico’s exports to the EU increased by 19 percent. This was exceeded by the EU’s exports to Mexico, revealing an increase of 28 percent over the same period. In July, Mexico’s President Vicente Fox announced that he was turning his sights south. He is seeking membership within the Latin trading combine Mercosur, itself due to join with the EU in a trade pact of unprecedented scope in October.


Chile’s primary trading partner is the EU, representing 21 percent of Chile’s trade. It is also Chile’s main provider of foreign direct investment. The EU-Chile Association Agreement, announced at the 2002 EU-Latin America Summit in Madrid, was described by the European Commission as being the most innovative and ambitious ever negotiated by the EU. And no wonder. In an interview with German daily newspaper Die Welt, Chile’s Foreign Affairs minister, Soledad Alvear, commented, “We in Chile would like to closely coordinate our foreign policy issues with Europe” (Santiago Times, May 18). She then struck a chord on a note about which we are destined to hear more in the future: “We definitely share more values with Europe …. There is a strong European influence all over Latin America—not the least because of German immigrants. We simply feel very close to Europe” (ibid.). Many of those German immigrants fled the Allied occupation of Germany as World War ii drew to a close. In the mid-1940s, they “migrated” via the Vatican ratlines, an underground network established by Rome, in collaboration with the German authorities, to spirit Nazis, and much of their loot, out of Germany and to enable their resettlement in Latin America and other New World countries. Many of the sons of these escaped Nazis are firmly ensconced in positions of influence in Latino countries. One such is Nestor Kirchner, president of Argentina.


Kirchner, the German son of a Nazi father, was elected last year as the popular choice of the electorate following Argentina’s catastrophic flirtation with free-market economics. Stacking his administration with his Catholic-Germanic/Hispanic family connections, Kirchner is proving a fairly shrewd dealer. He is very conscious of his European heritage. In fact, he elected to unveil his inaugural economic policy in Europe rather than in his home country. This is a strong indicator of where he sees Argentina’s future benefactors coming from. Kirchner has allied with European Commission President Romano Prodi to accelerate efforts to conclude a free-trade deal with the Latino Mercosur trade group, known as the Common Market of the South. If this group is successful in signing a free-trade agreement with the EU, similar to that already enjoyed by Mexico and Brazil, it will become the largest single trade bloc in the world!


Brazil is proving to be the real mover and shaker in efforts to align with the EU. In Brazil, over 15 percent of industrial production is vested in German subsidiaries. This is set to escalate even more under the aggressively anti-U.S., pro-EU populist leadership of Brazil’s President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. After having run a current-account deficit in excess of $33 billion in 1998, Brazil turned its economy around to the point where it achieved a trade surplus of $13 billion in 2002. Yet it is Brazil’s coziness with Germany where the real political pay-off lies. Brazil acquired German assistance with its nuclear program back in 1975 through a German-Brazilian nuclear treaty. Shortly after, Brazil produced enriched uranium, a component necessary for nuclear weaponry. Recently, Berlin advanced the prospect of closer cooperation with the upper echelon of Brazilian military authorities, armaments manufacturers and procurers. This has raised suspicions that both powers intend to pool resources to produce nuclear arms. Such a prospect changes the status quo of the entire region.