Basic HTML Version
sanctions themselves, being so de–
pendent on South African trade.
In the end, the Commonwealth
meeting ended with a patched–
together-accord.
It
was arrived at
by great political gymnastics. The
accord announced agreement on
Iimited economic restrictions (gen–
erally already in effect) and added
that "sorne of us would" consider
stronger steps in six months time.
Mrs. Thatcher told reporters that
she very definitely was "not one of
the sorne."
Thus, Britain finds herself
iso–
/ated
in her own house, the Com–
monwealth. That 's because the
shape of that house has changed rad–
ically since the Second World War.
The Commonwealth in its begin–
nings was a club limited to a few
nations composed of people primar–
ily of British stock. In 1867 the
Parliament in London passed the
British North America Act, which
granted Canada dominion status. It
was a concept that implied equality
with Britain. Shortly after the turn
of the century, dominion status was
conferred on Australia, New
Zealand and South Africa.
At the Imperial Conference of
1926, Britain and the Dominions
were defined as "autonomous com–
munities, equal in status, united by
a common allegiance to the Crown
and freely associated as members
of the British Commonwealth of
Nations."
But British worldwide obliga–
tions covered a wide number of
peoples and cultures, other than
just the commonly referred to
"white dominions." Scores of
British possessions and protec–
torates in Africa, Asia and the
New World were eventually to de–
mand independence-and their
own seats in the freely associated
Commonwealth.
Beginning with an independent
India in 1947, the Bri tish Com–
monwealth became a multiethnic
group of nations, sharing the com–
monality not of race but of the
English language and the various
traditions received from its former
colonial ruler.
The word
British
was dropped
from the Commonwealth in 1951.
The group carne to be known as the
Commonwealth or The Common–
wealth of Nations.
It
now totals 49
4
members, representing nearly a
quarter of the earth's population–
a virtual "mini-United Nations."
As the ranks of the new Com–
monwealth members swelled, it
was the new Third World nations
that increasingly set the agenda of
Commonwealth meetings.
Today even the original domin–
ion states - Australia , New
Zealand and Canada--often side
with the newer members, as they
did at the Bahamas 09nference.
Mark this well! Do not be sur–
prised if, at sorne future Common–
wealth meeting, demands are made
to enact sanctions against Britain,
complete with threats to expel her
from the very organization she
founded .
A Shadow of Former Greatness
Britain in 1986 is but a shadow of
her former greatness. With the em–
pire gone and the Commonwealth
often in opposition, Britain is in the
process of relinquishing two signif–
icant pieces of overseas territory–
Hong Kong and Gibraltar.
Hong Kong, Britain's prosperous
Asían crown colony-the world's
third largest financia! center-be–
comes a "special administrative re–
gion" of the People's Republic of
China in 1997.
And Britain has at last agreed to
discuss with Spain the sticky issue
of sovereignty in negotiat ions over
the future status of Gibraltar- the
impregnable western sea gate to
the Mediterranean, Britain's very
symbol of past imperial power and
perseverance.
The British public, still enjoying
a fair amount of prosperity, seem
not to be particularly perturbed by
their nation 's condition- by the
loss of power and prestige abroad,
and the Iooming crises at borne.
The nation has been on, as jour–
nalist Peter Jenkins described it, a
slow but steady "dignified
demise." This drift has been tem–
porarily slowed by the firmness of
Prime Minister Thatcher- but the
trend is still downward. In 1985
Italy bypassed Britain in its stan–
dard of living.
None other than Prince Charles
warns that Britain is doomed to the
status of, as he says, "a fourth-rate
country" unless there is a dramatic
change in the public attitude to-
ward work and enterprise. He is
disturbed over a deep-seated cul–
tural refusal to face the reality of
the nation's relative economic de–
cline.
Applicable is the prophet 's warn–
ing: " ... gray hairs are here and
there on him, yet he does not know
it" (Hos. 7:9, Revised Authorized
Version).
Not that sorne of today's secular
prophets can't see direct cause–
and-effect relationships.
"Britain's economic decline runs
roughly parallel with the creation
of the welfare state," wrote colum–
nist Peregrine Worsthorne in the
June 16, 1985,
Sunday Telegraph.
And moral decline has kept pace.
In an earlier column (February
10, 1985), Mr. Worsthorne casti–
gated British clergymen for not
speaking out against homosexuality
and for not giving the moral dimen–
sion to the AIDS epidemic. "Is it not
time that the bishops brought God
into the act?" he demanded.
Another journalist, Paul John–
son, writing in the May 11, 1985,
Daily Te/egraph,
lashed out at
clerics who pontificate on política]
and economic matters, but not
moral ones, such as the epidemic of
children born out of wedlock–
"probably the biggest and most in–
tractable social
evil
we face today,"
he said, adding that tbe one-parent
family is a major cause of poverty.
"Yet oddly enough," said Mr.
Johnson, "it is a long time since
1
have heard any clergyman, Jet
alone a bishop, preach a sermon on
the evils of fornication."
Yes, there are definite , dis–
cernible causes for the many prob–
lems that Britain is confronted
with at borne and abroad. The
" Lord of our far-flung battleline,
beneath whose ... Hand we hold
dominion over palm and pine," of
whom Kipling wrote in bis 1897
Recessional,
is no longer blessing
the British people.
You'll find even more answers to
the reasons for Britain's current
state of affairs in our book
The
United States and Britain in
Prophecy.
Jt's free for the asking.
It
will open your eyes to the
bibli–
ca/ identity
of the British and
American peoples, and what is
prophesied to occur to them in the
tumultuous years ahead.
o
The
PLAIN TRUTH