Awake!, February 22, 1979

Download: PDF — Awake!, February 22, 1979

Awake! — February 22, 1979

Source: jw.org

Contents

Page Two

Is World Unity Finally Within Reach?

Is a “United States of Europe” a Step in the Right Direction?

Does the U.N. Have the Solution?

Rejoice! World Unity Is Within Reach!

Man-made Shortcuts for Trade

Benefits of Thoroughness

Rice—From Paddy to Cooking Pot

A Look at Ancient Cyprus

Instant Mail?

“He Who Has Seen Me Has Seen the Father”—In What Sense?

Watching the World

A Paradise Was Lost

Marriage—How It Can Succeed

Page Two

Page Two

World unity would bring many benefits to mankind. A number of steps have been taken to bring it about; more are proposed. The charter of the United Nations contains commendable goals. But there are many stumbling blocks to world unity. Is it an unreachable goal? No. Mankind will without fail be united in a loving brotherhood. But how? And when? This series of articles gives the answers

3 IS WORLD UNITY FINALLY WITHIN REACH?

4 IS A “UNITED STATES OF EUROPE” A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION?

9 DOES THE U.N. HAVE THE SOLUTION?

12 REJOICE! WORLD UNITY IS WITHIN REACH!

Is World Unity Finally Within Reach?

Is World Unity Finally Within Reach?

DRUGS

TERRORISM

SELFISHNESS

WAR

NATIONALISM

HATRED

CRIME

WORLD unity! What a blessing it would be for mankind! But is there anything to indicate that it is more than just a Utopian dream? Or has it perhaps finally been brought within reach?

If you have ever traveled extensively, you may have experienced the frustration of keeping your finances straight. Likely you had the challenge of converting your Japanese yen into German marks, then into Italian lire, over into English pounds or maybe American dollars, all the while trying to figure out what this or that would cost “in real money.” Thus, no doubt you can see the advantage that world unity would bring in just such a small matter as common currency.

Or what about those endless passport and customs controls? What an inconvenience and what a loss of time! These, too, would cease were world unity a reality. No more: “Would you open your suitcases, please? How long do you plan on staying? Where?” and sometimes even “Why?”—almost as though you were not really wanted.

Of course, these are minor inconveniences when compared to the really BIG problems that world unity would solve. Gone would be the political differences, faultfinding and name-calling that only too often escalate into trade embargoes, currency restrictions, disruption of diplomatic relations and sometimes climax in war itself, with all its needless misery and suffering.

If people could resolve their political differences, think of the tremendous amount of money, presently set aside for national defense, that would immediately become available! This money could provide everyone with decent housing and dignified employment and working conditions. It could make desolate areas habitable, build roads and hospitals, and improve the educational system. Why, the list of possibilities is almost endless!

In view of the benefits brought about by unity, it is understandable that repeated attempts to achieve it have been made. On a small scale some of these attempts have been successful. Groups of people have been united into strong nations. Consider, for example, the Holy Roman Empire, the British Empire, or, more recently, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

Other attempts, although not necessarily with political integration as their goal, have nevertheless brought about increased unity of thought and action between groups of nations. The League of Arab States is one example, as is the United Nations organization.

Some consider world unity, however, as purely Utopian. Why even the Holy Roman Empire and the British Empire broke up with time, they will point out. Even stable federal governments are having problems, like the government of Canada, which is concerned that Quebec might break away from the rest of the country.

So although desirable, there seem to be heavy undercurrents running against world unity. Abba Eban, former foreign minister of Israel, once said: “A paradox of our times is that the proliferation of small nation-states goes hand in hand with a search for wider forms of integration, as exemplified in the United Nations, the European Economic Community, the Organization of American States and the Organization of African Unity.” The intervening 14 years since these words were spoken only serve to verify them, because during this period many new nations have come into existence: Angola, Bangladesh and Botswana to mention only three. Now, 150 nations are members of the United Nations, the most ever.

In view of this strong trend toward nationalism, can we realistically speak of world unity? Yes, we can. We feel that world unity is, not only desirable and achievable, but inevitable! And we feel that it will bring about benefits of which man today cannot even dream.

But still the question remains: How will it be achieved? Western Europeans may see progress toward a proposed “United States of Europe” as a step in the right direction. Could this, if achieved, prove to be the big breakthrough? Would it finally put world unity within reach? Let us consider the evidence.

Is a “United States of Europe” a Step in the Right Direction?

Is a “United States of Europe” a Step in the Right Direction?

EUROPE was for centuries the center of world civilization and culture. It experienced the Renaissance; it mothered the industrial revolution; it financed the exploration of distant “undiscovered” lands; it colonized them and made nominal Christians out of “pagan natives.” Even today Europe makes its influence felt in many parts of the earth.

That is why many persons feel that a united Europe—perhaps even a “United States of Europe”—would have a positive, beneficial effect on the rest of the world. Could it perhaps be a step in the right direction—in the direction of world unity?

Attempts at Unification

The famous French writer Victor Hugo served as president of a congress held in Paris in 1849 that pleaded for a United States of Europe to ensure universal peace. Later Count Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austrian, founded what was known as the Pan-European union with a similar goal, but it too met with little success.

After emerging from World War II, which split Europe into two political blocs, Western European nations began giving renewed consideration to the desirability of unification. Eastern European nations rejected the idea, seeing in it a political move by the Western nations to oppose the Communist bloc. Hence, the so-called “United States of Europe” has been solely a Western European project.

A first step was taken in 1949 when 10 of these Western European nations agreed to set up a Council of Europe. It was “for the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the ideals and principles which are part of its common heritage and to favor their social and economic progress.” Although it had no decision-making powers, yet it served as a consultative group or forum where member nations could express opinions and make recommendations.

Winston Churchill said of this Council: “The first step has been taken, and it is the first step that counts”—provided, of course, that the first step is in the right direction. Was it? The fact that other European nations have joined this Council—at present there are 20 members—seems to indicate that at least they feel that it was.

In 1951, at the suggestion of the French minister of foreign affairs, Robert Schumann, five of these original 10 nations (France, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg), together with the Federal Republic of Germany, formed the European Coal and Steel Community. They thereby pooled their basic resources and made them subject to a new multinational authority.

Since this proved quite practical these six nations ventured another step forward in 1957. They set up the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community. Later, in January 1973, these communities were enlarged to nine members when Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom joined the movement. This “Common Market,” as it is generally called, was considered a further step toward eventual complete economic and political union.

How Do People Feel About It?

The common man’s attitude is based not so much on the political implications of this union as on the practical results he himself has experienced. Housewives are happy that they now have a greater variety of foodstuffs to choose from, and that foreign products tend to be more economical because of the favorable trade arrangements within the Common Market and with other nations.

Travelers are happy that freer movement between states has become possible. Governments seem to be more willing to cooperate on common problems: terrorism, inflation, unemployment, energy. A European driver’s license appears to be on the way, even as later, perhaps, a common currency.

Euro-Barometre, a publication of the Commission of the European Communities, announced in its July 1977 issue the results of polls taken every six months since 1973. It said: “Attitudes in the Community as a whole have changed very little . . . six in ten (57%) felt that the Community was ‘a good thing,’ between one and two in ten (14%) feeling that it was ‘a bad thing.’ . . . Attitudes still vary considerably from country to country, but less so than in 1973.” This article also pointed out that 42 percent of those questioned felt that the movement toward European unification should be speeded up, 34 percent preferred to see it continued as at present, while only 11 percent wanted it slowed down.

Two New Steps in the Offing

One of the European Community’s institutions is called the European Parliament (not to be confused with the aforementioned Council of Europe). It serves as a sounding board for the Community’s problems. But since it is not a legislature, its powers are limited. Until now members have been appointed by the individual national parliaments, but in 1976 it was decided that general elections should be held in the spring of 1978 to elect them directly. Difficulties in deciding on electoral procedures, however, forced postponement, and the elections have been rescheduled for June 7-10, 1979.

Interest in these elections has been sluggish. One poll indicates that only 28 percent of the population of the Federal Republic of Germany are at present seriously considering voting. Opponents say that the elections are merely a political experiment without any real meaning and that they will fail to change the general situation. Proponents, on the other hand, feel that elections will at least heighten interest in the Parliament and impress on its members the fact that they are responsible to the people who elected them. Be that as it may, the elections, if and when they are held, will probably add momentum to the forward drive in the general direction of a “United States of Europe.”

Another step being debated involves enlarging the Common Market to include Spain, Portugal and Greece. Some fear that this would weaken the alliance. Although Spain’s King Juan Carlos in his coronation speech mentioned that ‘Europe would be incomplete without the Spaniard,’ yet there is some reluctance on both sides to press forward with the idea. With unemployment already running uncomfortably high within the Common Market, its present members are reluctant to admit nations with an unemployment problem even greater than their own. Some have been talking in terms of a 10-year negotiating period, which understandably is not acceptable to those who want faster progress.

Obviously many persons feel that enlargement would hinder rather than advance the possibilities of European unity. John Cole in an article in The Observer expressed it this way: “Enlargement also probably means the abandonment for many years of any hope—or fear—of a federal Europe, any early possibility of economic and monetary union.”

Additional Barriers to Progress

Nationalism is undoubtedly the greatest barrier to real unity. Cooperation among political equals for mutual commercial benefit is one thing; surrendering one’s national sovereignty, or even a part of it, is something else. In fact many alliances have been formed with the understanding—yes, even on the condition—that national sovereignties be respected and in no way infringed on. History teaches us that nations and rulers are seldom willing to surrender their sovereignty to others.

Even nations with a similar form of government based on a common ideology are not particularly interested in uniting under a single government. The Soviet Union and China, for example, have even developed their own types of Communism. Great Britain and the United States of America probably enjoy one of the most intimate relationships between world powers that has ever existed. Yet, would we expect plans to unite them politically, possibly resulting in either a “President of Great Britain” or a “Queen of the United States,” to be met with unanimous and instant approval?

Political unity, if it could be achieved, would obviously go far in promoting world unity. But political unity would mean eliminating nationalism, and nationalism dies a hard death indeed!

Another thing: the basis for unity must be a common law acknowledged by all and to which all would submit themselves, without exception. But a common law presupposes a single standard of conduct and ethical convictions. Can there really be unity as long as peoples and nations go on setting up their own standards, “doing their own thing”? This absence of similar convictions and standards of conduct makes the formation of a common law to which all would submit themselves extremely difficult to attain. Who would have the wisdom and the needed authority to set such standards to which all would be willing to submit?

Dr. Owen, British foreign secretary speaking in Brussels in February of 1978, said that the “fully fledged federalism,” to which some people remained committed, was “a noble goal but one which for most of us in Britain is unrealistic, and to some mythical. We cannot see in concrete terms how nine nations with very different political, social and cultural traditions . . . can possibly become federated over any time-scale of political activity on which it is realistic to focus.”

Under the title “Europe Tomorrow,” the German monthly Unsere Arbeit (Our Work) stated: “The way to a European Union—with its own legislative body, government, central bank, and all the symbols of a sovereign state—is arduous, and full of hindrances. Even the Common Market, the starting point of the federation, . . . does not function without complaint.”

Time magazine called the Community, after 20 years of existence, “more an underdeveloped adolescent than a mature adult” and added that “further progress toward a truly unified Europe is perhaps more elusive today than it was at the onset of the great experiment. Member states still do not hesitate to bypass Community institutions when there is a national advantage to be gained.”

So although progress has been made, it appears that the problems still facing this Western European undertaking are formidable. In many ways they are similar to those faced on a global scale by the United Nations organization. Let us turn our attention to it, then, for a moment and see whether it perhaps has succeeded in putting world unity finally within reach.

[Diagram on page 8]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Common Market Nations

1 Italy 2 France 3 Fed. Rep. of Germany

4 Belgium 5 Netherlands 6 Luxembourg

7 Britain 8 Ireland 9 Denmark

Not Yet

10 Greece

11 Portugal

12 Spain

Europe

NORWAY

SWEDEN

DEM. REP. OF GERMANY

POLAND

CZECH.

AUST.

HUNGARY

YUGOSLAVIA

ALB.

AFRICA

[Picture on page 5]

Winston Churchill said: “The first step has been taken, and it is the first step that counts.”

Does the U.N. Have the Solution?

Does the U.N. Have the Solution?

Can the U.N. plug up the leaks?

FRANCE

CHINA

U.S.S.R.

GREAT BRITAIN

U.S.A.

TERRORISM

NATIONALISM

SELFISHNESS

HATRED

DRUGS

CRIME

WAR

TYPOGRAPHICAL errors are the bane of the printing business. In a newspaper article some years ago about the United Nations, the “i” and the “t” in “united” accidentally got transposed. So instead of speaking about the United Nations the article ended up referring to the Untied Nations.

Of course, with tongue in cheek, one might explain away the mistake as being no mistake at all. Although the U.N. still exists after its founding over 30 years ago, yet there have been times when the nations seemed rather more “untied”—each nation going its own way and seeking its own interests—than tied together, or united, in mutual interests and endeavors.

Commendable Goals

The goals of the United Nations organization are commendable. “The purposes of the United Nations are,” so reads its charter, “to maintain international peace and security.”

Article 55 of the charter says: “With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United Nations shall promote: a) higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development; b) solutions of international economic, social, health, and related problems; and international cultural and educational cooperation; and c) universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”

Fine goals, but to what extent have they been reached? To what extent can they be reached? An article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung in 1965 called attention to certain facts that still apply today 14 years later: “A balance of twenty years of UN history and a long list of conciliation and mediation measures shows that the United Nations have been successful in cases where the ‘super powers’ have not been directly involved.”

The article called attention to the fine work done by organs of the United Nations in other fields, such as by the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and by a host of others.

There are U.N. agencies, for example, dealing with the peaceful uses of outer space, of atomic energy and of the seabed. Questions of the environment, industrial development and economic development also come up for consideration. There is a United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control. Much has been done in the way of disaster relief. One of the most remarkable achievements was caring for the needs of millions of Bangladeshi refugees after the war with Pakistan.

A Committee on Crime Prevention and Control has also done fine work. The first major intergovernmental conference ever devoted solely to women was sponsored by this organization in Mexico City in 1975.

A Basic Problem

However, these fine results are generally not the basis for any judgment made of the organization itself. The U.N., the article continued, “must get used to the idea that it will be measured by a political tape measure.”

Applying a political tape measure is difficult, however. The U.N. is no common political government. It is something different. It is not a world government, nor was it designed to be such, although Kurt Waldheim, its present secretary-general admits: “In its early days there was a widespread anxiety that the United Nations would infringe on national independence and sovereignty.”

But how could it? The U.N. has no power to make laws, much less to enforce them. Its decisions are not binding on the nations that are members. The member states are all sovereign and are considered equal. It is this very lack of real authority, respected and accepted by all member nations, that seems to be one of the major built-in defects of the U.N.

For example, with the exception of cases involving international peace and security, there is no provision made for the United Nations to interfere in the internal affairs of the individual nations. But this, of course, allows for interpretation—what are international affairs and what are purely internal matters?

United States President Jimmy Carter has spoken out strongly in favor of human rights and protested their disavowal, in some countries, in violation of the United Nations’ charter. Other countries accuse the United States of unduly interfering in their internal affairs by doing so. In actuality it boils down to the fact that each nation only accepts what it wants to accept and rejects what it considers an infringement on its rights as a sovereign nation. It is the same problem as in the “United States of Europe,” only on a grander scale!

Strong Nationalism

This is backed up by what a U.N. pamphlet says regarding the U.N.’s International Court of Justice: “The Statute of the Court is a part of the Charter of the United Nations, and every Member State has automatic access to the Court. States parties to the Statute may at any time declare that they recognize the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in legal disputes. The majority of Member States have not yet accepted compulsory jurisdiction.” [Italics ours.] So it is a court without any real authority, a ‘paper tiger!’

Kurt Waldheim, reviewing 30 years of U.N. activity, said that a workable international system must inevitably entail limitations on individual sovereignty. He said that although in some fields such limitations were being achieved, yet there have also been “strong reassertions of nationalism” throughout the entire world during the past 30 years.

“Strong reassertions of nationalism” make achieving world unity more difficult. Waldheim expressed what the U.N. was up against by saying: “The strengthening of our Organization’s role in maintaining peace by securing general respect for the decisions of its principal organs is perhaps the most difficult task of all.”

Achieving such “general respect” is admittedly not easy. N. J. Padelford and L. M. Goodrich, in their book The United Nations in the Balance—Accomplishments and Prospects, make this significant observation about the U.N.: “It has been called upon to keep the peace where there has been no peace in the hearts of men . . . The Organization cannot prevent a nuclear war from engulfing mankind if nations become bent upon this. It cannot compel great powers to do its bidding or to follow its recommendations. . . . It offers a forum in which the representatives of states can reason together, if they will. It can make available procedures of preventive diplomacy, of conciliation, and of peace-keeping to help settle disputes and to maintain international peace and security. But states must be prepared to accept and use these or the efforts will be stillborn.” [Italics ours.]

That is the crux of the matter. To gain unity there must be willingness on the part of all to cooperate for mutual good. This willingness must be a desire born of the heart, not simply of the mind. In short, love is the key to world unity.

But nationalism, the biggest problem standing in the way of world unity, is no expression of love. Instead, it stresses the personal, selfish interests of one nation, rather than seeking the overall welfare of all nations.

True love requires widening out in an individual’s interests and affections to include, not just those of his own nation, but peoples of the entire world. It requires international thinking.

But love cannot be legislated. How, then, can it be achieved? Is there any evidence to show that the nations, either those toying with the idea of a “United States of Europe” or the 150 member nations of the U.N., have recognized this key and are using it to open the door to world unity, bringing it finally within reach?

Rejoice! World Unity Is Within Reach!

Rejoice! World Unity Is Within Reach!

PEACE and unity go together. If you have one, you have the other. World unity would ensure world peace, a peace as abundant and lasting as the unity upon which it was based.

But both are dependent upon something else. Upon what? Psalm 119:165 answers: “Abundant peace belongs to those loving your [God’s] law, and for them there is no stumbling block.”

Loving God’s law, not just simply knowing it, is what is necessary to overcome the stumbling blocks on the road to peace and world unity. That love is the key that opens the door to world unity.

Pointing up this fact are the words of Roman Catholic Franz Cardinal König of Austria. Speaking about the possibilities of achieving a united Europe, he said: “The symptoms of spiritual sickness in today’s western man can be summed up briefly: the inability to love. . . . We all know that we Europeans are going through a crisis. We have the feeling that this crisis of the western world proceeds from a spiritual uprootal. . . . In the mad scramble for material prosperity man is being brought to ruin both physically and spiritually. . . . To the extent that man becomes spiritually sick, the problems of the coming Europe will be unsolvable.” [Italics ours.]

No Love for God

World unity is not just a matter of politics. It involves spirituality; it involves religion, Bible-based religion. Getting to know God’s law means studying the Bible carefully. Learning to love God’s law entails more: meditating on its wisdom and on the personal benefits of obedience. A person who thus learns to love God’s law will express it by loving his neighbor, but primarily by loving God.

Governments, as well as the humanitarian organs of the U.N., may express a certain love for neighbor, but where is their love for God when they set themselves in opposition to his kingdom? Have they done this? Yes.

Bible chronology and the fulfillment of Bible prophecy indicate that in the year 1914 the words of Revelation 11:15 were fulfilled: “The kingdom of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ.”

What does this mean? It means that after giving man thousands of years of time to rule the world without interruption, God through his Son Jesus Christ has now stepped in to bring about the world unity man has shown himself incapable of producing. But instead of looking to God’s kingdom, the nations have banded together—united, as it were, in the U.N. or other organizations—in opposition to this kingdom.

Psalm 2:2-6 foretold this: “The kings of earth take their stand and high officials themselves have massed together as one against Jehovah and against his anointed one . . . Jehovah himself . . . will speak to them . . . saying: ‘I, even I, have installed my king upon Zion, my holy mountain.’”

“Dash Them to Pieces”

Jesus foretold that a worldwide preaching work (Matt. 24:14) would be carried on after God’s kingdom began to rule. This would allow earth’s inhabitants an individual opportunity to decide whether to support Jehovah’s sovereignty or that of the nations.

After this opportunity had been presented to the extent that God desired, Christ would turn his attention to the nations and do to them as Psalm 2:9 says: “You will break them with an iron scepter, as though a potter’s vessel you will dash them to pieces.”—See also Daniel 2:44.

Should this impress us as being strange or cruel on God’s part? Human governments often take strong measures when they consider their existence or the welfare of their citizens threatened. Should the Creator of the universe have any less right to take action when he sees the very existence of mankind threatened by disunited nations through nuclear warfare?

United Religiously Under One Government

La Nouvelle Gazette, a Belgian newspaper, headlined an article: “To Avoid a Nuclear War Within 25 Years, American Experts Have Found Only One Solution: That of Jehovah’s Witnesses!” It went on to explain: “The only remedy would be a major relinquishment of sovereignty by each country . . . in favor of a world government.” It said this was exactly “the proposition upheld by Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

But what is this “proposition” that even caused an Australian newspaper to state that “Jehovah’s Witnesses is the only world peace movement to succeed”? Have they really found the key to peace, to world unity?

Jehovah’s Witnesses have chosen to unite themselves under one government, God’s government. This calls for a stand of strict neutrality toward the affairs of the over 200 nations in which they presently live, a stand generally so well known that it hardly needs any documentation here.

Although God’s kingdom is a heavenly government, it is a reality. It has earthly agencies or organs that contribute to peace and unity: training programs, schools, judicial systems and counseling arrangements. Thousands have been helped to give up drugs, smoking, excessive drinking, promiscuous sex, and have learned to be honest, conscientious workers. Has this contributed to their health, their general welfare, their peace of mind and their happiness? Judge for yourself.

These agencies have also helped thousands of persons to become literate. Whereas the literacy rate among Jehovah’s Witnesses in Nigeria is about 77 percent, The Times, a Nigerian newspaper, recently spoke of “a literacy rate [throughout the country] of only 20 per cent.” In an interview with Jehovah’s Witnesses, a former secretary of education in Santo André, SP, Brazil, declared: “It is rare to find persons or groups such as Jehovah’s Witnesses who are so interested in the education of their neighbours with the purpose of incorporating thousands of persons into a society from which they were excluded previously due to illiteracy. You can count on our backing and gratitude. If such efforts were made by other groups there would be less illiteracy in Brazil.”

God’s government is interested in educating its subjects so that they can gain accurate knowledge of its laws. It has also provided for judicial arrangements to see to it that these laws are enforced. But since its subjects are convinced that these laws are just and right and designed to make them happy, they are willing to accept the heavenly government’s compulsory jurisdiction. Persons who live in over 200 different countries and yet have been able to unite under a common law based on a single standard of conduct and ethical convictions, and who actively support the same one government, have come a long way indeed in achieving within their ranks world unity.

The Milwaukee Sentinel stressed this when it said about Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Their agreement is not on just the trivialities of life, but the vital things—rules of conduct, adherence to principles, worship of God.” The Brazilian newspaper O Tempo agreed: “Although there are many imposing religions with their propaganda in all parts of the globe, there does not exist a single one on the face of the earth today that shows the same love and unity as the theocratic organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses.”

This is because Jehovah’s Witnesses are loyal subjects of their chosen government. What nation on earth today could claim to have ONLY loyal subjects, plagued as many of them are with radical groups intent on overthrowing the government, with citizens who render lip service, but disloyally cheat on their taxes, sidestep inconvenient laws for personal advantage, show disrespect for the “decisions of its principal organs” and poke fun at their leaders?

Subjects of God’s reigning kingdom, on the other hand, obey its laws to the best of their imperfect abilities, even when inconvenient, because they love God’s law. They show respect for the “decisions of its principal organs” and are willing to pay back to their government its just dues.

In fact they are even willing to die in defense of their heavenly government, willing to die for their country, as it were. Their exemplar, Jesus Christ, laid down his life, not in defense of the Roman Empire, nor to preserve the Jewish system of things, but to promote the interests of God’s kingdom. It is this unbreakable loyalty to God’s government based on love for God that ensures their unity.

This unity, however, does not stifle individualism or variety. Former foreign minister of Israel Abba Eban once said that “national diversity can be a source of intense and positive vitality, provided that it is reconciled with the restraints and solidarities of an international order.” Jehovah’s Witnesses living in over 200 different nations maintain their “national diversity”—manner of dress, local customs, way of life, all the diversity that God purposed among mankind—and this is truly “a source of intense and positive vitality” because it allows them to learn from one another. National groups strong on hospitality are teaching more restrained peoples to be more open and generous; those with organizational talents are helping others to become more practical and efficient; good traits of others are being assimilated, while negative traits are being eradicated. They have learned international thinking, thus letting their “national diversity” be “reconciled with the restraints and solidarities of an international order,” in this case God’s kingdom.

For all of this Jehovah’s Witnesses take no personal credit. They do not claim to be the architects of world unity. It is God who has provided the key to world unity and the key is available for all to use. The unity that Jehovah’s Witnesses demonstrate can only be attributed to their willingness to conform their ways to the ways of God. This is the wise thing to do and the only way to ensure living in God’s new system of things described at Revelation 21:3, 4: “And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” This is what God’s kingdom will do!

The proposed “United States of Europe,” or even a United Nations Organization, is a poor substitute—indeed, no substitute—for God’s kingdom, despite the fact that Pope Paul VI, addressing the U.N. in 1965, spoke of the peoples’ turning “to the United Nations as to the ultimate hope for harmony and peace.” The truth of the matter is that more and more of the peoples are turning to God’s kingdom as the ultimate hope, drawn by the world unity it has already brought about on a small scale and in expectation of the world unity it will shortly bring about on a global scale.

The publishers of Awake! sincerely hope that many more may still learn about God’s marvelous provision and take advantage of it. The key to world unity has been found and the door to it has been opened. Rejoice! World unity IS within reach! Will you reach out to accept it?

“The fruit of righteousness has its seed sown under peaceful conditions for those who are making peace.”—Jas. 3:18.

Man-made Shortcuts for Trade

Man-made Shortcuts for Trade

BY “AWAKE!” CORRESPONDENT IN CANADA

IT HAS been ranked in importance with victory in battle, acquiring territory or building a temple. This is how building a canal has been rated.

Are you surprised? You may well be, for the simplest canal is just a ditch dug to carry water—hardly a mighty accomplishment in itself. Although certain super-canals have been hailed “marvel of the century” or “one of the world’s wonders,” these watercourses are valued more for what they do than as monuments to human achievement.

Man long has appreciated the waterways of planet Earth, and has used them for transportation, trade and recreation. But rivers do not always lead where men want to go, and sometimes they are too wild to carry boats. Oceans are separated by land masses that take many days to sail around. So men have built detours around obstructions on rivers, and have dug shortcuts through narrow arms of land. These canals then supplement earth’s natural waterways.

Ancient Canals

The earliest ship-carrying canal on record appears to have existed in Egypt during the second millennium before the Common Era. That waterway followed almost the same route as the modern Suez Canal.

The ancient Phoenicians, Assyrians, Sumerians and Egyptians all constructed elaborate canal systems that served as a means of communication and transportation. In Babylonia, shallow basketlike vessels and rafts carried goods to and from the sea. The rivers Chebar and Ahava mentioned in the Bible may have been canals.—Ezek. 1:1; Ezra 8:21.

However, we must look to the ancient Chinese for a most significant innovation in canal building. In the year 983 of our Common Era, it is said that Chhiao Wei-Yo, assistant commissioner for transport on a section of the Grand Canal, invented the first pound lock.

Locks

A lock is a hydraulic elevator that uses water in a canal system to raise or lower a ship from one level to another. One type is the pound lock, which has gates at each end and a system of valves to fill it with water up to the level of the canal above or empty it to the level of the canal below. The first pound lock on European canals probably was built in 1373 C.E. at Vreeswijk, in Holland.

About 1485 C.E., Leonardo da Vinci put the finishing touch on basic lock design by devising the swinging or miter gate, a type still used. When the gate closes, its two leaves form an angle pointing upstream so that the water flowing downstream holds them tightly together.

With the new lock designs, canal builders could take ships up one side of a summit and down the other, and go around falls or rapids on navigable rivers. The stage was set for the Canal Age in Europe and North America.

The Canal Age

Europe’s first major canal was built in France during the early 17th century. The Briare Canal was opened in 1642. It was 34 miles (55 kilometers) long, had 40 locks, and rose 128 feet (39 meters) from Briare on the Loire River, thereafter falling 266 feet (81 meters) eventually to connect with the Seine. Reconstructed, it is used today as part of a canal system from the Seine to the Rhône.

Other major canals soon followed. The 150-mile (241-kilometer) Languedoc (now called Canal du Midi) opened in 1681 to join the Mediterranean Sea to the Atlantic Ocean. Built almost 300 years ago, it is recognized as the first modern canal.

Europe’s waterway system continued to expand, especially during the first half of the 19th century. New locks and canals opened shortcuts and connected waterways to speed along the Industrial Revolution and create the thousands of miles of interconnected systems in use today.

Farther east, canals were built in Russia to connect the Baltic Sea with the White Sea, as well as with the Black Sea and with the Caspian Sea by way of the Volga. This great river, with its many tributaries, offered some 7,200 miles (11,585 kilometers) of navigation.

In England, a frenzy of canal-digging activity from 1760 to 1800 almost doubled the navigable waterways to about 2,400 miles (3,862 kilometers). Viewing this work in progress during 1772, visiting American Benjamin Franklin wrote from London: “Rivers are ungovernable things, especially in hilly countries. Canals are quiet and very manageable.”

Franklin’s praise for the British canals may have stimulated American canal building. However, several factors brought the Canal Age to North America. There were few highways, none of them paved, and water travel was both convenient and efficient. A horse on the bank pulling a barge along a canal could move 50 tons of goods—about 400 times what it could carry on its back!

Following the War of 1812 between the United States and Britain, the push was on for westward expansion. The route along the St. Lawrence River to Lake Ontario did not suit the U.S., for it was controlled mostly by Canada. Moreover, there was as yet no way past Niagara Falls into Lake Erie.

So the great Erie Canal was cut. It was 363 miles (584 kilometers) long, with 82 locks, and ran from Albany on the Hudson River north of New York city to Buffalo on Lake Erie. Opened in 1825, the Erie Canal was a commercial success from the start. Consequently, in foreign trade, New York city took ascendancy over Baltimore, Boston and Philadelphia. The Erie Canal contributed to making New York one of the world’s greatest seaports.

From less than 100 miles (161 kilometers) of canals in the United States in 1816, that country’s navigable waterways have increased to 25,000 miles (40,225 kilometers) of inland systems and improved coastal channels. Although the coming of the steam locomotive brought the dominance of canals to an end, one sixth of all U.S. inland freight still is transported by water.

After the War of 1812, Canada wanted a safe route to the interior of the country and the Great Lakes, well away from the St. Lawrence and the U.S. border. The main reason was for defense, especially to bring supplies unmolested from Montreal to Kingston on Lake Ontario.

The route chosen was up the Ottawa River, a tributary of the St. Lawrence, to about 120 miles (193 kilometers) northwest of Montreal, where the Rideau River joins in from the south. From there, the Rideau Canal was built, to run 124 miles (200 kilometers) along rivers and lakes to Kingston, Ontario. It was opened in 1832, and with the Ottawa River it was for a time the best steamboat navigation route to the Great Lakes. The settlement that grew up where the Rideau Canal meets the Ottawa River is known today as Ottawa, the capital of Canada. So well was the canal constructed that its original locks are still in use. Busier than ever, each summer the Rideau system delights hundreds of visitors on pleasure craft.

Beyond Lake Ontario, magnificent Niagara Falls blocked the way to the four remaining Great Lakes. In 1829, the first Welland Canal was opened, with a rise of 326 feet (99 meters) to bypass the Falls and reach Lake Erie. More than a century later, an improved Welland Canal made possible the longest artificial seaway in the world, the St. Lawrence–Great Lakes waterway.

Great Ship Canals

There are many ship canals. But suppose we consider three that are famous.

First, there is the Kiel Canal, or “Nord-Ostsee-Kanal,” across the isthmus that separates the North Sea from the Baltic Sea. There the Vikings once used horses to drag their ships across land on rollers. Germany opened the canal from sea to sea in 1895 as an important outlet for her expanding navy. The 61-mile (98-kilometer) canal soon outgrew its naval origin and now is one of the busiest in the world, handling more shipping than the two more famous canals—Suez and Panama—combined.

The Suez Canal was opened in 1869 as “a contribution to world unity.” More than 100 miles (161 kilometers) long, it is appropriately called the “Big Ditch.” Because the Mediterranean and the Red Sea are the same in elevation, the Suez Canal connecting them requires no locks. It cuts off almost 4,000 miles (6,436 kilometers) from most voyages between Europe and India.

The Suez Canal was to be open to all countries in peace and war, an agreement that warring nations often have ignored. From June 1967 until 1974, it was closed mainly because of Arab-Israeli strife. Now reopened, the “Big Ditch” will yet be enlarged to accommodate supertankers up to 250,000 tons, if Egypt’s plans are carried to completion. Although the reopened waterway is making its mark on world trade and economy, fast ships and giant tankers have reduced the Suez Canal’s former significance.

The Panama Canal also has lost importance, but it is still a sensitive political and economic issue. Opened in 1914 as a shortcut across the 50-mile-wide (80-kilometer-wide) isthmus of Panama, it cuts 7,878 miles (12,676 kilometers) off the trip from New York to San Francisco.

However, fewer ships are using the Panama Canal. More than 3,000 of the world’s merchant vessels, including the largest oil tankers, are too long or too wide for the waterway, or need deeper water when fully loaded. Also, the canal’s immediate future is clouded by political, economic and military issues.

In contrast, so far since it opened in 1959, the history of the world’s longest artificial seaway has been peaceful. Ocean vessels can enter the St. Lawrence Seaway through the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Next they can travel up the river to Lake Ontario, passing through the Welland Canal into Lakes Erie, Huron and Michigan, and then through the locks at Sault Ste. Marie into Lake Superior. At this point they have climbed more than 600 feet (183 meters) since entering the Seaway, the equivalent of a 60-story building! They can then cross to Duluth at the western tip of Lake Superior, 2,342 miles (3,768 kilometers) from the Atlantic Ocean. Also, in contrast with the Panama Canal, the Seaway’s traffic has been increasing. Already there is talk of adding to its capacity before the mid-1980’s.

What Future for Canals?

Although canals and inland waterways no longer are the only important means of moving heavy goods, they continue to play a vital role in this regard. For many bulk commodities such as grain, ore, coal and timber, inland water transport still is the most economical. Since the 1960’s, North America, Europe and Asia all have seen a resurgence of inland water transport. Waterways have been modernized, and plans have been laid for new canals.

But there are concerns, some political and economic. For example, two new canals proposed for Europe would link the Rhine River with the Danube River, and then the Rhine to a system that connects with the Seine River. Some officials of the West are uneasy about opening up on the Danube a possible “invasion path” whereby Communist bloc merchant fleets can enter Western Europe’s commercial waterways.

Other concerns focus on the imbalance man-made waterways can cause in the natural creation. The Erie and Welland Canals opened the way for the sea lamprey, an eellike native of the North Atlantic, to invade the Great Lakes, where it decimated populations of commercially valuable fish. Also, the St. Lawrence Seaway has led to expanded industrial activity along the Great Lakes and this has accelerated pollution of their waters.

Yes, man-made waterways may cause imbalance and may lead to increased pollution in some regions, but the One who created ‘all the winter torrents that run to the sea’ can end pollution and maintain proper balance throughout creation. (Eccl. 1:7) Also, it should be acknowledged that, however ingenious canal systems may be, their features can never match the wisdom displayed in earth’s natural waterways. Man can build only supplements to, not substitutes for, the oceans, lakes and rivers of our globe.

[Diagram on page 18]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

upper gates

upper pool

control station

lock chamber

lower pool

lower gates

power station

[Picture on page 16]

ANCIENT SUMERIA

GRAND CANAL, CHINA

ERIE CANAL, NEW YORK

KIEL CANAL, GERMANY

Benefits of Thoroughness

Benefits of Thoroughness

The noted British statesman and writer Sir Winston Churchill wrote an account years ago illustrating the value of thoroughness in learning something important. In his autobiography My Early Life (1930), he explained how he learned as a schoolboy to speak and write the English language so masterfully:

“By being so long in the lowest form [at Harrow School], I gained an immense advantage over the cleverest boys. They all went on to learn Latin and Greek and splendid things like that. But I was taught English. We were considered such dunces that we could learn only English. Mr Somervell—a most delightful man, to whom my debt is great—was charged with the duty of teaching the stupidest boys the most disregarded thing—namely, to write mere English. He knew how to do it. He taught it as no one else has ever taught it. Not only did we learn English parsing thoroughly, but we also practiced continually English analysis. Mr Somervell had a system of his own. He took a fairly long sentence and broke it up into its components by means of black, red, blue and green inks. Subject, verb, object: Relative Clauses, Conditional Clauses, Conjunctive and Disjunctive Clauses! Each had its color and its bracket. It was a kind of drill. We did it almost daily. As I remained in the Third Fourth . . . three times as long as anyone else, I had three times as much of it. I learned it thoroughly. Thus I got into my bones the essential structure of the ordinary British sentence—which is a noble thing. And when in after years my school fellows who had won prizes and distinction for writing such beautiful Latin poetry and pithy Greek epigrams had to come down again to common English, to earn their living or make their way, I did not feel myself at any disadvantage. Naturally I am biased in favor of boys learning English; I would make them all learn English; and then I would let the clever ones learn Latin as an honor, and Greek as a treat. But the only thing I would whip them for is not knowing English. I would whip them hard for that.”

Rice—From Paddy to Cooking Pot

Rice—From Paddy to Cooking Pot

With some recipes you may want to try

By “Awake!” correspondent in Japan

THE author of the book The Kingdom of Japonica wrote that the Japanese people “lyve for the most part with herbes, fyshe, barley and ryce.” That was true in the 16th century; and it is still largely the case. Rice is the staple food of Japan.

The Japanese language has several words meaning “rice.” As usually served on the table it is gohan, meaning “cooked food,” or, literally, “honorable boiled rice.” Before the gohan appears on the table, however, a tremendous amount of work has to be done. First, take a look at the rice farmers and see how their okome, meaning “grain rice,” is obtained.

How It All Begins

Rice is an annual grass of the Graminaea family and is said to have 1,400 varieties. At the beginning of April, the farmers commence their work on cultivated rice (Oryza sativa) by breaking up the earth in their fields. Since most farms are small in size, big machinery is not used. For the initial preparation of the fields, small machinery sometimes is employed, although in some places oxen will be seen pulling the crude farm equipment.

During the first 10 days of May, the rough rice seed is sown in well-prepared beds or plots in a small area of a paddy. Since the flooding of the fields coincides with the sowing of the seed, the plots are built higher than the paddies. Within a month the seeds sprout, and the rich green seedlings grow strong, well packed together.

Usually, with the second week of June, the monsoon rains arrive. As the third week of June approaches, increased activity is observed in the paddies. For instance, to keep the levees firm, small plants having strong roots are placed on these embankments.

Before the actual transplanting takes place, the rice paddies are turned over again and all the grass and weeds are removed. Pieces of machinery resembling oversized lawn mowers are driven into the sodden fields. The farmers affix ropes to the machines and attach simple flat boards to the ropes. Then the men climb onto the boards and ride their water sleighs until the paddies are level.

Family members, friends and neighbors all lend a hand pulling up the seedlings. These are made into bunches, are tied and are put into baskets. Balancing two baskets hanging from a long pole across his shoulders, each farmer throws these bunches of seedlings across the paddies at well-distributed points.

Transplanting and Plant Care

Next, the exhausting work of transplanting gets under way. Men, women and children step into the muddy paddies. The law requires that their feet and legs be covered, and to make movement easier, the footwear fits snugly. Pieces of string that span the paddies are used as guidelines. Everyone stands in a row with a bunch of seedlings in his hand. Two to five seedlings are separated from a bunch and placed 20 to 30 centimeters (8 to 12 inches) apart. Each person transplants the seedlings in the area immediately within his reach. On the completion of a row, an individual at each end will bring the string in line for the next row. So it goes, hour after hour, until transplanting has been completed in all the fields. It could be dark before the weary transplanters can call it a day.

Walking between the rice fields at night can be quite an experience for a city dweller because the noise is like the thundering of freight trains. The rice fields’ harmless invaders are frogs. How they love that water! All night long, they puff and croak.

The farmers check the rice paddies daily. If the water is too deep, it will destroy the plants. Ratholes in the levees can play havoc with the water level; so these are plugged. At regular intervals, insecticides are sprayed on the plants; and there is a constant watch for injurious insects and plant diseases.

June has brought the rainy season, and with it hot, humid weather—and weeds, weeds and more weeds. The skilled eyes of the farmers’ wives search for these weeds and grasses that must be pulled out. As they plod through the rows of plants, the women scatter weed killer, said to be harmless to the rice. Soon each plant grows to a height of approximately 1.2 meters (4 feet). So, before long, all you can see moving through the paddies are the hats of the workers.

Fruits of Their Labors

Before the harvesting takes place, the water in the paddies is released. Although mechanical harvesting is possible, generally the farms are too small for the use of such machinery. During the month of October it is a matter of ‘all hands to the sickle.’ Each chop cuts off a handful of stalks. These are gathered and tied into bundles. Then each sheaf is hung over poles on a wooden frame in the fields and left to dry there for two or three days.

The separating of the grain from the stalk is done in the dried-out rice paddies. At this stage, light, easily operated machinery is brought into use. Bundles of rice are manually guided through the machines and the grains fall out at one end. Through vinyl pipes, the chaff is blown out in the opposite direction.

In Japan, the stripped stalks and chaff are used for fertilizer, fuel, packing, pillow stuffing and many other purposes. Here this type of farming produces about 11,772,000 to 13,165,000 tons of rice annually.

Between the paddy and the cooking pot the rice passes through many hands. Unfortunately, by the time it reaches the kitchen most of its nutritive value has been removed, as white, polished rice is preferred by the overwhelming majority. Since rice is not a complete food in itself, the average Japanese diet is supplemented with green vegetables, fish or meat. How?

Into the Cooking Pot

First, the rice has to be cooked. Allow half a cup of uncooked rice per person. Wash the rice thoroughly under cold running water, and let it drain through the rice until it runs clear. Put the rice in a colander and let it drain for an hour before cooking. The amount of water used varies according to the rice. As a rough guide, use 1 1/4 cups of water for one cup of Asian rice, and 1 3/4 cups of water for each cup of European or American rice. Experience will be your best teacher.

Next, put the rice and water together in a sturdy saucepan and cover it with a heavy lid. Bring the rice to a boil quickly, then lower the heat and let the contents simmer quietly for 20 minutes or until the water is absorbed. Leaving the lid on, turn up the heat for 20 or 30 seconds before removal from the heat. Let the rice stand for 10 to 20 minutes before serving. This final steaming in the retained heat helps to fluff up the rice.

Now to the food elements necessary for healthful life. The apprehensive can be reassured that Japanese cooking is essentially no more difficult than any other kind and a good deal easier than some. In this country, the simplest basic dinner consists of a clear soup with tidbits floating in it or a thick soup containing miso (bean paste), followed by a main course and ending with plain boiled rice and pickles.

A Lunchtime Snack

The Japanese word donburi means “a china bowl,” but this name has come to be attached to the kind of food that so frequently goes into the bowl. And what is that? Hot rice with various toppings, over which a sauce is poured. Economy and ease of preparation make this a favorite lunchtime snack. Japanese housewives can thus use up leftovers, as virtually any meat, fish or vegetable can be used for the topping.

A favorite is oyako donburi, meaning “parent and child bowl,” the “parent” consisting of chicken and the “child” being the egg. Why not try it?

To serve six persons, you will need 3 cups of raw rice, 350 grams (12 ounces) of boned chicken, 2 naganegi (long thick green onions) or a small bunch of spring onions, 4 eggs, 3 cups of chicken broth, 3/4 cup of light soy sauce and 3/4 cup of inexpensive white wine. Cook the rice in the basic way. Cut the chicken into medium-sized cubes, and cut the onions, including the green tops, into small slices. Put the broth into a saucepan, adding the soy sauce and wine. Heat, and when it comes to a boil, add the chicken. Simmer for five minutes, add the onions and cook for another minute. Taste for seasoning and correct the flavor, if necessary. Next, break the eggs into a large bowl and beat them well. Bring the soup stock to a boil again and gently pour in the eggs all at once. Continue heating until the mixture begins to boil around the edges of the pan. Then turn the heat down as low as possible and put on a lid. After three minutes, turn off the heat. The eggs will have coagulated into a soft mass resembling scrambled eggs. Put the hot rice into individual bowls and, with a ladle, spoon the chicken, egg and soup mixture over the top of the gohan. Incidentally, chopped parsley makes a decorative garnish.

A Japanese Favorite

If you are more adventurous, you could try making chirashi-zushi (uncaked sushi). Begin with enough boiled rice to serve four; other ingredients are vinegar, salt, sugar, sake (rice wine), 2 eggs, 100 grams (3 1/2 ounces) each of string beans, carrots, lotus roots (if available) and red pickled ginger or fresh root ginger, 200 grams (7 ounces) of small cooked shrimp (which have been peeled and deveined) and 4 dried mushrooms.

Put the rice into a large pan and season with 2 teaspoons of salt, 2 tablespoons of sugar and 2 1/2 tablespoons of vinegar, and mix well. Slice and boil the string beans for a few minutes, being careful not to overcook them. Drain and season with 1/4 teaspoon of salt and 1/2 teaspoon of sugar; mix and put to one side. Make stock and cook almost everything in the same stock, but not at the same time, leaving the mushrooms until last. To make this stock, use 1 cup of boiling water. To this add 1/2 cup of soy sauce, 1/4 cup of sake and 1/2 cup of sugar. Bring this to a boil and then turn off the heat. Slice or shred the carrots and cook them in the stock until tender. Remove them from the stock and put in the peeled and chopped lotus roots, and simmer these until they are cooked. Put a tablespoon of soy sauce into a bowl, add the eggs and beat together. Fry the egg very thin and cut it into strips. Slice the soaked mushrooms and cook them in the stock for 2 minutes. Now the ginger can be cut into the thinnest possible slivers. Mix the shrimps, carrots and mushrooms into the rice. Then divide the rice mixture into four dishes, heaping it to a point. Arrange the rest of the ingredients on top in a decorative manner, reserving the ginger for the pinnacle.

Now, enjoy yourself. And may your appreciation for the rice farmers’ work be enhanced as you savor the flavors from the cooking pot.

A Look at Ancient Cyprus

A Look at Ancient Cyprus

By “Awake!” correspondent in Cyprus

CYPRUS is an island in the northeast corner of the Mediterranean Sea, situated about 45 miles (72 kilometers) south of Asia Minor and some 67 miles (108 kilometers) west of the Syrian coast.

It is of interest that the Bible mentions Cyprus several times. Evidently “Kittim” of the Hebrew Scriptures refers to this island. (Isa. 23:1, 12; Dan. 11:30) Because of its geographical location, Cyprus became a target of conquest for many world empires. When the apostle Paul and his companion Barnabas arrived at Cyprus for Christian missionary work about 47 C.E., the dominating world power was Rome. Two cities of Cyprus visited by Paul and Barnabas are of special interest to Christians, namely, Salamis on the east coast and Paphos on the west.

…