Herbert W Armstrong

The British House of Commons has unanimously approved the accord reached with China this past September, turning Hong Kong over to China thirteen years from now. Later this month, Britain's Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher will be in Peking. On December 19, Mrs. Thatcher and Chinese officials will sign the agreements.

Under the terms mutually agreed to, Hong Kong reverts to China in 1997, becoming a "special administrative region." This is to be followed by an additional 50-year span during which China "guarantees" that Hong Kong can pursue its independent trading and financial policies. Since China itself has been moving into more of a capitalist economic mode of late, short-term fears in Hong Kong have not been as great as anticipated. But there lurks a long-term lack of confidence that China can stay on course and not snap back into a revolutionary framework.

As if to show the tenuous, highly personalized content of the accord, British Foreign Minister Sir Geoffrey Howe called the draft accord "a bold and imaginative plan," adding: "The concept of maintaining two separate political, economic and social systems within one country is a far-sighted one, which is closely associated with Chairman Deng Xiaoping himself." Deng is presently in control, spearheading China's modernization drive. But he has his enemies, those of a doctrinaire, reactionary Communist bent, who don't like the direction he is taking the country.

Gibraltar Next?

Following in tandem with the Hong Kong reversion is a new preliminary agreement between Britain and Spain over the future of Gibraltar — the last and perhaps most symbolic chunk of Imperial real estate. On November 27, Foreign Minister Howe and his Spanish counterpart, Senor Fernando Moran, reached a break through understanding during negotiations in Brussels. It was hailed as the beginning of an "historic new process" by Spain's Prime Minister Felipe Gonzalez.

In the short run, both sides benefit. Spain agreed to the total lifting of the blockade on Gibraltar imposed by the late General Franco fifteen years ago. As of next February 15 there will be free movement of people and traffic across the narrow flatland that connects Gibraltar to the Spanish mainland province of Andalucia. To a great degree, Spain, now a fledgling democracy, had no choice but to lift the blockade. Madrid hopes to enter the Common Market on January 1, 1986. Gibraltar, of course, is British territory, and EC law requires that all member countries have open borders with one another.

In return, however, the British negotiators, for the first time, agreed that the tricky question of sovereignty will be open in future negotiations. At the same time, the British have stressed that "the wishes of the people of Gibraltar" will be respected. About 30,000 British subjects live on Gibraltar. They are overwhelmingly opposed to becoming Spanish citizens and are some of the most loyal subjects of the Queen to be found anywhere. Statements made by Spanish officials after the agreement were hardly comforting to the Gibraltarians. Here are excerpts from an article, datelined Madrid, which appeared in the November 28 issue of the TIMES of London:

Spain emphasized Britain's express commitment to negotiate the sovereignty of Gibraltar. "For us this really opens a process of decolonizing the Rock," the Spanish Foreign Minister spokesman said. The state radio and television said it was "the first time since 1713, the end of the War of the Spanish Succession, when Spain lost the Rock, that a British government had ever agreed to tackle sovereignty. "…

From Gibraltar, Sir Joshua Hassan, the Chief Minister, speaking by telephone, said the agreement was an "honourable outcome" to lengthy negotiation and a first step towards fruitful cooperation between Gibraltar and its vicinity. However, he reiterated Gibraltarians' opposition to any negotiations over sovereignty. "We have always placed our faith in the British Government and people and we will continue to do so."

When the Spanish Foreign Ministry spokesman was pressed by Spanish reporters to say exactly what recovering sovereignty meant, he replied: "That Gibraltar becomes just one more piece of Andalucia, of Spain." Sir Joshua, asked to comment, said: That's bloody nonsense, in my best Spanish.”

Some of the Spanish outspokenness was dismissed as being for "home consumption." Spanish officials privately do not expect a rapid return of "the Rock." Admitted one: "We know we are not going to get Gibraltar back tomorrow. It is much rather a case of a generation." Even Sir Joshua Hassan, Gibraltar's chief minister, curiously declared to British television that Gibraltar could not be Spanish for at least a couple of generations, a tantamount admission that the handwriting — in Spanish — was on the wall. Spanish officials are also privately concerned over whether a slow-reversion process will really work. The November 28 FINANCIAL TIMES reported:

Public opinion in Spain will, sooner rather than later, want progress on the actual devolution of Gibraltar, with demonstrable gains and timetables in place of words and promises.

British and other NATO military officials are also a bit queazy about the "historic process" now underway. Gibraltar is still an important naval and intelligence base located in a very strategic spot. Spain is now a member of NATO, but a very reluctant one. A majority of Spaniards, surveys reveal, want Spain to pull out. What if Spain does leave NATO and extreme leftists should one day control the country (Franco battled them for four years during the 1936-39 civil war). The Soviets even now are frequent visitors to the Rock. They would love to see a Spain in sympathy with them, and in possession of such a potential bottleneck to the entire Mediterranean.

Another Papal Reminder Concerning Europe's Roots

On Tuesday, October 30, Pope John Paul II received in audience a group of European parliamentarians who were taking part in the Western European Union (WEU) conference which was being held to celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of its foundation. (At this session, the WEU pushed ahead its proposals for greater Europeanization of European defense, as well as formally lifting remaining proscriptions on West German development of offensive weaponry. See PGR, November 16, 1984.) The Pope had other things on his mind in addressing the WEU officials. He used the occasion to once again remind Europeans of their collective "soul" in Christianity. His comments were recorded in the November 19 Vatican semi-official publication, L'OSSERVATORE ROMANO:

"Ladies, Gentlemen, in the course of the brief extraordinary session of your Assembly which you are holding in Rome, you have desired this meeting with the Pope. I appreciate this trusting gesture which allows me to greet the parliamentarians who belong to the seven countries of the Western European Union, and to express to them my esteem and my encouragement for their important task aimed at strengthening the ties and consolidating the peace in this part of Europe ....

"I am sure that you understand that it is not within the competence of the Holy See to enter into the technical, military and political debates that constitute the object of your meeting. But, on another plane, the promotion of a community structure and, I dare say, its defence, depend also on moral and spiritual values, and there, the Church feels very much concerned. We have a certain idea of civilization, which, though it may take concrete form in diverse cultures within Europe as a whole, draws its strength, nevertheless, from imperatives common to all: respect for the liberty and the fundamental rights of man, for his life, his conscience and his spiritual needs, for the vocation of the family …the struggle against individual and collective egoism, the good use of liberty ....

"Despite limitations and failures due to human weaknesses, Christianity has given the peoples of Europe a sense of these values. It has set their foundations firm: it has formed generations in this way: it would like to, and it can, even today, accomplish this service. The civilization to which the European countries are justly attached will be strong, it will be able to defend itself from within, if it keeps its soul, if it takes every measure to strengthen convictions and to educate in the direction of the imperatives which I have mentioned. This is a service in which the Church, in which Christians take part with all their might, but which concerns also all men of good will, all those who wish to promote the union of Europe and to allow it to make its contribution to the progress of peaceful international relationships…."

Brain Scientist Asks "Who Am I? Why Am I Here?"

A rather remarkable one-page article appeared in the December 10, 1984 US NEWS & WORLD REPORT, entitled "Science Can't Explain 'Who Am I? Why Am I Here?'" It was written by Sir John Eccles, a Nobel laureate in medicine and physiology and a pioneer in brain research. A neurobiologist, he has taught at universities in Great Britain, Australia and the United States. He is co-author, with Daniel Robinson, of the recently published book THE WONDER OF BEING HUMAN: OUR BRAIN AND OUR MIND (might be a good one to check out). Here are excerpts of his remarks:

We need to discredit the belief held by many scientists that science will ultimately deliver the final truth about everything. Science doesn't deliver the truth: what it provides are hypotheses in an attempt to get nearer to truth ....

Unfortunately, many scientists and interpreters of science don't understand the limits of the discipline. They claim much more for it than they should. They argue that someday science will explain values, beauty, love, friendship, aesthetics and literary quality. They say: "All of these will eventually be explicable in terms of brain performance. We only have to know more about the brain." That view is nothing more than a superstition that confuses both the public and many scientists.

My task as a scientist is to try to eliminate superstitions and to have us experience science as the greatest human adventure. But to understand is not to completely explain. Understanding leaves unresolved the great features and values of our existence.

I have spent all my life working on the brain and know what a wonderful structure it is, how it gives us an immense range of experiences. It is also a tremendous storehouse of memories, which is what it's principally for. But examining the brain in all possible scientific ways doesn't mean that I can know why, when I open my eyes, I see a world of light and color.

We live in the world of experiences, not in the world of the brain events. I've never seen my brain. All I know is that from morning to night I'm living amid sound and light, touch and language, thought and action. This is my world, and much of it is not explicable scientifically. Science also cannot explain the existence of each of us as a unique self, nor can it answer such fundamental questions as: Who am I? Why am I here? How did I come to be at a certain place and time? What happens after death? These are all mysteries that are beyond science.

Science has gone too far in breaking down man's belief in his spiritual greatness and has given him the belief that he is merely an insignificant animal who has arisen by chance and necessity — on an insignificant planet lost in the great cosmic immensity. But that does not mean that religion and science are necessarily at odds. Max Planck, the great physicist, was a practicing Catholic. Albert Einstein believed in a God of the cosmos…. I, myself, am a practicing Christian. To hold views such as mine about the mystery of existence, you don't have to be a religious person. The great philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper, with whom I have written a book on this subject, holds similar beliefs — and he describes himself as an agnostic. Both of us recognize the great wonder of existence. We believe in both a material world and a mental-spiritual world.

Sir John Eccles' remarks certainly corroborate the truth about the difference between animal brain and human mind that God inspired Mr. Armstrong to understand.

— Gene H. Hogberg, News Bureau