Edminsters Online

The following is from an information sheet for the transcultural “Next Step” evangelistic project which was scheduled to take place in early August. The project recently fell through due to unforeseen scheduling conflicts for some member countries. I am posting this for reference and perhaps for future use as well.

At our last bi-weekly Bible study group I received a series of congratulations on the swearing in of President Barak Obama and then the following remarks from a few scowlers: “I didn’t like the way he embraced Islam during his speech. Can you believe it, a Muslim president of the United States.” I couldn’t let that one go.

First of all, these ridiculous rumors that Obama was or is a muslim are not only factually wrong, they are repulsive because they refuse to take into account the man’s own public profession of faith. Nothing less than repulsive. We may rightly question where Obama lies on the spectrum of Christian belief. But to disregard his own testimony entirely and assign him to another faith based on speculation, fear and political shortsightedness is uncalled for.

Second, Obama’s “extended hand” to our nation’s enemies was an invitation to diplomacy not religious advocacy. The “clenched fists” out there are not only radical Muslim states like Iran but also emperor worshiping states like North Korea, avowed atheist states like China, and communist dictatorships like Venezuela and Cuba. The only things these countries have in common from the perspective is that we have intractable and longstanding diplomatic troubles with each of them. Our inability to find common ground has cost us immeasurable difficulty and grief. We may not agree with Obama’s approach but let’s not bundle his foreign policy decisions with a knee jerk conclusion that he embraces any one of the idolatries these countries represent.

Now I don’t agree with everything Barak Obama says. But I do think he is an intelligent man and I appreciate his fresh analysis of the facts and the new perspectives he has highlighted in formerly locked down debates. Let’s keep a watchful eye on whether his policies make a difference. But let’s give the man the benefit of the doubt and support him with our prayers just as we would any other public official we’ve elected to office.

Following the early days of the Georgian crisis, an Estonian news special sought to find out what Estonia’s Russian population thought about the Russian presence in South Ossetia and Georgia. They discovered that many of the Russians in Eastern Estonia have been getting their news directly from Russian state-influenced news sources rather than from international or Estonian TV stations. Thus their opinions tended to reflect disbelief that the world would be reacting so strongly to good-willed Russian attempts at peace-keeping in anarchistic/tyrannical parts of the world.

One of the reasons that given that these Russians have been getting their news from Russian sources is that Estonia has not yet provided news in the Russian language (for the record, I have seen one channel which offers an Estonian based Russian language program). This points to one of the weaknesses in Estonia’s conservative language laws. By allowing for only one official language (as opposed to recommendations widely accepted within the EU for primary and secondary state languages) and setting the bar for proficiency so high, Estonia has driven some of its less linguistically able minority groups back to their familiar sources. Rather than encouraging integration into Estonian culture, these laws are reinforcing a linguistic ghetto.

I am highly sympathetic to the Estonian need to preserve language and culture while surrounded and infiltrated by larger and sometimes predatory languages (speaking of both English and Russian here). However, I think that defensive efforts to preserve cultural and linguistic purity will only backfire given that the nation is already composed of a large minority and draws heavily on foreign investment.

Linguistic integration is in fact happening spontaneously among younger populations who realize that multiple languages only benefit their chances for prosperity and social mobility. This is true in both Estonian and Russian populations. Conservative language laws in these fields are really a moot point. Where they do have an effect is among populations whose language learning abilities have stagnated, those in the later half of their life. This population will remain with us for many years yet and naturally will ally with whoever most warmly receives them. Given the current situation in Eastern Europe, can Estonian lawmakers really afford not to reach out?

Good friends recently told us that their young son turned off the TV because the news was frightening him. He’s not the only one who has been scared. Georgia and South Ossetia may be a long way from Estonia, but even so we follow the Georgian conflict with a chill up our spines. Why?

1. Slippery Language: Russia has stated that its reason for invading Georgia is to protect Russian Nationals who are being threatened there. While the status of Russian Nationals in Georgia may in fact be critical, the language is very slippery and could be used in other, less deserving situations as well … say Eastern Estonia, where the population is largely ethnically Russian. Can Russia invade a sovereign nation simply in order to protect its citizens? Who defines what constitutes a “threat” and is there a forum for determining whether force is in fact a justifiable response? At what point does “ethnic tension” (common to any multi-ethnic nation) translate to “ethnic threat”.
2. Crying Wolf: Both Russia and Georgia are accused by the other of “ethnic cleansing”. Like the term “Axis of Evil” or “War on Terror”, the free use of this accusation has the dual effect of influencing popular opinion via hyperbolic headlines and simultaneously diluting the power of important and specific language to accurately identify the “real thing” and to prompt an appropriate response in the future.
3. Loss of Moral Highground: This is not the first time that a large powerful nation has taken unilateral, pre-emtive military action while disregarding the world’s calls for calm and diplomacy. When the US ambassador to the UN recently condemned Russia’s military activity in Georgia – in particular attacks against civilians – the Russian ambassador fired back that such statements were entirely unacceptable coming from the US given its own military activities. Not long ago, America was in a position to make such statements but because of our hasty and miscalculated actions in the Middle East, we have relinquished the moral high-ground and given the world a new excuse for war with the doctrine of “unilateral pre-emtive strike”.
4. Appeasing the Beast: Both Europe and the US have a vested interest in keeping Russia happy and have slow-footed and acquiesced on similar issues in the past. Based soley on the fact that Russia switched sides in World War II, they were allowed in the time of Stalin to get away with mass deportations and atrocious war crimes against their “near neighbors” with nothing more than a hand slap from the West. When economic interests and self-preservation trump “the right thing to do” osteoporosis begins to erode the spine of world’s “strong nations”. With Russia’s oil and gas resources helping to fuel the energy hungry first-world, nuclear armament still an open question, and a NATO trump card always up their sleeve, Russia is confident that it can keep the US and Europe walking on egg-shells while it makes its own rules in the rest of the world.

Taken together, such facts appear to some of Eastern Europe’s small and recently independent nations as “a cloud the size of a man’s fist”. No wonder people are shuddering.

For more clear thinking and analysis on the current situation, let me reference another expat (of another stripe) living in Tartu: To Die for Danzig?

I recently joined a Facebook group formed around Estonia and found a preview there to a very interesting film about the Singing Revolution of the late 80′s. Take a look.