On April 24, 1999,
an event occurred that may prove to be one of the
most prophetically significant of our time.
An
Emergent Empire?
The Bible
generally presents history - both historic and
prophetic - through the "lens" of Israel. Notable
exceptions occur in Daniel Chapters 2 and 7, which
summarize the Gentile empires that are to
transpire between the Babylonian empire of that time
until the final empire that will be interrupted by
the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. There are to be
four: the Babylonian, the Persian, the Greek, and
the Roman - this fourth in two distinct phases.
For
centuries, Biblical scholars have been anticipating
the re-emergence of this 4th empire in its final
form. The re-emergence of Europe in recent decades
would appear to be setting the stage for the final
climax which the Bible portrays in such fascinating
detail. (A review of the Daniel passages, and the
history of the events leading up to the Treaties of
Rome, the Maastricht Treaty, and other recent
developments in the European Union have been
included in our most recent briefing package,
An Empire Reborn?.1
New
EU President
The entire
European Union's 20-member commission resigned in
March due to extensive corruption scandals. The
Council of Ministers unanimously voted to appoint
the former Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi as
the new president of the commission. (This
appointment must be yet approved by the European
Parliament. He is expected to assume the position
as Brussels's most powerful bureaucrat by late
summer 1999.)
Romano Prodi is
known in his own country for bringing down inflation
and unemployment rates. He has also
enthusiastically endorsed the rooting out of
corruption within the ranks of the 17,000 employees
of the European bureaucracy, and has garnered praise
from the members of the European Parliament for his
strong statements regarding reform.
However, according
to conservative members of the British Parliament,
Prodi's appointment may be more of a nightmare than
a dream. It appears that Prodi is an ardent
federalist, who is ready, willing and able to
expedite the formation of the EU superstate. Prodi
has stated in no uncertain terms that he is in favor
of giving the EU more power and curtailing the
rights of the member nations' veto power. He has
also advocated the creation of an European defense
force, calling for a new treaty to make this
possible. He has said in speeches that he sees no
other way for Europe to effectively handle foreign
affairs without a military option. In addition,
Prodi has called for the union to commit itself to
further expansion into central and eastern Europe
and to expedite the process by setting dates for the
admission of new members, a move that is resisted by
the heads of the EU government.
Prodi has
applauded the progress made by the European Monetary
Union in introducing the new super-national
currency, the Euro. He said in an interview with
the Financial Times that the Euro currency
was "not just a bankers' decision or a technical
decision. It was a decision that completely changed
the nature of the member states." He has told the
British that they won't be able to avoid joining the
Euro.
The
U.N. Assumption
Most
observers of the "New World Order," and the trend
toward a global government, tend to assume that it
will emerge from the United Nations. However, as we
have had opportunity to interview European leaders,
we have noted that Europe views the U.N. with some
disdain.2
They view the U.N. as an American venture, domiciled
on U.S. soil, sponsored by the Rockefellers, and
they frequently point to its unblemished track
record of failure. They, too, assume that an
eventual global government will emerge but that it
will be Euro-centered.
NATO Redefined
The North
Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949 as a
defensive alliance in which each member was pledged
to come to the aid of any of its members which were
attacked militarily. However, at the 50th
Anniversary Summit in Washington on April 23-24,
1999, NATO redefined itself in terms which appear to
be a startling impetus toward the creation of a
major new trans-global alliance. The new
definition, as opposed to contributing toward
regional and global stability, uncompromisingly
identifies the alliance as an offensive
military threat to its neighbors. NATO is now an
ideological construct which is prepared to use force
to impose its concept of world order on its
neighbors and beyond.3
The initiatives
against Kosovo are one thing, sandwiched between two
member states - Greece and Hungary - but this now
betrays a larger agenda. The new strategic concept
declares that NATO's "essential and enduring
purpose...is to safeguard the freedom and security
of all its members by political and military
means." This sounds fine until it is understood how
broadly - both conceptually and geographically -
this "security" is to be defined. The new
definition states:
The security
of the Alliance remains subject to a wide variety of
military and non-military risks...These risks
include uncertainty and instability in and around
the Euro-Atlantic area and the possibility of
regional crises at the periphery of the Alliance
which could evolve rapidly. Some countries in and
around the Euro-Atlantic area face serious economic,
social and political difficulties. Ethnic and
religious rivalries, territorial disputes,
inadequate or failed efforts at reform, the abuse of
human rights, and the dissolution of states can lead
to local and even regional instability. The
resulting tensions could lead to crises affecting
Euro-Atlantic stability, to human suffering, and to
armed conflicts. Such conflicts could affect the
security of the Alliance by spilling over into
neighboring countries, including NATO countries, or
in other ways, and could also affect the security of
other states.
And, if that does
not give NATO a wide enough scope for military
intervention in the affairs of its neighbors, the
new strategic definition adds:
Alliance
security interests can be affected by other risks of
a wider nature, including acts of terrorism,
sabotage and organized crime, and by the disruption
of the flow of vital resources. The uncontrolled
movement of large numbers of people, particularly as
a consequence of armed conflicts, can also pose
problems for security and stability affecting the
Alliance.
The new strategic
definition also says that attempts to acquire
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and
delivery means "can pose a direct military threat to
the Allies' populations, territories and forces."
It would be hard
to add to this list of threats to which NATO now
says it may respond to with military force. But if
the potential excuses for NATO military actions
appear limitless, what about the geographic arena in
which it might contemplate action?
Geographic Purview
Although the
official document is vague on this, General Klaus
Naumann, Chairman of NATO's Military Committee, in a
speech ahead of the Washington Summit, was more
specific, including the areas posing security risks
for the Alliance "the nations resting on its
periphery from Morocco to the Indian Ocean." This
would include the whole of North Africa (Morocco,
Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt), the Near East
(Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Israel), the whole of
the Arabian peninsula (Saudi Arabia, the smaller
Gulf monarchies, and Yemen), and the Persian Gulf
states of Iraq and Iran.
But that's not
all. On the very specific point of the Ukraine, the
new definition says: "The Alliance continues to
support Ukranian sovereignty and independence,
territorial integrity, democratic development,
economic prosperity, and its status as a non-nuclear
weapons state as key factors of security in central
and eastern Europe and in Europe as a whole."
Thus, NATO
considers the stationing of Russian nuclear weapons
on Ukranian soil to be sufficient reason for going
to war.
National Sovereignty Obsolete
The new strategic
concept virtually declares national sovereignty
obsolete. It is not just the sovereignty of the
neighboring states that is threatened, but the
individual members as well. The intention is to
reduce the number of decision-making voices within
NATO from 19 (and growing) to 3 or 4.
To prevent the
renationalization of defense policies, military
structures are to be integrated for:
...collective
force planning; common funding; common operational
planning; multinational formations, headquarters and
command arrangements; an integrated air defence
system; a balance of roles and responsibilities
among the Allies; the stationing and deployment of
forces outside home territory when required;
arrangements, including planning, for crisis
management and reinforcement; common standards and
procedures for equipment, training and logistics;
joint and combined doctrines and exercises when
appropriate; and infrastructure, armaments and
logistics cooperation.
These will tie
each member state to the corporate whole and,
ultimately, a single European voice on defense
matters. "All European Allies should be involved
in...the progressive framing of a common defense
policy...as called for in the Amsterdam Treaty."
(The Amster-dam Treaty, signed in June 1997, was a
revision of the European Union's Maastricht Treaty,
and one of the most controversial elements concerned
the strengthening of the European Union's role in
defense matters.)
The major issue
raised by the NATO-Yugoslavia confrontation is the
inviolability of a country's sovereignty, and under
what circumstances an intervention in an independent
state's internal affairs is permissible and who
should be allowed to intervene. Many of the states
opposing the NATO action fear it will set a
precedent of support for separatist movements which
could be used against China in Tibet (as well as
Xinjiang and Taiwan), against Russia in Chechnya,
against India in Kashmir, and against Israel and the
PLO.
Having totally
bypassed the U.N., NATO has now become the
self-appointed policeman of the world. Stand back
and watch the global events move us inexorably
toward the grand climax which the Bible has laid out
in such detail. It is, indeed, time to do our
homework.
