WAR WATCHING

This week has witnessed the full eruption of war between the US led “coalition of the willing” and the country of Iraq.

A peaceful solution to this conflict was unobtainable–not in the United Nations and not between the adversaries themselves.

In both the Moslem world and the Western nations, live coverage pervades the media. A new component of war is the “embed”. This term describes reporters who are traveling with coalition forces–embedded within the various elements of this massive onslaught. New technology such as the latest video phones has brought this war into our living rooms as we watch events unfold on our television sets.

As war rages and the world watches, many are expressing their outrage. Worldwide demonstrations against this war are mounting. The hope for a peaceful aftermath of this conflict is quickly fading. There is a flood of resentment now taking root across the globe. This quote from The Associated Press on 3/25/03 highlights the problem: ” ‘Hatred against America is increasing,’ said Shahid Shamsi, spokesman for the United Action forum, a hard-line Islamic group in Pakistan, where an estimated 100,000 people marched through the city of Lahore Sunday.”

Protestors are effectively organizing via the internet. Well timed rallies are being orchestrated in nations around the world.

And although the US, Britain and the rest of the coalition are claiming the moral high ground to justify this war, it appears that a permanent erosion and ultimate division is being created with those nations and peoples who are in opposition.

UN ROLE IN POST-WAR IRAQ?

Even as the war in Iraq has entered an intense period, nations are jockeying for a role in its aftermath. Once again, it appears to be a proposition that will continue to isolate the United States. Tony Blair was in the US this week to lobby for some reconciliation with the UN and its recalcitrant members. From Reuters, 3/26/03, “British Prime Minister Tony Blair flew to Washington Wednesday for a war council with President Bush, insisting that the United Nations must play a central role in post-war Iraq. But his twin aims of healing a transatlantic rift between America and Europe, and binding the United Nations into reconstruction of Iraq, represents a huge challenge while Washington is still smarting at a snub from the Security Council.”

Again from Reuters, 3/26/03, “The United States will not cede control of Iraq to the United Nations if and when it overthrows President Saddam Hussein, Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Wednesday. “We didn’t take on this huge burden with our coalition partners not to be able to have a significant dominating control over how it unfolds in the future,” Powell told a House of Representatives subcommittee.”

In another article, this from globeandmail.com, 3/26/03: “the United States appears committed to a scheme for postwar Iraq that would give the United Nations a limited role in humanitarian relief but exclude it from the country’s administration.”

This article notes an immediate problem that will occur, ‘It’s going to confirm in the eyes of so many that this is a U.S. colonial enterprise,’ said Robert Malley, Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group, a Brussels-based think tank.” Continuing, “Without UN involvement, key members of the world organization could be reluctant to help the United States pay for reconstruction efforts in Iraq. A recent report by the New-York-based Council on Foreign Relations said rebuilding could cost $20-billion (U.S.) a year for several years.”

The EU has positioned its support directly with the UN. From Daily Nation on the Web, 3/26/03: “We believe that the UN must continue to play a central role during and after the current crisis. The UN system has a unique capacity and practical experience in coordinating assistance in post-conflict states. The Security Council should give the United Nations a strong mandate for this mission,” said the EU statement.

WILL THERE BE PEACE?

The humanitarian effort that will be necessary after the Iraq war is now being heralded as perhaps the greatest in history.

The logistical aspects of feeding and caring for a nation the size of Iraq will take years, and at this point it doesn’t appear that the “coalition of the willing” will get much help from those major nations that did not sanction this war. Deep divisions were created leading up to the war, and comments ablaze in press reports point to ongoing if not deeper rifts in the immediate future.

Behind the scenes, events continue to show that the US role as a world super-power doing what it chooses will not go unchallenged. In a report from Parade this past Sunday, 3/23/03, titled “Former Enemies May Form European Supernation”, this stunning scenario takes form. “For centuries, they were bitter enemies, but now Germany and France are talking about merging into a kind of European supernation. Their leaders have proposed offering dual citizenship to French citizens living in Germany and Germans living in France. They held a joint meeting of both parliaments. Now the two are considering the creation of a confederation with joint government agencies, joint diplomatic missions abroad and shared defense and foreign policies. (They recently were united at the UN in opposing President Bush’s Iraq initiatives.) Germany and France already are each other’s biggest trading partners and share a common currency, the Euro. If they unite on other fronts, they would present a formidable force within Europe and the European Union – perhaps forcing others, especially Britain, to cultivate their own strategic alliances in an effort to curb the duo’s power.”

The sad truth is that after this current war in Iraq, peace will not be the outcome. The stage is already being set for even deeper problems that will lead to greater and greater difficulties for Britain and the US. In Deuteronomy 29, God sternly warns Israel of old to carefully heed the warnings and consequences for disobedience. In particular, verse 19 states, “and so it may not happen, when he hears the words of this curse, that he blesses himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, even though I follow the dictates of my heart as though the drunkard could be included with the sober.”

Neither nations nor individuals will ever find peace by following the dictates of their own heart–although all proclaim, “peace, peace” (Cp Jeremiah 6:14; 8:11). Peace will not come to this earth through its wars. Peace will only come when God sends His Son to establish the Kingdom of God on this earth

JUST THE BEGINNING

In a timely news report written far ahead of its time, the Bible in Matthew 24, verses 6-8, records the following:
“And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.”

“CNN EFFECT”

As war with Iraq begins, people gather around radios, televisions and, now, computer screens to monitor events as they unfold in real time. This event of spectacle received the name, “the CNN Effect”, after the Gulf War when reporters were able to give a running commentary of that event.

Virtually all regular programing is giving way to the war. It should not be overlooked that only in the most recent times has technology made it possible for all to “hear of wars and rumors of wars” to the extent we now do. In this same context, Revelation 11 speaks of “two witnesses” who prophesy in Jerusalem in an approaching future time. At the end of one thousand two hundred and sixty days, they are murdered. In verse 9 of this chapter, it states that, “Then those from the peoples, tribes, tongues, and nations will SEE their dead bodies three-and-a-half days…” Although this is a prophecy that is yet to be fulfilled, we have now arrived at a time in human history in which it is possible for this to happen!

WAR

The news of this week–in the light of prophetic events forecast so long ago–finds its chilling fulfillment in almost breath-taking circumstances! Words like deadline; imminent; impending; ultimatums, on the brink; and, time running out, all point to our most current war which pits America and its allies against Iraq and Saddam Hussein’s dictatorial reign. However, far beyond a “good versus evil” scenario of former days and earlier international conflicts, this war has effectively reshaped political alliances.

From the online edition of BBC News for March 19, 2003: “Germany’s Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, said his country ’emphatically rejects the impending war’ and added that ‘there is no basis in the UN Charter for a regime change with military means.’ ” Continuing, “His French counterpart Dominique de Billepin echoed the sentiment, saying those who believed terrorism would be eradicated through war on Iraq ‘run the risk of failing in their objectives.’ “
In addition, this article quotes UN Secretary General Kofi Annan as warning the US and UK that “under international law, the responsibility for protecting civilians in conflict falls on the belligerents”.

In another report, this from www.msnbc.com, March 19, 2003, “Russian foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said there was no proof Iraq threatened the United States and that the Security Council had been brushed aside.”

In a somewhat unexpected move, Robin Cook, Leader of the House of Commons, resigned from Tony Blair’s cabinet because of his unwillingness to support his country’s participation in the Iraq conflict. BBC News (3/17/03), reports this interesting perspective from Mr. Cook: “As President of the Party of European Socialists, of which the Labour Party is a member, it troubles me that I know of no sister party within the European Union that shares our position.”

Meanwhile, the cost of this war and its follow-up is estimated in amounts ranging into the hundreds of billions. This will come atop an economy in the US fraught with precarious issues that in themselves lack any immediate resolve.

At its core the run up to this war along with the war itself and its aftermath, will have vastly greater consequences for the United States and its closest allies. The world that emerges after this war will see nations banding together in order to withstand America with more than words.

PESTILENCE

SARS, severe acute respiratory syndrome, has the world community mobilizing against this latest deadly foe. In an article from msnbc online edition (3/19/03), Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson “…said authorities are working to prevent the spread of the illness within the United States. He told senators Wednesday morning the Bush administration wants to spend $100 million to prepare for a possible outbreak of the disease in the United States.”

This disease is receiving a worldwide travel alert and is classified as highly contagious. There is no known treatment or cure at the present time, and the death rate is especially alarming.

SNOW

Keeping pace with the unusual weather patterns of extremes, the Rocky Mountain states of Colorado and Wyoming received record snowfalls this week. Airports, schools, businesses and major highways were all closed because of the heavy snowfall. Even with the inconveniece, most people were expressing gratitude for this mixed blessing. The entire area has suffered from several years of drought. The needed moisture will at least replenish severely low reservoirs that threatened to place most of the area into very strict water conservation policies.

UNRAVELED ECONOMY

We have all read or at least heard the story of how David killed Goliath with a well placed stone flung from a sling. He turned the mighty Philistine army into a quivering, fleeing and defeated mass who were then plundered by the victorious Israelites.

In a not dissimilar fashion, a small determined group of Spanish invaders overthrew and murdered the indigenous populations of Mexico and Central and South America in centuries gone by.

Now it seems that the multifaceted repercussions of the cowardly attack on September 11, 2001, by an ill-determined group of nineteen terrorists, have turned all of the United States on its head–at least financially. Nowhere is that more obvious than in America’s struggling airline industry.

The web page of MSNBC News for March 12, 2003, pointed out that U.S. airlines have cut some 100,000 jobs since Sept. 11 and they lost nearly $10 billion last year. They attribute over $4 billion of that loss to security and fees mandated by the government. Nor have the effects been limited to these shores. British airways announced last month it was trimming back its service to the Persian Gulf region and requiring its crews to stop overnight in Cyprus rather than Saudi Arabia and other destinations. It already warned that a war with Iraq might rub out its profits and it has cut 13,000 jobs since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Now the U.S. is precipitously close to unleashing a war–all in the name of security for America and the world against further terrorist attacks. This action has the potential of realigning the world into a U.S.–British and Israeli camp with the rest of the world at serious odds with all three. This new international structure will dramatically change the economic fortunes of entire nations as trade wars and reprisals on a global scale begin to take effect.

Tourism, exports and imports, control of oil resources and, most importantly, world opinion, all now hang on a precarious balance. The news for now and for the immediate future is not optimistic. The Bible speaks of these days as “…the time of Jacob’s (modern America’s and Britain’s) trouble” (Jeremiah 30:7). For more detailed information about this world’s imminent future, write for our free booklets, “The Great Tribulation and the Day of the Lord,” and “Europe in Prophecy”. These are also available on our web site.

ASSASSINATION ATTEMP IN SERBIA

How fragile and temporary man’s attempts are to create permanent peace could be seen this week by the tragic assassination of Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic. USA TODAY stated that this brutal murder will “make it more difficult for one of Europe’s most restless regions to enjoy peace and stability.” Mr. Djindjic had brought democracy to former Yugoslavia. This assassination, which took place in Belgrade, was the first of a sitting European head of government since Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme was killed in Stockholm in 1986, according to the article.

The region of the Balkans is certainly worth watching. We all may recall that World War I was triggered when Archduke Francis Ferdinand of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was gunned down by a Serbian nationalist in Sarajevo, which is now the Bosnian capital, on June 28, 1914.

“MOAB” — THE MOTHER OF ALL BOMBS

“Moab” — a Biblical name — was tested this week by the U.S. in Florida — in the form of the biggest existing non-nuclear bomb of 21,000 pounds. Newscasters analyzed the explosion as an attempt to intimidate Iraq and other potential enemies. MSNBC News wrote on its Webpage that the “Air Force expected to have the bomb available for use in an Iraq war.” CNN, when broadcasting about the blast, compared the bomb with Biblical prophecies about the destruction of “Moab,” as can be found, for instance, in Isaiah 16 and 25:10-12. God is indeed angry with Moab because of Moab’s pride. Tragically, the Bible also foretells the destruction of the modern nations of Israel and Judah for the very same reason — pride against God and His will. Is it mere coincidence that the biggest non-nuclear bomb available today is called “Moab” — perhaps indicating the coming downfall of the very nation which developed it?

ONGOING CONFLICT IN NORTH KOREA

In response to the U.S. Air Force’s announcement on Wednesday that stealth warplanes will arrive in South Korea this week for annual military drills, North Korea has accused the United States of “sinister” plans for nuclear war, according to MSNBC News, adding that “nuclear war may break out any moment” on the Korean peninsula. Earlier this week, North Korea had launched a second surface-to-ship missile toward the Sea of Japan (A first missile had been fired to the same area on February 25).
 

IS “BIG BROTHER” AMONG US? — Growing Scrutiny, Control, and Restrictions of Personal Freedom

An article appearing on www.usatoday.com on Feb. 27 shows just how much our Western world is changing. It reports that the U.S. government is ready to test a new risk-detection system that would be based on an individual’s background and then have a threat level assigned to that particular person before they could board an airline.

Note how far reaching this new program will be: “Transportation officials say a contractor will be picked soon to build the nationwide computer system, which will check such things as credit reports and bank account activity and compare passenger names with those on government watch lists.”

Among the many changes in our new, post-September 11th world, the greatest change is that of people living in fear. Regardless of formerly “safe” areas of the world, the new reality is that no one feels safe anymore–anywhere! This is being reflected by governments as burgeoning new laws in the name of security are rushed into place. Many fear that the cost to personal freedoms has already suffered, will suffer increasingly and will be “the way things are” from here on out.

Those restrictions are not limited anymore to certain tyrannies, but they are now being introduced to Western democracies. Der Spiegel published an article on March 5, 2003, informing its readership of an attempt by the United States government to introduce a law that would strip Americans of their citizenship if they are felt to be supportive of terrorist activities. Those accused could be incarcerated secretly. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) speaks about a blatantly unconstitutional law, much worse than the “Patriot Act.” They ran an ad in the “New York Times,” titled, “Keep America safe and free,” comparing the current attempts of the U.S. government with the persecutions under the McCarthy era. One serious concern is the definition of terrorist groups in the proposed new law, which, according to law experts, could even include militant organizations for the protection of animals. “If during a demonstration a bystander should lose his life, the demonstrators could face the death penalty,” according to the article.

Yahoo! News reported on March 5 that “Hollywood Actors Raise McCarthyism Specter.” The article stated, “The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) said a slew of hate-mail directed at actors who have taken a public personal stand against war, along with calls for boycotts of movies and albums on the nation’s talk radio airwaves and Internet message boards, ‘suggest that the lessons of history have, for some, fallen on deaf ears.’ SAG said suggestions that ‘well-known individuals who express ‘unacceptable’ views should be punished by losing their ‘right to work’ was a ‘shocking development’ which recalled the 1950s House Committee on Un-American Activities. More than 230 people, including Arthur Miller, Orson Welles, Dashiell Hammett, Paul Robeson and Charlie Chaplin were placed on a blacklist that stopped them working for the entertainment industry because of views considered left-wing or unpatriotic… [Martin] Sheen, along with actor Sean Penn…, singer Sheryl Crow…, and scores of other celebrities have been slammed for being unpatriotic… G.I. Jargon.com, a Web site representing U.S. military, police and firefighters, dubbed the celebrities ‘Taliban’ and called for a boycott of ‘anti-American entertainers,'” according to the article.

These limitations of personal freedoms and attempted restrictions of free expressions are just the beginning. The Bible speaks of a time when the entire world will fall under the control of a looming end-time religious/political power, currently rising in Europe. A time when personal freedoms will disappear, war will be glorified, and the world will be in subjection to the exacting controls and dominance of this final superpower. Revelation 13 speaks of religious and political/military leaders who hold power over people to enforce worship (at the cost of their lives) and control the commerce of the world: “He [the religious leader] causes all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast [the political/military leader], or the number of his name” (verses 16-17).

Something to watch–something for all of us to earnestly pray about!

THE POWERFUL EURO

From msn.com for March 5, 2003, the pressure on the dollar is noted: “The euro was trading around $1.0966 compared with $1.0956 in late U.S. trade on Wednesday, when it hit a four-year peak of $1.1005.” Der Spiegel commented that experts expect a further upward trend of the euro and a further downward trend of the U.S. dollar.

Aside from the immediate monetary repercussions, the growing strength of the euro against the dollar only reflects the rapidly changing roles of a more and more isolated U.S. and an emerging financial powerhouse in an increasingly influential Europe.

U.S. AND UK IN ISOLATION?

Yahoo! News reported on March 5 that “Chinese leader Jiang Zemin gave his support to European-led opposition to a war on Iraq… Jiang told Chirac that Beijing agrees with a statement made Wednesday by the foreign ministers of France, Russia and Germany, who said they would ‘not allow’ passage of the U.S.-backed resolution.” Der Spiegel commented on March 6 that “the United States and Great Britain become more and more isolated…. The American attempts to change the picture appear motivated by despair… Now there is also open disagreement between the United States and Hans Blix.”

In addition, the United States suffered a setback this week by the refusal of the Turkish parliament to allow the Pentagon to base a large ground force in Turkey. USA Today quoted a Senior Defense official as saying, “‘We are not going to wait for Turkey. We’ll go on our timetable.'”

The troubles for the U.S. mounted further this week, when tensions increased in the standoff over North Korea’s nuclear programs. Russia and China both urged the United States to try to “defuse the standoff peacefully,” according to Yahoo! News. Washington had ordered the deployment of 12 B-1 and 12 B-52 bombers last Friday in Guam, which is about 2000 miles from North Korea. President Bush has now stated, according to the article, “that the military option was on the table as a last resort.” North Korea has repeatedly threatened with nuclear war, if the United States does not relent in the present conflict.

THE CATHOLIC POSITION ON WAR

Cardinal Pio Laghi, former Vatican ambassador to the U.S. and a Bush family friend, met with President Bush on Wednesday. As an emissary from Pope John Paul II, he delivered the pope’s message, as quoted in Yahoo! News: “A war would be a ‘defeat for humanity’ and would be neither morally nor legally justified. In a letter to Bush, the pope stood by his view that a pre-emptive strike on Iraq is immoral ‘unless it gets backed’ by the United Nations.” The article continued, “Bush, a Methodist, has taken pains throughout his presidency to court Catholic voters, who made up a quarter of the electorate in 2000 and split their votes between Bush and Democrat Al Gore.”

The Catholic position on the issue of Iraq becomes more and more muddled. Zenit stated on March 4 that Archbishop Celestino Migliore explained the Vatican’s position in this way, “It is not of pacifism, but rather of working as an architect of peace. The problems exist and they must be resolved, but not by taking recourse to war.” One day later, as stated above, the pope’s position was communicated to President Bush that he would approve of war — even of a pre-emptive strike — if the U.N. were to support it. Clearly, the position of the Catholic Church on war is not one of conscientious objection.
 

EUROPE WATCH!

While the world focuses on Iraq and North Korea, other developments of prophetic significance are taking place elsewhere.

We need to note especially the increasing influence on world affairs of a unified European Union.

On February 21, 2003, Der Spiegel reported that the European Union wrote an “angry letter” to Israel, condemning Israel’s recent military operations against the Palestinians. The magazine commented, “The relationship between Europe and Israel is near the freezing point.”

The Australian reported on February 20 that the European Union “lashed out at Australia’s foreign policy priorities, accusing the Federal Government of being blind to the new political reality emerging in Europe.” The article quoted Europe’s position that “the EU was politically integrated… as a single trading bloc.”

The Washington Post published its opinion on February 21 that “France’s current dispute with the United States is not really about Iraq… The Iraq crisis has provided France an opportunity to create the first coherent challenge to [United States] dominance — and to give France a unique position as leader of that challenge. Last Friday at the Security Council was the high water mark. France stood at the head of an impressive opposition bloc — Germany, Russia, China, perhaps seven other members of the Council and dozens of other smaller countries — challenging American policy and, implicitly, American hegemony…. France is reaching to become not only the leading power in Europe…, but also the leader of a new pole of world power opposite the American ‘hyperpower.'”

Similar sentiments were published in an article of Der Spiegel, dated February 24, titled, “The Kaiser of Europe.” In the article, French ambitions are described to become the leader of Europe, while acting independently from the United States. The magazine pointed out, “Jacques Chirac wants to place Europe under the leadership of France and Germany…. Chirac, the Kaiser of Europe? A triumph over the emperor of the U.S. empire would constitute his coronation.”

The Bible reveals, however, that ultimately Germany, and not France, will lead Europe, but France will, no doubt, play an important role to bring about a unified Europe.

At the same time, the United States is being forced more and more into isolation over the Iraq issue. Imagine the potential consequences for the U.S., if it finds itself in the position of having to pay for most of the costs of the war. The estimated costs are indeed staggering, ranging from 99 billion dollars to 1924 billion dollars (Der Spiegel Online, February 26). In addition, the pope has again reiterated his opposition to war — and with it, his opposition to current U.S. politics. According to Zenit of February 29, the Vatican stated in an address to the Security Council, “In the end, it is conscience that will have the last word, stronger than all strategies, all ideologies and also all religions… War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations.”

Of course, an ardent student of history may recall that the same religious power that now utters words of peace was actively engaged in the past in war and military confrontations. One may wonder whether the leopard has indeed changed its spots. But — the Bible reveals that Europe will be guided, led and supported by a religious power, claiming to represent true Christianity. However, Scriptures describe this power as “a beast coming out of the earth, and he had two horns like a lamb and spoke like a dragon.” (Revelation 13:11). This power is also described as a woman “drunk with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” (Revelation 17:6). This description does not just apply to past conduct. Revelation 6:11 speaks about a future martyrdom of the saints. Revelation 17:18 identifies the future persecutor as the modern city of Babylon. It states in Revelation 18:24, “And in her [the modern city of Babylon] was found the blood of prophets and saints, and of all who were slain on the earth.”

As we see a political, military and religious power arising in Europe, we know that the end is near. We need to pray as never before to be counted worthy to escape all these things that will shortly come to pass.
 

AMERICA AND EUROPE — A GREAT DIVIDE

MSNBC News published this week on its Webpage an article from Newsweek, titled, “A Great Divide.” The article stated, “Europe and America are largely split over whether a war to change the regime in Iraq is now justified. But the divisions go much deeper than that – to differing perceptions of history and politics, power and God.”

It is interesting how the author, Christopher Dickey, recognizes the ever-increasing divide between the two power blocs. He asks, “How did the magnificent alliance between democratic Europe and the United States… reach this sorry state of affairs?” He continues, “In some eyes, the problem today is not what France, or the Europeans, have forgotten; it’s what they remember… Europe’s critical experiences of faith and history, God and War, are not the same as America’s… [A] basic source of resentment against the United States is a kind of strategic envy. American military power is simply overwhelming…”

The article continues, “Americans are religious in ways that many Europeans find almost incomprehensible… Why? Because in America religious faith is increasingly tied to freedom of choice. Europeans grow up in their Roman Catholic or Protestant cultures… To most Americans it seems natural enough that President Bush, a born-again Christian, would incorporate religious references into his speeches. His Manichaean descriptions of good versus evil, with us or against us, are rooted in his reading of the Bible and strike many in the U.S.A. as strong, righteous and decisive. But all this sounds to Europeans very much like the kind of theology – or ideology – that led them to slaughter each other for centuries.”

On Sunday, February 16, 2003, the San Diego Union Tribute published commentaries from Henry Kissinger and John Keegan. Mr. Kissinger, former secretary of state and presidential advisor, stated that the “Atlantic Alliance is in its greatest crisis.” Mr. Keegan, a military historian and defense editor of “London Daily Telegraph,” felt that “‘Old Europe’ may push America too far.”

At the same time, massive anti-war demonstrations of millions of participants took place this week all over the world, including in London, Berlin, Paris, Madrid and Rome, as well as several cities in the United States. Der Spiegel asked, “What now, Mr. President?” The magazine continued, “Suddenly, those who are against war with Iraq are not isolated anymore, but the world power – the United States – is. The appearance of Blix before the Security Council has made true the worst fears of the U.S. military… It was exactly the situation in which President Bush never wanted to be… Suddenly, the entire world is against… Washington…”

And so it seems. The AP reported Wednesday that the Vatican warned again against unilateral action against Iraq. This was perceived to be a veiled message to the United States. USA Today ran an article, titled, “U.S. struggles for support on Iraq.” It continued, “The overwhelming opposition to the Bush’s administration’s policies on Iraq… set back plans for the introduction of a new resolution Wednesday… Over nearly four hours Tuesday, a parade of ambassadors spoke out during an open debate in the Security Council in favor of disarming Iraq through continued weapon inspections, not war. Only Australia and Japan supported Washington and London in seeking a quick new Security Council resolution… Representatives of the Non-Alignment Movement, the Arab League, the European Union and other Asian, African and Latin American nations staunchly spoke out against the idea.”

All of this prompted Secretary of State Colin Powell to say on Wednesday on French radio that countries like France that oppose swift military action against Iraq are afraid of upholding their responsibility to disarm Baghdad by force, according to an article published by the AP, widening the rift between the Bush administration and the French government.

Manfred Guttamacher of the Potsdam University in Germany was interviewed by CNN. He stated, “We are on the brink of a fundamental rift between the United States and Europe which goes much deeper than the rifts that came up in the course of anti-American sentiments in the 60’s or the early 80’s.”

How deep the rift already is can also be seen by the fact that most Germans – as well as most British – say that President Bush is a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein. CNN.com published an article on February 14, stating, “Anti-Americanism in Europe deepens,” voicing the opinion that a “new generation of U.S.-haters” is “being created” in Europe.

Der Spiegel Online ran an article Wednesday, titled, “Americans come from Mars, Europeans from Venus.” It continued, “European and American NATO-partners are alienated as never before.”

On Monday, the 15 European states agreed on a unified position. Both France and Germany acquiesced to a statement that war against Iraq as a last resort is no longer rejected. Although some feel that this statement constitutes a defeat especially for Germany, the German tabloid “Bild” commented: “It was important for the European Union to find a compromise. They can now demonstrate to the United States that they are unified. A decision regarding peace or war stays within the United Nations.”

Some observers concluded that Germany’s modified stance constitutes a victory for Joschka Fischer in an internal power struggle between Chancellor Schroeder and the Foreign Minister. Nevertheless, both politicians declared afterwards that Germany would under no circumstances actively participate in a war against Iraq. Germany was also successful, according to AP, to block a European “declaration from warning Saddam Hussein that ‘time is running out’ – a phrase favored by Britain, as well as the United States.”

Der Spiegel Online reported on February 19 that Joschka Fischer again strongly criticized the policy of the Bush administration. He asked for a “strategic debate regarding the preventive-war-doctrine of the United States.” Although the U.S. might be strong enough militarily to fight alone against Iraq, they need the UN, and firstly Europe, to build and maintain peace, Fischer said in an interview with the German newspaper, Die Zeit. At the same time, German Minister for the Environment, Juergen Trittin, stated in an interview with the German newspaper, “Die Welt,” that America wants a war against Iraq to secure the oil in the region.

As Der Spiegel Online reported on Wednesday, Russia’s Vladimir Putin criticized the United States’ and Great Britain’s routine air bombings of places in Iraq. He said that these attacks are violations of the UN-resolutions that cannot be justified.

THE EURO ON THE RISE

All of these developments have influenced the value of the European currency – the euro. MSNBC News reported on January 31, that the U.S. dollar is no longer seen as a safe haven, and that the euro has risen more than 20% since it was introduced a year ago, due to “growing fear of war in Iraq.” The article continued, “Analysts say the euro is showing signs of becoming a serious rival to the long-dominant dollar on world markets… International investors are worried that the United States and Britain would be isolated in a war against Iraq and that a conflict could be prolonged and draw in other countries such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. There is also concern that the United States would have to bear most of the cost of a war, which some analysts estimate could be as much as $200 billion.”

IS THE WORLD FACING SELF-DESTRUCFTION?

Another insightful article from the Washington Post was published on February 14 in the San Diego Union-Tribune, titled, “The world is at a major turning point.” In the article, Charles Krauthammer points out, “Anyone with a reasonable education in modern physics, chemistry or biology can brew” weapons of mass destruction. There is no avoiding the danger any longer… We are in a race against time. Once such hostile states establish arsenals, we become self-deterred and they become invulnerable. North Korea may already have crossed that threshold. There is a real question whether we can win the race. Year One of the new era, 2002, passed rather peaceably. Year Two will not: 2003 could be as cataclysmic as 1914 or 1939.”

Then, the following poignant question is asked: “What are the odds that our species will manage to contain this awful knowledge [of weapons of mass destruction] without self-destruction – not for a billion years or a million or even a thousand, but just through the lifetime of our children? Those are the stakes today.”

DROUGHT IN AUSTRALIA AND THE US

At the same time, parts of the world are facing serious food shortages as a consequence of unusual droughts. For instance, ABC News Online reported that Australia will be forced to keep importing a “considerable” amount of grain. The Australian government stated that 2002/2003 is “turning out to be one of the worst years on record for Australian grain producers.” The summer crop for 2003 is estimated to be the smallest in 20 years. In the United States, especially Colorado faces dire consequences of a prolonged “dangerous drought,” according to MSNBC News.
 

THE WORLD AT THE BRINK OF WAR?

Actually, this headline does not even accurately reflect the grim reality — since the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, including the red horse, signifying war, have already been riding on this earth for quite a while. Many of today’s battle fields remain virtually unnoticed by the general public.

CNN.com published an article on January 31, titled, “Conflicts rage across the globe.” It pointed out the following: “Iraq and North Korea have dominated the world’s attention in recent months, yet in countries and regions around the globe, strife smolders with sporadic notice. Civil war. Mutilations. Threat of nuclear deployment. Human trafficking. Starving babies. Those are some of the seeds and harvest of conflicts in Africa, Asia, Europe and South America… Millions of Zimbabweans face starvation… Since tensions broke out in the African nation of Burundi in 1993, more than 200,000 people have been killed… Burundi could evolve into a genocide without too much imagining… The conflict over Kashmir has raised the specter of nuclear conflict… Most regions in conflict suffer from long absences of international attention until overwhelming bloodshed or combat renews interest…”

This week, the world was shocked to learn that North Korea has “an untested ballistic [long-range] missile capable of reaching the western United States,” according to USA Today. This revelation followed North Korea’s announcement that they will use nuclear weapons if the United States maintains their troops in the region.

At the same time, a worldwide terror alert has prompted the governments in Great Britain and the United States to increase measures to defend against such an attack, including the stationing of military personnel at Great Britain’s airports in London and Heathrow. According to the “Guardian,” terrorists have allegedly smuggled rockets into Great Britain.

Truly, Christ’s warning that we will hear, in these end times, of wars and rumors of wars are being fulfilled before our very eyes and ears. And, no one is safe anymore, no matter where one may be, UNLESS one has God’s protection.

As prophesied, the friendship between the United Sates and Germany (and much of the rest of Europe) continues to cool off. This week, we witnessed a further heated exchange between American and German government representatives. While Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had declared earlier that he did not want to attack Germany, when comparing the country with Libya and Cuba, his advisor Richard Oerle stated, “The Germans do not play a role any more.” (Bild-Online). This was followed by a statement of Donald Rumsfeld that countries such as France and Germany that favor giving Iraq another chance to disarm are undermining what slim chance may exist to avoid war. (msnbc.com, February 8). Der Stern ran an article on February 7, pointing out that the “marriage” between Europe and the United States was in a “deep crisis.”

During the Munich Conference on Security Policy, Mr. Rumsfeld encountered strong resistance from Germany’s Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer. As Netzeitung.de reported on February 8, Fischer addressed Rumsfeld personally in a speech, saying, “You have to convince us. We have to discuss the matter together.” He also stated to Rumsfeld, “Excuse me, I am not convinced.” (Der Spiegel, February 8). He added, “We have not completed our job yet (in Afghanistan). Why now these priorities? I don’t understand the reasoning.” According to Bild Online, Mr. Rumsfeld “did not explain the reasoning.” Der Stern wrote, “The ditches between Germany and the United States have deepened.”

At the same time, Joschka Fischer had a private audience with the pope. The pope criticized the first official draft of the future European Constitution, presented by former French president Valery d’Estaing, as it makes “no mention of Europe’s religious roots nor the juridical status of churches,” according to Zenit, February 7. The pope expressed his support to Fischer for Germany’s position toward Iraq, according to Bild Online. The paper added, “Catholic Fischer gave the pope a promise: He will see to it that God is going to be included in the European Constitution.”

The relationship between the United States and some European countries increasingly worsened this week, when Germany, Belgium and France vetoed a NATO proposal to help Turkey arm for a conflict with Iraq. This action has caused great concern within the United States. Some even went so far as to say that the survival of NATO is at stake.

In light of all of these events, observers waited anxiously for German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s parliamentary address on Thursday. If anyone had thought, however, that Mr. Schroeder might modify his stance, they were disappointed. Mr. Schroeder insisted that there is still a peaceful solution, and that his government will not support a war against Iraq. He also emphasized that Germany is not isolated at all, but that France, Russia and China are supporting Germany’s position. He stated that Resolution 1441 does not authorize a preventive war against Iraq, and that only the Security Council of the U.N. has the jurisdiction to decide what the next steps should be. Mr. Fischer added that he has received more support from the pope than from the Christian parties in Germany (CDU and CSU).

At the same time, Belgium angered Israel’s President, Ariel Sharon. Brussel’s Court ruled that Sharon could be sued in Belgium for alleged atrocities against Palestinians in 1982, but only, once Sharon loses his immunity after his term as President. Israel’s Minister of Justice, Meir Schitrit, responded that it is unacceptable that such a “little and insignificant nation” should become the judge of the world (Spiegel Online, February 13, 2003).

New alliances are being formed. We will see soon a strong coalition of continental European countries, with the support of the pope, protecting and advocating what they determine to be their interests and values. Ultimately, this coalition will be at odds with the United States, Great Britain and the nation of Israel.

In observing these events, we must not forget why these developments occur. God is very angry because of the sins of the modern nations of the houses of Israel and Judah. God will use a modern United Europe, mainly under the leadership of modern Assyria, to punish modern Israel and Judah. Isaiah 10:5-6 reads, “Woe to Assyria, the rod of My anger And the staff in whose hand is My indignation. I will send him against an UNGODLY nation, And against the people of MY WRATH. I will give him charge, To seize the spoil, to take the prey, And to tread them down like the mire of the streets.” God describes the modern nations of Israel and Judah as “ungodly nations.” He says in Isaiah 1:2-4: “Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth! For the LORD has spoken: ‘I have nourished and brought up children, And they have rebelled against Me; The ox knows its owner And the donkey its master’s crib; But Israel does not know, My people do not consider.’ Alas, sinful nation, A people laden with iniquity, A brood of evildoers, Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the LORD, they have provoked to anger The Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward.”

The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse — religious deception, war, famine and death — have been riding for a while. The very next event — pictured by the fifth seal — describes the Great Tribulation: religious persecution and captivity of national and spiritual Israel and Judah.

But, it does not have to include you. You can be protected from war, terror attacks, sickness, plagues and death. Notice Psalm 91:2-10:

“I will say of the LORD, ‘He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust.’ Surely He shall deliver you from the snare of the fowler And from the perilous pestilence… You shall not be afraid of the terror by night, Nor of the arrow that flies by day [wars and terrorist attacks], Nor of the pestilence that walks in darkness, Nor of the destruction that lays waste at noonday [at
tacks with chemical and biological weapons]. A thousand may fall at your side, And ten thousand at your right hand; But it shall not come near you. Only with your eyes shall you look, And see the reward of the wicked. Because you have made the LORD, who is my refuge, even the Most High, your dwelling place, no evil shall befall you, Nor shall any plague come near your dwelling.”

Have we made God our refuge? Or do we believe that man’s wars are the solution to our problems? Ari Fleischer made some interesting comments to the press on February 12, 2003, as shown on CNN. He said that the President of the United States respects the train of thought by those who believe that war is never the answer. He added that there is a long-standing tradition in the United States for this position. We hope that, when the times comes, this statement will be remembered and applied towards God’s people who are conscientiously objecting against any wars fought by men.
 

AMERICA’S TROUBLE — AND NO END IN SIGHT

SPACE SHUTTLE CATASTROPHE

The world was stunned and saddened to learn about the most recent space shuttle Columbia disaster, causing the deaths of all of the seven astronauts on board. At this time of mourning, USA Today asked some poignant questions in its editorial of February 4:

“Clear vision… was lacking in America’s space program long before Columbia shattered into pieces on its journey home this past Saturday. Since Neil Armstrong’s walk on the moon in 1969, the space program has lost its way… In 1986, the Challenger exploded on takeoff, and no shuttle flew for nearly three years. The nation had an opportunity then to redefine the program’s goals. Instead, it focused on making the fixes needed to save the shuttle program. Now a second disaster offers another chance… Risking lives requires clear reasoning… Tuesday, the president praised the seven lost astronauts for possessing ‘the daring and discipline required of their calling.’ America needs a measure of both to define a space mission worthy of their memories.”

NORTH KOREA THREATENS THE UNITED STATES

As USA Today reported on February 6, 2003, “preemptive attacks on North Korea’s nuclear facilities would trigger a ‘total war,’ the communist state warned Thursday after U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld labeled the North’s government a ‘terrorist regime.’ The harsh rhetoric came a day after North Korea said it was putting the operation of its nuclear facilities on a ‘normal footing,’ triggering fears it was about to produce weapons materials.” The magazine also quoted a spokesman of the North Korean government, stating that North Korea was capable, willing and entitled to launch a preemptive strike against the United States.

COLIN POWELL ADDRESSES UN SECURITY COUNCIL

On Wednesday, February 5, 2003, Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed the U.N. Security Council, giving America’s strongest presentation so far against Saddam’s dictatorship and his possession of weapons of mass destruction.

As USA Today reported, Mr. Powell claimed “that weapons inspections are futile because Iraq has perfected the art of concealment and has no intention of voluntarily offering up its weapons… He asserted for the first time that an active cell of the al-Qaeda terrorist network has been present in the Iraqi capital, Baghdad, for the past eight months, and that it has ties to operatives in five European countries.” Mr. Powell also quoted from unidentified sources, showed slides and played audio tapes of phone conversations between Iraqi officials, allegedly proving the existence and concealment of weapons of mass destruction.

The reaction to Mr. Powell’s presentation was mixed – both in the United States and internationally. A Gallup Poll in the U.S. showed that 57% favor war, with a margin of error of 4 percentage points, according to USA Today. Members of Congress in both parties described Mr. Powell’s presentation as “compelling.” Several key senators, however, stated that the President needs to do more to explain to the American people the war’s likely aftermath. Senator Joseph Biden of Delaware said many voters don’t realize how long the United States is likely to be engaged in the region after military action is over. “But Johnny will not be marching home,” he said. Rather, Americans should be prepared for a long and expensive period of establishing political stability in Iraq.

The world reaction was even more cautious. Iraq, of course, dismissed Mr. Powell’s presentation as a “fabrication,” containing nothing but lies.

Britain’s Foreign Secretary Jack Straw stated that Iraq is in further material breach. At the same time, a majority of the British people is opposed to a war with Iraq, at least without a further UN resolution.

France’s Foreign Minster Dominique de Villepin wants to give Mr. Hans Blix more time to verify Mr. Powell’s claims [Another report of Mr. Blix is due on February 14. German newspapers have joked about his first report, stating, “Blix weiss nix.” (“Blix knows nothing.”)]. Virtually all of the French newspapers reacted sarcastically to Mr. Powell’s speech, stating that he did not present any facts that would warrant military actions, according to the French correspondent of the Today Show.

Russia’s Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov also advocated more time for the weapons’ inspectors. He thereby accurately reflected the overwhelming sentiment of the Russian people. They are strongly opposed to war.

China’s Foreign Minster also agreed with the reactions of Russia and France.

Even Canada’s Foreign Minister Bill Graham did not feel that the evidence presented by Mr. Powell justified an immediate assault.

On the other hand, ten Eastern European nations signed a joint declaration, stating that Mr. Powell gave compelling evidence of Iraqi deception and evasions. These nations are: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia.

Germany’s Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who was also presiding over the Security Council Meeting, stated that the United States’ evidence needs to be studied. He pointed out that Saddam is a cruel tyrant whose activities need to be stopped. The German newspapers reacted in a more differentiated way. Der Spiegel Online called Mr. Powell’s presentation “a matter of faith.” The article stated, “If the U.N. Security Council’s session proved anything, then it proved the determination of the United States to immediately eliminate the problem Hussein Saddam… Are there enough proofs, which justify a war? Perhaps there are – perhaps there are not. “

The German tabloid, Bild, reacted quite differently. In its commentary, it pointed out: “The facts are grave. They convict Saddam of lies and intentional deception…. [German Chancellor Gerhard] Schroeder becomes a laughing stock when he pretends that it is irrelevant to him what the Americans lay on the table…. The material is… dangerous… Who can deny that? Are the inspectors to continue to search in the Iraqi haystack? Powell’s presentation was not a declaration of war, but a final warning. If Saddam does not reveal his poisons, a military [intervention] cannot be avoided.”

This mood swing in at least some influential German papers, beginning to support the United States’ position regarding Iraq, coincides with Gerhard Schroeder’s devastating defeat in two state elections (This “protest vote” was mainly due to Germany’s high rise of unemployment and the perceived lack of vision of the German government as to how to change the situation). Unfortunately, at the same time, U.S. Minister of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, compared in a speech before the U.S. Congress Germany with Libya and Cuba. The German press responded furiously. Bild (the very same paper that had just supported Mr. Powell’s speech), wrote: “Rumsfeld shoots again against Germany… He had already attacked Germany last month… What does he think to gain with his criticism?… Is he going to repeat his bad attack?”

Der Spiegel Online wrote, “The German-American friendship is again being tested…. The Greens [German coalition party] stated that Rumsfeld’s comments were rude.” Der Stern wrote that U.S. Ambassador in Germany Daniel Coats distanced himself from Rumsfeld’s remarks, pointing out that “Rumsfeld does not speak for the government of the United States.”

The position of the Catholic Church and many Protestant Churches remains unchanged. As Zenit reported, the Vatican Newspaper L’Osservatore Romano strongly criticized the concept of a “preventive war” and drew attention to the plight of the Iraqi people. It also stated that the presidency of the Swiss Episcopal Conference appealed to all believers to redouble their prayers so that war will not break out and that common sense would triumph. The bishops said, “For years, the Iraqi people, most especially the children, have suffered atrociously from the consequences of the international embargo against this country. Let us not martyr them still more…”

Zenit also announ
ced that John Paul II will meet on February 14 with Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. Aziz is a member of the Christian minority. The fact that Aziz seeks support from the pope is interesting, given the fact that some of the descendants of the ancient Assyrians live in Iraq.

This world is at the brink of war. New alliances are being formed against the United States. Bible prophecy is marching on. We need to watch and pray that we can escape all those things that are surely going to come to pass soon.
 

IRAQ — NO END IN SIGHT…

As we announced in our last Update (#77), Germany and France — the two leading European nations opposing a preventive military strike against Iraq — angrily rejected U.S. Minister of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld’s remarks identifying Germany and France with the “old Europe” and as an “isolated problem” within Europe. CNN.com stated on January 24 that “Rumsfeld’s comments had unusually brought unity among French and German politicians of left and right together with the two countries’ newspapers, from the German tabloids to the French heavyweights… Even the strongest advocates of U.S. policy in Berlin and Paris were annoyed, including Germany’s mass circulation Bild Daily, traditionally a vocal supporter of the United States.” CNN.com quoted excerpts from Bild’s editorial. We bring you here the entire text:

“Dear Mr. Rumsfeld:
“France and Germany are for you the ‘old Europe,’ and Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, etc., are the ‘modern Europe.’

“To start with two items: Without the old Europe, there would be no new world and you would not exist. Both your parents are of German descent. Also, ancient grandpa and grandma Rumsfeld, old residents of Bremen, do not like to hear in heaven, how you put down your native land.

“The ‘old Europe’ is a bridge to the childhood of America, and it led the way across the ocean to the forests and prairies of your country — and to the moon and back. The German rocket scientist Wernher von Braun has given you this triumph. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the American Declaration of Independence, was inspired by the ideas of the French Revolution. He almost copied them : liberte, egalite, fraternite.

“Mr. Rumsfeld, hundreds of thousands of your ‘G.I.s’ fell for old Europe, because they freed us from the tyranny of Hitler. You are sinning against your own heroes by disparaging old Europe. Your ‘G.I.s’ died for the ideals of your place of origin.”

On January 28, the Los Angeles Times reported that Secretary of State Colin Powell was attempting to “repair [the] rift between [the] U.S. and Europe.” At the same time, he warned that the United States “is prepared to go to war alone.”

The L.A. Times also reported on the same day that Chief U.N. Weapons inspector Hans Blix gave a “tough report that helps Washington’s contention that Iraq has no intention of coming clean,” and that “Saddam Hussein does not appear to be serious about disarming.” USA Today added that “Iraqi weapons are missing,” including “VX nerve gas,” “anthrax,” “artillery shells,” “chemical bombs,” and “missile deployment.”

On January 28, President Bush gave his long-awaited State of the Union address. While he spoke for the first half about the U.S. economy, his tax plan, AIDS, Medicare reform, and education, he lunged out against Iraq in the second half of his speech. He pointed out that Iraq is an imminent threat, and that trusting Hussein’s restraint is “not an option.” He linked Saddam with al-Qaeda, said the Iraqi leader “is deceiving,” and made clear that he is willing to start a war together with those who will support him, regardless of whether the U.N. approves it or not. At the same time, he said that he is willing to work with the U.N., but not indefinitely.

The L.A. Times wrote in its “News Analysis”:

“President Bush’s state of the union address Tuesday night underscored how thoroughly his presidency is being driven by the fierce engine of war… His speech Tuesday night was dominated by the prospects of military action against Iraq — if not imminently, then before very long. ‘We will consult, but let there be no misunderstanding,’ Bush said. ‘If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.'”

Reactions to Mr. Bush’s speech were mixed. Many criticized his domestic agenda as being doomed to fail, while pointing out that he did not present so far the evidence to the American people that Saddam is indeed in possession of weapons of mass destruction. While Mr. Bush stated that Saddam had not proven that he had destroyed the weapons, some observers felt that it is Mr. Bush’s burden to prove that Saddam possesses those weapons, to begin with.

Mr. Bush announced that Secretary of State Colin Powell will share these proofs with the U.N. Security Council on February 5.

On January 29, Russia’s Vladimir Putin stated that the United States must present irrefutable proof for their allegations (Der Stern). Otherwise, the weapons inspectors must be allowed to continue their search and investigation. Russia stated, too, that they had no information about ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda (msnbc news).

CNN.com reported on January 29 that “British Prime Minister Tony Blair gave full backing to U.S. President George W. Bush’s State of the Union address. But other nations — notably Russia and France — said Washington had not done enough to make the case for war against Iraq… CNN’s Jim Bittermann in Paris said that French President Jacques Chirac spoke to Blair on Tuesday night and told him nothing so far that he had seen justified military action against Iraq… German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder sounded his most pessimistic in attempting to avert war. He was quoted by Reuters as telling a conference in the western town of Wesel on Wednesday: ‘The international situation, especially the crisis over Iraq is worrying me. I am worried about whether we will succeed in avoiding a war in Iraq.'”

On January 30, another bombshell hit the world in the ongoing saga of how to deal with Iraq. Spiegel Online reported, “Bush splits Europe.” It continued, “With a diplomatic offensive, U.S. President George Bush has succeeded to prevent a unified anti-war-coalition [in Europe]. The declaration of eight European countries seems to be saying, If you are not for the United States, then you are against it.” These eight countries, supporting the United States in the attempt to force Saddam to disarm, are Spain, Portugal, Italy, United Kingdom, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Denmark. Germany and France were not even informed about the declaration ahead of time.

At the same time, according to the magazine, the European Parliament passed a resolution, calling on the United States not to take unilateral military action against Iraq. Instead, the United Nations is to do everything possible to find a peaceful solution. The European Parliament reiterated their position that a preventive military strike would violate international law and the U.N. Charter. Further, as msnbc reported, “former South African President Nelson Mandela lashed out at President Bush’s stance on Iraq, saying the U.S. leader, along with British Prime minister Tony Blair were undermining the United Nations, and suggested they would not be doing so if the organization had a white leader.”

Roman Catholic Cardinal Georg Sterzinsky of Berlin, Germany, also strongly criticized President Bush. As Der Spiegel Online reported on January 30, the Catholic leader of Berlin stated that President Bush cannot expect to be viewed by the international community as a prophet. We will not do so, he said, adding that the Catholic Church has condemned a preventive military strike against Iraq.

It will remain to be seen what Germany and France will do. The attempt by some European countries to ignore them, intimidate them, or to push them into a corner might very well backfire on them. Germany and France are the leaders of Europe. They have the support of the Catholic and Protestant Churches. European countries such as Great Britain and Denmark might very well find themselves outside the confines of the European community before long. In addition, the Bible prophecies that the final United States of Europe will be “divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it, just as you saw the iron mixed with ceramic clay. And as the toes of the feet were partly of iron and partly of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile… they will not adhere to one another.” (Daniel 2:41-43). When c
hallenged or perceived to be challenged, however, by the United States, Great Britain, and certain other nations, they will give their power, authority and strength for a short time (“one hour”) to a future powerful, autocratic, political and military European leader (compare Revelation 17:12-13). As we see events developing, this time is not too far away.

BIBLICAL PROPHECY BEING FULFILLED

This week’s section on current events shows how steadily Biblical prophecy is being fulfilled in front of our very eyes. The Bible predicts a powerful Germany leading a United Europe, while the United States, Great Britain and Israel will become more and more isolated. The Catholic and Protestant Churches will also play an important role in the process.

Germany and France vs. the United States

The fear of a looming war of the United States against Iraq has prompted stronger and increased resistance by Europe and other world powers, and especially by Germany and France.

USA Today reported that “France, Germany, Russia and China have made it clear they will not be rushed by Washington’s timetable for war against Iraq, despite threats by the White House to move against Saddam Hussein without their approval.” The newspaper quoted French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who declared Tuesday that France does not see any “justification right now for any military action.” He added that Paris aimed to mobilize the European Union to avert a war, and that it is “important that Europe speaks on this issue with a single voice.” This Wednesday, French President Jacques Chirac called a war “the worst solution.” According to Christian Malar of French TV Channel, 82 % of the French are against military action at this point. They want to see more proof that Saddam is in fact developing weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Malar stated in the Today Show that if the United States were to launch an attack without the backing of the United Nations, this would be a “terrible blow” to French-American relationships.

USA Today pointed out that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder stated on Tuesday that Germany would vote against a new [15-nation] U.N. Security Council resolution on war, or that Germany would at least abstain. Earlier this week, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer had again warned of “disastrous consequences for long-term regional stability,” while a U.N. official pointed out that Iraq would face mass starvation if a rationing system to cope with 13 years of sanctions collapses during any U.S. invasion (Reuters).

“Though it wields no veto, Germany is set to assume a central role in Iraq war diplomacy when it takes over the council chairmanship [from France] in February,” according to USA Today. Schroeder added that Berlin’s position is increasingly being “understood by the European partners and in the world.” (USA Today). Der Spiegel Online pointed out on January 22, that only seven percent of the Germans would support a war against Iraq.

Germany joined the U.N. Security Council in January 2003 for two years. It will lead the Council for one month in February. Its affirmative vote has the same weight as that of the five permanent member states – United States, Great Britain, France, Russia and China. However, the five permanent member states have veto powers. If France should veto another U.N. resolution on war (it is certain that Russia and China will veto it), no such resolution, even with the votes of the United States and Great Britain, could be adopted.

The European Union and the United Nations vs. the United States and Great Britain

Reuters reported on January 21 that the European Union rejected Tuesday a war on Iraq without the backing of the United Nations. Speaking after a meeting with Romanian Prime Minister Adrian Nastase, Prime Minister Costas Simitis of Greece, EU president until the end of June, said that a war would harm peace and stability in the Middle East.

USA Today stated that “Britain, America’s closest ally, is the only major military power virtually certain to join the United States” in a war. “Other countries with smaller armies, such as Australia, Canada and Bulgaria, could provide supporting military roles.”

Yahoo! News reported that Tony Blair stated that Britain would support an U.S.-led war on Iraq without United Nations backing if any countries imposed an “unreasonable blockage to a new Security Council resolution.” However, as Bild Online reported, Tony Blair is increasingly loosing support for his position in his own country. Sixty-two percent of the British are unsatisfied with his Iraq-policy. Between 77 and 81 percent of the British are against an invasion of Iraq solely by the United States and Great Britain. On the other hand, Michael Smith, London Daily Telegraph, stated in an interview with the Today Show that once the war has begun, most British would support it.

USA Today also reported that, “White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the United States could go to war with a select group of allies, even without Security Council approval.” Earlier this week, Secretary of State Colin Powell had remarked in an interview with Sueddeutsche Zeitung that the United States had a duty to disarm Saddam, with or without support of the international community. Subsequently, Mr. Powell criticized in an unusually strong manner Germany and France for their refusal to unconditionally support the United States (Net Zeitung, January 22, 2003). U.S. Minister of Defense, Donald H. Rumsfeld, was quoted in Stern Online, January 23, 2003, that he believes France and Germany constitute the “old Europe” and that they are an “isolated problem” in Europe. The magazine also reported that Germany wants a second report from the U.N. Weapons Inspectors about Iraq’s cooperation. “This would deepen the rift between the United States and Germany, as the United States does not see the need for such a report,” according to the magazine.

Germany and France on Thursday angrily rejected Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarks (Reuters, as reported by MSNBC News). Der Spiegel Online commented: “Thanks to Donald Rumsfeld… for liberating Europe. With his verbal accusations against France and Germany, he has perhaps contributed more to European unity than 40 years of the Elysee Treaty [see below]… With his remarks, Rumsfeld has forced Europe to do what Europe was afraid to do for a long time — to find a unified course of action in response to the warplans of the United States… The irony is that Rumsfeld, in attacking national pride, might create a supra-national alliance… Rumsfeld’s harsh reaction shows how nervous the United States are, when being confronted with European self-consciousness… If Rumsfeld has managed to accomplish that one says, ‘I’m proud to be a European,’ rather than saying, ‘I’m proud to be a German,’ or, ‘I’m proud to be a French,’ then the United States will have to deal with a new Europe.”

In addition, Ari Fleischer’s remarks, reflecting the U.S. approach, were especially resented by several U.N. diplomats, according to USA Today. One Western diplomat was quoted: “The Americans came here saying that if we don’t buy their line then they’re going ahead anyway and people are feeling very snubbed by that attitude. And so the response is that we’re not going to give Washington the blank check that they are looking for.”

U.N. concern has also increased following a Russian military report, as well as newspaper reports from Turkey, alleging that the United States would launch its war by the middle or the end of February (Yahoo! News, dated January 22, 2003). Vladimir Posner, Russian TV Channel, stated in an interview with the Today Show that 83 % of Russians are against a war without U.N. resolution. He pointed out that there is developing an anti-American sentiment among the Russian people at a grass-root level, because of a growing perception that the United States wants to have it their way. He pointed out that many Russians believe that the reason for the escalation with Iraq is “the oil, first and foremost.” They do not believe that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, or that he has the capability to develop them.

United States Divided Against Itself?

Only 23 % of Americans support a war against Iraq, based on the evidence presented, according to a report in USA Today. David Gregory stated in the Today Show on Thursday that 63 % of Americans are against a war without a U.N. resolution.
They expect the Bush administration to present more evidence that Saddam is in fact producing weapons of mass destruction. Der Spiegel Online remarked on January 22 that the popularity of President Bush is decreasing rapidly in the United States, mainly because of his foreign and economic policies. In addition, due to Mr. Bush’s threat to attack Iraq even without international support, the U.S. dollar has lost again this week in value relative to the Euro and the Swiss currency, according to Der Spiegel Online, January 22, 2003).

Is Germany Ready and Willing to Intervene?

Der Spiegel Online reported on January 18 that Germany has invited U.N. Weapons Inspector and Swedish Diplomat Hans Blix to Berlin for a report on the situation, so that the German government can educate itself independently about the matter. Joschka Fischer is scheduled to travel to the Middle East, to visit four Arabic capitals, and to evaluate the possibilities for a peaceful solution.

The Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches of Germany vs. United States

The Roman Catholic and Protestant churches in Germany have condemned a war against Iraq. Following the Pope’s statement that a war against Iraq is not “unavoidable,” and that it would demonstrate a defeat for mankind, the German Catholic Bishops declared that any preventive attack violates Catholic and International Law. The German Protestant Church went even further and stated that any war is against God’s will, and must be overcome. The declaration of the German Protestant Church was supported by the American “United Church of Christ,” according to Der Spiegel Online of January 18 and 20, 2003. At the same time, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Pakistan and the secretary-general of the National Council of Churches in Pakistan issued a similar statement (Zenit, January 21, 2003). So did the Conference of Catholic Bishops of Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei (Zenit, January 19, 2003).

Germany and France – the Leaders of Europe

The leading European nations are clearly Germany and France. This week they marked 40 years of reconciliation with celebrations at the same Versailles palace where victorious Western powers forced a beaten Germany to its knees after World War I, and where Germany had proclaimed itself an empire, crowning William I as “Kaiser,” after beating France in an 1870-71 war. Forty years ago, former French President Charles de Gaulle and German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer signed the Elysee Treaty, laying the foundation “for what arguably has grown into Europe’s cornerstone relationship,” according to Yahoo! News. The article continued that “French-German cooperation is vital in assuring peace and stability in Europe.” Chirac was quoted: “Once again, we have shown that the French-German engine, which is essential for European construction, is functioning well.”

How well it is functioning could be seen in joint declarations of Schroeder and Chirac, describing future cooperation between the two countries, including areas of European foreign, military and security policy (Der Stern, dated January 16, 2003). They also said that both countries want to be a leading force in Europe. The head of Deutsche Bank, Germany’s largest bank, Josef Ackermann, commented, “Europe needs a dynamic Germany. Who else, if not Germany – in concert with France – should take on the leading role?”

Der Stern published an article, dated January 21, quoting statements by two European officials, the German Guenter Verheugen and the French Pascal Lamy, stating, “When we want to build a United Europe…we must create here and now a German-French treaty. Other countries, supporting our goals, are invited to join the German-French treaty. We are not planing to create an island without bridges to the European Union.”

ISRAEL’S SHARON vs. EUROPE

During a news conference, Ariel Sharon of Israel, who is running for re-election next month, stated that he is unhappy with the European Union and their peace plan proposal. He stated that Europe is not balanced toward Israel, and that only the United States and Israel are seeing eye-to-eye (In an interview last week with American television, Saudi Arabia accused the United States of not being balanced towards the Arab world, unduly favoring and supporting Israel). Sharon suggested that he would not be pressured by Europe. As long as Arafat is the head of the Palestinian people, there can’t be any progress toward peace. He said: “The EU does not understand that.” (Source: Top Stories Audio/Video NRP, “Sharon: ‘Europe is biased against Israel,’” Sunday, January 19, 2003).