From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

Greece, Germany and the Future of Europe

Posted on Jul 13, 2015 by Darris McNeely Estimated reading time: 4 minutes

Add to my study list

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

Whether or not Greece agrees to the stringent terms of another European Union reform plan, the European power bloc is here to stay, and someday it will surprise the world.

Margaret Barley/Unsplash

I have a few thoughts about Greece, its role in Europe and where this all might lead.

While citizens in Greece were voting July 5 on whether to accept stringent EU demands for economic reform, I decided to go to a Greek restaurant for dinner. I have not had gyros for some time. It was delicious, and it reminded me of my only real contact with Greek culture today.
A lot of attention has focused on the Greek financial meltdown and the drama it is creating within the European Union. Late on July 12 Greece agreed so a very stringent finalcial plan put upon it by the EU. Billions of Euros of Greece assets have been put under EU control to insure compliance with the terms. It amounts to a near takover of the Greek economy by the EU. It is unprecedented. The plan has yet to be accepted by the Greek Parliament. Fallout within Greece will certainly test the limits of the Greek state.
I have a few thoughts about Greece, its role in Europe and where this all might lead.
The EU is too big to fail. Much has been invested in the European Union, and its leading nations are not about to let it fail because of Greece’s profligate spending habits. Concerns that the EU will fail if Greece exits the union are unfounded. The treaty organization could be shaken but not to point of dissolution. The EU is the world’s largest economic trade bloc. It is not going anywhere.
The Euro as a currency is here to stay. Greece may leave the monetary union, reissue the drachma and go it alone, like other EU states. But too much has been invested in the Euro to see it go down the drain. For any nation state its currency represents something intangible about its presence and its reputation among the nations. For the EU to ditch the Euro at this stage would be unthinkable. Look for Germany and the core EU states to double down on their bet.
The EU has a leadership problem. Months of negotiations and talks with Greece have shown that no current European leader has the weight to lead the union through difficult phases like this current economic period. Add in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposing NATO’s impotence, and you have a threat to continental stability unseen since the end of the Cold War. No one in Western Europe has shown the will to stand toe to toe with the Kremlin thug known as Vladimir Putin.
Since Germany is the leading member in the EU, it has taken the lead in dealing with the Greece problem. Now is a good time to watch what Germany’s next move will be. Germany is the nation with the ability to chart the future for the EU.
Greece is not leaving Europe. With all its financial problems it occupies a strategic piece of real estate on Europe’s southern flank. North Africa, a decidedly Islamic region, is directly across the Mediterranean. The Middle East, a region in crisis, is to its east. The Balkans, traditionally the powder keg of Europe, is to the north. Europe’s political stability is vital to the EU. The blood of ancient Europe flows through Greece, and it is tied to the political fate of the peninsula by history, culture, religion and Bible prophecy. Europe cannot stand by to either see Greece dissolve into social chaos or tilt toward Russia in some new-found alliance. Greece defines key parts of Europe’s foundation, and it isn’t going anywhere.
Europe does have a problem beyond the immediate headlines with Greece. Its credibility as a world leader has been damaged. This cannot go on and will have to be addressed at some future point. Europe itself is too big and too important to be crippled by the economic deficiencies of a nation like Greece. Someday a large and very real crisis will erupt upon Europe that will threaten its future—perhaps a massive terror attack that takes out a significant landmark or segment of the population. Or it could be another economic meltdown from another world region. Something big will happen. When it does Europe will shake off its stupor and surprise the world.
But by then it will be a different world.

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/ or call 1-888-886-8632. Please follow this site here.

Distraction

by Darris McNeely

The controversy over Hilary Clinton’s e-mail arrangement while Secretary of State points out how easy it is for us to be distracted from bigger events in the world. There are two items in the news that we should note.
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi called for the U.S. to play a greater role in helping Egypt and other Middle Eastern nations fight terrorism. He has urged the creation of an "Arab ready force" to confront the Islamic State and similar groups. Ever since the Egyptian military ousted the elected President Mohamed Morsi from office, and installed el-Sisi, the U.S has delayed shipment of critical weapons to the country. Relations between the two allies have also cooled. The rise of ISIS in the region has highlighted the need to maintain good relations with the governments in the region to prevent further regional instability.
In an exclusive interview with Fox News, el-Sisi said the need for weapons and equipment remains "dire," and Egyptians "would like to feel that the United States is standing by them.” America under President Obama has chosen to “lead from behind” in this conflict. The speed with which ISIS has come on the scene has stirred fears and reactions from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt to push back at this terrorist state. El-Sisi emphasized the critical need for a "big response from capable countries”—an obvious reference to America. Leading from behind is causing America to look like a reluctant dwarf.
European Commission President Jean Clause Juncker has called for the creation of an EU army in order to show Russia “that we are serious about defending European values”. Mr Juncker said an EU army would “help us to develop a common foreign and security policy, and to fulfil Europe’s responsibilities in the world.” A standing army without a common foreign policy is impossible. Europe is still grappling with the reality of a common currency, the euro, without having a common economic policy guiding the union. The idea to develop a European army is beyond credible thinking at the moment.
This would be an quantum leap beyond the current mindset of Europe. Some say it could take 5-10 years to form. But unexpected events can dictate otherwise. Europe, taken together, accounts for 1/3 of total world defense spending. Should this happen, Europe, Inc. would be an overnight superpower. This suggestion begs the obvious question: What has happened to American-led NATO? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrates that President Vladimir Putin understands the application of hard power, something his European counterparts do not.
These two developments illustrate that America matters in today’s world. Its absence of firm leadership is creating concern among its allies. Events of the past 12 years, since America’s invasion of Iraq, have revealed deep problems in America’s ability to shape the world in its image. While the U.S has the power—both hard military and firm economic—it has squandered good will and opportunity. That is why the distraction over a potential president’s e-mail is a major problem.
We thought the 2012 election was ground shaking. We are watching a 2016 election develop that will highlight the bankruptcy of American politics and leadership. It's going to be a long 20 months.

---

Blog posts do not undergo review by the doctrinal review team of the United Church of God. This post represents the personal opinion of the author and should not be considered the official stance of the United Church of God. If you have any questions or concerns please direct them to webmaster@ucg.org.

• Governments
• United States
• News and Prophecy

• Darris McNeely's blog

Nobody has commented yet. Be the first to kick off the discussion!

Login/Register to post comments

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

Germany and Russia Shifting Balance of Power

article by Melvin Rhodes

More than a century after his death, Otto von Bismarck's dream for Germany seems closer to being realized.

Otto von Bismarck, Germany's Iron Chancellor who presided over the unification of Germany and guided the new nation to great power status, was noted for his sometimes conflicting secret alliances that tried to secure Germany's future. Having secretly entered into a pact with the Austrian Empire in 1879, extended to include Italy seven years later, Bismarck then entered into a secret agreement with Russia, even though Russia and Austria were rivals in the Balkans.
Bismarck's great fear was of a Germany compelled to fight on two flanks, east and west. This is exactly what happened in both world wars with the result that Germany lost.
These two defeats contributed to a century of political upheaval in Germany.
In the 20th century there were six distinct Germanys, each in its own way different from the others. The Second Reich of Kaiser Wilhelm II (1888-1918), defeated in war, gave place to the Weimar Republic (1918-33). This was followed by Hitler's Third Reich (1933-45). Again defeated in war, the country came under Allied control for a brief period before the Federal Republic of (West) Germany was established in 1949, soon followed by the creation of the communist (East) German Democratic Republic. In 1990 these two were united, thereby establishing the sixth distinct German nation of the 20th century.
All six Germanys and previous ones were subject to what columnist Josef Joffe calls "the curse of geography." Geographical location has a profound effect upon national attitudes. The predominantly Anglo-Saxon countries are all protected by lengthy coastlines so that they do not have to greatly concern themselves with hostile neighbors. The result is a certain complacency, even naïveté, in their citizens, who often fail to understand the complexities of the outside world. Germany is in an entirely different situation, almost completely surrounded by other nations, all of which it has been in conflict with at one time or another.
The curse of geography
The curse of geography has been a major contributing factor to Germany's history.
Having learned many lessons from history, the first chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Konrad Adenauer (1949-63), tried a different approach to diplomacy. Gradually a vision emerged of a new united Europe. Its nucleus was to be France and Germany, two nations that had been at war with each other three times in 75 years. These two nations were to be so closely bound to each other economically that they could never go to war again. The nations of Western Europe were able to rebuild while under the protection of the American nuclear umbrella during the Cold War. Closer economic ties between the various nations of the region would make it seemingly impossible for conflict to rear its ugly head again.
Having secured its western flank, in 1969 Germany started reaching out to the East. Chancellor Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik (Eastern Policy) was aimed at building closer ties to the communist countries of the East, with particular emphasis on East Germany and its master in Moscow. It was to be a further 20 years before the collapse of the communist East and the reunification of Germany. United Germany has recently moved its capital from Bonn back to Berlin, the former Imperial capital, now more appropriate for the nation that has become the dominant power in Europe.
There was a price for unification. Not only was there the economic cost of absorbing millions of poorer East Germans into the new Germany, there was also a cost that had to be paid for French support for reunification. Chancellor Helmut Kohl promised French President Francois Mitterand German support for a new European currency that would bind the two nations even closer together, thereby lessening French fears of reunification.
"…Like Bismarck, Kohl understood the precarious position of Germany-about to become the dominant power in Europe again…. Like Adenauer and Brandt, Kohl knew that Germany was too weak to stand alone but too strong to be left alone….
"Germany's Cold War chains were about to drop off, and so Kohl sought to reassure France and the rest of Europe by replacing the Cold War bonds with those forged by integration. The deutsche mark (Germany's own currency) was the very symbol of German primacy. What better way to soften its edge than to multinationalize the country's currency? By way of the euro, Germany proposed to tie itself down. To the French, invaded thrice by Germany in the space of a lifetime, the euro offered perfect compensation…. Kohl's gracious offer of the deutsche mark as the foundation for a European currency was a godsend for France" ( A Century's Journey edited by Robert Pastor, p. 129, chapter "Germany" by Josef Joffe, editorial page editor and columnist of the Suddeutshe Zeitung , 1999).
"Never sever the tie to St. Petersburg"
Because of Bismarck's pivotal role in the defeat of France in the war of 1870-71, Germany under the kaisers never really had a hope of an alliance with France. But Bismarck, a former ambassador to Russia, always believed that Germany should "never sever the tie to St. Petersburg," the former capital of Russia. A close relationship, even an alliance, with Russia would secure Germany's eastern flank.
After Bismarck, Wilhelm II desperately tried to reach out to Russia, but failed when Russia and France became allies in 1893. This was to prove fatal in World War I when Germany had to fight on both flanks. Following the Russian Revolution in 1917, the Germans and Russians signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, which effectively gave the Germans victory in the East. As a result of this treaty, Germany was free to mount a major offensive in the West.
Hitler's strategy was to defeat France first, then turn on Russia. What enabled him to do this was the secret Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939, between the Soviets and Germany. After defeating France, Hitler invaded Russia. After D-Day Germany ended up fighting on two flanks and lost.
Germany is again turning its attention to its eastern flank. The two countries are forging an economic deal that could shift the balance of power in Europe. The two ministers responsible for the economies of both countries met in December to debate details of a plan to exchange Russian debt for German equity in Russian companies. This would be a roundabout way for German banks to get back some of the money they have lent to Russia, which Moscow has not been able to repay.
Stratfor, an Internet news service, carried an article December 20, 2000, that stated, "Such a development would significantly weaken U.S. influence in Europe while dramatically strengthening Germany and Russia and helping them to advance to the front stage of world geopolitics." If successful, the deal "may help Russia's revival and Germany could emerge as the leader of a united Europe with Russia on its side."
The article, titled "Shifting Europe's Power Balance," added that "Germany would be glad to see Russia's vast resources come to Germany and Europe rather than to the east…. Berlin would also prefer these resources do not move overseas to the United States, Germany's current geopolitical rival" (emphasis added). Interestingly, Hitler thought that eventually "the struggle for global hegemony would come down to two contenders: Germany and the United States. The struggle was not just for Europe but, ultimately, for the whole world" ( A Century's Journey , pp. 109-110).
In the 1880s Bismarck remarked to a friend: "I will tell you the secret of politics: friendship with Ru ssia" (The Kaiser, by Virginia Cowles, p. 85). In a series of articles in the Hamburger Nacht richten in 1895 he emphasized "that Germany was only secure when she had a firm understanding with Russia" (ibid., p. 118).
During the first decade of the 20th century Kaiser Wilhelm II tried to build bridges between Germany, France and Russia. Prior to the Russian czar's visits to Paris and Berlin, he warned his uncle, the English King Edward VII, that these ties were intended to threaten British dominance. "'England could not fail to observe,' he said darkly, 'the strong movement among the countries of the continent towards an economic union to counter British influence, and she would do well to ponder over it'" (ibid., p. 196).
Realizing the threat that these developments posed to the English-speaking world, British Foreign Secretary Joseph Chamberlain wrote on September 10, 1900, "An alliance between Germany and Russia, entailing, as it would, the co-operation of France, is the one thing we have to dread…" (ibid., p. 187).
Shifting balance of power
It is a fact that a closer relationship between Berlin and Moscow would diminish Germany's dependence on the Western alliance. At the same time, closer European union, about to take a major leap forward in January 2002 when the euro replaces national currencies, will lessen Europe's need for America. Germany is and will remain the dominant force in the European Union. "Europe [is] a formalized deutsche mark zone in everything but name" ( A Century's Journey , p. 130).
Through the EU and closer ties to Russia, Germany ironically will have accomplished peacefully what the Second and Third Reichs failed to achieve-a united Europe built around Germany, providing limitless opportunities for German companies to expand, plentiful raw materials from undeveloped Russia and Siberia and trade access to former British and French colonies through the Lomé Convention that ties African, Caribbean and Pacific nations to the EU. Germany also will have secured both flanks, with strong economic ties east and west.
After Bismarck, Wilhelm II was obsessed with building up Germany to rival Great Britain, then the dominant global power. A century later British preeminence has been replaced by American hegemony. The new century will likely see a further change. The Bible tells us that God "removes kings and raises up kings" (Daniel 2:21And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding:
See All...). God also warns the modern descendants of ancient Israel, the American and British peoples, that He "will break the pride of [their] power" (Leviticus 26:19And I will break the pride of your power; and I will make your heaven as iron, and your earth as brass:
See All...), a punishment for national sin. A time is coming when the United States will be replaced as the world's leading power, just as Britain lost her leadership role.
However, history would suggest that relations between Germany and Russia can suddenly turn sour. Bismarck's overtures to Russia were reversed when he was no longer chancellor and Wilhelm II took a closer interest in foreign policy. The kaiser tried to build closer ties with Russia but failed. Over 20 years later, Hitler's alliance with Stalin ended when the Soviet Union was attacked in June 1941. After World War II, Moscow's offer of a reunited but neutral Germany in the 1950s was rejected due to lack of trust. The Federal Republic felt more secure tied to the United States through the NATO alliance.
Bible prophecy also suggests that Russia and Germany will not be in alliance as end-time events unfold. Following an invasion of the "Glorious Land" (Holy Land) by the resurrected beast power (Daniel 11:40-43 [40] And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
[41] He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
[42] He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
[43] But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

See All...), "news from the east and the north shall trouble him" (verse 44), a likely reference to Russia in alliance with other military forces from the east. Revelation 9:16And the number of the army of the horsemen were two hundred thousand thousand: and I heard the number of them.
See All... prophesies of an "army of…two hundred million," suggesting an alliance of major powers to the east. Further, prophecies regarding Russia in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39 do not show any alliance with the beast power.
Whatever the outcome of the financial deal between Moscow and Berlin, one fact is clear: Germany has become a major economic power, set to be America's "geopolitical rival" in the years ahead. WNP

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

Europe's Growing Energy Worries

article by Paul Kieffer

To what extent should the European Union be dependent on foreign sources of energy? That question is a matter of growing concern for EU leaders. Case in point: Natural gas.

When European Union Commission President José Manuel Barroso, EU chief foreign diplomat Javier Solana and Austrian Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel visited Russian President Vladimir Putin at the Black Sea resort of Sochi on May 25, they were not in a holiday mood. Instead, their agenda consisted mainly of two important questions for the Russian leader: What does the future hold for the EU-Russian economic partnership, and how dependable are Russian energy deliveries to Europe?
The meeting between Putin and his European visitors reflects Europe's increasing dependence on foreign energy supplies, primarily from the Persian Gulf and Russia. Of the two regions, Russia is currently the greater source of concern. Russia is viewed by many in Europe as using its vast energy resources to position itself as a global "energy player," a type of "fossil fuels superpower."
In an analysis published in November 2000 on the subject of energy security, the EU Commission warned that by the year 2030 Europe would be importing 90 percent of the petroleum it needs, up from the current 76 percent. The same trend is predicted for natural gas, the other leading component in Europe's energy mix. This year Europe will import about 40 percent of the natural gas it consumes. Three fourths of those imports come from Russia and the rest come mainly from the Persian Gulf. With Europe's own natural gas reserves being depleted—largely in the Netherlands and the North Sea—Russia will be supplying well over half the natural gas used in Europe by 2030.
Russia's energy giant Gazprom is already the dominant energy supplier for natural gas in several new EU countries in eastern Europe. It has a market share of 100 percent in the Baltic States and in Slovakia, 99 percent in Poland and 82 percent in the Czech Republic. Gazprom's current market share of 35 percent in Germany will jump in 2010 when the new North European Gas Pipeline comes on line, supplying Germany directly from Russia via a pipeline that will be laid on the floor of the Baltic Sea.
Limited options
Europe's options for reducing its dependence on foreign energy are limited. Gas and oil account for 60 percent of the energy used in Europe. The rest of Europe's energy comes from domestic sources: Nuclear power (15 percent), coal (18 percent) and renewable energy sources (about 7 percent).
However, environmental concerns create considerable resistance to expanding the use of nuclear power and coal. In Germany, for example, all nuclear power plants currently in use are required to be phased out by 2020. Renewable sources of energy won't make up the gap caused by using less nuclear power and coal. The result? An increase in the demand for oil and natural gas, which have to be imported.
Some argue that Europe's concerns about its growing dependency on Russian natural gas are unfounded. After all, the European Union is Gazprom's main customer. About three fourths of Russian gas exports are delivered to Europe, and the rest is sold to former Soviet republics who generally pay much less than Europe does. In 2005 the EU accounted for 65 percent of Gazprom's total gross receipts, with the bill for imported gas totaling approximately 19.6 billion euros.
It's no surprise that Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller, handpicked by Vladimir Putin for his job, once remarked that "in this century there won't be any problem meeting Europe's gas requirements. Whatever amount of gas Europe needs, that's what Gazprom will deliver."
That seemed to be the sentiment when the first section of the new North European Gas Pipeline was welded together on Dec. 9, 2005, at a ceremony 250 miles northeast of Moscow with Gazprom officials and Germany's new economics minister, Michael Glos, in attendance. According to Glos, the new pipeline highlighted a "further milestone of German-Russian cooperation," important for ensuring Europe's future energy needs.
Wulf Bernotat, head of German natural gas provider E.ON, described the new pipeline as "a direct and reliable connection to Russia's huge natural gas reserves" ( Hamburger Abendblatt, Dec. 10, 2005).
It seems odd, then, that just five months later concerns about Russia's reliability had become so important. What influenced European thinking?
When the lights went out in the Ukraine
As part of the former Soviet Union, the Ukraine had been one of Gazprom's "special" customers, getting natural gas at a price well below the world market price. However, when Gazprom announced well ahead of January 2006 that a different price structure would take effect this year, the Ukraine balked at the new price. In late December 2005, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko refused a last minute offer by Russian President Vladimir Putin to continue receiving cheap gas for another three months in exchange for a promise to accept Gazprom's new price starting April 1, 2006. On Jan. 1, 2006, Gazprom engineers cut off supplies of natural gas to the Ukraine.
Gazprom actually runs five gas lines into the Ukraine. Two lines are for the Ukraine, and the other three are transit lines into Europe to supply some of Gazprom's European customers. About 80 percent of Gazprom's natural gas for Europe runs through the Ukraine.
When pressure in the three transit lines started to drop, Gazprom accused the Ukraine of stealing natural gas. Ukrainian officials responded by referring to the transit fees Gazprom had agreed to pay for routing the lines through Ukrainian territory. The fees—paid in natural gas, not cash—could not be collected any other way since the Ukraine had been cut off from Gazprom gas.
When pressure in the gas lines supplying European customers began to drop—especially in Austria—EU leaders urged Russia and the Ukraine to resolve their dispute. Four days later Russia and the Ukraine settled their dispute with a new five-year agreement, and Gazprom turned on the gas again. The mid-winter gas dispute had European analysts and commentators warning about a new "cold war" of a different sort, since much of the natural gas exported to Europe is used for heating.
In the aftermath of the Ukrainian gas crisis, European leaders wondered how reliable Gazprom really is as a supplier. Gazprom's tactics toward the Ukraine were a reminder of what happened when Lithuania became the first of the former Soviet republics to declare its independence from Moscow in 1990. Moscow reacted by simply cutting off oil and gas deliveries to Lithuania. Those facts belied reassurances that gas supplies to Western Europe were never interrupted for political reasons during the Cold War.
EU disunited energy policy
Europe's dependence on imported energy is aggravated by the lack of a joint energy policy for the European Union, which is all the more remarkable since the EU is the world's largest importer of energy. Like other critical areas, including taxation and economic policy, energy policy is still determined at the national level. The result is that Europe has no common approach to dealing with Gazprom. Each individual EU member negotiates its own contracts with the Russian energy giant, and Gazprom has been more than willing to utilize a "divide and conquer" strategy.
The lack of a unified European energy policy also results in contradictory approaches among EU members. While Germany is scheduled to phase out all nuclear power generation by 2020, a large portion of France's electricity is produced by atomic energy. Some of France's excess capacity is occasionally sold to German utility companies—a common practice in Europe. So even though nuclear power will soon no longer be used to generate electricity in Germany, some Germans may still be using electricity generated by nuclear plants in neighboring France.
The lack of a joint energy policy has also delayed any attempt to look for other countries as possible sources for imported energy, which would lessen Europe's heavy reliance on just two regions as suppliers.
For far too long European countries simply relied on free market forces to determine energy pricing. With China's and India's needs for imported energy growing at a fast pace, it will be difficult—if not impossible—for Europe to dislodge itself from its dependence on its current suppliers. With an ever-larger energy crunch looming on Europe's horizon, look for energy policy within the European Union eventually to be decided on a supranational level.
Don't be surprised if Europe's energy crisis begins to affect its foreign policy decisions, especially vis-à-vis the two regions that supply the bulk of European energy imports: Russia and the Persian Gulf. The end-time "king of the North" spoken of in Daniel 11 apparently will be the final ruler of an end-time, European-centered superpower, the same one called "the beast" in Revelation 17.
The final resurrection of the Roman Empire can be seen today in embryonic form in the European Union. This is not to say that all current EU nations will be part of the final configuration, but those that choose to participate will combine to form a powerful military force. Daniel 11:40-43 [40] And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.
[41] He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.
[42] He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.
[43] But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

See All... shows that the end-time king of the North will move against the Middle East.
Other prophecies indicate that religion may be part of the reason for Europe's interest in the Middle East. However, history shows that economic reasons can be a major cause for warfare (James 4:1-2 [1] From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?
[2] Ye lust, and have not: ye kill, and desire to have, and cannot obtain: ye fight and war, yet ye have not, because ye ask not.

See All...), and Europe's economy depends on oil imports from the Persian Gulf.
Once the king of the North has occupied a considerable portion of the Middle East, news from an area northeast of the Holy Land (verse 44) will be the catalyst for further military action. Is there an important economic factor for Europe northeast of Jerusalem? Yes—the vast natural gas deposits of Russia, located largely in Siberia. WNP

Free Trade Area of the Americas What Will Happen to Latin America?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

Free Trade Area of the Americas What Will Happen to Latin America






article by Fred Nance





The United States can no longer take its superiority in the economy of the western hemisphere for granted. The EU's economic reach grows ever longer and its influence ever stronger.



Many people in the western hemisphere desire the "American dream." The prosperity and economic boom of the 1990s in the United States has many nations longing for open markets, so they can begin to taste some of the good times. On the planning table is the "Free Trade Agreement of the Americas" (FTAA) that would create the largest free trade agreement the world has ever seen. It is hoped that by the year 2005, the FTAA will create a market of 800 million people in the Americas, from the Arctic to Antarctica.



This past April, 34 nations participated in the Summit of the Americas in Quebec. President Bush actively took part in that summit and has been asking the U.S. Congress for authority to negotiate this agreement. "I will look south, not as an afterthought, but as a fundamental commitment of my presidency. Those who ignore Latin America do not fully understand America itself," said the president ( Latin Trade Magazine, June 2001, p. 30). He has promised that the trade zone will not only create markets for the United States, but will fortify democracy in Latin America and spread the economic benefits equitably.



Can a partnership be forged between the United States and Latin America? What is the most likely scenario for these nations, according to Bible prophecy?



As pointed out in a recent New York Times article, the combination of democracy and free enterprise in Latin America does not guarantee higher living standards. Every nation in the western hemisphere except Cuba presently has an elected government, with increasingly open markets. Yet, 224 million Latin Americans (roughly 36 percent of the population) live in poverty. Many of these nations are experimenting with democratic capitalism for the first time. As a result of this experimentation, economic benefits do not filter down to the masses, because the region's rigid social structure isn't equipped to equitably distribute wealth.



"Latin Americans get to choose their leaders, but once they are in place, it's the old cliques that make the bottom-line decisions that are suitable to their own needs, not the needs of the people," says Hernando De Soto, a Peruvian economist ("Latin America's Poor Survive It All," New York Times, June 24, 2001).



The source of divergence



Why are the United States and Canada so much more prosperous and more democratic than Latin America?



Ibero-America actually had a head start on the United States and Canada. The first permanent Spanish settlement was established in 1493 on Hispaniola in what is today the Dominican Republic. The first permanent British colony was established more than a century later, in 1607 at Jamestown in what was to become Virginia.



Venezuelan writer Carlos Rangel wrote: "As late as 1700, the Spanish American empire still gave the impression of being incomparably richer, much more powerful and more likely to succeed than the British colonies of North America" (Lawrence E. Harrison, The Pan-American Dream, 1997, p. 18). Latin America had an earlier start, yet British America surpassed it in power and influence.



Lawrence Harrison writes: "As we approach the end of the 20th Century, Latin America is roughly fifty years behind the United States and Canada in terms of the prosperity of its citizens and the solidity of its democratic institutions" (ibid, p. 18). What explains this flip-flop in history?



We can turn to Bible prophecy for the answer. God made known through Jacob that Joseph's descendants would receive the birthright promises "in the last days" (Genesis 49:1And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves together, that I may tell you that which shall befall you in the last days.



See All..., 22-26). It is because of the tremendous physical blessings promised to the descendants of Joseph that the United States has prospered so much more and become more powerful. The United States was molded from British, Anglo-Protestant traditions, whereas Latin America traces its roots to Ibero-Catholic culture. These are the fundamental differences that explain the divergence between the nations of the Americas at the beginning of the 21st century.



Where will it go from here? Can a partnership be forged among all the nations of America?



Leadership needed



There are many who believe that without leadership, the United States might lose out in the competition for Latin American markets. Jenny Bates, an international economist at the Progressive Policy Institute, writes: "There is an emerging risk of the United States being slowly shut out of Latin American markets, while our competitors, particularly the European Union, gain ground. In the future, if Latin American countries face lower barriers on imports from the EU than from the United States, they will purchase goods and services, including highly lucrative capital goods, from our competitors. This potential outcome is not lost on the Europeans" ( Blueprint Series, Ideas for a New Century, 2001, p. 5).



Despite President Bush's desire to negotiate a free trade pact, many forces are at work to prevent it. Powerful U.S. interest groups, especially labor unions and environmentalists, oppose free trade. The U.S. Congress itself might be against it, as President Clinton found out when he failed to obtain the renewal of "fast track" negotiating authority that he needed to forge a similar accord.



Whether free trade is reached throughout the western hemisphere, one can be sure that Europe is watching these developments closely. Europe has a strong historical, cultural and demographic relationship with many countries of Latin America. European multinational corporations have established a major presence there.



Corporations from Spain are especially dominating in acquisitions of banking, energy and telecommunications to the point that they will soon hold pan-regional power in Latin America. A trade agreement between Mexico and the European Union was recently signed, which was Europe's response to NAFTA. Some economists believe that agreement set the pattern for possible future trade agreements between Europe and Latin America.



From "dollarization" to "euroization?"



"Dollarization," the abandoning of a country's local currency to adopt the dollar, has been occurring in some Latin American nations. Last year, Ecuador officially adopted the dollar. El Salvador began using it as legal currency on January 1, 2001. Guatemala joined the race to dollarize in May, and it is also being discussed in Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Argentina has pegged its peso one-to-one with the dollar for a decade.



Now Argentina has announced it will also link its peso to the euro. The value of the peso will be fixed at one euro, as soon as the euro rises to parity with the dollar. When the euro rises or falls against the dollar, the peso will be set at the mid value between the two currencies.



Cuba has also debated switching to the euro, although no action has been taken at this time. Might this become a trend, if poor Latin American countries see a more powerful Europe rising and the leadership of the United States declining, as Bible prophecy foretells?



Economic system foretold



Latin America's desire to embrace globalization and free markets could lead it to make an economic pact with a coming world economic system that is unveiled in the 18th chapter of Revelation. There it describes the merchants of the earth becoming rich by her (verse 3) and states they will mourn because Babylon, the greatest customer for their goods, will be gone after she is destroyed (verse 11).



The increasing presence of European multinational corporations, along with the historical and cultural ties between Europe and Latin America make the possibility of future trade alliances and monetary movements worth watching. WNP

.

In Brief... Turkey's Government Embracing Militant Islam

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.

In Brief... Turkey's Government Embracing Militant Islam






article by Darris McNeely, Don Hooser





Turkey has been a longtime strategic ally of the West—including Israel—having the second-largest military force in NATO. But Turkey is "signaling it's leaving its Western friends" with its "embrace of extremist neighbors" (Jill Nelson, "Switching Sides," World, Nov. 21, 2009).



After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, the democratic Republic of Turkey was founded in 1923. Since then, Turkey has tried to maintain a secular government—one not controlled by the dominant religion of Islam.



A turning point came in 2002, when the AKP, a Muslim-oriented political party, gained power and installed Recep Erdogan as prime minister. As he had promised, Erdogan pushed for full membership in the European Union, but now it's obvious that he has given up on that goal. Some of the reasons? Many Europeans oppose full EU membership for a large Muslim nation (with 97 percent of its land mass in Asia). And Turkey's old ally, the United States, is showing major signs of weakness.



Lately Erdogan has been blatantly announcing his support for the Muslim world, including Iran and terrorist organizations like Hamas. It seems the West is in denial about this geopolitical earthquake.

.

Europe's Troubles: Setting the Stage for Prophecy's Fulfillment

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.


Europe's Troubles: Setting the Stage for Prophecy's Fulfillment





article by John Ross Schroeder





In 1933 Winston Churchill chillingly warned, "No one can watch the events which are taking place in Germany without increasing anxiety about what their outcome will be." With an economic crisis now plaguing the eurozone, will Berlin's troubled history repeat itself? What is Germany's destiny? Does Bible prophecy give us any indication of where events in Europe are leading?







Source: Mountain High Maps/Shaun VenishThe late British author John Stott summed up the mindset of many this way: "Most of us feel demoralized by the heart-rending tragedy of this chaotic world. Our very survival is in doubt. The ordinary citizen often feels a helpless victim of the tangled web of politics, or a faceless unit in the machine of modern society" ( Basic Christianity, 2008, p. 152).



The apostle Paul foretold that conditions would be like this during the last days of this age of man (2 Timothy 3:1-5 [1] This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

[2] For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

[3] Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

[4] Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

[5] Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.





See All...). That's why our articles about regional and world trends ultimately focus on the good news guaranteed by the prophecies of the Bible.



But the Bible itself makes it very plain that the wonderful world to come will first be preceded by devastating conditions of a magnitude never before seen by the human race (see Matthew 24:21-22 [21] For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

[22] And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.





See All...; Daniel 12:1And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.



See All...; Jeremiah 30:7Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob's trouble, but he shall be saved out of it.



See All...). The state of the world will be so dire that human survival will be at stake!



Our news headlines show that prophecies written in the Bible many centuries ago are now beginning to be fulfilled in a major way. Nowhere is this truer than in Central Europe and the Middle East. This article focuses on Europe (though you can gain an understanding of the other region's prophetic role by reading our free booklet The Middle East in Bible Prophecy and articles about Israel and the Middle East that appear regularly in this magazine).



What does Bible prophecy tell us about the future of Europe? The biblical books of Daniel and Revelation both show that a new and dictatorial superpower will emerge at the time of the end, centered in Europe. In this article we'll see how the stage is apparently being set for the fulfillment of these prophecies.



Europe as a unified entity

Europe is a key player in the global economy. In spite of all the talk about the economies of the United States and China, the European Union (EU) is the world's largest and wealthiest economic power bloc.



Europe has also been the battleground for countless wars over the millennia and the flashpoint for two devastating world wars in the first half of the 1900s. At the heart of those two world wars for control of Europe was Germany, now politically and economically immersed with other European nations in seeking a United States of Europe.



The global intelligence firm Strategic Forecasting, Inc., better known as Stratfor, is highly respected for its analysis of global and regional trends. Months ago it noted that "the future of Europe [is] bound to the decision-making process in Germany" and that "Europe cannot function as a unified entity unless someone is in control."



It went on to explain that "at present, Germany is the only country with a large enough economy and population to achieve that control" ("Germany's Choice: Part 2," July 26, 2011, emphasis added throughout). In recent months we have seen this demonstrated again and again as Germany has positioned itself—sometimes openly, sometimes behind the scenes—to take the lead in the future direction of Europe.



Currently two basic scenarios exist for the future of Europe. One view, the most popular, holds that the present generation of Germans have become staunch defenders of freedom and democracy, being fully aware of the dangers of repeating Berlin's troubled history during the first half of the 20th century—when its ambitions twice led to world wars.



A second view is that a long-lingering euro crisis, initially spurred by runaway Greek debt but then spreading steadily to other troubled European economies, will eventually result in the emergence of an economic powerhouse that can step in and resolve the crisis—a new German-led empire.



Proponents of this projection of current trends believe that the nations of southern Europe are slated to come under Berlin's thumb and that, in the long run, even the enormous bailouts by Germany will be well worth the huge costs incurred. In other words, Germany will be successful at attaining through its economic might what it was unsuccessful at attaining through military might twice in the last century.



Do history and the Bible indicate which view will eventually prevail?



"It's all about Germany"

The two world wars started by Germany have often dominated the anxious postwar thoughts of other European countries. In 1997, then French President Valery Giscard d'Estaing cautioned that a failure of efforts to integrate Europe economically (leading to today's euro) would lead to "a preponderant influence of Germany" in European affairs (Celestine Bohlen, "Euro Unity? It's Germany That Matters," The New York Times, March 9, 2010).



A basic rationale by other European nations in recent decades was to encase Germany well inside the European Union to prevent its previously notorious nationalistic tendencies from threatening their sovereignty and territorial integrity. This was a powerful motivator behind the steady drive for European integration into an eventual united Europe.



But is this strategy really going to work out as hoped in the long run, considering Europe's disparate peoples and cultures? With Europe confronting a painful and divisive economic crisis, will Berlin eventually wind up virtually directing the activities of the EU anyway?



It appears the answer is now becoming clearer. The article cited above states: "Ten years after the euro, it's still all about Germany, which isn't the way it was supposed to be. . . President Nicolas Sarkozy of France can come and pledge all the support to Greece he wants, but in the end, it's Germany that matters" (ibid).



Newsweek magazine recently pointed out: "Who is the greatest beneficiary of the existence of the euro? The answer is Germany . . . The rest of the euro zone absorb[s] 40 percent of German exports. . ." (John Eatwell, "Euro Vision," Sept. 5, 2011).



The Stratfor report cited earlier also noted: "Despite its flaws, the system that currently manages Europe has granted Germany economic wealth of global reach without costing a single German life. Given the horrors of World War II, this was not something to be breezily discarded. No country in Europe has benefited more from the eurozone than Germany. For the German elite, the eurozone was an easy means of making Germany matter on a global stage without the sort of military revitalization that would have spawned panic across Europe and the former Soviet Union. And it also made the Germans rich."



Moving to exert control

Germany is clearly taking steps to exert control in the current economic crisis. The Stratfor report also noted that Germany was for a long time content to take a backseat in the European leadership arena, but no longer.



With the economic crisis spreading among the countries of southern Europe, Germany is the only European power with enough financial muscle to bail them out—and has quietly maneuvered behind the scenes to put themselves in the driver's seat.



Germany has created a new bailout mechanism that, as Strafor observes, "takes its orders from the Germans. The mechanism is not enshrined in EU treaties; it is instead a private bank, the director of which is German. . . In order to get the money, distressed states merely have to do whatever Germany—the manager of the fund—wants. . .



"Accepting EFSF [European Financial Security Facility] assistance means accepting a surrender of financial autonomy to the German commanders of the EFSF. For now, that means accepting German-designed austerity programs, but there is nothing that forces the Germans to limit their conditions to the purely financial/fiscal.



"For all practical purposes, the next chapter of history has now opened in Europe. Regardless of intentions, Germany has just experienced an important development in its ability to influence fellow EU member states—particularly those experiencing financial troubles. It can now easily usurp huge amounts of national sovereignty.



"Rather than constraining Germany's geopolitical potential, the European Union now enhances it; Germany is on the verge of once again becoming a great power. This hardly means that a regeneration of the Wehrmacht [military force] is imminent, but Germany 's re-emergence does force a radical rethinking of the European and Eurasian architectures."



"A real opportunity to achieve a political union in Europe"

The British newsmagazine The Economist recently observed: "All of a sudden . . . Berlin is abuzz with talk of remaking the European Union: issuing joint eurobonds, renegotiating the EU's treaties, even creating a federal Europe" ("Germany's Euro Question," Sept. 10, 2011).



Redesigning the European Union's institutions has suddenly become all the rage in Germany!



Of particular interest is the revival of federalism. The Economist piece continued: "German Euro-federalists have woken up after a long slumber. It is no surprise that Joschka Fischer, the Greens' elder statesman [who served as foreign minister and vice chancellor under former German chancellor Gerhard Schroeder], should call for the 'United States of Europe.'"



According to a Sept. 4, 2011, Reuters article, Schroeder himself also called for the creation of a "United States of Europe," stating: "The current crisis makes it relentlessly clear that we cannot have a common currency zone without a common fiscal, economic and social policy. . . We will have to give up national sovereignty . . . And that means the United States of Europe ... In the crisis lies a real opportunity to achieve a political union in Europe."



Strengths and weaknesses in eurozone nations

According to The Wall Street Journal: "The Greek statistical office reported that the economy shrank 7.3% in the second quarter, down from an initial estimate of 6.9% contraction last month. The Greek economy has been contracting for three years" ("Greece Slips Further," Sept. 9-11, 2011).



Recently Athens has been only weeks from running out of euros and facing a critical debt default. In response the Greek government has promised to levy a property tax to address a 2 billion euro revenue shortfall. But will this measure send yet more Greek citizens to the streets, demonstrating and rioting in protest? Some observers still feel that a Greek default is inevitable.



Discussions with EU and International Monetary Fund officials recently broke down over the terms of loans Greece desperately needs to avoid economic collapse. Several other southern European nations are only slightly better off than Greece.



How is it that, as the Newsweek article cited above states, "the entire national debts of Greece, Portugal, and Ireland amount to less than 5 percent of euro-zone debt," and yet the entire eurozone can be seriously shaken by their debt problems? This clearly points to major structural flaws in the way the euro was originally constructed as a new currency beginning in early 1999.



This probably has some bearing on why, just prior to the establishment of Jesus Christ's future rule on earth, the Bible speaks of a future European-centered superpower where the component countries are symbolically described as iron mixed with clay, "partly strong and partly fragile" (see Daniel 2:40-44 [40] And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

[41] And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

[42] And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

[43] And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

[44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.





See All...).



The troubling future of Europe

Hitler's Nazi regime (1933-1945) was made possible only by a severe economic crisis in Germany during the late 1920s and early 1930s. Under normal economic conditions the Nazis could never have come to power. Of course, the details are different today. So far it's not Berlin that's experiencing economic crisis, but other eurozone nations, principally in southern Europe. Germany remains the principal paymaster of Europe. But there may yet be financial consequences for Germany.



Today the European Union countries are experiencing serious political differences and a troubling degree of divisiveness and disunity due in significant measure to severe economic problems. Bible prophecy indicates that the European Union will not continue in its current form.



Some members may opt out of the EU, or perhaps even be forced out as the prophesied end-time entity takes shape (Britain, for instance, has often been at odds with the European Union almost from its inception in 1958).



Ultimately a new and powerful European superstate, labeled in symbol as "the Beast," will astonish a largely unsuspecting world. An imposing bloc of nations will coalesce as one final revival of the ancient Roman Empire (Revelation 13:1-8 [1] And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.

[2] And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

[3] And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

[4] And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

[5] And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.

[6] And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.

[7] And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

[8] And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.





See All...; 17:8-18; Daniel 2:37-45 [37] Thou, O king, art a king of kings: for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory.

[38] And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold.

[39] And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth.

[40] And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

[41] And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

[42] And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

[43] And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

[44] And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.

[45] Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold; the great God hath made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter: and the dream is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure.





See All...; 7:15-27).



Ten member nations (or groups of nations) will relinquish their own national sovereignty to become part of this astonishing end-time superpower. "These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast" (Revelation 17:13These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.



See All...).



These disturbing events will affect the whole world—including setting the stage for the devastatingly dangerous times in which human extinction would happen without God's intervention (Matthew 24:21-22 [21] For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

[22] And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.





See All...). Since all that Bible prophecy foretells is sure to happen, we should all heed the words of the apostle Peter. He asked in light of the impermanence of the world around us: "What manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness?" (2 Peter 3:11Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,



See All...).



Seeing the stage set for the fulfillment of end-time prophecies should motivate each of us to examine our spiritual condition in the light of God's Word. An understanding of prophecy ought to lead us to repentance and to dedicate our lives to seeking God and serving Him. Mere academic Bible knowledge is far from enough!



Jesus Christ plainly tells us in Luke 21:36Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.



See All...: "Watch therefore, and pray always that you may be counted worthy to escape all these things that will come to pass, and to stand before the Son of Man"!



To Learn More...

This article has touched on the highlights of what Bible prophecy foretells is to come in Europe. To understand the overall significance of the ongoing prophetic picture, request or download the free booklets You Can Understand Bible Prophecy and Are We Living in the Time of the End?

.

Great Britain off the Map of Europe?

From http://el-paso.ucg.org/  or call 1-888-886-8632.


Great Britain off the Map of Europe?






article by John Ross Schroeder





Bureaucrats in Brussels have big plans for Great Britain. If carried out, these particular plans will seriously undermine British national identity and sovereignty—and further submerge the nation into the European Union. What are the potential implications of the revelation of this latest challenge to British sovereignty?



We live in an increasingly borderless world. Consider the Internet. E-mail and Web sites transcend geographical borders and no businessperson or banker in America gives a second thought to contacting a colleague in Australia about the possibility of a massive exchange of funds between the two countries.



Transactions in our world today go far beyond the geographical limits of yesterday. This is a time marked by globalization in business and banking. So in the present climate of technology transcending geography we can understand how potentially massive changes to the European political map might become more easily acceptable to the general public. Yet political borders have by no means lost their importance.



Sometimes the most significant news stories only reach two or three national newspapers in Britain and are left off the usual wire services. This happens to be one!



The Sunday Telegraph is one of the most respected newspapers in the United Kingdom. One headline story on Sept. 3 was a real shocker. It read: "New EU Map Makes Kent Part of the Same Nation as France."



Planned transnational regions



EU plans are for Britain to be divided into five "eurozones." Inhabitants of the southeastern counties of Kent and East Sussex are projected to be part of Transmanche region joining up with Northern France. Eastern England would be "attached" to certain parts of Germany and the Nordic countries plus the Low Countries of Holland and Belgium.



The Western part of Britain would be called the Atlantic region, also including portions of Spain, France and Portugal. According to the overall scheme, Northwestern Scotland is slated to join Iceland, Greenland, Norway, Sweden and Finland.



The European Union claims that its directives call for all member states to bring their cartographic information into sync with the European Commission.



According to The Sunday Express, apparently "Article 23 of the directive gives the Commission full access to all spatial data currently held by member states, while Article 26 gives the Commission powers to create a new computer infrastructure to collect and co-ordinate data overseen by a European agency" (Sept. 3).



Further, "under the plans the EU will control and harmonise all spatial data such as place names, administrative units and maps, which names of areas, regions, localities, cities, suburbs, towns … or any geographical or topographical feature of public or historical interest will be under EU control rather than national governments" (ibid., emphasis added throughout).



Do we realize just where these plans may be leading? If this information is anywhere near to being accurate, we should all note that even the military implications of such data are frightening to contemplate should allegiances change radically in the future.



The practical implications



This radical redrawing of the map of Europe has far-reaching practical implications. For instance, its implementation would smooth the way for a European Union-wide property tax embracing all member states. British Conservative Party spokesmen commented that EU chiefs were pursuing an agenda "to undermine national identities and impose a United States of Europe by stealth" (ibid.).



Both The Sunday Telegraph and The Sunday Express published separate editorials highlighting the seriousness of the overall problem. The latter paper headlined its opinion piece with the words, "We Must Fight Europe's Bid to Take Away Our Freedom."



The text that followed stated: "A little more than 60 years ago Hitler planned to crush the British and force us into his new Nazi super-state. Napoleon Bonaparte had a similar plan a century earlier. This new threat from the EU to break Britain down into a series of five 'transnational' regions may not be made from the barrel of a gun, but it is equally unacceptable."



The editorial concluded with these sobering words: "We have fought hard for our national identity and self respect. We must never give it away."



Actually there are even greater reasons for Britain to maintain its national identity. Our Anglo-Saxon and Celtic peoples are descended from the patriarchs of Genesis and have from time to time played a significant historical role in the world beginning with the biblical accounts of the patriarchal fathers Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph.



(To understand both the history and the prophetic overtones for the future, request a free copy of the booklet The United States and Britain in Bible Prophecy . )



Can Britain meet this challenge?



Whether present-day Britain can rise to the occasion is an open question. Popular commentator Mark Steyn wrote on the Western Standard Web site: "At some point soon, we're going to be asking: Who lost Britain? In the weeks after last year's tube bombing [July 2005], I doubted that the clarion call for a reassertion of 'British identity' would last, and so it proved.



"By the first anniversary, Britain was back in its peculiarly resistant multicultural mush in which the proper reaction to such unfortunate events is to abase oneself even more abjectly before the gods of cultural relativism. What matters after mass slaughter on the Underground is not the wound to the nation, but the potential for hurt feelings of certain minorities" (Aug. 28, 2006).



While Mr. Steyn's commentary wasn't written specifically in reaction to the potential redrawing of the map of Europe and Britain, the stated principles have the same broad application as if it were.



Mr. Steyn went on to comment on Melanie Phillip's new book Londonistan (reviewed in the August 2006 issue of World News and Prophecy ). He called Britain "a husk of a nation in which darker forces have set up shop, and in which establishment complacency, hard-left multiculturalism and ever more Europeanized bureaucracy has made it all but impossible for the state to rouse itself" (ibid.).



Contemporary 20th-century history may also shed some light on this dilemma. Consider the following historical/prophetic scenario.



Churchill's warnings in the 1930s



After the British capitulation to Hitler's wishes at Munich, Churchill said to the House of Commons on Oct. 5, 1938: "And do not suppose that this [Munich] is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is the first sip—the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be offered to us year by year— unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour we arise and take our stand for freedom, as in the olden time."



Earlier Adolf Hitler had written the following in Mein Kampf during his imprisonment in the 1920s: "When dealing with a nation which has lost all force of character owing to its having given way spontaneously, he will be entitled to expect that his fresh but piecemeal demands will not be considered worth resisting by the nation from which they are made" (quoted by Winston Churchill, Step by Step, p. 343, section originally published March 24, 1939).



Mark Steyn concluded his commentary with the astute observation that "the British government has a strategy for southern Iraq, but not for southern England." Given this latest revelation of a revolutionary recasting of the map of Europe, his conclusions may prove highly prophetic.



Steyn continued: "Britain's language, culture, legal system and political tradition have been the greatest single force for good in shaping the modern world." This assessment may be judged a bit too generous, but a core of basic truth is still there.



He continued: "But discarding its own inheritance and yoking its future to a Eutopian pseudo-federation has left it [Britain] constitutionally (in every sense) incapable of resisting the depredations of more motivated forces. Unless things change in a big way, there won't always be an England."



Another commentator who helps us appreciate Churchill's genius is Richard Holmes. Mr. Holmes is, in the words of Mail on Sunday editor Max Hastings, "a supremely skilful military historian." His Churchill series on BBC TV proved eye-opening and illuminating.



Mr. Holmes observed that "by the time Winston [Churchill] died [in January 1965] Britain had become a land in which such a man as he would never again find room to flourish, with a popular culture increasingly inimical to his values, and likely therefore not to notice or properly appreciate his achievements" ( In the Footsteps of Churchill, 2005, p. 347).



No more British leaders like Winston Churchill in time of serious national need? That's not a very comforting thought. The biblical prophet Isaiah said a time would come when God would take away the national heroes.



The problems we face today



The news has recently surfaced that "Labour [is] ready to surrender more power to Brussels" ( Daily Mail, Sept. 22, 2006). "Britain is poised to surrender to another EU grab of its sovereignty in a policy u-turn, this time on law and order. The government will today begin talks on transferring control of sentencing for serious crimes, court procedures and even the rights of crime suspects." Are the principles of the Magna Carta in danger? They certainly seem so.



The editorial in that same edition of the Daily Mail firmly stated: "They never stop. They never give up. Though the EU constitution is supposedly dead, the federalists are still seeking to destroy the sovereignty of nation states."



Real reasons exist as to why these dangers to Britain's identity and sovereignty have largely escaped the attention of most of the British public. There is a rational explanation as to why Britons have not given any sustained attention to the warnings of a small cadre of journalists who, in their turn, have been crying out about these dangers for many years.



In their recent book, authors Christopher Booker and Richard North targeted the basic reasons. They wrote in the preface: "The form of government it [the EU and its predecessors] created was unique because it was designed to place the nation states which belonged to it under a 'supranational' power, unaccountable to any electorate, ruling its citizens through the agency of each country's own national authorities.



"Although the nation states [of Europe] and their institutions of government remained outwardly intact, all these institutions from heads of states and parliaments to civil services and judicial systems, in reality became increasingly subject to the decisions and laws of the new power [now called the EU] that was above them all.



"It was because the system worked from behind the scenes through the familiar landscape of existing national institutions that so few people recognised the immense scale of the change which was taking place [in Europe]" ( The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive? 2005, p. vii).



The Bible and Central Europe



If the Bible had nothing to say about end-time activities in Europe, this publication would most likely be silent as well. But both the Old Testament book of Daniel and the New Testament book of Revelation (especially when you put the two together) have a great deal to say about Europe at the time of the end. Note Daniel 2:40-43 [40] And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise.

[41] And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay.

[42] And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken.

[43] And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.





See All..., Daniel 7:23-25 [23] Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces.

[24] And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings.

[25] And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.





See All... and Revelation chapters 17 and 18 in particular.



Based on these prophecies, this publication has foretold for years that the time is coming when 10 leaders of core countries will give their sovereignty to a "beast" power for a short time. Revelation reveals that the whole world will be taken in by the coming final restoration of the ancient Roman Empire—backed by a miracle-working religious individual the Bible calls "the false prophet." Today's secular concept of a separated church and state will be overcome and the two systems will for a short time join.



The whole story is clearly set out when you know and understand the prophetic information in our free booklets The Book of Revelation Unveiled , You Can Understand Bible Prophecy and Are We Living in the Time of the End? Copies are available in print or you may download them from our Web site at www.wnponline.org/booklets  .



The prophetic implications of what is being planned in Europe and Britain are truly frightening. Bureaucrats in Brussels don't always realize the potential repercussions of their plans and edicts. They can have dire consequences in the future, especially under a more autocratic, federal EU. It could be very important for you to request or download those free booklets today.



Just as the Britain of ancient yesteryear was enslaved to Rome, so it appears that modern-day Britain may finally lose its national identity to a major power in Central Europe—perhaps even without the firing of a shot. The actual takeover may prove far more subtle and treacherous than a military conquest. WNP