The History of Europe And the Church

* The Startling Reason Europe Is Expanding East

 

Dick Clark's New Year's Rockin' Eve 2007 had nothing on the parties in Bulgaria and Romania during the wee hours of January 1. It was a "heavenly moment," Bulgaria's president said, when his country became a member of the European Union. An EU flag ascended a pole near Romania's capital building to the strains of the European anthem: Beethoven's "Ode to Joy"—the same piece Leonard Bernstein conducted in Berlin 17 years ago to celebrate the Wall's fall, when he changed the German word for joy ("Freude") to freedom ("Freiheit"). Within 24 hours of accession, 9,000 Romanians experienced their own "ode to freedom" when they crossed into Hungary. Most simply went for a cup of coffee and came right back home. With the addition of Bulgaria and Romania, the 27-nation EU now borders the resource-rich Black Sea and governs half a billion people. Romania and Bulgaria are the latest of a slew of former Communist, Soviet-dominated states to join the Union. Eight others joined in 2004. In 2010, Croatia hopes to be the second nation, after Slovenia, that once comprised Yugoslavia to join the EU since the republic crumbled in the early 1990s. Meanwhile, also on January 1, Slovenia joined the eurozone—the group of EU nations using the Union's monetary unit. In the first two weeks of the year, its 2 million citizens gave up their tolars for euros, making Slovenia the first Eastern European nation to join the EU's common currency. So why is the EU so intent on absorbing Eastern Europe? What benefit does it gain from uniting with poor, underdeveloped, corruption-ridden countries still reeling from years of Soviet oppression and Communist dictatorships?

European Population, Area and Density (click to enlarge)

* Resources

 

Historically, Western European thinkers at the helm of the European unity movement have always wanted to incorporate Eastern Europe to serve as a hedge against Russia. Otto von Habsburg, in his 1957 book The Social Order of Tomorrow, called for the liberation of the Balkans in order for this to happen.

In the case of influential German dignitary Franz Joseph Strauss, unifying Europe and enticing the Eastern nations to join the growth and power of the West was the only way to reunite Germany. Western Europe had to become economically and politically attractive to encourage Eastern countries to break away from Soviet domination, which would re-unite Germany—and, of course, place it geographically at the center of Europe.

European leaders continued to pursue this strategy even after the Cold War ended and the Soviet Communist empire was no more. This suggests that the strategic value in extending EU borders remains.

First, Western Europe sees in these Eastern states an attractive bounty of critical resources. This is vital to Europe's ability to shield itself from any future unpredictability from Russia.

To prepare for EU entry, Bulgaria was required to privatize seven of the government's power distribution companies, enabling them to be snapped up by companies in Germany, the Czech Republic and Austria. Romania is Central and Eastern Europe's largest producer of natural gas; it has the largest oil reserves in Central and Eastern Europe; and it contains 10 of southeast Europe's 11 petroleum refineries. On the coast of the Black Sea, Romania is a major energy transport point via the ports of Constanta and Tulcea.

These two nations are also home to several major pipeline plans, with infrastructure designed to transport resources from the Black Sea (a major route for world oil exports) into Europe and to feed Europe the resources its needs from the Caspian Sea without Russia having to be involved.

Some argue that these poorer nations will not bring the EU down economically but will do just the opposite. Finnish Parliament member Alexander Stubb, for example, writing for the Financial Times, stated,

"Some claimed the 'Polish plumber' would lead to the downfall of the whole Union. In fact, the new, mainly Eastern and Central European countries, have provided a much needed new dynamic" (Dec. 7, 2006).

These countries—being relatively new to the free, capitalist world—are experiencing rapid growth. Eurocrats argue that the East's highly motivated work force will be an asset for the EU economy.

As compelling as these factors may appear, there is another reason—and far more historic—that drives Europe's push east.

It lies in religion.

* Religion

 

In his book The Clash of Civilizations, groundbreaking political scientist Samuel Huntington asks an important question: Where does Europe end? Its northern, western and southern borders are all outlined by great bodies of water. But where does it end in the east? He answers:

"Europe ends where Western Christianity ends and Islam and Orthodoxy begin."

Yet, if that is true, Europe has already overstepped its bounds, inviting nations in that are largely Orthodox. It did so in 1981, when Greece joined the Common Market, and is doing so again by letting Romania and Bulgaria enter.

But religion is indeed the key. In fact, the Vatican has played a significant role in this entire eastward push.

Pope John Paul II, originally from Poland himself, was the catalyst for bringing his homeland out from under Soviet tyranny. Just six months after the fall of the Berlin Wall, he was in Czechoslovakia proclaiming the ideology that Christianity needed both its "eastern and western lungs" to breathe. Fourteen years later, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and six other Eastern European countries joined the EU club.

Less than two years after communism's fall, the pope (supported by Germany) bucked world opinion and recognized the predominantly Catholic breakaway states of Croatia and Slovenia, which led to about a decade of grisly conflict and the disintegration of Yugoslavia. Now Slovenia is a full-fledged member of the EU and part of the eurozone, and Croatia is set to join the Union in 2010. It was only five years ago that Bulgaria, steeped in Orthodoxy, received its first-ever papal visit—and now it is the newest EU state.

What John Paul II was doing the last two decades of his life—from helping tear down the Iron Curtain to inspiring religious revivals in once-Communist nations—was actually building the eastern leg of a historic empire.

His successor, Benedict xvi, is holding the same banner of drawing the East in politically and religiously. He has made his drive for increasing cooperation between the Orthodox East and the Vatican a defining mission of his papacy.

Catholics and Orthodox, he said, "have the duty to defend the Christian roots of Europe, which have formed the continent down the centuries …. [W]e must increase collaboration among Christians in all European countries in order to face the new risks that challenge the Christian faith: growing secularization, relativism and nihilism" (Catholic News Agency, Dec. 14, 2006).

Eastern Orthodox countries actually have more in common with the Vatican than some of the secularized Western members of the Union. They are typically more right-wing on social issues and more devout about their religion. If the Vatican can appeal to their sense of moral uprightness, it can go a long way in repairing the breach of the Great Schism of a.d. 1054, when the Holy Roman Empire officially split between these two great religions.

What is at play here is a decades-long strategy. Go back to Habsburg's 1950s book in which he set out the goal of regaining Russia's East-Europe satellites as part of a united Europe. Then 1965, when Strauss said Europe (ah yes, and Germany) needed to be reunited, and the yoke of communism broken. Then 1967, when Germany normalized relations with Ceausescu's Romania. Then March 1971, when Tito became the first Communist dictator to visit the Vatican. Several years later came the pope's visit to Poland and the eventual economic downfall of the ussr leading to the breakaway of the Eastern European satellites, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the execution of Romania's dictator. Add to that the crisis imposed on Yugoslavia shortly thereafter, the ensuing wars, the strategic occupation, the move of Germany's capital back to once-divided Berlin, the accession of eight Communist states in 2004 and now two more.

The eastern leg of this empire has been built, slowly and steadily, over the past 50 years. And the strategy has been nothing short of genius.

* Strategic Foundation

 

Throughout the Middle Ages and through the end of World War II, "empire" in Europe has been sought through two primary methods:
1) - the effort to rejoin the eastern and western legs of the old Roman Empire under a single imperial rule, and
2) - the imposition of a universal religion. These are the twin foundations upon which the Holy Roman Empires were built: a political foundation backed up by military force and a spiritual foundation established by the imposition of a state religion.

What is building to include these seemingly poor, crippled nations will be a resurrection of an age-old empire, spanning Europe and split relatively evenly between East and West. It will follow the historic form of the Roman Empire—which was divided between the Latin West with its capital in Rome and the Greek East with its capital in Byzantium (Constantinople, now Istanbul), a region termed by the Greeks, interestingly, Romania.

The political framework of this Union, (the Roman Empire united by the Catholic Church, despite the growing size of the EU), will likely consist of half in Western Europe and half in Eastern Europe.

The Roman Empire united by the Catholic Church, despite the growing size of the EU, indicates that the ultimate assembly of European nations will be ruled by 10 kings, implying 10 nations or groups of nations.

Don't be deceived by the pomp and circumstance of a seemingly harmless economic and political body expanding its borders to charitably include feeble neighbors.

Watch for Eastern Europe to use its EU membership to grow in strength. Watch for any chaos economically or politically to be quickly remedied by a strong leader who comes to the fore in Europe—streamlining the EU's operations into 10 major divisions. Watch for the Vatican to increase its efforts to reunite Eastern European Orthodoxy with Catholicism under the common denominator of Christian values in an increasingly secular (and Islamicized) world.

Europe is about to stand on its own two feet!

* The Changing Face of Germany

 

EU Parliament Seats Per State - (click to enlarge)

Looking back over the 17 years since the momentous evening of Nov. 9, 1989, the political progress Germany has made as a united nation is quite amazing.

On that heady autumn night, when the citizens of Germany took to the Berlin Wall with sledgehammers, picks and crowbars, and East Germans poured through Checkpoint Charlie onto the pavements of affluent West Berlin, the mood was one of jubilation. The Germany that was divided up among the victorious Allies following World War II was once again united.

And as history shows, a united Germany is a real force to be reckoned with!

Yet, really, who has a mind to think on history in the light of this rapidly changing world order of today?

To view the political rhetoric, gossip, scandal and pseudo-news that fill our airwaves nightly, the mind of the public is being led to dwell on anything but connecting the repetitive history of the major nations with that which is developing today. Yet the very best of geopolitical strategists—Winston Churchill being a prime example—constantly had the history of a nation in mind when deciding foreign policy. One of the most brilliant of 20th century thinkers in the foreign-policy arena was Hans Morgenthau. He stated, "What was important 2,000 years ago is still important today." Yet, tell that to our shallow journalists of the 21st century and they would laugh in your face!

Tremendous tensions are building below the surface of global geopolitics—tensions that track right back to that seminal event of the fall of the Berlin Wall—events that have their real genesis in a history that falls right within the span of time that Morgenthau maintained we should take into consideration today when considering foreign policy. For that which is developing in Europe's heartland today really does have a 2,000-year history behind it!

It's as though the English-speaking nations breeze along, spoiled by generations of abundance, oblivious to the reality that something peculiarly significant to them is about to break—something akin to World Wars I and II, only far bigger. Bigger by far than the continuing military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the skirmishes in Israel and northern Pakistan—far, far bigger than the perceived threat from an upstart leader of a third-rate nation (N.Korea) testing nuclear devices and popping missiles across the bows of Japan.

In fact, what is increasingly looming on the geopolitical horizon, what went underground at the close of World War II, will be larger by far in its total effect on the nations than any of the plethora of skirmishes, famines, catastrophes and plagues increasingly rampant on this long-suffering globe. And when it breaks—which will be soon, very soon—it will shake all nations with the most powerful geopolitical earthquake in history!

It will flow primarily from the European continent, and will revolve around one nation in particular—Germany!

* Seeds of a Nation

 

The seeds of this great future world event were sown long ago with a group of mixed tribes that established themselves over 4,000 years ago as a nation having as their capital, at the height of the Assyrian empire, the city of Nineveh. In the process of their history, they earned a reputation for war. A certain type of war—blitzkrieg! As the poet Byron wrote in reference to those progenitors of the German nation, the ancient Assyrians, at the time of the siege of Jerusalem in 701 b.c. by their King Sennacherib, "The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold."

Following the destruction of the Assyrian army as recorded in II Kings 19, a mixed multitude of Assyrians and kindred tribes emerged, over time, from the great migrations northward of Mesopotamia, to settle initially at the Black and Caspian seas. Then, trekking west, they followed Europe's great river systems to eventually settle between the Oder and the Rhine rivers, their southern border being the Alps, and to their north, the Baltic and North seas. They became virtual mercenaries in the employ of the Roman Empire, helping to secure the imperial borders as the empire stretched Rome's resources beyond its capability to provide Roman military forces for that purpose. This was to prove Rome's nemesis. The Germans took over the Roman Empire! In the process, they adopted Rome's religion as well.

Having settled in central Europe, the Germanic tribes ultimately evolved into numerous petty statelets, each posing no real threat to the world at the time, yet which together within the 17th century were responsible for 30 years of bloody and horrendous warfare—religious war—among themselves and other nations in Europe. This Thirty Years' War finally terminated with treaties of exhaustion famously known as the Peace of Westphalia, concluded in 1648 between the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand III, the numerous German princes, France and Sweden, and between Spain and the Netherlands.

These warring factions in central Europe consisted largely of the Teutons, the Deutschevolk, that grand mix of Germanic tribes that longed for identity, for unity as a people, for a national soul. Recovery from their exhausting religious warring of the first half of the 17th century took the whole century and a half that followed. It was a significant setback for the German peoples. Yet, as has happened periodically throughout their history, finally a singularly strong leader emerged from the state of Prussia, an aristocrat intent on reviving German hopes for unity. The people were finally welded into a single nation courtesy of that great statesman Count Otto von Bismarck, master of the art of treaty making. In fact, not only did he deliver the German peoples a national identity, they also got an empire to boot!

* From National Unity, to Empire, to War !

 

In 1867, Bismarck became chancellor of the North German Confederation. His striving for German unification, together with the German lust for Lebensraum (an expansion of territory giving more "room to live"), was to set a pattern to be repeated in the future.

By 1871, this confederation of Germanic states had quickly expanded into the German Empire following Bismarck's successful challenge to France's supremacy in Europe via the Franco-Prussian War. In that year, Bismarck became the first chancellor—the "Iron Chancellor"—of the German Empire. This empire grew intercontinentally in the remaining decade of the 19th century to include regions of Africa, South America, the Caribbean and the Pacific Islands.

By 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm had led Germany into the greatest war this world had ever witnessed. Though figures vary, well over 8 million souls were slaughtered in that Great War. It was billed at its end as "the war to end all wars."

It didn't.

Barely 20 years after the guns fell silent on the Western Front, Germany was enmeshed yet again in conflict, but one that would end with far greater loss of life, far greater trauma and destruction of property than was possible through the weapons of destruction employed in that first world war. The term holocaust took on a newly horrific meaning.

What began with Hitler rolling into Poland on Sept. 1, 1939, ended with Germany's surrender on May 7, 1945. The German nation, less than 75 years on from its creation under Bismarck, lay in ashes.

To ensure that a unified Germany, with a cadre of top military brass at its helm, would not pose a threat to world peace again, the three world leaders of the victorious Allied nations met at Potsdam in the summer of 1945. They carved Germany up among them, eliminated the German High Command, and declared that never again would Germany be permitted to rise as a military threat to disturb the peace of the world.

It did not last long.

* Vanquished and Revived

 

Barely 10 years from Germany's surrender following World War II, on May 6, 1955, the Federal Republic of Germany joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The Western Allies felt that without a strong continental army on Germany's eastern flank, all Europe lay exposed to Communist domination. Naively thinking that West Germany was on the road to becoming a genuine and willing democratic nation, Britain and America allowed, encouraged and cajoled the Federal Republic of Germany, amid great debate, to rearm! The result was the creation of the German Bundeswehr only months after Germany entered NATO.

There followed 35 years of German involvement under the NATO umbrella as part of the great Cold War standoff, during which Germany and the Soviet Union stared at each other across the divide that split Berlin between East and West.

Governing the evolution of the German nation from that of a divided, disarmed, vanquished "enemy of the world" in 1945, to the growing status it has today of an active peacekeeper, has been a series of three government "white papers" issued over a period of 50 years. A white paper (the name comes from the color of the cover) is an official government document informing the public of government policy.

In 1969, the government of West Germany produced its first white paper review of the nation's defense forces. The goal of rearming as a member of a Western, anti-Soviet security community had, in part, been fulfilled. But the prime goal of post-war German administrations—the reunification of Germany—remained elusive.

This white paper publicized a watershed transition of German defense and security policy: from one solely supportive of the Western Alliance to one that, while remaining under the NATO umbrella, reflected uniquely German goals. This policy prepared Germany for that which the nation believed was inevitable: the reunification of the German nation.

Then came Nov. 9, 1989. The Berlin Wall tumbled. Within a year, Germany was officially united once again as a single nation.

By the end of 1991, the united Germany's first foreign policy move, recognizing Slovenia and Croatia as nation states independent of greater Yugoslavia, fueled civil war in the Balkan Peninsula.

The Balkan wars are now history, as is the fact that they were used to legitimize the use of the German Air Force, and later ground forces, in combat zones outside of their home borders for the first time since Germany was vanquished, never again "able to disturb the peace of the world," over 60 years ago. A German politician is now high commissioner to the EU for Bosnia-Herzegovina. The European Union is well advanced in its plans to swallow up the whole of the strategic Balkan Peninsula through its highly undemocratic, gaping maw!

* From the Balkans to Beirut

 

After the newly united Germany's success in sparking the Balkan wars, another white paper followed in 1994. This reflected Germany's desire to be involved in a wider security and defense role and to secure territorial gains in the crucial Balkan Peninsula for the EU.

This white paper carried the evolutionary process of German rearmament from the prior-stated intention of being solely for self-protection within its own national borders, to beyond, into foreign theaters. The result was a federal vote that removed constitutional objections to German military personnel being deployed in peacekeeping missions outside the country.

The upshot?

During remarks at the Bundeswehr Commanders' Conference, Dec. 1, 1999, at Hamburg, U.S. Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen pointed out,

"[I]n recent years, Germany has proven that the past need not bind a people and their leaders in perpetuity. Germany, the Bundeswehr, has embraced missions the world over, from Cambodia to Somalia and today even in East Timor. When ethnic animosities were stoked until they ignited in all of Bosnia, Germany responded; supporting airlifts to the Bosnian people, sending your soldiers to keep the peace".

The secretary failed to point out that it was Germany that stoked those ethnic animosities by unilaterally recognizing Slovenia and Croatia as sovereign nations separate from greater Yugoslavia!

Since then, the Bundeswehr has deployed to Africa, the Mediterranean, the Caucasus, the Balkans, and the Middle East. Its most recent deployment is off the coast of Israel, engaged in the peacekeeping force in Lebanon, right on the doorstep of Jerusalem!

But, there is a third white paper—this one produced just a few months ago.
In October 2007, following a decade of publicly decrying any prospect of increase in its military forces, and highly publicizing budget "cuts" to military expenditure, Germany set about revolutionizing its army in order to boost its global presence.

The former chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy explained,

"[T]he fact that Berlin is about to approve a reorganization of the German Army is going to heighten that country's role in international peacekeeping and thus world politics. The Bundeswehr, with a total of 250,000 personnel (the regular U.S. Army now has about 490,000 soldiers), will be reorganized primarily into a combat-capable intervention and security force, as opposed to its original mission of assisting in defending its borders. This mission change will require not only a near complete alteration of [its] current training and doctrine, but it also will demand a reordering of its equipment and supply structure. … The objective of the reorganization is to provide the Bundeswehr with the ability to assign a total of 14,000 troops to five international missions simultaneously" (American Spectator, Oct. 31, 2006).

The German government has laid out its strategy for developing a military force capable of intervening in any theater deemed vital to German interests anywhere on the globe! This "White Paper 2006 on German Security Policy and the Future of the Bundeswehr" outlines a strategy for Germany fast-tracking the nation's military machine into one of world-class status.

Under the headline "Germany in Radical Shake-up of Military," the Financial Times of London reported, "Germany will on Wednesday adopt the most radical restructuring of its military since 1945, turning the Bundeswehr into an international intervention force, according to an internal cabinet strategy paper …. The 133-page strategy paper argues that the capacity of the Bundeswehr must be expanded to allow for the deployment of a total of 14,000 troops to five international missions simultaneously. … The paper confirms conscription will be retained" (Oct. 24, 2006).

Regarding this latest review of German security and defense policy, Associated Press concluded,
"It amounts to another step away from the caution and isolation born of Germany's World War II legacy" (Oct. 25, 2006).

The Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, Germany, was built in 1788–91 by Carl G. Langhans, modeled after the ceremonial entrance to the Acropolis ("Propylaea") in Athens, Greece. (click to enlarge)

* A Troubled Democracy

 

When America and its allies conquered this country, they hoped that stability and peace would finally overtake a troubled region. America forced out the old dictatorial regime and installed a democratic government.

Over time, however, the situation turned sour. Today, the people are becoming increasingly discontented with the governmental system they're saddled with, which is not of their choosing. What to do? America is not wanted. American ways are not wanted. Democracy is not wanted.

* A Troubled Heart

 

After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, uniting East and West Germany, the Federal Republic of Germany enjoyed a meteoric rise on the international stage. Today, its army and navy are deployed in peacekeeping missions around the globe. The world is crying out for German leadership, and Germany is responding by flexing its muscles once more.

But those muscles connect to an increasingly troubled heart. Though the skies are bright for Germany's future prospects, a pall of gloom hovers at ground level. Increasingly, as Deutsche Welle put it in a Sept. 17, 2006, report, Germany sees the glass half empty.

In a strange paradox, while the Fatherland grows in success both internationally and within Europe, the attributes of its national character that led it to launch two world wars are beginning to resurface: feelings of superiority over neighbors, a rise in extreme-right sympathies, a fascination with national heritage.

Another trend: Germans are tiring of democracy.

Several recent reports coming out of Germany point to these conclusions. Of particular note is the 2006 "Data Report" released by the German Statistics Office. This report, released every two years, is compiled by a number of research and statistical agencies and is regarded as the most important publication on social reporting in Germany. The study found that in 2005, only 38 percent of the economically depressed eastern Germans thought democracy was good for Germany, down from 49 percent in 2000.

More surprisingly, however, it also revealed that even affluent Germans from the former West are losing faith in the democratic tradition. In 2000, 80 percent of western Germans thought democracy was good for the country. By 2005, that figure had slid to 71 percent.

Meanwhile, a survey released by the German public television station ARD at the beginning of last November found that fully half of all Germans are dissatisfied with how the country's democracy functions.

"As recently as September 2005, 60 percent said they were satisfied with democracy in Germany," reported Spiegel Online. "Now, it's only 49 percent—a drop of 11 percentage points" (Nov. 3, 2006).

This is the lowest result since the station started conducting such surveys almost a decade ago.

With democracy being the object of such disillusionment, which direction are many Germans turning? Concurrent with the growth of disaffection with democracy in Germany, right-wing views are taking root.

Though the German government estimated the nation contained 39,000 neo-Nazis in 2005—perhaps a seemingly small number out of a nation of 82 million—evidence shows that far more Germans sympathize with neo-Nazi ideology.

"Far-right views are not just the domain of skinheads and neo-Nazis but are firmly anchored throughout German society," Spiegel Online reported (Nov. 8, 2006).

Spiegel was referring to a poll conducted in mid-2006 by two professors from the University of Leipzig for the Friedrich Ebert Foundation think tank to determine the level of agreement Germans have with the extreme right.

The professors uncovered some unsavory findings. Among the most telling: 14 percent believe Jews cheat in business; 35 percent articulate outright xenophobia; 28 percent believe Germany should regain world status by force; 15 percent believe Germans are naturally superior to other people.

But most alarming "is the longing the Germans have for darker days," in the words of Ynet News (Nov. 9, 2006). Over a quarter of Germans would like a single popular party representing the whole nation, and 15 percent agreed with the statement, "We should have one leader to rule Germany with a strong hand for the good of everyone." Moreover, 9 percent support the idea of turning Germany into a dictatorship, and 12 percent believe Hitler would be seen as a great statesman if he hadn't exterminated Jews.

The report's conclusion to the finding that far-right views are so prevalent?

"Right-wing extremism is not an individual problem but one of society," it stated. "The fact that it has come to this touches the foundations of democratic society".

Indeed, right-wing sentiment is being reflected in German elections.

In the former East Germany, three neo-Nazi parties have been voted into regional parliaments. In the 2004 state elections in Saxony, for example, the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party (NPD) won 9.2 percent of the vote—190,000 votes. Clearly, far more than the government-identified 39,000 neo-Nazis support much of what the extreme-right parties stand for—or at the least, do not see any better alternative.

In fact, Germany's extreme right enjoys the outright support of nearly a million voters. In the 2005 federal elections, the NPD and German People's Union (DVU) ran under the NPD ballot name and managed to sway 1.6 percent of the national vote.

How many Germans, given the right circumstances, might support a radical leader? This is not without precedent in Germany. All it took to get the German people to embrace Hitler was extreme economic duress, hatred for the Jews, and a terrorist act in the form of the fire bombing of the Reichstag (historians are unsure if that fire was not deliberately set).

Today, conditions in Germany are again becoming ripe for the emergence of a strong leader. Germany is being rankled by a vocal and belligerent Muslim community, with many Germans feeling that a "clash of civilizations" is already occurring between Christians and Muslims. Germans are dissatisfied with the democratic system in Berlin and its failure to adequately address this problem in their midst. And as author Luigi Barzini wrote in The Europeans, "It is when they [Germans] are disconcerted and fretful that they can be most dangerous."

Why has Germany not been able to eradicate extremism within German politics? After more than 60 years of democracy, why has the rotten heart within Germany not been cured?

* Imposing Democracy

 

It would be a grave error to assume that Germany has a long tradition with democracy. As Michael Demiashkevich wrote in The National Mind: English, French, German, "Believing in the existence of two German souls … we are convinced one of these is 'totalitarianism.'"

History shows that Germany, at heart, is not democratic. Three times in the last 150 years, a totalitarian government has ruled the country. Germany, Europe, the world and history bear the mark of each episode.

Before that was the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation. Prior to its rise as a single national power within Europe in 1871, Germany once ruled over large parts of Europe under the name Holy Roman Empire. Germany can lay claim to such emperors as Charlemagne, Otto the Great and the Habsburgs. Certainly democracy didn't feature through the 1,000-year history of Germany's First Reich.

After Germany's defeat in the First World War, the Allied powers introduced a republican constitution that transformed the German Empire into what is now referred to as the Weimar Republic. This was Germany's first democratic constitution. Stripped of their heritage, many Germans saw the constitution as a shabby import of the West, representing a flawed system that by no means replaced the glorious German Reich. Despite the suppression of extreme right- and left-wing parties by the moderate postwar government, domestic problems such as economic depression and mass unemployment bolstered the popularity of extremist parties.

Speaking of Germany's short try at democracy between the First and Second World Wars, Hans Kohn wrote, "Most Germans regarded the Republic only as an interim state; in fact many refused to call it a state—a word which to Germans conveys pride, power and majesty. Instead they contemptuously called the republic a mere system, a system of Western corruption" (The Mind of Germany).

Within a mere decade and a half, Germans had reverted to form, and Hitler, who had promised a Third Reich, was the nation's führer. In 1933, he was appointed chancellor, and commerce, industry and foreign trade became closely managed by the government.

The West defeated Germany in World War II and again imposed democracy. The democratic tradition we see in Germany today is thin veneer that was pasted onto the country—a system of government the German mind has ill adapted to.

* The German National Cycle

 

With this in mind, we can identify within German history a national cycle. Starting with what we see today, there is the phase when Germans become restless and fretful. They become unhappy with the current order. They perceive instability, disorder or threats to the nation, and yearn for stability and order. Usually this period is short, such as was the case with the Weimar Republic.

Of that flirtation with democracy, Demiashkevich wrote,

"[A]crimonious discussions and dissensions among the multiple political parties of the 14-year parliamentary period of German political history, 1919-1933, had fatigued and frightened the average German, bewildered by artifices of political finessing, party bargaining and party intrigues. The nation was seized by a longing for the rule of one man, a moral—not an intellectual—superman …" (op. cit.).

Today we see the same wrangling and disputing among political parties leading to disillusionment with democracy. However, to this point, memories of the atrocities of World War II have mitigated the desire to change to another form of government. Simply put, Germans have been wary of themselves. Even Germany's first postwar chancellor, Konrad Adenauer, said the West was "taking a calculated risk" in rebuilding the nation after World War II.

But with what is seen as political ineptness in Berlin in the face of a fast-rising danger from Islamist extremists, Germans are clearly beginning to get past this mental hang-up.

* The Savior

 

In the next phase of the national cycle, once social angst has taken firm hold, as it is in the process of doing today, Germans begin to look for a savior. When the modern nation of Germany was founded in 1871, that savior was Bismarck. Six decades later, Hitler fulfilled the role.

Hitler masterfully played on the sentiments and longings of the German people. With the economy in shambles and the country shamed by being forced to pay reparations to the Allies for starting World War I, Germans longed for a savior.

Kohn explained, "Hitler's claim to represent the true interest of the German people could find credence because he appealed to sentiments deeply rooted in the educated classes and the people …. He knew that the best way to lead Germans … [was to] lead a crusade to realize Germany's age-old longings and her sense of historical mission" (op. cit.).

After the war, when Hitler was destroyed, Germans embraced another leader: Adenauer. His popularity reflected a public desperate for a strong man to bring order to social chaos.

Today, as discontentment with Berlin bubbles, the German people are losing confidence in their politicians to solve the nation's problems. A recent poll reported by Deutsche Welle on December 15 showed that just 22 percent believe their government is being run in an effective and goal-oriented manner. The spreading disaffection with democracy shows a Germany opening up to the idea of a strong man. We can expect a cunning politician to emerge who will portray himself as the voice of the people.

There are certain characteristics the German people typically look for in their leaders. Germans have been drawn to a strong leader like Bismarck or Hitler who dominates the domestic scene and commands international attention, a man who can demonstrate German prestige and power. Historically, once a strong man rises on the scene, Germany has a habit of investing him with absolute power.

Also, Germans have looked to a man who has a European vision. While Bismarck sought to protect a newly unified Germany, he certainly possessed a pan-European vision, as did Hitler. Germany has always been at the heart of Europe. Prior to the Age of Enlightenment and the rise of the nation-state, Germany was the protector of the "Christian" (Catholic) faith and the dominant power in Europe. Some of the greatest rulers in European history have been Germans: Otto the Great, Charlemagne and Frederick II.

Another quality Germans appear to want in their leader is cunning. Bismarck was a master of balancing Europe. By cunning, Hitler gained large tracts of Europe without firing a gun.

As Friedrich Nietzsche wrote, "It's not for nothing that the Germans [die Deutsche] are called the 'tiusche' people, the 'Tausche' (deceptive) people …."

Today, that kind of German leader is yet to rise—but one may be poised. When he arrives on the scene, the next phase of the national cycle will begin.

* Belligerency

 

Once Germans install a strong man, they become fiercely loyal to that man and his vision.

In World War II, the world witnessed ordinary Germans commit unspeakable crimes against their neighbors and Jews. However, when Adenauer took the reigns of control after the war, Germans rallied to his vision for the country. In what many called a miracle, West Germany rose from the ashes of war to become a great democratic power within a decade. It is this apparent contradiction within the German soul—being willing to shift its loyalties from one man to the next, from one vision to the next, from good to evil—that perplexes and frightens Europe. What Germany is today is not what Germany will be tomorrow. Germany is a chameleon.

Once it has a strong man at the helm, Germany enters a stage of stability, ambition and fearlessness. A sense of national destiny sets in. During this stage, it is most dangerous and cunning. In history, this stage can be compared to the Hitler years of 1933-1939, when acts of German belligerency escalated.

The next stage, then, is marked by war preparations and war itself, as Germany pursues its imperial ambitions. The last stage of this cycle is defeat at the hands of its enemies, after which, at some point, the cycle begins again.

* What's Next ?

 

Even within the democratic straitjacket forced upon it after World War II, Germany has quietly, gradually implemented an imperialist policy within Europe, maneuvering its way to the top of what is today the European Union. At its heart, it has an expansionist mindset, which means Germany must dominate.

That is why, as Barzini wrote,

"It is … once again essential for everybody, the French, the British, the Italians, the other Europeans, as well as the Americans and the Soviets, to keep an eye across the Rhine and the Alps and the Elbe in order to figure out, as our fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, the ancient Romans, and remote ancestors had to do, who the Germans are, who they think they are, what they are doing, and where they will go next …" (op. cit.).

Should we be surprised at Germany's growing disaffection with democracy? This trend aligns perfectly with its history and national cycle.

We can know where Germany is going next. Facing mounting international instability and growing dissatisfaction at home, Germany is ready for another strong man to step forward and harness the power of the German soul, which is increasingly eager to dump democracy and return to its Holy Roman roots.

Quadriga on top of the Brandenburg-Gate in Berlin, Germany. Quadriga currently faces East. Image by (Aleph), http://commons.wikimedia.org (click to enlarge)

* Europe's Golden Anniversary

 

At the close of World War II, the Western Allies maintained that any prospect of Hitler's national socialist dream of global conquest had been banished from European soil, never to raise its head again.

But had it?

On March 25, Europe celebrates a golden anniversary—50 years since the signing of the Treaty of Rome. It may have been apparent to few at the time, but the signing of that treaty in that ancient city on March 25, 1957, laid the groundwork for what is yet to become the singular most dominant force in geopolitics this century, the European Union.

As Rodney Atkinson and Norris McWhirter point out in their book Treason at Maastricht, today's EU looks uncannily similar to Hitler's Europe.

* It All Began in London

 

Just four years following Allied victory in Europe, the Treaty of London, signed by 10 Western European nations on May 5, 1949, brought the Council of Europe into existence. The signing of this treaty set a chain reaction in motion, leading ultimately to the monolithic, 27-nation European combine we know today. Yet it was to be the Rome treaty, signed eight years later, that would be traditionally looked upon as having spawned the post-war unification of Europe.

The paradox is that, though the Treaty of London laid the groundwork for what was to later become the European Union, the European Community that the treaty led toward establishing would never come to London for any other of its important meetings, let alone the signing of future treaties that would build the union into what it is today. In fact, for 24 years, uniting Europe would deny Britain entry into its fold. Then, upon its entry, Britain would become the thorn in Europe's flesh.

The eight years following the creation of the Council of Europe were filled with frenetic European diplomacy, led primarily by France, supported by the three Benelux countries (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). This diplomacy was aimed at creating a European order that would constrain Germany in such a fashion as to never permit a repetition of Germany's aggression against a neighboring country such as occurred in the Franco-Prussian war of 1870 and the two world wars of 1914 and 1939.

On May 9, 1950, French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman presented a declaration to the Council for closer cooperation among European nations. It was based on a simple idea proposed by French political economist Jean Monnet: that only by binding Germany into an agreement where its heavy industry was controlled in a manner so as to limit its potential to rearm could lasting peace be obtained in Europe.

* From London to Rome

 

Monnet's thesis was published on May 9, 1950, and presented by Schuman on that day. What then became known as the Schuman Plan proposed joint control of Western European coal and steel production, the most important materials for the armaments industry.

The German chancellor at the time, Konrad Adenauer, seeing the Schuman Plan as a viable means to hasten Germany's post-war reconstruction, readily agreed to the proposal. This opened the way, less than a year later, on April 18, 1951, for the birth of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).

By signing this treaty, six nations—Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux nations—placed control of coal and iron ore under their joint management, so none could individually exploit these resources for the manufacture of weapons of war. There followed six years of continuing diplomacy among these six nations, significantly led by France and Germany. These efforts created a common market, known as the European Economic Community (EEC). Signed in Rome on March 25, 1957, the EEC Treaty, known as the Treaty of Rome, brought the six ECSC countries into a community whose aim would be to use trade, not war, to weld together a European community.

What was not publicized widely was the ultimate aim of the union's founding fathers to take this trading combine into a final phase that would unite Europe economically, monetarily, industrially, politically and, finally, militarily. In point of fact, their goal in uniting Europe was imperialistic from the beginning.

In his 1950 speech, Schuman had declared that "Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan," and that the ECSC was the "first step in the federation of Europe."

That goal was to remain largely hidden for the following 30 years under the mask of common trade interests. However, beneath the surface, certain influences were at play that would emerge, after Germany unified on Oct. 3, 1990, to power this seemingly innocuous trading bloc forward to fulfill the old German dream of European hegemony as a platform for future global dominance.

* From Rome to Maastricht

 

It may be said that the spiritual birth of the European Union as a social and political system took place in Rome at the signing of that treaty 50 years ago. The following year saw the establishment of the bureaucracy that would eventually produce over 80,000 pages of rules and regulations as the expanding, reviving European empire grew into one of the most formidably regulated economies in history. Foremost among the entities that originated with the 1951 and 1957 treaties were Euratom (to develop atomic energy policies), the Parliamentary Assembly (which later became the European Parliament), the European Court of Justice and the European Investment Bank.

From 1957 to 1970, the EEC concentrated on economic growth. The postwar period to the early 1960s became known as the wirtschaftswunder, the economic miracle by which free West Germany powered its way back from the ashes of World War II to become the leading economy in Western Europe.

As the geopolitical freeze of the Cold War deepened, the contrast between East Germany's lackluster command economy and the markedly glitzy capitalistic West Germany was too much to contain a drift of population from east to west. In 1961, Communist East Germany created the physical divide of the Berlin Wall to lock out east from west at the border between the two in Berlin.

Through the 1960s and '70s, West Germany suffered with the rest of the West in the great social upheavals of that time. Extremist terror groups motivated by Marxist/Leninist initiatives in France, Italy and Germany mounted a struggle against "state imperialism." Yet still, economic growth in the EEC member nations remained comparatively robust, in particular within West Germany, which had become the economic engine of Western Europe.

Having concentrated on economic growth in the period from its creation in 1957 through to 1970, the EEC switched its sights to community enlargement during the '70s and '80s. In the 1970s, the EEC opened its doors to Denmark, Ireland and the United Kingdom. In 1981 Greece joined, followed by Spain and Portugal in 1986. That same year, EEC members signed the first major amendments to the Treaty of Rome, the Single European Act, ratified on July 1, 1987.

* Enlargement—Building the Eastern Leg

 

The Single European Act was mainly an effort to hasten European integration. It amended the rules governing the operation of the main European institutions and expanded EEC powers, paving the way for a common foreign policy.

The true nature of the beast was finally emerging. Far from remaining true to its roots as a simple trading entity, the ultimate political aspirations of the founders of the EU were beginning to come into view. The EEC was evolving into a political power.

In the meantime, Rome had been busy. A Polish pope, John Paul II, had joined forces with the conservative U.S. president, Ronald Reagan, and a similarly conservative British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, and with the combined efforts of four security services—the CIA, Britain's MI5, the German BND, and the Vatican's Jesuits—succeeded in splitting the Soviet Union apart using a Polish trade union organization, Solidarity, as a front for their covert, anti-Soviet activities.

The collapse of communism across Central and Eastern Europe, beginning in Poland and later symbolized by the fall of the Berlin Wall on Nov. 9, 1989, resulted in Germany's unification, ending more than 40 years of geographic and political division of that country. By October 1990, East Germany was part of the EU. The old Cold War hiatus began to give way to a new aggressive extension of the EU's borders eastward, ultimately clear up to the great Ukraine Plain.

This expansion accelerated when Germany and the Vatican caused the Balkan Wars of the 1990s by recognizing Slovenia and Croatia as sovereign nations separate from greater Yugoslavia.

In the meantime, the EEC, under pressure from Germany, trotted out a series of treaties in quick succession, giving further force and weight to the true political motives of the creators and developers of this rising European empire.

The treaty of European Union, known as the Maastricht Treaty, was signed in Maastricht, Netherlands, on Feb. 7, 1992, by all EEC members. The principle changes to the Treaty of Rome were a name change from EEC to the European Community (EC), and agreement on cooperation in matters of defense, justice and home security. This was the European Union Treaty. Ever since, the old EEC has become known as the European Union, a name that, without the term "economic," has a much more political ring to it.

All of a sudden the innocuous EEC had three pillars underpinning its future integration: economics, politics and now defense.

* From Maastricht Back to Rome

 

Less than six years later, the Treaty of Amsterdam amended the Maastricht Treaty and consolidated the EU and EC treaties. On Feb. 26, 2001, EU leaders signed the Treaty of Nice, which paved the way for further enlargement and created a single document upon which a European constitution could be developed. Finally, on Oct. 29, 2004, the heads of state of each EU member nation met again in Rome. This time, they met to sign a controversial document: the European Constitution.

What had started as a mere agreement on the integration of markets was suddenly transforming into a singular, great political entity, a veritable United States of Europe! This was becoming an empire of nations, with a single constitution that seemingly removed the sovereign rights of its individual member states, subsuming them into a federal body comprised of regions that ignored old national boundaries. And, as was patently obvious, it was once again Germany calling the tune!

On paper, to some observers, it seemed as though the old phoenix of the Roman Empire was arising from the ashes. Certainly the extent of territory it embraced was not only like that of the old Holy Roman Empire, but remarkably like the map of Europe redrawn by Hitler just 60 years ago! Voices of concern began to be raised in some quarters.

Certainly Europe now stood upon its western and its eastern legs. But it was unwieldy. The various parts of this huge, greatly enlarged beast were not operating in complete harmony. It stumbled in its first few tentative steps as it sought to get used to being underpinned by two legs—the secular Western leg and its Eastern Catholic counterpart—that did not always want to go in the same direction. This beast appeared to be top-heavy, weighed down with extraneous regulation. It was bloated with excessive bureaucracy and in great need of trimming its fat. What's more, fraud was admittedly rampant within that very bureaucracy.

Soon, rumbles were heard from Berlin, the refurbished capital of an earlier Reich, now once again revived as Germany's national capital. Those noises supported simplifying decision making and even streamlining EU membership. Lesser economies could be subsumed by the larger in a redrawing of the map of Europe to eliminate national borders and combine once-sovereign nations into broader regions within a great European fatherland.

This brings us to the German presidency of the EU, celebrating in Berlin on Sunday, March 25, 2007, where the chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel, hosted representatives of member nations and the pope himself for a grand shindig in celebration of "50 years of unity" on the anniversary of the Treaty of Rome.

* The Foundation is Already Laid

 

The time will come when Europe will follow the rising fashion in Russia and Latin America, and the cry will go up for a populist leader. Such a man will come to office, not necessarily via the electoral process within the European Union, but rather by diplomacy—or flatteries. He will lead the countries of Europe out of their divisions into great imperial strength.

Yes, that old Holy Roman Empire will rise again. That union spawned in the city of seven hills back on March 25, 1957, with the signing of the Treaty of Rome will yet return to its Romish spiritual roots. Its citizens will ultimately pay obeisance to Berlin and mother Rome - the tormenting, blood-spilling, perpetually resurrecting old Holy Roman Empire.

Gable of the Reichstag in Berlin (click to enlarge)

The glass dome atop the Reichstag, designed by British architect Sir Norman Foster, was added when the building was reconstructed. - (click to enlarge)

The Reichstag in Berlin in 1947 (click to enlarge)

 

* EU Anniversary—Crisis Before Solution?

 

"Let them eat cake," Marie-Antoinette, wife of Louis XVI of France, is reputed to have declared as the peasants clamored for a say in their future. In what appeared to be a rerun of the Marie-Antoinette approach to the masses, German Chancellor Angela Merkel threw a hugely expensive birthday bash for the public in Berlin, turning on the beer and bratwurst and flinging open the doors of Berlin's infamous discos to an all-night rage on the eve of March 25, 2007, the 50th anniversary of the European Union.

* Public and Political Dissent

 

It seems the German people at large are fairly cynical about the bloated EU bureaucracy that rules their lives from Brussels. They balk at its constantly passing regulations that place ever-greater constraints on their lives, ruled by representatives in whose election to power they have no real say, who hold regular meetings at great cost to the taxpayer, during which much is discussed but little ever concluded.

A dwindling number of Europeans support their home countries' EU membership, Reuters reported,

"because of fears the EU is failing to protect workers from globalization, eroding national identities and meddling excessively in national affairs" (March 24, 2007).

A poll reported on by think tank Open Europe found that within eurozone nations, nearly half the people wish they could go back to the national currencies they gave up for the common European currency.

Under a rising cloud of such public dissent and of increasing rifts on EU policy between various members, Chancellor Merkel brought the 27 leaders of the EU nations together over the last weekend in March to witness the signing of what has become known as the Berlin Declaration.

From the rumbles that emerged from concerned EU member nations, it became clear that a battle royal was waged behind the scenes that weekend in Berlin. Once again, Germany was seeking to bully its fellow EU members into signing a document that Germany may well interpret as fulfilling its own EU agenda but that falls short of meeting others' requirements.

As one source commented, "[B]eneath the veneer, and despite serving as a model of integration to the world, EU leaders [battled] to conclude a declaration that can mark past achievements and reassure citizens about the future" (EUbusiness, March 20, 2007).

* Merkel's Machinations

 

In a complete about-face that caused an outcry across Europe, instead of the heads of all EU member states signing in agreement to the declaration, Chancellor Merkel ruled that only she, European Commission President Barroso and the president of the European Parliament, Hans-Gert Pöttering, would sign the text on behalf of all the leaders!

What has since emerged is of even greater concern. It appears that the very wording of the Berlin Declaration was manipulated so as to offer specific appeal to those EU member nations that are leery of certain aspects of EU governance.

EUobserver.com posted this analysis of the text:

"The declaration … says in German that 'We, the citizens in the European Union, are united zu unserem Glück'—which means 'united in our fortune/happiness.' However, in the other versions of the text, the word Glück has been given a less solemn treatment. 'We, the citizens of the European Union, have united for the better,' the more down-to-earth English version says.

"The word has also disappeared from the Danish version, where Glück has been replaced with 'vor fælles bedste,' meaning 'for the best,' and further down the declaration the word has been lost in translation.

"There are so many deviations in the Danish version that it cannot possibly be a coincidence, Henning Kock—a professor in constitutional law at Copenhagen University—told Danish daily Politiken on [March 26]. '[I]t's a political translation,' he said about the Danish version" (March 27, 2007).

The Berlin Declaration consists of two pages of prose that have been painfully constructed to ensure that the most burning issues that currently lie in the EU president's too-hard basket are not mentioned. The document's drafters avoided two in particular like the plague. No specific reference is made to the European Constitution, already signed by all member nations but not yet ratified by some, and no reference is made to the religion that has provided the EU with its system of values from its inception by its Roman Catholic founding fathers.

This latter omission brought the Bavarian Pope Benedict xvi out of his Vatican cloisters like a raging bull!

* Papal Ire Aroused

 

When informed of the omission of any reference to the Catholic and Christian roots of Europe in the very document that was to espouse the European Union's fundamental values, Benedict rounded on EU leaders with a stream of criticism unprecedented in 50 years of Vatican/EU relations.

"In a speech to European bishops on Saturday, Pope Benedict accused the EU of apostasy for refusing to mention Christianity in the Berlin Declaration. Asking how leaders could hope to get closer to their citizens if they denied such an essential part of European identity, the head of the Roman Catholic Church said: 'Does not this unique form of apostasy of itself, even before God, lead it (Europe) to doubt its very identity?'" (Reuters, op. cit.).

No pope has ever issued such a stinging criticism of those charged with the project of uniting Europe since it began 50 years ago at the signing of the Treaty of Rome. Then, Rome was chosen for the signing ceremony for its close identity with the foundational Roman Catholic values that had united Europe so often in the past under the institution of the Holy Roman Empire. Fifty years later, the Berlin Declaration gives the appearance of a European Union that has deliberately distanced itself from its very own religious roots.

This has the pope hopping mad!

The pope's blood is up for a mighty crusading effort to sweep Europe back into Rome's fold—and he's not going to back down. Benedict deliberately rained on the EU's 50th anniversary parade. His remarks were a real downer on the occasion. They could hardly have been timed better for maximum effect.

But look a little closer. Something is definitely afoot!

* Creating the Crisis—Posing the Solution

 

British political economist Rodney Atkinson has repeatedly claimed that German politicians are expert at creating a crisis and then posing the most ideal solution in their nation's own best interests.

There may indeed be a method to what appeared to be Merkel's madness in drafting this Berlin Declaration behind closed doors, a tactic that gained her a degree of criticism from some EU member states.

Remember Merkel telling Pope Benedict, during his visit to Bavaria last year, that she believed the European Constitution should make reference to God and the EU's Christian values? We believe she still holds to that position.

It so happened that Pöttering, president of the European Parliament and, at the time, leader of its influential Catholic center-right movement, also told the pope last year that his group was determined to see the spiritual dimension of the European project written into the European Constitution. At the time, Pöttering described the European Constitution to the pope as "holy text."

Merkel and Pöttering were two of the three EU gurus chosen to sign the Berlin Declaration.

Intriguingly, on the very eve that EU leaders gathered in Berlin to witness the signing of the seemingly irreligious Berlin Declaration, who did we find having an audience with the pope? None other than one of the prospective signatories to the Berlin Declaration, Hans-Gert Pöttering. And what was Pöttering doing in Rome while the other EU leaders gathered in Berlin? Issuing the pope an official invitation to personally address the European Parliament.

Early on in discussions surrounding the planning of the EU anniversary, it was proposed that Pope Benedict might be present in Berlin for the anniversary celebrations. But he could hardly take part in celebrations over the signing of an EU declaration specifically intended to endorse the values of that institution, if his religion was completely ignored in that document. Hence the invitation to come to the European Parliament after the main event—to put things right!

It may yet turn out that, far from being remembered for a Berlin Declaration with all of its religious teeth pulled, the 50th anniversary of the Treaty of Rome will be remembered as the occasion when the pope accepted an invitation to ride his crusading horse into the heart of the main legislating body of the European Union and sell that body, once and for all, on the need to write Rome's religion—the "religious roots" of Europe—into the very heart and core of a revived constitution.

What gives this theory extra credence is hearing that grand old statesman of the European Union, Otto von Habsburg, declare during that late March weekend's EU celebrations that he is convinced Europe faces a great revival of Christianity!

Would this 94-year-old Europhile, so deeply embedded in EU political society, having contact with the most influential movers and shakers on the Continent, make such a public statement unless he really knew what was going on behind the scenes? No one has followed the tortuous path of Europe through its postwar revival to become the mightiest trading entity in the world more closely than this wise old man of Europe. We believe his recent public statement has significant credibility in terms of a pending and powerful move by Pope Benedict xvi and his coterie of conservative cardinals to mount the most dramatic crusade for the revival of Catholic Europe since the Middle Ages. (Otto von Habsburg is a descendant of Charles V, the last Holy Roman Emperor to be crowned by a Pope.)

* Filling the Religious Void

 

Historically, every movement that has successfully welded the nations of Europe together in unity has declared attachment to an ideology, a religious dogma. Religion has repeatedly brought a semblance of unity among the great diversity of the peoples and cultures of the Continent. This has occurred six times in the past, under the various forms of the Holy Roman Empire, since the time of Charlemagne.

The Berlin Declaration is an open challenge to the supremacy of the religion of Rome in Europe. The pope has met that challenge head on, and the EU has responded with an open invitation for him to come to its parliament and fix the problem. This provides the pope with an open door to peddle his spiritual wares directly to the main legislating body of the European Union.

If the Parliament seizes the moment and railroads the endorsing of the religion of Rome into its constitution, then the EU's spiritual gap may well be filled by official recognition of the pope's religion as the state religion of the European Union. And remember, should this occur, the laws the European Parliament makes trump all domestic law within EU member nations.

Might the European Parliament endorse a singular state religion at the behest of this pope?

In crafting the Berlin Declaration, Merkel was careful in her verbiage. The deadline she has set to achieve unanimity on the European Constitution is the year 2009.

Could our German friends be at it again?

In fact, could the legacy of this German presidency of the EU be the creation of the very crisis—the raging argument as to whether the EU should remain secular, or finally acknowledge its true religious roots—for which a Bavarian pope has already been invited to pose a solution?

The EU's major crisis, at this point, is a crisis of values. This crisis was highlighted in Berlin that early spring weekend in late March 2007 by the disappearance of any reference to the EU's religious roots in the Berlin Declaration. Its nature was powerfully dramatized on the same weekend by Pope Benedict himself condemning the EU for this omission. And on that same weekend, an invitation was issued in Rome for the pope to enter the inner sanctum of the European Union to declare the solution to this conundrum.

There's a grand political game being played out here. History was written that March weekend 2007 in Berlin and Rome. The values crisis could become a core issue within the EU.

* Russia: Triggering Europe to Unite

 

"Badly Wrong"

Fed up with Moscow's belligerent and patently anti-Western gestures, many of Europe's leaders allowed their frustration to surface at an EU-Russian summit just outside the Russian city of Samara in May. Their disgruntlement, vividly captured in European newspapers, illustrates the debilitating state of EU-Russian relations.

Prior to the meeting, the European Voice warned that EU-Russian relations had reached the brink of a deep-freeze, stating that EU and Russian diplomats themselves "have acknowledged that there is little chance of beginning talks on boosting political and economic ties at the summit …" (May 16, 2007).

The International Herald Tribune explained how the latest tensions (with Estonia, Poland and Kosovo) come amid "increasing alarm in Europe that Moscow is using its vast energy resources for political ends, flouting human rights and stamping out democracy ahead of parliamentary elections in December and a presidential vote next March" (May 14, 2007). Relations between Europe and Russia are so bad that Peter Mandelson, the EU's trade commissioner, "warned recently that the level of misunderstanding between the two was the worst since the end of the Cold War and was in danger of going 'badly wrong'" (ibid.).

The Moscow Times, in an article aptly titled "Europe Scolds a Bristling Putin," reported on the fruitlessness of the one-day conference in Samara. "No major deals were reached," the article stated. "While the two sides spoke of a willingness to cooperate, they disagreed over almost everything…" (May 21, 2007).

During the long and acrimonious post-summit press conference, Putin became visibly annoyed and combative as he faced questions from German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Even European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso emerged from the summit swinging, warning Putin that "the EU is based on principles of solidarity" and that the Russian president's attack on Poland was an attack on the entire European Union.

The tone of the summit was unmistakably cold. Europe's leaders are fed up with Russia's bold antics and are showing themselves willing to confront Putin and his comrades.

Of all of Europe's leaders, the Times of London identified Germany's Merkel as one of Russia's toughest critics. According to the Times, prior to the Samara summit Merkel took her hardest line yet in a dinner with Putin, warning him that

"Russia could not pick on individual European states and expect a business-as-usual approach from the European Union" (May 18, 2007).

The quiet but distinct message emanating from Germany is clear: Russian arrogance and boldness will no longer be met with mere diplomacy.

* Uniting Against a Threat

 

Russia's newfound global power and influence is triggering European leaders to demand a strong leader capable of striking back. Few things unite a nation or group of nations more than a mutual external threat. Logic informs us that Russia's spiral toward dictatorship will trigger a fear among Europeans that will accelerate the unification of the Continent.

Russia is Europe's greatest, most time-tested enemy—and a German-led Europe is Russia's most persistent threat. Historians know that Russian-European relations are an enigma. Stalin and Hitler were smiling and shaking hands in 1939; by 1941 their soldiers were killing each other. Pleasant relations and peace agreements between Russia and Europe mean nothing. In fact, the friendlier they seem to grow, the likelier that war is imminent.

Witness the German/Soviet Boundary and Friendship Treaty of September 1939. The Treaty of non-aggression of August 1939 (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). Germany/USSR Neutrality Agreement of 1926. The Treaty of Rapallo of 1922. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk of 1918. The Reinsurance Treaty of 1887. The Secret Treaty and Protocol of 1881, renewed in 1884.

Behind the facade of cooperation, this historical reality will remain: The more geopolitical power and influence Russia gains, the more Europe's leaders and citizens alike will feel the need to unify to counter the threat mounting to their east. More specifically, Russian ambition will help Europeans realize the desperate need for a strong, robust leader to lead them against such external forces posed to their east by a leader like Vladimir Putin.

Russia gained another energy advantage over the EU in January 2008 as it signed a contract with Turkmenistan to build a pipeline connecting the two nations. The EU had hoped that Turkmenistan would choose Europe as its main partner. Instability in the Caucasus could upset Europe’s energy plans. Currently all gas coming from this area must travel through the small but vital nation of Georgia. Recent controversial elections there have caused unrest. Russia has also threatened to recognize the independence of two Georgian breakaway provinces.

All of these conflicts are driving the EU to consolidate more quickly. In addition, we can expect Europe to seek to temporarily resolve the Russia problem as it has done in the past: with a new treaty—another Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Germany’s new vice chancellor, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, is a great Russophile—perhaps just the man for the job. Watch, once this pact is signed, for both blocs to project their power elsewhere, at least until, as in the past, the treaty breaks down and war between the two erupts.

* New Treaty Sets Powerful Post

 

Proportion of Non EU Nationals - Top 10 Cities Cities with Most Foreigners

European Union politicians achieved a key goal at their summit in late June 2007: an agreement to set up a position equivalent to EU foreign minister. Supporters of the "reform treaty"—in reality a revived EU constitution—and its foreign minister provision called the new post a step forward for European unity and power. Detractors contend that it will only create a powerful European foreign office that will compete with those of member nations.

The new office, officially "the high representative of the Union for foreign affairs and security policy," absorbs those of both the EU's foreign policy head and the European Commission's external relations commissioner. The high representative will control the Commission's aid budget and become the Council's top diplomat and crisis-solver. He or she will chair meetings among foreign ministers of EU member states and will control 120 European Commission delegations: thousands of diplomats assigned to countries around the world that some say are a ready-made EU department of state.

Significantly, the responsibilities associated with this new post are precisely the same as those envisaged for the foreign minister in the rejected EU constitution; the only difference is the title.

The new treaty states that the EU's foreign policy will lead to "the progressive framing of a common defense policy that might lead to a common defense."

"We have exactly what we wanted," one Spanish official said. "The foreign minister will have the political clout necessary to do his job and will control the administrative services too" (Sunday Telegraph, June 24, 2007).

The EU has suffered from chronic squabbles and labyrinthine decision-making among nations reluctant to relinquish power. The decision at June's summit was the latest attempt to clear away these barriers and make the Union more of a sleek and streamlined body capable of acting quickly and decisively—whether member nations like it or not.

"I hope the small print of the new treaty does not put the UK on a slippery slope to a Euro Foreign Office," Timothy Kirkhope, the British leader of European Parliament Conservatives, said (ibid.). Other critics said the new EU office and its corps would indeed encroach upon the foreign-policy wishes of London and other national governments and eventually replace them with the wishes of Brussels.

Will the EU foreign policy be muscling out democratic foreign policy ?

* Germany on the Rise - Strutting the World Stage

 

From January to June 2007, Germany strutted the world stage with its presidencies of the EU and the G-8. Despite achieving results far short of Chancellor Merkel's declared expectations, the EU's 50th anniversary celebrations in March, followed by the G-8 and EU summits in June, did give Germany widespread international media publicity.

But there is an element currently on the rise in European politics that has historically proven dangerous for Europe and the rest of the world. Europe is once again swinging right politically.

As Stratfor recently observed, "The right has yet to grasp power in Europe, but it will not be long before the conservatives consolidate their hold on the Continent" (June 8, 2007).

The danger that looms as a specter from Europe's war-torn past is that, as Stratfor continued, "A right-leaning Europe could be united under one leader, particularly since the states are brought closer together by common problems such as immigration and economic reform. But it remains to be seen which state will emerge to lead, and in what direction".

The most obvious contender is Germany.

Regarding this possibility, Stratfor wrote, "[A] recent economic renaissance has given the country the opportunity to forge a consensus in Europe and to further its own agenda. For the first time in decades, Germany is a full and powerful member of the European community. More important, for the first time in centuries, there is no established political regime in Europe to counter German ambitions" (ibid.).

* Germany Speaks—Europe Reacts

 

Stratfor has a longer memory than most of our foreign-policy merchants. Note this crucial observation of a unique fact of European history:

"For now, [Germany and the U.S.] are more or less on the same page …. But do not confuse the temporary alignment of interests with a permanent state of affairs. Sure, the United States currently sees Russia as a rival and Germany as an ally. Yet this situation is an aberration in both U.S. and European affairs. All of European history is a tale of Germany either expanding or being contained" (ibid.).

Germany has used economics, international trade and finance as the main weapons of choice to achieve pan-European dominance. Recent examples of this are two political/economic initiatives enacted over past months and a third currently being discussed—all German ideas—that should further bind Europe together, economically and financially, under Berlin's aegis.

The first was a move by Merkel (showing more political courage than the previous chancellor, Schröder, who failed on this point) to initiate a long-overdue restructuring of Germany's corporate tax base. The law, which significantly cut corporate taxes, passed on March 14.

Stratfor called it "the latest in a string of planned and coincidental developments [most predating Merkel's chancellorship] laying a lasting foundation for Germany's geopolitical renaissance" (March 15, 2007).

The second initiative builds on the effect of the German-instigated European means of exchange, the euro, which continues to gain strength in international trade. Further consolidating the German idea of centralized financial control, Berlin has engineered the introduction of an EU-wide unified payments system, the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA). Beginning in January of 2008, all electronic payments throughout the EU and the European Free Trade Association will be considered domestic, saving the European economy an estimated 2 to 3 percent of its gross domestic product.

"In terms of its dimension and significance, this revolution in European payments is comparable only to the introduction of the euro," said Hans-Joachim Massenberg, deputy ceo of the Association of German Banks.

Germany's centralizing economic and financial agenda, through forced implementation of the single European currency, the euro, combined now with sepa, is speeding the death of the long-cherished individual national sovereignty of EU member nations.

But the third initiative may be the most significant, particularly because of the manner in which it entered political discussion.

The European Commission announced in July that it intends to take a hard look at threats from external sources—notably Russia and China—moving to buy up slices of European businesses.

Stratfor commented, "A public musing last week by German Chancellor Angela Merkel was what prompted the Commission decision" (July 20, 2007).

What was particularly startling about this was, as Stratfor observed, "the fact that the Commission so quickly took up Merkel's idea. Merkel's term as EU president expired June 30 2007, yet here we are three weeks later and her off-the-cuff comments are still setting the agenda …. Fifty years later, Germany has found its voice—and possesses the gravitas to set policy without even making a request. That has got to make a few stiff European upper lips unconsciously quiver" (ibid.).

Note that Stratfor speaks of Germany finding its voice. It's not so much that Chancellor Merkel made these remarks that triggered the European Commission's response. In fact, the signs are that Angela Merkel's leadership of her coalition government may soon be under threat. But it was the fact that Germany spoke that moved the Commission to respond!

* Merkel on the Wane

 

In late June 2007 came the European Union summit that would bring to a conclusion Germany's six-month presidency. This presented a final opportunity for Chancellor Merkel to produce a success that would place the stamp of approval on her period in the presidential office.

Even before they arrived in Brussels, the contentious leaders of this unwieldy EU monolith were sounding warning bells about the disputes that would pepper this summit. The summit turned out to be a predictable debacle in many respects, especially with Poland reminding Germany that its Nazi past had reduced its population by a third, so a population-based voting system under the reform treaty would most certainly unfairly favor Germany!

Frau Merkel is now back in her own national domain. And, given the fact that she topped the crest of her wave of popularity mid-year, she has now but one way to go.

"'Merkel is at the peak of her power but it can't get any better for her,' said Gerd Langguth, a political scientist at Bonn University and author of a biography of Merkel. 'Germans are happy with her foreign policy but less than enthused about her performance at home, and that could be a real problem.' With memories of her government's unpopular health-care reform still alive in the minds of many Germans, polls show half the population disapproves of Merkel's domestic performance—a weakness the struggling [Social Democrats] will try to exploit" (Reuters, June 25).

Coalition governments in Germany historically do not last very long. If Merkel's coalition lasts the remaining two years of its tenure, given the rumbles that already are coming from within its ranks, it will be a wonder to behold. History simply argues against it.

* Waiting in the Wings

 

Will Chancellor Merkel's lasting legacy be the creation of the very office that will empower the leader of a globally dominant European power? The indications are that we may not have to wait long to find out!

In the meantime, Germany's foreign-policy initiatives are clearer as each month goes by, especially with the government signaling that it will strengthen Germany's role in the Middle East peace process, recent moves to intervene in the dispute between Russia and the West over Kosovo, and intentions to increase German involvement in Africa. Then there's the increasing deployment of German military forces in both combat and support roles on foreign soil. Germany's fighting forces, contained within Germany's borders up to the time of the Balkan wars, are now deployed in numerous theaters throughout Europe, Eurasia, the Mediterranean and Africa, not to mention their training bases in Canada and the U.S. The German High Command—which was once supposedly "disarmed and disbanded for all time" by post-World War II leaders, never to rise again—has been reactivated. Voices within the German government are now calling for the nation to drastically increase the size of its military as a major contributor to a European armed force.

All of this newfound power behind Germany's increasingly strident political voice reminds us of an observation made by Stratfor earlier this year, at the mid-point of Germany's presidency of the EU. Commenting on the achievements of Germany's reconstruction since unification in 1991, Stratfor's European analyst declared,

"Taken together, these structural changes are creating a new Germany that is geographically and economically united, and politically confident—something that Europe has not seen in decades. That just leaves Germany without one other thing it has not seen in decades: a robust military" (March 15, 2007).

Given the bloody history of past German "robust military" forces, much more than just stiff upper lips may quiver at the prospect of a revival of such an institution!

* Europe Is An “Empire”: Barroso

 

The European Union is an empire, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso announced on June 10, 2007, in a press conference where he lauded the new EU reform treaty.

“We are a very special construction unique in the history of mankind,” said Barroso. “Sometimes I like to compare the EU as a creation to the organization of empire. We have the dimension of empire” (Telegraph, July 11).

Barroso, however, went on to make an important distinction between this European empire and any previous empire: “Empires were usually made with force with a center imposing diktat, a will on the others. Now what we have is the first non-imperial empire” (EUreferendum.com, July 10).

It is somewhat baffling that Barroso could say the EU is an empire that does not impose its will on its subjects when just a few weeks earlier the EU agreed to force upon its populace a renamed constitution that had already been rejected by French and Dutch voters.

In their bid to force their will on EU member nations, framers of the new treaty deliberately disguised it.

“The long but relatively readable constitution,” reported Reuters, “was turned into a short but complex document … designed to be incomprehensible to citizens” (June 26, 2007). So it would not look like a constitution, one senior negotiator admitted, “We made a real effort to be opaque.”

It is no wonder Barroso doesn’t want people to compare the two treaties. “What is the point in comparing the reform treaty with the draft constitution?” he said in his press conference. “We believe the new text is better than the old one, so why bother comparing the two?” (TheParliament.com, July 11, 2007).

In other words, let us just impose our will on you.

In the same vein, Barroso warned Britain not to renege on Tony Blair’s commitment to the new constitutional treaty.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was “honor bound” by the agreement signed at the June 23 summit, said Barroso. “There is a principle of good faith. For me it as important as any legal commitment,” he said. “It is inconceivable that an agreement that was agreed unanimously in June is reopened now” (Telegraph, op. cit.).

Perhaps Barroso was simply confirming what many already acknowledge and fear—that the EU is an empire with expanding powers—but he wasn’t doing Prime Minister Brown any favors. The new PM is getting much flak for denying the British public a referendum on the new EU treaty based on the argument that it does not have constitutional implications.

Mark Francois, Britain’s Conservative shadow Europe minister, pointed out:

“The British public will be surprised to hear that we are now part of an EU empire. For the president of the Commission to say this is quite startling and anyone who thinks that we have been exaggerating in calling for a referendum on a revived constitution only has to look at what Mr. Barroso has said to realize the scale of what is now being contemplated” (Times, July 11, 2007).

It is likely that Barroso’s comments will indeed push the British, the majority of whom already want a referendum on the new treaty, to become even more wary of greater involvement in the EU. This could easily edge Britain further away from—and eventually out of—the European Union.

* Germany Invited to Nuclear Club

 

During World War II, Allied scientists raced against German physicists to be the first to develop an atomic bomb. The Allies succeeded, and Germany was defeated. Today, nuclear-armed France is offering to open its nuclear defense door to neighboring Germany. In a meeting in Germany on September 10th 2007, French President Nicolas Sarkozy shocked German officials by offering them access to France's nuclear defense system. German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier declined the offer, with Steinmeier stating that Germany has no intention of becoming a nuclear power. Still, with this offer, the door is wide open for Germany to begin acquiring nuclear weapons, a possibility that puts many history-conscious pundits ill at ease. The present German administration may not seem interested in accepting the keys to the bomb, but a future administration may be very interested.

* Merkel: Must Protect Israel

 

Germany's chancellor, in the first week of November, expressed her government's desire to protect Israel and foster close relations between Germans and the Jewish community.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's remarks came after receiving the prestigious Leo Baeck Prize from the Central Council of Jews in Germany. After accepting the award, which recognizes those who contribute to the German Jewish community in an extraordinary manner, Merkel said she felt morally bound to bring Germans and Jews closer together.

"It took more than 40 years for Germany as a whole to accept the responsibility it carries to ensure the safety of Israel," she said on November 6. "Only by accepting Germany's past can we lay the foundation for the future. Only in as far as we acknowledge our responsibility for the moral catastrophe of Germany's history can we build a humane future."

Merkel said she felt responsible for "intervening to protect the safety of Israel today and in the future, as well as our common values of democracy and the rule of law."

The chancellor told her Jewish audience that she would protect Israel from Iran specifically.

"How firmly do we react when the Iranian president wants to destroy Israel and to belittle the Holocaust?" she asked. "I believe that in the face of the threat Iran's nuclear program poses to Israel, our responsibility must be more than empty words. These words must be backed up by deeds. My government will follow its words with action."

Merkel called for tighter United Nations sanctions against Iran, saying, "We and our partners are working towards a diplomatic solution. Part of this process is a readiness on the part of Germany to agree to wider, stricter sanctions if Iran does not comply."

Germany is one of Iran's largest trading partners.

However, the next day, Merkel indicated in an interview with the Berliner Zeitung that Berlin would not impose more sanctions than are already in place, despite U.S. pressure. Washington has asked Germany and the European Union to enforce sanctions of their own against Iran.

But Merkel said, "The United Nations is the place where sanctions [against Iran] are negotiated."

The real story is not in Germany blunting American efforts. The real story to watch is Germany's relationship with Israel.

* EU Ignores Public, Expands Powers

 

European Languages spoken and % - (click to enlarge)

European leaders met in Lisbon, Portugal, on a balmy October day to thrash out differences over the EU Reform Treaty. Outside, 200,000 citizens demonstrated. They were protesting against the idea of EU citizens being denied any say in the process of the Union's agreeing to a revision of the much-touted European Constitution in its new guise as the EU Reform Treaty.

Yet again, the EU is showing a determination to impose its will and to ride roughshod over public opinion.

Though the Lisbon demonstration was the largest in the Portuguese capital for 20 years, it was ignored by the press. You simply did not hear about it.

That's a startling demonstration of the power that this European monolith, the EU, already possesses to control media and thus public opinion.

As Thomas Rupp, the coordinator of the European Referendum Campaign, observed of the EU leaders gathered in Lisbon, "They boasted that they have managed to get over an institutional crisis, but in fact they just increased the EU's democratic crisis by completely avoiding the citizens. And obviously you should not count too much on the mainstream media to do anything about it" (EU Observer, Oct. 23, 2007).

The list of regulations it now enforces on its 27 member nations, in many cases trumping those nations' own sovereign laws, currently runs to 90,000 pages!

In the past, Ireland, France and the Netherlands have all, in principle, rejected the EU constitution via public referenda. The British government has been scared out of its wits by the prospect of testing the EU constitution via the same democratic method, knowing full well that polls indicate upward of 70 percent of the British people do not support it.

Thankfully, though it be late—far too late, voices both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly crying out in alarm over what is building in Europe.

Until recently, very few of the voices that have been sounding an alarm at the danger emerging via the undemocratic processes of the EU have been given equal airtime with the Europhiles. A number of the most strident of those voices over the years have been British—such keen observers as British political economist Rodney Atkinson, that great British patriot Norris McWhirter, authors Adrian Hilton, John Laughland, Bernard Connolly et al. Yet on the other side of the Atlantic, those analysts who clearly see what is happening in Europe today for what it is have been few and far between.

Brian Connell, who authored A Watcher on the Rhine back in 1957, attempted to warn Americans of the dangers they would face by endorsing the concept of a united Europe. More recently, the Washington Post's former London bureau chief T.R. Reid has become quite vocal in trying to educate Americans as to the new superpower that threatens U.S. dominance. His most comprehensive effort, the book The United States of Europe, was published in 2004.

But suddenly, a rash of commentary is coming from sources on both sides of the Atlantic decrying the manner in which this imperial European Union is forcing its will upon the European populace and even beyond. In the business world, the cowering of corporate giant Microsoft before the high and mighty European regulator has set alarm bells ringing among corporate moguls, as the prospect of the EU becoming the chief regulator of global business starts to sink in.

The EU Reform Treaty summit in October ran true to form. As the Economist mused, "Eurocrats like to talk about building Europe 'step by step.' Critics accuse Brussels of slicing away national sovereignty, treaty by treaty" (Oct. 25, 2007).

What is the real impact of this latest in the series of treaties that has governed the evolution of this European monolith to this point? The Reform Treaty, to be signed on December 13, 2007, in Lisbon, is but the clone of the rejected European Constitution, under a different name, with some revolutionary clauses of imperialistic nature strongly endorsed.

The Reform Treaty creates the new post of president of the European Council, who will host four or more EU summits per year. In addition, the treaty allows for the appointment of an EU foreign minister to represent the Union in its international relations with the rest of the global community and to represent the EU within international entities such as the United Nations.

The treaty also allows for nations desiring greater defense cooperation to proceed to pursue just that. Added to these changes is a shrinkage of the upper layer of political leaders within the European Commission, currently headed by José Manuel Barroso.

What does all this mean to citizens of EU member states?

It means that, without being consulted at all, they will become part of an imperial Europe. Their most powerful representation on the international scene will not be from the foreign ministries and diplomatic corps of their national governments, but through a separate EU foreign office, backed by a separate EU corps of diplomats, who may counter any foreign-policy initiatives that any EU member nation may wish to promulgate individually. This reflects a clear policy of imperialism crafted by EU technocrats.

Europe's past as an imperial power is one of the great blots on the history of man. It is one of bloodletting on a grand scale, consummating in the 20th century in the two most terrible wars of all. How is it then that the world just stands by and lets the prospect of more such horror to evolve before its eyes with barely a whimper of concern?

Last October, the European Council on Foreign Relations divulged results of a survey that ought to alarm every keen watcher of European developments.

Commenting on the results of that survey, EU Observer noted, "Citizens worldwide prefer 'soft power' in international affairs rather than military might, and the EU appears to be the political actor whose role is most respected, a new survey suggests.

"In the poll, released by new think tank, the European Council on Foreign Relations, more than one third of the respondents (35 percent) said they see an increased EU power as a central element needed to develop a better world" (Oct. 25, 2007).

Yet there is a paradox here, as the think tank's executive director, Mark Leonard, and board member Ivan Krastev commented: "It is striking that a continent with a military budget second only to the United States, and the biggest number of peace-keeping forces serving in the world, seems to be perceived as a non-military power".

Led by Germany, in tandem with France and influenced by Rome, this European conglomerate has grown from a Common Market, via economic imperialism, into a political European Union about to elect its own president and appoint its own foreign service. Economic imperialism has morphed into political imperialism.

How will the economic and political interests of this new "United States of Europe" be secured and defended? It has the capacity to support a combined military force with a collective defense budget second only to that other United States, the United States of America! And its combined forces are deployed across more theaters of conflict, in "peace-keeping" mode, than any other international entity! Given some attention to organization—a natural gift of our German friends—that combined military force is already capable of defending the interests of the EU empire, more particularly so now that France has a president willing to share that nation's nuclear capability with its German partner. This situation is, in fact, destined to have far graver consequences upon the U.S. and its allies than Iraq and Afghanistan combined are presently having. In fact, it is destined to soon overtake the U.S. and its English-speaking allies in terms of economic impact, political influence and military might—believe it or not!

Yes, the more astute pundits are now emerging to decry the threats posed by imperialist Europe. But it's all too late. The barn door has been left open by the victors in the last European-instigated war; the horse has bolted and there's no stopping it.

* Europe

 

Recent events reveal Europe's inexorable rise toward superpower status.

The European Defense Agency (EDA) received a massive budget increase as plans to enlarge Europe's power militarily and strategically are pushed forward. The EDA is in charge of forging Europe's fractured militaries into a cohesive whole; any money spent on the EDA, therefore, will strengthen Europe's armed services. The EDA's annual budget grew nearly 50 percent to €32 million (us$47 million).

Spending on Europe's Galileo project also increased by €2.4 billion in November 2007. Europe knows a satellite navigation system is a strategic imperative for 21st-century warfare.

The European Union also took several steps toward unification. One important step was the signing of the Treaty of Lisbon, a badly disguised version of the failed EU constitution, by the 27 EU heads of state on December 13, 2007. Now all that remains for this treaty to become binding is for the governments of the member nations to ratify it. In a revealing display of Britain's increasing estrangement from Europe, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown missed the signing ceremony, ostensibly because of a scheduling conflict, signing the treaty later in the day, away from the glare of the media spotlight. Facing a British public strongly resistant to the treaty, which Mr. Brown has admitted is a "constitution" or "semi-constitution," the British prime minister's inelegant move may have been a half-hearted gesture at recognizing the need to at least partially placate the views of his electorate.

Another victory for European integration came as Poland, long a pariah in the EU, enthusiastically came on board with the rest of Europe. Poland's new prime minister, Donald Tusk, is far more pro-Europe than his predecessor was. Without Poland reaching for the brake, European integration will run a little smoother. Poland now gets along famously with the EU, and in particular, Germany. For anyone familiar with the propensity Germans have for wanting control of Poland, this is an ominous development.

Europe's next opportunity to test its strength on the world's stage is rapidly approaching. Tension is mounting over the possibility of independence for Kosovo, a southern province of Serbia. Kosovo wants independence; Serbia says no. Europe, especially Germany, is ready to back Kosovo. The Russians, however, are on the side of the Serbs. The UN deadline for solving the problem, Dec. 10, 2007, passed with no progress having been made. Kosovo says it absolutely will declare independence—Serbia, that it will never recognize it. The battle lines are drawn. The ethnic, religious and political cocktail of the Balkans may soon burst into flames once again.

Europe makes no secret of its desire to control Kosovo.

"It will be a state entity, which will continue to be under broad international observation," said German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger. "The NATO troops will continue to be deployed there. A further international presence of the UN and, consequently, of EU, will be ensured."

Forward to Next Chapter/ . . .
Back to Table of Contents/ . . .

In the public interest.