One year from now, in May of 2004, the European Union is set to expand from 15 member states to 25. Overnight, this will make Europe the world's biggest single market. It is already the world's greatest trading system, accounting for well over half of all the world's trade.

Yet in the latest Gulf War, Europe remained on the sidelines, impotent in the face of American power. A further loss of face was seeing one of its most significant members, the United Kingdom, standing side by side with the United States in a war many EU members opposed.

Some were supportive, though none except Britain was supportive enough to send troops. Aspiring EU member Poland sent a token force. Spain's prime minister was verbally supportive of the U.S./U.K. coalition, but the general population was so antiwar that he could not commit any forces to help the allied effort.

Certainly France was the most critical, leading an international chorus against the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, the three principal combatants invading Iraq. Almost all of Africa supported the French stance, as did most Third World nations around the world.

Although Germany and others were equally critical, France's role was highlighted as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, with the right to veto any decision. Paris made it clear that no military action by the United States and Britain against Iraq would ever be supported by France.

European opposition to the Anglo-American stance actually started in Germany during the German election a few months ago. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder made it clear that his government would never support American military action, nor would Germany allow itself to get involved. The then German justice minister even went so far as to compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler, a ridiculous comparison that showed the triumph of emotion over historical knowledge and understanding.

Once Germany came out against U.S. action, France followed. The EU was back to Franco-German domination of the club, as the two nations asserted their common purpose once again.

Franco-German axis

This all goes back a long way. We could trace the origins of this axis back over 1,000 years to the time of Charlemagne, crowned by the pope in A.D. 800. More recently, the special relationship between Berlin and Paris, which both countries value more highly than any relationship which either has with London or Washington, owes its origin to the tragic events of three major conflicts.

France and Germany fought each other three times in one lifetime: 1870, 1914-18 and 1939-45. In none of these conflicts did the French do very well militarily. In the last two they were saved from Germany by the combined might of the British Empire and the United States (more the former in World War I, the latter in World War II). Humiliating, to say the least.

After World War II, the French were determined that this would never happen again. Ditto the Germans, who had also seemingly had enough of wars and warlike leaders. Out of this dedication to end the endless conflicts of Europe arose the European Union, founded by the Treaty of Rome in 1957 (formerly called the European Economic Community).

The idea has spread, from the six original members in 1957 to the 25 who will be members 12 months after this is printed. And there are still more applicants.

During the last decade, the focus in Europe has changed from economic union to the concept of a full union along the lines of the United States. The desire is to create a superpower to rival the United States, thereby enabling Europe to halt what is often described as "American unilateralism."

But the reality is that the war against Baghdad only highlighted European impotence.

Daniel Hannan of the British Conservative newspaper Daily Telegraph headlined an article on this very theme: "Don't Laugh: The European Army Is on the March" (April 13, 2003).

"A false and dangerous idea is taking hold in Britain, especially among Euro-sceptics. It goes something like this. The Iraq war has wrecked plans for closer European integration. It has set Old Europeans against New ones, driven Britain back on the Anglo-Saxon world, reminded everyone of how much they rely on the Americans, and made the idea of a European Army seem laughable."

Most people who think this way were anti-European in the first place, as Hannan points out.

"The trouble is that Euro-fanatics are prone to the same impulse. For them, the war is the strongest demonstration to date of why Brussels [capital of the EU] needs a unified foreign policy. Never again, they say, should the EU be enfeebled by internal divisions. Never again should Europeans be forced to watch in frustration as the Americans give some tinpot dictator a good kicking...

Almost everyone I have spoken to in Brussels says the same thing: we need majority voting in foreign affairs, a unified diplomatic service, a harmonized defense policy."

Interestingly and ominously, Hannan continues with the following observation: "My point is not that either interpretation is right or wrong. Rather, it is that the Euro-zealots, unlike the sceptics, are in a position to act on their concerns. A poll...of the staff who work in European institutions showed that, by two to one, they wanted the British and French places on the United Nations Security Council to be replaced by a single EU seat."

This would only further isolate the United States and Britain from the rest of the world. Britain would have no independent voice, while the United States would lose the support of its only consistent ally on the Security Council. Europe would inevitably consistently vote against the United States as interests tend to diverge.

However, this point aside, note the following words: "The Euro-zealots, unlike the sceptics, are in a position to act on their concerns."

Could this be true? If it is, the implications for the United States could be serious.

Could America be #2?

Another article in the British Financial Times newspaper, which is also published in the United States, would suggest that European attempts at further integration won't succeed.

Michael Prowse wrote, "The European Union lacks the inclination and capacity to compete with the U.S. as a military power. Rather than worrying about this, it should bask in its own helplessness. It should enjoy its role as the cowboy's moody girlfriend. Like her, it can offer advice and moral support. But in the end it must bow to his judgment because it needs the protection that only his six-shooter can provide" (Financial Times, April 26, 2003).

Further in his article, Prowse adds, "Before rushing to endorse these arguments, consider how Americans would feel if the EU had opened up a big military lead. Would the U.S. happily accept the subordinate position of the 'soft' power? Would it be content to offer foreign aid and leave a French gendarme to police the world?"

Answering his own questions, Prowse continues, "I rather think not. Americans are fully aware that, pending the creation of a genuine world government, military power is a precondition for political sovereignty." Reminding readers that Europeans had no choice but to come under America's defense umbrella following the devastation of World War II and the Cold War threat from the Soviet Union, Prowse accurately points out that Russia is now Europe's friend and the Europeans are no longer fragmented. Additionally, it can also be said that Europeans are wealthy enough to fend for themselves.

Referring back to a previous article in the same newspaper by Harvard political scientist Andrew Moravcsik, Prowse quotes Moravcsik as claiming that Europe could rival America's military power by doubling its military spending, increasing it from 2 percent of GNP to 4 percent. Moravcsik, however, feels that even this would not make Europe a coherent united fighting force.

Answering this doubt, Prowse writes: "The notion that the EU could not create a credible military force is wishful thinking on the part of Americans, as is the curious idea that Europeans are uninterested in power. Would France have bothered to create its own nuclear deterrent if it cared nothing for military values? Would Britain have been so keen to fight in Iraq if it were a cuddly peacenik? Does Germany's history suggest a permanent aversion to the martial arts?...The argument that the EU would need to double defense spending to create a credible armed service is fallacious since there would be large economies of scale. Moreover, the creation of a unified military force would confer benefits as well as costs."

Back to Hannan in the Daily Telegraph: "'But it won't happen,' say British commentators. Really? Two weeks ago, almost unreported, the EU Army was deployed for the first time in Macedonia... It may well be that the European Army, like European taxation, European criminal jurisdiction and European monetary union, 'can't work.' But that won't stop it happening. Just watch."

Prophesied European Union

Bible prophecy shows that some European nations are going to come together to form a politico-military superpower to rival the United States. Revelation 17:12 talks of "ten kings [or leaders] who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast." The use of the term "one hour" suggests this union will not last long. It will, however, be around at Christ's return as verse 14 shows: "These will make war with the Lamb."

This new empire, described as a "beast" in the Scriptures, is a revival of the ancient "beast powers" that Daniel saw in his visions in Daniel chapters 2 and 7. In chapter 7 we read of four beasts, symbolizing the Babylonian, Persian, Greek and Roman Empires.

Daniel lived under the first two and, in revelation from God, understood the coming of the latter two. The last one was to continue to revive through the centuries, right down to our present time, when one more resurrection is prophesied to take place. In verses 7 to 9 of Daniel 7 we see that the resurrected Roman Empire will exist at the time of Christ's return. Revelation 17 shows us that 10 political entities will come together to form this union.

Just as the Roman Empire united much of Europe, so the revived Roman Empire will do the same. Although the EU as presently constituted is unlikely to form the new Roman Empire, no doubt the Treaty of Rome that committed the member states of the EU to build "an ever closer union" will directly or indirectly give birth to the new European superpower that the Bible predicts will soon be upon us.

The union, however, is likely to be short-lived. Daniel 2 prophesies that "the kingdom shall be divided; yet the strength of the iron shall be in it" (just as Rome, its predecessor, was a great militaristic empire). Continuing, the prophecy says that "the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly fragile...They [the leaders and peoples of this union] will not adhere to one another, just as iron does not mix with clay" (Daniel 2:42-43).

Note that this union, still to be achieved, leads directly into the Kingdom of God (verse 44): "And in the days of these [10] kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed."

It would seem from these prophecies that both the "Euro-sceptics" and the "Euro-fanatics" are correct. The push for a full European Union, in every sense of the term, will succeed, but it will not last a long time. It is also likely that some of the countries presently in the European Union will not participate in the military and political union. Disillusionment with the European Union in Britain, for example, is greater as a result of lack of support on Iraq.

The European Union has come a long way in recent years. The euro has rapidly become a viable alternative trading currency to the American dollar. As any world traveler will quickly notice, it is already more sought after in some countries than the greenback. New nations are set to join the European Union. Others have been told they do not yet meet the qualifications for entry, but that has not discouraged them—rather, they are determinedly changing to meet the criteria for membership in this exclusive club.

France and Germany held an unprecedented joint session of their national legislatures, joint cabinet meetings and are now talking of joint citizenship. On Iraq, they had a joint foreign policy.

Now the European Army is in Macedonia.

A further warning of what is to come shared the page with Daniel Hannan. Illustrated by a wide photograph of a German military force, the article was headlined: "Schroeder to End Conscription in Push for EU Rapid Reaction Force" (Daily Telegraph, April 13, 2003), an attempt to copy the more efficient American and British professional military machines.

Highlighted were the words: "The rift over Iraq has prompted Paris and Berlin to redouble their efforts."—WNP