Our Dying World

Our Dying World

Index Open

Every continent on Earth is being besieged with serious and potentially catastrophic environmental disasters. Why?

One of this summer’s hottest topics has been global warming. Politicians have grafted the subject into their political platforms; the voices of the scientists declaring the advent of global warming are penetrating more minds; the mainstream media are paying the subject a lot of attention. But as the media and politicians weigh in on the subject, it has become highly contested and highly politicized.

Many politicians are probably genuinely concerned about the issue, but how many are simply using it as a political weapon to maim the opposition? Many scientists firmly believe in the detrimental impact global warming is having on our environment; other scientists don’t. How serious is the problem? Politics has clouded the issue so much that answering this question has become incredibly difficult.

But there is clarity buried in the confusion about global warming and its impact on the environment if we are prepared to set aside politics and accept two facts. Fact one: Planet-wide environmental degradation is occurring and is a serious concern. Fact two: Global warming is not the root cause of this environmental degradation. Global warming (whether it is real or not) is a relatively inconsequential component of a much more dire issue—as this article will show.

First, look at the extent of global environmental degradation by simply reviewing the natural catastrophes occurring around the world. Whether they are caused by global warming or not, each of these crises is real and unfolding right now.

Look at Europe. This summer, Britain and much of continental Europe were wracked with devastatingly hot and dry conditions that ruined large swaths of cropland. British gardeners were warned in September that the English country garden will be a memory of the past within 20 years. In Italy, melting glaciers mean that skiers will soon have to climb beyond 2,000 meters to find snow to ski on. Even as far north as Greenland, temperatures have been so warm that barley is beginning to grow in the normally ice-clad nation—an occurrence not seen since the Middle Ages.

Further south, in the Mediterranean Sea, water temperatures have warmed to the point where swarms of jellyfish are plaguing tourists along the coast of Spain. In the famous water city of Venice, rising water levels are spurring urgent meetings on how to prevent the city from being overrun by water. Such meetings are also being held by worried engineers in the Netherlands.

Similar problems are seizing Africa, already the poorest continent on Earth. As the Independent reported in September, “Natural disasters, extreme weather, floods and droughts have always been common in southern Africa, but the severity of the wet and dry periods is intensifying with disastrous results” (September 15). Massive droughts in the Horn of Africa this year have killed much of the region’s wildlife and disrupted the migration patterns of animals and birds.

In Kenya, soaring temperatures and drought conditions are driving herdsmen to war over the few remaining cattle that are surviving the drought. On the other hand, extreme drought in Ethiopia was recently broken by torrential rain and devastating flooding that caused river banks to overflow, drowning more than 800 people.

North America is suffering the same. “In Alaska there has been millions of dollars of damage to buildings and roads caused by melting permafrost. The region has been blighted by the world’s largest outbreak of spruce bark beetles, normally confined to warmer climes. Rising sea levels have forced the relocation of Inuit villages, and polar bears have been drowning because of shrinking sea ice. The caribou population is in steep decline due to earlier spring and the west is suffering one of the worst droughts for 500 years” (ibid.).

More than 60 percent of the United States is suffering drought or abnormally dry conditions. But other areas have had devastating floods that have caused millions of dollars in damage. In Hawaii, the island’s famous coral reefs are being destroyed by large-scale bleaching.

South America is walking the same path. “Last year, the largest river in the world [the Amazon] was reduced to a trickle by an unprecedented drought. This year sand banks have already appeared in the deltas of the Amazon and fears are rising that a drought cycle that was previously measured in multiples of decades may now be an annual event” (ibid.). Unusually dry conditions are disturbing the fragile ecosystem of the Amazon forest, driving animals and plants to extinction and ruining the health of the forest known as the lungs of the Earth.

“In the Peruvian Andes the alpacas that have for centuries provided indigenous farmers with a means of survival have died in cold snaps where temperatures plummeted to -30°C. In the summer, melted glaciers revealed rock faces burnt red by their first contact with direct sunlight” (ibid.).

Then there is Australasia. Large sections of Australia’s traditionally productive agricultural regions are drying up. Farmers are being forced to buy water and truck it to their farms. The drought is rampant from one end of the nation to the other. In some states, it is the worst in decades; in others, such as Western Australia, it is the worst on record.

In New Zealand, floods, snowstorms and harsh weather caused millions of dollars in damage this past winter.

Then there is Asia, where “some of the most visible effects of climate change” are evident. “From the frozen wastes of Afghanistan, where the river bed in Kabul has become a dry rubbish tip, to south India, where thousands of farmers have killed themselves after successive years of drought wrecked their crops …” (ibid.). Potentially the worst damage is occurring in the Himalayas, where glaciers are melting. “Several glacier lakes have already burst in Nepal and Bhutan. The disappearance of the glaciers could dry up major rivers as far away as China, India and Vietnam” (ibid.).

Serious and alarming environmental crises are impacting every corner of the Earth. Weather disasters and their resulting crises are killing hundreds of thousands, even millions of people, and wreaking billions of dollars’ worth of damage.

It is impossible to deny that planet Earth is being ransacked by deadly and potentially catastrophic environmental disasters.

The second fact we must understand is that global warming is not the fundamental cause of all these environmental crises. In reality, this issue is blinding the media, scientists and politicians to the real cause of these environmental and agricultural catastrophes. Though global warming is quite possibly one of a number of physical causes of environmental disaster, it is not the primary and fundamental cause of these problems.

The root cause of global environmental disasters lies in mankind’s flagrant rejection of the physical laws governing environmental and agricultural management. Added to this, the weather and environmental curses besieging our globe are a result of mankind’s widespread disobedience to God’s spiritual law.

Our planet, together with all of its physical components and processes, is governed by physical laws. Weather patterns, animal reproduction, agriculture, forests, oceans—all of these things are governed by physical laws, the laws of chemistry, physics, biology and so on.

All of these are laws were designed by God when He created this Earth (Genesis 1).

God was the mastermind behind the successful and healthy operation of planet Earth. He was the author of its physical laws. In the first chapter of Romans, the Apostle Paul teaches that God’s creative abilities are evident in the magnificent and intricate physical creation that is this Earth (Romans 1:19-20). Environmental blessings and success come from obedience and a willingness to live within and respect the physical laws that govern our planet.

The basis of these laws is outlined in God’s instruction manual for operating on His planet. In the Bible God provides basic health laws and rules of hygiene. There are environmental laws—how to care for fruit trees, when to plant crops, when to rest the land, even laws designed to protect nesting birds. There are laws about property and land rights. Added to all these laws about managing the environment and agriculture are laws about economics. God revealed a definite and practical economic system.

The environmental devastation ransacking this plant is a direct result of these physical laws being broken!

Mankind today thinks it can get away with ecological law-breaking. Rapid technological development and intellectual advancement has caused men to believe they can break physical laws without penalty. We have been breaking the laws that govern the environment and agriculture for so long that we think there are no penalties—but there are. It has taken years, even hundreds of years, but mankind’s history of raping the environment and abusing the physical laws that govern its stable and healthy existence is catching up with us.

That’s what these global environmental crises are: the results of our law-breaking catching up with us!

Beyond suffering the consequences for our poor environmental and agricultural management and rejection of the physical laws that govern this Earth, the environmental catastrophes plaguing mankind are also curses brought upon us as a result of our individual and national sins. It is a godly principle that men are blessed for obedience and cursed for disobedience (Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28). Read these chapters and see the environmental and agricultural destruction that God specifically tells us are curses for disobedience. Devastated crops and infertile land as a result of climate change are curses for disobedience (Deuteronomy 28:16-18). Debilitating temperatures and rampant drought are also curses (verses 23-24).

The root cause of the widespread environmental devastation surging across this plant is not global warming. The root cause is mankind’s widespread rejection of the physical laws governing the physical Earth, and of the spiritual law of God. Therefore, the fundamental solution to our natural disasters does not lie in managing carbon dioxide emissions or driving our cars less. The solution to these crises lies in mankind respecting the physical laws that govern this planet—and, far more importantly, repenting before God and embracing the spiritual laws designed by God to bring health and happiness into our lives.

Turkey: Target of Catholic EU Patriotism

Turkey: Target of Catholic EU Patriotism


As if Pope Benedict xvi’s recent comments about militant Islam hadn’t stirred up enough anger from Muslims, many of Europe’s leaders seem determined to follow in his footsteps. As Muslims around the world have hurled criticism and threats against Europe’s pontifical leader, European Union politicians and religious leaders have rallied to the popes defense. One manifestation of this defense is their demand that Islamic Turkey be immediately excluded from possible EU membership.

On September 22, Edmund Stoiber, Germany’s Bavarian premier and key partner of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, called for the EU to halt accession talks with Turkey due to what he felt was Turkish leaders being too “aggressive” in criticizing Pope Benedict’s speech given one week earlier in Bavaria (Journal of Turkish Weekly,September 23). During that lecture, the pope quoted a 14th-century text which described the religion of Muhammad as “evil and inhuman.”

Joining the general Muslim uproar, some Turkish politicians compared Benedict xvi to Hitler or Mussolini. The Turkish media have been very vocal in saying that the pope’s comments against Islam undermined the harmony between civilizations (ibid.).

Stoiber is one European politician, already strongly against Turkey’s accession to the EU, who is using the current situation to drive the point home. “Turkey is not now in the condition to enter the European Union,” said Stoiber. “Turkey is not Europe and does not belong in Europe.”

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the leader of 4 million Catholics in England and Wales, echoed the sentiment that Turkey is not culturally part of Europe. “There may be another view that the mixture of cultures is not a good idea” (Times Online, September 21). The former archbishop of Canterbury, Lord George Carey, concurred, saying, “Surely a European community has to be more than economic? It has to have common values and so on.”

According to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Sedat Laciner, head of the Ankara-based International Strategic Research Organization (usak), “many politicians and spiritual leaders in the EU countries think in this way” (Journal of Turkish Weekly, op. cit.).

Laciner points out that, besides Turkey, several other dominantly Muslim European nations are also excluded from the EU. The primary cause he points to is religious discrimination. “[B]oth Mr. Stoiber and the pope are German and this is not accidental. There is a strong Christian anti-Turkish root in Germany,” says Dr. Nilgun Gulcan, another usak member. “They are after Christianity’s leader[ship] again” (ibid.).

“Europe is at a very critical stage,” warns Laciner, “as it was before the Second World War. Now the Turkish and Muslim peoples … can understand better what the European Jewish people felt before and during the Second World War.”

The European Union certainly is at a very critical stage—a turning point. The European Union is moving from a seemingly secular economic and political union, to one united and driven by religion. The wave of support the pope is receiving clearly demonstrates the all-encompassing transnational influence the pope exerts. Time will soon show just how much of a grip the Vatican has on the EU.

Britain’s View of Terrorism Aligns With Extremists

Britain’s View of Terrorism Aligns With Extremists


The toxic worldview of Islamist extremists is largely shaping Britain’s view of itself.

Who is to blame for Islamist terrorism? The logical answer is Islamists. The common answer from prominent Muslims, however, is to blame the West.

In this view, for example, the pope’s use of a quotation that was critical of Islam was the “root cause” of street riots, churches being firebombed, a nun’s murder, Islamic declarations of intent to annihilate the West, and death threats against the pope.

Sadly, Britain has largely accepted this twisted view.

The ridiculous idea at the core of political correctness is that a minority culture is always a victim of the majority culture—that even its crimes can be understood as having been provoked by the oppressions of the majority. During the cultural revolution of the 20th century’s later decades, Britain swallowed that toxic brew in lethal doses.

This fact was on display after the 7/7 attack. On July 7, 2005, coordinated suicide bombings killed 52 Londoners on their morning commute. British officials read from the politically correct script, blaming not Islamism, but Islamophobia. London’s mayor, Ken Livingstone, after initially condemning the attacks, within a couple weeks was saying that the true fault lay in “80 years of Western intervention into predominantly Arab lands because of the Western need for oil.”

Yes—in Britain, one of the most widely used receptacles for pitching blame for Islamism is the war in Iraq. If only Tony Blair wasn’t George W. Bush’s poodle, 7/7 never would have happened, in other words.

The Church of England—deeply infected by liberalism and hatred of the West—put forward its recommendation for protecting Britain from another 7/7: Win the hearts of militant Muslims by prostrating before them. A group of Anglican bishops, in a September 2005 report, proposed that Britain apologize for the Iraq war. Since they didn’t expect Downing Street to do so, they agreed that the church itself should make a “public act of repentance” before Muslim leaders.

It is one thing for Islamists to blame Britain for Muslim rage—it is another for Britain to blame itself. Self-hatred is a sickness, and Britain has a raging case of it.

Case in point: The British establishment—including the media, particularly the bbc—is continually serving the British people a potent concoction with two noxious ingredients.

First is an absence of facts regarding the dangers of violent Islamism in Britain and abroad; much is underreported, and what is reported is often stripped of its Islamist context. For example, Prime Minister Blair’s speeches this past summer outlining his war strategy and explaining the seriousness of the danger posed by Islamism were barely reported in the British press. Daniel Johnson wrote in the New York SunSeptember 7, “If neither his officials, nor his political allies, nor the media are listening, how can he expect the public to hear? His message about the existential threat posed by Islamist ideology has been drowned by the din of speculation about his future.” Blair has been vilified even for what mild attempts he has taken to address the problem. Soon he will be run out of office for them. The nation is interested in other things.

Second is the incessant peddling of the message that Britain is somehow to blame for Islamist attacks on itself. Why? Because it is killing Iraqis to take their oil; because it oppresses British Muslims; because it supports the U.S., which supports Israel, which is the cause of all the world’s problems. These themes occur in various forms in print and on television ad nauseam.

A chilling truth the establishment must face is that its party line, on many specific points of doctrine, falls in lockstep with the radical Muslim view. Another way to look at it is that the Muslim worldview is measurably shaping Britain’s worldview.

Part of the reason for that is the newsmakers’ fear of provoking Muslims and stirring up violence—which in itself shows there is a serious problem that should be dealt with rather than papered over. (After all, what better proves that Islam is violent than the fact that anyone implying this is accused of provoking peaceful Muslims to become violent?) But the more insidious reason is that the leftist media and political personalities agree with many of the Muslim ideas: that the U.S. is imperialistic, that peace in the Middle East is contingent upon Israel moving somewhere else; that terrorism would stop if only coalition forces would pull out of Iraq. In fact, a majority of Britons believe these ideas. A YouGov poll conducted in June revealed that 65 percent of Britons consider Americans “vulgar,” and 58 percent see the U.S. as “an essentially imperial power, one that wants to dominate the world by one means or another.” A strong majority of Britons believe Israel used “disproportionate” force against Hezbollah in Lebanon. In these ways, the British people have more in common with Islamist extremists than with their own prime minister.

British leaders should be challenging the lies propagated by Muslims. Instead they publicize those lies—because they believe them.

As Bret Stephens wrote in the September 5 Wall Street Journal, “[W]hat really ought to terrify Britain’s leaders aren’t the conclusions that divide mainstream and Muslim Britain, but the premises that unite them. From the credence given to people like Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky, to the simplistic derision of the U.S. and the frenzied hatred of Israel, the two camps attend the same church and sing from the same hymnal.”

The irony is that, in purchasing the Islamist bill of goods regarding the evils of Western imperialism and so on, these opinion shapers are forced to overlook the evils of Islamist ideology—predominantly, that killing innocent people is a righteous act; not to mention its blatant contraventions of Western ideals such as women’s rights, monogamy and free speech.

In the end, whatever the reasons, the effect of the left’s sympathy with Islamism is the same: When people—Muslim, Christian, secularist or anything else—are endlessly flooded with such messages, they are bound eventually to have increased hostility, even rage, against the U.S. and Israel, as well as any British policy that aligns with them.

Iran-Venezuela Agree on Joint Oil Exploration

Iran-Venezuela Agree on Joint Oil Exploration


Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad signed 29 agreements with his Venezuelan counterpart during an official state visit to Venezuela on September 17-18. One of those agreements was a joint exploration deal for the Orinoco basin, which is thought to contain 230 billion barrels of extra-heavy tar-like oil.

The official state visit and the agreements were intended to strengthen these two nations’ alliance to “drive forward both revolutions,” according to Hugo Chavez.

Venezuela’s state-owned oil company, pdvsa, and Iran’s Petropars will undertake the Orinoco basin project.

With oil prices so high, any increase in Venezuela’s oil production will give it considerable influence in a region largely ignored by the United States. It would obviously take some time for the project to become profitable, but Venezuela also wants to send a message to the U.S.

“We’ve teamed up to work and combat for a multi-polar world. This is a historic event,” said Mr. Chavez. What Chavez is saying isn’t anything new, but now he is backing up his words with action.

If the anticipated amounts of oil are confirmed in 2008, Venezuela could become the country with the greatest oil reserves in the world. Even if not, Venezuela’s continual support for Iran is a major irritant for the U.S. as it tries to internationally isolate Iran.

Chavez said Venezuela is “united now and forever with the Iranian revolution, which has proved to the world that it has become the fuel for revolution.”

The increased oil supply would energize Venezuela’s oil diplomacy, increasing the problems Venezuela is already causing for the U.S. in its own backyard. Chavezs support for Sandinista Daniel Ortega, which included giving Nicaragua 200,000 gallons of diesel, has helped launch Ortega to the forefront of Nicaragua’s presidential race. Ortega led the Sandinista National Liberation Front in a Communist revolt that overthrew U.S.-backed Anastasio Somoza in 1979.

Chavez may not be the threat to the U.S. he wishes to be yet, but he is certainly a thorn in its side—a thorn it can’t ignore for much longer. That the U.S. couldn’t block Venezuela’s deal with Iran, or effectively counter Chavez’s oil diplomacy in Nicaragua, may show that it’s too late for America to contain Chavez as he continues to build anti-American, anti-democratic alliances around the world.

Germans Reject Democracy, Want Change

Germans Reject Democracy, Want Change


Many discontented Germans want another form of government.

Today, Germany is king of Europe. Ever since Margaret Thatcher, former prime minister of Britain, said in 1995, “You have not anchored Germany to Europe; You have anchored Europe to a newly dominant, unified Germany,” Germany has further tightened its hold on the levers of European power.

Since 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell, uniting East and West Germany, the country has enjoyed a meteoric rise on the international stage. Today, its army and navy are deployed around the globe. Increasingly, the world is crying out for German leadership, and Germany is responding by once more flexing its muscles.

But those muscles are connected to an increasingly restless heart. In a strange paradox, while facing ongoing international and European success, Germans are more pessimistic than any other Europeans. Though the skies are bright for Germany’s future prospects, a pale of gloom hovers over the country today. Increasingly, as Deutsche Welle put it in a September 17 report, Germany sees the glass half empty.

The main complaint? Germans are tiring of democracy.

A report released by the German Statistics Office indicates only 38 percent of eastern Germans think democracy is good for Germany, down from 49 percent in 2000.

Increasingly, though, it is not only economically depressed eastern Germans who have become disaffected with democracy. Even the 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 number had slid to 71 percent.

The West would be naive to think that democracy is a German tradition. It is not. A survey of German history illuminates the fact that, except for its present period of democracy, Germans have preferred a strong-man government.

As Michael Demiashkevich writes in The National Mind: English, French, German, “Believing in the existence of two German souls … we are convinced one of these is ‘totalitarianism.’”

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. As journalist William Cook put it, when walking through a quaint town in the border region of Germany and Poland, “you can trace all the upheavals of the last century, from the Kaiser to Hitler, from East German Communism to the West German Bundesrepublik.”

An interesting question to consider is, if Germany had won World War ii, would its form of government have somehow changed from totalitarian to democratic? The answer from history is no. Democracy has always been imposed upon Germany from without. While Americans prefer a citizen government, Germans favor the rule of a strong man. Even today, a chancellor dominates their democracy.

Historically, unlike other countries, anytime Germany has become disaffected with its current situation, it has become very dangerous. As author Luigi Barzini wrote in The Europeans, “It is when they [Germans] are disconcerted and fretful that they can be most dangerous.”

Germany follows a cycle of history: 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 the Weimar Republic (1919-1933). 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 ….”

Though today we see the same wrangling and disputing among political parties leading to a desire for change of democracy to something else, the memories of the atrocities of World War ii have until now mitigated the desire to change to another form of government. Simply put, Germans have been wary of themselves.

But with constant change in Berlin and no strong leader in sight, and with a fast-rising danger from Islamist extremists, Germans are beginning to get past this mental hang-up.

In the next phase of the national cycle, once disaffection has taken firm hold, as it has today, Germans begin to look for a savior. When the modern nation of Germany was founded in 1871, that savior was Bismarck. Hitler was another. After the war, Adenaeur was another. Each was sought and embraced by a public desperate for a strong man to right the German ship and make all the disorder go away.

Today, with discontent and chaos bubbling and boiling in Berlin, the German nation, by its disaffection with democracy, is showing a lack of confidence in its politicians to solve the problems. The spreading disaffection with democracy shows a German nation opening up to the idea of such a strong man.

Historically, once a strong man rises on the scene, Germany has a habit of providing him with absolute power. There are characteristics the German people look for in their leaders. Germans have preferred a strong leader like Bismarck or Hitler who dominates the domestic scene and who commands attention on the international stage. A man who can demonstrate German prestige and power traditionally is well received in Germany.

Also, this man has a European vision. While Bismarck sought to protect a newly unified Germany, he certainly had a pan-European vision. Without doubt, Hitler had a pan-European vision. 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: Ferdinand ii, 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. Friedrich Nietzsche wrote in Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, “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 has yet to rise—but one might be poised. When he arrives, the next, and second-to-last, phase of the national cycle will begin. 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 Adenaeur took the reigns of control after the war, Germans rallied to his vision for the country. In what many remarked was a miracle, Germany rose from the ashes of the war to great 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 Germany 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, Germany is most dangerous and cunning. In history, this stage can be compared to the Hitler years of 1933-1939 when symptoms of German belligerency were at their highest.

The final stage, then, is marked by war preparations and war itself, as Germany tries to bring Europe and the world under its heel. The last stage of this cycle is defeat at the hands of enemies, after which, at some point, the cycle begins again.

After Germany was defeated in World War ii, it was forced to adopt democracy. But that is not the German way! Forced into a democratic straitjacket, it immediately went to work applying an imperialist policy within Europe: By cunning, Germany has maneuvered its way to the top of the European Union. At its heart, Germany’s imperialist policy is an expansionist policy, which means Germany must dominate. And today, as former Prime Minister Thatcher said, Europe is anchored to Germany.

That is why, as Barzini wrote, “It is therefore 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 disaffection with democracy? Actually that trend aligns perfectly with its history and national cycle.

We can know where Germany is going next. Facing mounting international instability and growing dissatisfaction with the current disorder at home, Germany is ripe for the rise of another strong man.

Kofi Annan: Security Council Must Change

Kofi Annan: Security Council Must Change


Representatives of 118 under-developed countries—many of which are rabidly anti-American—used the September 1116 Non-Aligned Movement summit in Havana, Cuba, as a forum for anti-Israel and anti-American rhetoric and statements. Associated Press commented that “the top priority [at the summit] seemed to be balancing U.S. veto power on the UN Security Council” (September 17).

“The U.S. is turning the Security Council into a base for imposing its politics,” Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad complained. “Why should people live under the nuclear threat of the U.S.?”

Joining forces with such countries as Iran, North Korea and Cuba—no friends of the United States to be sure—Secretary General Kofi Annan endorsed the call for reform of the United Nation’s Security Council to reflect the changing world. On September 18 Annan told the heads of states:

As you know, the Security Council must reform—for the sake of the developing world, and for the sake of the United Nations itself. The perception of a narrow power base hanging on five countries is difficult to sustain and it risks leading to an erosion of the UN’s authority and legitimacy …. I have in the past described this as a democracy deficit. It must be corrected.

Annan purports that a more democratic Security Council will help solve UN problems, but it is woefully ignorant to claim adding new seats would improve the Council, when the Council can’t agree on issues such as Iran’s nuclear program with the five permanent and 10 elected members it already has. More members will only further cripple the UN’s ability to agree on resolutions and therefore will reduce its ability to respond to and resolve world crises. Even more ironic is that many of the developing nations that are crying out for more democratic representation in the Security Council are the same nations suppressing democracy in their own nations, such as Communist Cuba, where Annan spoke these words.

Fact is, despite rhetoric about the desire for increased “democracy” within the UN, such moves are merely a pretext for marginalizing the U.S.’s influence not just in the UN, but on the world scene. As the Trumpet wrote in May 2003, “The United Nations, an organization created largely by the U.S. to solicit the world’s help in containing dictators, [is] now being used by the world to contain the U.S.”