With Nato’s bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade last month, Sino-American relations seemed to have come full circle. As one journalist noted, if a space traveler returned to earth after 30 years, he would be excused for thinking nothing had changed. Communist China still hates the United States.
There would, however, be one notable difference. Thirty years ago, China was an isolated, poverty-stricken, backward nation that hated America. Today, it is an increasingly modern, prosperous nation that is armed to the teeth—thanks, in large part, to America’s policy on China.
This is the story of how America created a monster—and why.
As founding father of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Mao Tsetung’s reign of terror began in 1949 when he overthrew Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government, forcing it to flee to the island of Taiwan. (Chiang Kai-shek, while on Taiwan, insisted that his government was the real China and vowed to return to the mainland eventually.) Mao “unified” China under communism after butchering well over 20 million dissenters, earning him the dubious distinction of being the greatest mass murderer this century. In the Korean War, Mao sacrificed another one million Chinese lives, fighting against the United States and South Korea.
Post-World War II America rejected Mao’s Communist dictatorship. The U.S. recognized Taiwan as the capital of China, not Beijing. So did the international community. Taiwan had a seat in the United Nations—Beijing did not.
All that changed during the Nixon administration. At that time, the United States and Communist China both viewed the Soviet Union as their number-one enemy. Thus, one common enemy brought together a rather unlikely alliance.
Allied with Communist China, the U.S. could counterweigh the Soviet threat in East Asia. (They already had firm resistance on the West side of the Soviets with the nato alliance.) Establishing ties with Beijing, however, would not come without price.
In July 1971, Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, secretly met with Chinese leaders in Beijing. He assured them that the Nixon administration would not support Taiwan’s independence.
Three months after that meeting, the PRC was admitted into the United Nations. Taiwan lost its seat despite vigorous opposition from many American officials, including U.S. ambassador to the UN, George Bush.
The following year, in 1972, Nixon himself flew to China for more talks. The visit resulted in the carefully worded Shanghai Communique, which referred to “all Chinese on either side” being for one China—not an independent Taiwan. It was America’s first official declaration that the PRC had, in effect, won the Chinese civil war. Thus, the groundwork for Sino-American relations was laid on a one-China policy, which was decidedly pro-Communist.
After Mao’s death in 1976, his successor, Deng Xiaoping, worked to establish diplomatic relations with anyone willing to help China modernize and prosper economically. China thirsted for American technology, Western education and free trade. America was more than willing to quench their thirst.
Jimmy Carter’s administration was the first to formalize diplomatic relations with China in 1978. He was the first American president to extend most-favored-nation trade status (mfn) to China, eliminating high tariffs on Chinese exports. Carter also initiated a student-exchange program, admitting Chinese students into American universities, and vice versa. He formalized joint intelligence operations between the U.S. and China, allowing both nations to closely watch their mutual enemy. And like Nixon, Carter acknowledged that Taiwan was part of Communist China.
In all of these developments, America was willing to pay a big price to maintain and strengthen the anti-Soviet bloc in Asia. mfn status led to a generous trade surplus for China and helped turn its economy around. The student-exchange program allowed waves of Chinese students to enter American schools, whereas Beijing by comparison only allowed a handful of Americans into China. (Most of the more than 80,000 Chinese who transferred to American schools during the 1980s pursued degrees heavily concentrated in the fields of science and technology.) As for “joint” intelligence
operations, the phrase is a little misleading because at that time China had no intelligence operation. Under Carter’s proposal, however, both nations could monitor Soviet movement, using American intelligence and China’s strategic location. China could not have asked for a better arrangement. They could now keep a watchful eye on the Soviet Union and on how America used its sophisticated information-gathering equipment.
There were some by this point who were quite critical of what they considered a “conciliatory” China policy. Malcolm Toon, former American ambassador to Moscow, said in 1980, “It does seem to me that far down the road, a China armed to the teeth, as she intends to be, with a fairly strong economy, probably is not going to be very benign in her attitude toward the United States, because they are against the sort of things we stand for.”
Gene Hogberg, writing for The Good News in 1978, said China was exploiting America’s generosity in order to become a “genuine world power” by the year 2000.
To most, however, close relations with Beijing was a good thing. America needed to keep the Soviet threat hemmed in. Besides, how can you ignore one fourth of the world’s population?
Taiwan was a touchier subject. Many politicians, especially on Capitol Hill, were upset over America’s betrayal of Taiwan. Thus, in 1979, despite President Carter’s objection, a bipartisan coalition in Washington legislated the Taiwan Relations Act. It allowed the U.S. to supply Taiwan with enough arms to defend itself. It even allowed for U.S. intervention in case Taiwan was attacked. The United States may have recognized Beijing, but Congress did not want to forget Taiwan.
Beijing angrily said the act breached promises made by previous administrations. It would not be the last time controversy swirled around Taiwan.
During the 1980s, trade, technology and Taiwan continued to top the list of what China wanted in return for counter-balancing the Soviet threat for America. In 1983, President Reagan lifted the ban on many technological exports considered “dual use”—that which could be used for civilian or military purposes. The following year, he admitted China into the Foreign Military Sales program, allowing China to purchase American weapons on a line of U.S. credit.
As for Taiwan, in 1982, Reagan agreed to set a limit on their arms shipment. Fortunately for them, Reagan made it a flexible “limit.” It could fluctuate depending on the rate of China’s build-up. Reagan had always sympathized with Taiwan because of its democratic reforms and excellent trade relation with America. While continuing in the steps of previous administrations concerning Beijing, he also intended to abide by the Taiwan Relations Act. In dealing arms to both China and Taiwan, he made sure Taiwan always had enough to successfully defend itself.
It is also worth noting that during this time, America itself was in the midst of the largest, most modern arms build-up in history. By comparison, it dwarfed China’s build-up (and Taiwan’s). That tremendous advantage, along with strategic trade policies,
enabled America to balance power in regional hot spots according to U.S. interests. During the 1980s, it was hard to imagine any nation—let alone China, a nation that in many respects was still backward and in desperate need of modernization—ever challenging U.S. superiority.
But while China might have been puny compared to America, in Southeast Asia it was starting to make its presence known. Years of stockpiling conventional weapons enabled them to become the world’s most active low-cost arms supplier ($8.7 billion in weapons exports from 1980 to 1987). And what worried America was who they were supplying—mostly nations in the Middle East like Iran and Iraq. That posed a threat to U.S. interests.
There were also signs during the 1980s that hostile relations between the Russians and Chinese were beginning to subside. For decades, this had been one of America’s worst nightmares—that Communist China would one day ally itself with the Soviet Union.
And in America, during that time, Larry Wu-Tai Chin was convicted of espionage. A cia insider, Larry had been spying for Beijing since the Korean War.
All these events were but a foreshadow of much worse to come after the epochal shifts to occur between 1989 and 1991.
Having served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and as head of the U.S. liaison office in Beijing during the 1970s (not to mention as vice president for eight years during the 1980s), George Bush began his presidency in 1989 confident he could strengthen ties with Beijing.
During Bush’s first foreign trip, he stopped in Beijing to see his “old friend,” Deng Xiaoping.
Three months later, Mikhail Gorbachev visited Beijing, effectively ending the strain between Sino-Soviet relations.
Simultaneous with Gorbachev’s visit, pro-democracy rallies were gathering momentum in major Chinese cities. The situation boiled over on June 3-4. Westerners watched in shock as television cameras captured horrific video showing Chinese tanks squashing student demonstrators in Tiananmen Square. The students had constructed a replica of the Statue of Liberty, one of America’s foremost symbols of freedom and democracy. The People’s Liberation Army (pla) murdered hundreds, perhaps thousands, in the massacre. An exact count is unknown because the Communists are said to have piled up the dead demonstrators, doused the pile with gasoline, and torched it to destroy the evidence.
The Tiananmen images outraged the American public. They had been led to believe for the past decade and a half that China was improving its human rights record. (Time magazine even named Deng Xiaoping its Man of the Year in 1985.) Its economic reform meant China was becoming more like America, people thought. The Soviet Union, on the other hand, was the enemy. When the dust settled from the events of 1989, however, Americans awakened to see the Soviet Union crumbling and the People’s Republic of China the same old totalitarian regime it had been the past four decades—only more modern and with a burgeoning economy.
These stark realities had many people questioning why we had developed such close relations with China in the first place.
America’s China policy soon after Tiananmen was influenced more by public outrage than it was by President Bush. At least four changes in America’s policy resulted from the ugly incident: 1) Ban on high-level contacts between U.S. and China; 2) strict trade sanctions; 3) U.S.-led freeze on international loans for China; and 4) ban on military contacts. Most of these restrictions, however, barely outlasted public outrage.
China was quietly approved for most-favored-nation status shortly after the massacre. And within weeks, Bush lifted the ban on high-level contacts when he secretly sent his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, and the deputy secretary of state, Lawrence Eagleburger, to Beijing for talks. The press did not discover the July meeting until December that year, after Bush had sent them both to Beijing again trying to prevent relations from deteriorating.
Bush also relaxed trade sanctions within weeks of the massacre. He approved the sale of four Boeing jet engines in July, allowed Chinese officials to go back to work at the Grumman plant in Long Island (a project designed to upgrade China’s aging air force) in October, and approved the export of two Hughes Aircraft satellites to China in December.
As for the international loan freeze, Bush opened the door for that to resume six months after Tiananmen. In less than three years, Beijing had the same line of credit it had before Tiananmen.
While major fault lines shifted in 1989 to forever alter the course of international relations, President Bush seemed to resist change. Others were far more concerned about what these realities meant for Sino-American relations. For that reason, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee summoned Lawrence Eagleburger for testimony on February 7, 1990. Eagleburger admitted that the dramatic reforms occurring in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union had “altered the strategic scene.” But, while Soviet-American relations had been altered, relations with China had not, he said.
That may have been true. The question is, however, why? If China had a pitiful human rights record and the Soviet threat was gone, why continue such close relations? According to Eagleburger, because of the “proliferation of missiles and nuclear weapons, chemical weapons proliferation and environmental pollution.” James Mann, in his 1998 book About Face, succinctly summarized what this testimony meant concerning America’s new China policy. “China was now important to the United States not because of the help it could provide (against the Soviet Union), but because of the potential harm it might do (by exporting missiles and nuclear technology).” In other words, before we needed China to counterweigh the Soviets; now we needed close relations so they would not proliferate dangerous weapons.
Not all politicians agreed with this policy revision. In fact, the Tiananmen massacre generated impassioned debate in Washington. It became a pivotal campaign issue. Democrats scathingly rebuked the president for being soft on China. Most of them wanted heavy restrictions to accompany China’s most-favored-nation status. They wanted China’s mfn renewed each year only if Beijing showed real signs of improving their human rights record.
One of Bush’s foremost critics was Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton. In a 1991 speech, Clinton excoriated Bush for coddling China “despite its continuing crackdown on democratic reform, its brutal subjugation of Tibet, its irresponsible export of nuclear and missile technology, its support for the homicidal Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and its abusive trade practices.” A year later, Clinton said Bush’s refusal to apply certain restrictions to China’s mfn status was “unconscionable.”
This verbal diatribe continued throughout the campaign.
It’s important to understand the forces at work when the cold war ended. With the Soviet threat gone, the United States slashed the Pentagon’s defense spending. That left the defense industry looking for new customers. Meanwhile, by 1993, China had the fastest-growing economy in the world. It was pocketing an annual trade surplus of $15 billion from the United States. It had tripled its defense spending over pre-cold war levels. Above all, it was still intent on becoming a legitimate world power by century’s end. And when the Gulf War broke out in 1991, China watched closely, seeing how far it still had to go to modernize.
Enter the Clinton administration, whose campaign slogan had been, “It’s the economy, stupid.”
After being sworn into office in January 1993, President Clinton set out to toughen up on China. In May 1993, he issued an executive order which connected China’s trade benefits to human rights. China would have to meet certain obligations each year before its most-favored-nation status could be renewed.
Three months later, Clinton slapped sanctions on China for shipping M-11 missile parts to Pakistan. This restricted China from importing certain kinds of “dual use” technology, like high-speed computers and satellites.
Nine months after being sworn in, however, Clinton’s knees buckled under pressure from big business, including the defense industry, which was anxious to burst into China’s incredible market of 1.2 billion people. In a stunning reversal, Clinton scrapped his campaign rhetoric. He called mfn restrictions “outdated,” insisting the only way to encourage China to improve human rights and to stop shipping conventional weapons to rogue states was to strengthen diplomatic ties further. His new initiative eventually became known as a “policy of engagement”—a “strategic partnership.”
You probably remember stories from a few years back about the post-cold-war proliferation of dangerous weapons. When the Soviet states disbanded, scores of nuclear warheads were found missing. Russian scientists and physicists lost their jobs. Reports surfaced that some left their country to help rogue states like Iran develop nuclear programs. On top of that, Russia was out of money and had lots of military hardware. It became their most valuable export.
What you probably did not read about, however, was how the United States contributed just as much, if not more, to this proliferation of modern weapons. It was just done under a different name. Russia sold hardware. America sold technology—or, in some cases, gave it away.
Before the cold war, America guarded its technological secrets more closely than gold at Fort Knox. The business community did not complain much about trade restrictions because of the Pentagon’s fat budget. (It was a big enough customer.) When all that changed, trade barriers collapsed like the Berlin Wall.
From 1993 to 1998, the Clinton administration brought about the most sweeping deregulation of export controls in American history. Prior to 1993, U.S. companies had to seek export licenses from the government for all products that could be used for military purposes, like supercomputers, nuclear power plants and satellites. That way, even if the Pentagon granted the license, at least it was easier to track the item.
After 1993, the burden of tracking items used for suspicious purposes fell upon the businesses selling them. Today, after a series of scandals and investigations, the administration has been forced to reconsider its lax export security. Senior officials now acknowledge that the president often changed the rules without even consulting national security experts or intelligence officials!
One embarrassing episode, which hit newspapers last year, concerned two American satellite makers, Loral Space and Communications and Hughes Electronics. Both companies benefited from the relaxed controls. And both companies, according to the Pentagon, committed at least three major security breaches. Beijing had been unsuccessful in trying to launch American satellites aboard its own rockets. (These are the same kind of rockets that could be used to launch nuclear warheads.) After one rocket blew up shortly after take-off, China solicited help from the U.S. satellite makers. They were more than willing to share technical expertise with Chinese scientists.
The Loral case is particularly dubious. During the seven years its chairman has known President Clinton, he has donated more than $1.3 million to campaign funds. In 1996, Loral’s chairman drafted a letter to the president urging him to transfer the job of export licensing on satellites from the State Department (responsible for defense) to the Commerce Department (responsible for promoting exports). Clinton’s compliance, even against Warren Christopher’s strong objection, not only made it easier to export satellite technology; it left critics wondering if presidential policy was for sale.
Last October, Congress reversed President Clinton’s 1996 decision and moved licensing back to the State Department. They concluded that export controls to nations like China had been “significantly and improperly reduced over the years.”
Consider supercomputers as just one example. According to The American Spectator, before strict computer export controls were lifted in 1996, China had only three U.S.-made systems. Today, congressional sources estimate that China has over 600. (In 1998, of the 390 supercomputers America exported, half went to China.)
China, more than any other trade partner, has taken advantage of President Clinton’s lax security measures.
We should note that Mr. Clinton did not lift the ban on all exports. U.S. companies still could not export ballistic missiles, spy satellites or advanced fighter technology. The only way China could get their hands on that kind of technology was to steal it.
What started as a small investigation into two U.S. satellite companies in May 1998 quickly turned into an open can of worms. A select House committee finished a 700-page classified report on the investigation in December. That report, some of which will soon be declassified, uncovered a Chinese espionage ring responsible for stealing some of America’s most sensitive technology, including nuclear weapons design technology.
In March, the New York Times revealed just how deep the espionage had penetrated American security. James Risen and Jeff Gerth wrote that since the mid-1980s, China has been stealing secrets from the Los Alamos laboratory in New Mexico. “China’s technical advance allows it to make mobile missiles, ballistic missiles with multiple warheads and small warheads for submarines—the main elements of a modern nuclear force.” According to the article, U.S. intelligence had discovered a Chinese missile with a design remarkably similar to America’s W-88—the most modern miniature warhead the U.S. has in its arsenal.
The day after the Times broke the story, two prominent presidential advisers, National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, admitted there had been enormous lapses in security.
Newsweek followed the Times revelation three weeks later by blaring this headline: “The Penetration Is Total.” It asserted that the espionage damage was far worse than what the cia first thought. The White House brushed the story aside as exaggeration.
Subsequent revelations, however, seemed only to confirm Newsweek’s scoop. One month after the Los Alamos story broke, reports surfaced about the theft of neutron warhead technology (these bombs kill people but leave buildings intact). The April 8 New York Times said that after spies stole the information and then unsuccessfully tested the bomb in China, they came back to the States in 1995 to steal the information they were yet lacking.
On May 10, the New York Times unveiled another shocker. This time it concerned a spy who worked on a classified Pentagon project in 1997. The insider revealed to Beijing advanced radar technology which allows them to track submarines. Until now, the Pentagon has zealously guarded this technology because it gives the U.S. Navy an obvious advantage at sea.
Initially, the Clinton administration brushed aside these intelligence reports, saying there was no proof that the Chinese had deployed nuclear weapons that rely on stolen U.S. secrets. But according to another Times article, U.S. intelligence officials say Beijing is three or four years away from deploying its Dong Feng-31, “equipped with a small nuclear warhead whose
design uses secret American technology” (May 14).
Clearly, much of what the Chinese have not been able to buy for modernization, they have stolen. The question is, what do they intend to do with their arsenal, and will it threaten U.S. interests?
Going back to the end of the cold war, you will remember how Lawrence Eagleburger redefined America’s purpose for maintaining close relations with China: for the sake of non-proliferation. Now consider the facts.
When President Reagan confronted China in 1987 about shipping arms to terrorist nations, they earnestly denied any wrongdoing—something they would become good at over the next decade, even when presented with irrefutable proof. Reagan sanctioned them in October 1987, only to lift the restrictions a month later upon receiving assurances from Beijing that there would be no illegal arms shipments.
Six months later, the U.S. caught China making deals with Saudi Arabia and Syria. As James Mann wrote, “China proved adept at parceling out concessions, making a series of promises, each slightly less vague than the last, often seeking something in exchange from the United States” (About Face, p. 171).
In 1991, the cia confirmed reports that China was delivering missiles and military equipment to Pakistan, Syria and Iran, the latter two ardent supporters of international terrorism. After fielding repeated denials, the U.S. responded by applying limited sanctions. That brought China to the bargaining table where they agreed to comply with the Missile Technology Control Regime (mtcr), an agreement between the United States and six of its allies not to export missiles or missile systems. Bush lifted sanctions.
A year and a half later, U.S. intelligence caught China smuggling parts for its M-11 missiles into Pakistan, a clear violation of the mtcr agreement. President Clinton inherited this problem in 1993 and applied sanctions. In November that year, Clinton lifted them, agreeing to sell China a sophisticated $8 million supercomputer. He also lifted a ban that made it difficult for China to construct nuclear power plants. This despite clear evidence, says the New York Times, “that China has broken its promises to Washington by exporting M-11 missile components and technology to Pakistan.”
The U.S. protested further about Beijing exporting nuclear weapons technology to Pakistan in 1996. The following year, the cia discovered that Iran was receiving equipment for chemical weapons from Chinese firms using front companies in Hong Kong (before Hong Kong was handed over to China). When Clinton agreed to sell U.S. nuclear reactors and technology to China in October of 1997, he wanted assurances that Beijing would stop supplying Iran and Pakistan with chemical and nuclear weapons technology and equipment. In effect, the president had made further concessions for a promise that had been made (and broken) repeatedly over the last ten years!
America’s policy of engagement for the purpose of non-proliferation has failed. It has not stopped proliferation of dangerous weapons. It has not improved China’s human rights record. It has not put a lid on China’s massive arms build-up. It has not stopped China from becoming a bully in Southeast Asia. And above all, the policy of engagement has not helped Sino-American relations. It has made them worse.
It’s time for America to wake up to what it has created in Southeast Asia—a monster. As the London Telegraph declared in a story three years ago, “The dragon has woken and is turning away from its land frontiers towards the open ocean. China’s aging leaders are backing a huge program of sea and air military expansion that is aimed at making China the dominant naval power in the western Pacific within 20 years” (Oct. 13, 1996). As Gene Hogberg noted back in 1978, China thinks long-term! There is a reason why they are building their forces at such breakneck speed. U.S. leadership should be sounding the alarm right now—alerting our peoples to a very real threat developing across the Pacific!
“They intend to dominate the waters off the country’s coastline out to 1000 nautical miles by the year 2010,” the Telegraph continues, “enveloping Japan, the Philippines and the South China Sea. A decade on, the Chinese intend to be in the blue waters of the ‘outer island chain’—or as far as Darwin, Australia”!
Now that poses a very real threat to U.S. interests because America is currently the dominant naval power in the western Pacific. What kind of strategic “partnership” is America involved in anyway?
China has even uttered threats that reach far beyond U.S. interests in the western Pacific. In 1995, an officer of the pla told a former State Department specialist that the U.S. would not intervene in an armed conflict over Taiwan because America “will not sacrifice Los Angeles”—a not-so-subtle threat of nuclear war. Two years later, the cia confirmed that 13 of China’s intercontinental ballistic missiles (icbms), equipped with nuclear warheads, were pointed at the United States.
Yet American leadership continues along, basing its foreign policy on greed and the naive notion that world conditions are generally improving. Concerning China, American leaders have ignored the plain facts and have forgotten history. They have forgotten that the world’s most populated nation was also one of the most advanced just a few centuries ago. They have forgotten that China has always considered itself the “Middle Kingdom”—the center of the world. They have forgotten that Mao Tsetung, the man Henry Kissinger said radiated “authority and deep wisdom,” murdered over 20 million of his own people. They have forgotten China’s stated objectives to be a genuine world power by the year 2000—a superpower by 2050. They have ignored the fact that China does not accept international law. And they have ignored the fact that China hates America and its policy.
When Mao Tsetung died, he left behind a poor, poverty-stricken country that had little exposure to the outside world. Now, almost 25 years later, China has nearly achieved its goal of becoming a world power—thanks, in large part, to America’s shallow, short-sighted leadership. Chinese genius has been feeding on Western technology—and Western weakness! And Beijing will continue feeding on that U.S. benevolence until it runs dry or until they do not need it anymore. The events surrounding nato’s bombing of China’s embassy in Belgrade gave us a brief glimpse of that eventuality. If you noticed, after the bombing, it was China who sanctioned the U.S.—suspending diplomatic relations, military contacts and human rights discussions. Twenty years ago something like that never would have happened because China needed America too much to further its ambitions.
Where is this all leading? Without the Bible, it would be impossible to understand. But when you understand who biblical Israel is today (mainly the United States and Britain) and what God prophesies about Israel for this end time, it makes perfect sense.
God said in Isaiah 3 that at the end of this age, there would be a crisis in Israel’s leadership—one so severe that it would lead our peoples into captivity. One of the names God labels that soon-coming time period is the “times of the Gentiles” (Luke 21:24). What we are witnessing, especially beginning with the seismic shifts that took place between 1989 and 1991, is a complete reversal of power. Israel used to be the “head,” God says in Deuteronomy 28. But because they have forsaken God, they have become the tail—and the strangers, or Gentile nations, have become the head.
God is now raising a conglomerate of Gentile peoples in the heart of Europe, led by Germany, to correct His wayward people of Israel. That coming captivity, referred to in dozens of prophecies, is called the Great Tribulation.
But other Gentile nations also play significant roles in end-time events—including China. The Bible says that toward the end of the Tribulation, the European beast power will turn its attention east, away from Israel (already defeated by then) because of rumblings out of Asia (Dan. 11:44). By then, Russia and China will be completely united as one gigantic Communist Asian front. Fearing the powerful Asian alliance, Europe will lash out against them, setting off a final firestorm of fury just before Christ returns. In response, the Asian hordes will strike back at the beast power, dealing a devastating, near-death blow to Europe.
Then, finally, these two future superpowers will gather in a place called “Armageddon,” mentioned in Revelation 16:16. People often refer to this biblical reference without ever looking at what that passage really says.
In verse 12, God says He will dry up the Euphrates River so that He might gather these two great powers—the Asian hordes and the European beast power. In Revelation 9:14-16, God says the size of this Asian army will number 200 million men—a number that seems inconceivable, but not when you add China’s 1.2 billion people with Russia’s 150 million, along with several smaller nations in Asia that will undoubtedly join the alliance.
Combining recent events with what God prophesies, makes the picture clear. China will soon use its terrible weapons of mass destruction—not against America, as some might think—but against Europe.
So what is behind America’s three-decade relationship of engagement with China? Was it to build a hedge against Soviet expansion? To stop proliferation? Was it motivated purely by greed and shallow leadership? These are all right answers, viewing it from man’s perspective.
But behind all of this is God’s hand. God has a plan that will be carried out with preciseness and detail, right up to the return of His Son, Jesus Christ. God will use the European Union to correct his people Israel once the Tribulation begins. But then He will use the Asian hordes to correct Europe.
China’s miraculous catapult to the forefront of the world’s stage, thanks in large part to America’s help, means we are much closer than you probably realize to the ultimate fulfillment of God’s end-time prophecies.