What has changed in the world to cause two primary institutions of the West—nato and the UN—to sputter and stutter with incoherent goals, indecisive leadership and bickering politics of power? What threatens to logjam the decision-making process and render them inept at this crucial time in history, when unified thought and action is necessary to face new global threats? And who would have thought that the Iraqi problem could prove so revealing?
As German news source Deutsche Welle reported, “The issue of a looming war in Iraq continues to divide nations at every level of organization. The United Nations Security Council, the transatlantic relationship and now nato are all split on the best way to resolve the crisis” (Feb. 10).
The Asia Times added, “[T]he current international crisis over Iraq’s disarmament appears to be threatening the global system of alliances Washington built in the post-World War ii era” (Feb. 12).
The players in these institutions have changed. In the European Union, 10 potential new member nations, coming from Central and Eastern Europe, instead of paying the expected homage to their more prosperous and powerful new Western family, have demonstrated an independence of thought and an unwillingness to toe the Franco-German line. Germany and France are adamantly against war in Iraq while 18 other EU members and prospective members openly support U.S. plans. The EU, now deeply divided, faces an unstable future as it must strive to build unity among its disparate nations before it can be an effective world player.
The UN, recently challenged by U.S. President George Bush to prove its “relevance” as a world peace-maker by enforcing its own rules, is deeply split over whether to back the U.S.-initiated plan to militarily force Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to disarm. France and Germany reject the American proposal; they even—secretly—developed their own alternate plan which involves pouring more UN inspectors and troops into Iraq, turning the country into a de facto UN protectorate. President Vladimir Putin of Russia and Pope John Paul ii are said to support this plan. This has infuriated the U.S. and split the UN Security Council even more deeply.
And nato is still struggling after experiencing the worst crisis of its 54-year existence. Germany, France and Belgium, in opposition to the 16 other nato member nations, openly rejected Turkey’s request for protection in the case of a war in Iraq. This refusal to support the most basic tenet of nato’s constitution—of an institution which was created for the very purpose of collective defense—threatened to destroy what many consider to be the most successful Western alliance since World War ii. The fact that this issue was “resolved”—skirted—by turning to nato’s Defense Planning Committee, from which Paris withdrew in 1966, has nonetheless left the Atlantic alliance badly discredited.
These Western institutions have been the cornerstones of security and stability since World War ii. Each of them was formed and designed for the overall purpose of providing protection from international war and tyrants. Now they appear to be gradually crumbling.
Common to these crises is the deeper problem of major differences—major rifts—between the U.S. and a newly assertive Western Europe. Don’t expect these differences to subside any time soon. As the Trumpet has repeatedly written, Bible prophecy shows that these rifts will only get much wider as European power and confidence increases.