What’s Behind The Crisis in Foreign Relations?

From the May 1999 Trumpet Print Edition

The collapse of the Soviet Union at the turn of the current decade, embellished by the demonstration of the potential of massive U.S. firepower in the Gulf War of 1991, left the world with the impression that it was now dominated by a solitary superpower, the United States.

Many foreign-policy exponents saw the U.S. as simply playing the role of world policeman, steering the nations toward what President George Bush declared was an emerging New World Order. Some idealistic minds thought they caught a glimpse of a world at peace on the horizon.

Such has been the dream of the idealist and the hope of all sensible men and women throughout history. Yet, the ongoing history of man has continued to deliver war—war from generation to generation. Indeed, it seems, as one current observer has alluded, he who seizes hold of the future of war holds in his hand the future of humanity. In the human sense, this is what real power is all about.

As Donald Kagan states in his recent treatise on the subject, “The wisest modern students of war have concluded that something more fundamental produces wars: the competition for power” (On the Origin of War, p. 1, emphasis mine).

What do the leaders of the world’s nations conceive of as power? That wise commentator on international relations, Hans J. Morgenthau, claimed, “Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the ultimate aim” (Politics Among Nations, p. 29). In terms of a pure definition of power, Morgenthau probably gave one of the most intuitive clarifications. “When we speak of power, we mean man’s control over the minds and actions of other men” (ibid., p. 30). He observes that whatever material objectives were contained in a nation’s foreign policy (sourcing raw materials, controlling sea gates, territorial extension, etc.), they always involved influencing the minds of others in order to control the outcome.

As the old saying goes, it takes two to make a quarrel! It is a plain fact of human nature that within all human groups there will be an evident tendency to dominate. This is so from that basic unit of society, the family, to human corporate and governmental institutions, through to entire nations. The most damaging effect of this striving for dominance, at the human level, was recorded in the present century when the Nazis wanted to colonize Eastern Europe, giving them dominance of the whole of Europe and a place from which to rule the world.

The current generation of foreign policy formulators and administrators in the West, particularly in the present British and American administrations, is the product of a left-wing, socialist-engineered education system that had its genesis in the 1960s (though its true origins may be traced to the Marxist-Leninist thought engendered by the fathers of socialism in the early 1900s). Socialist philosophy has always had particular appeal to the intelligentsia. Often described as the “baby-boom generation,” the post-World War II generation, which had their minds bent by German rationalist thought, tends to predicate all analyses, judgments and conclusions on godless evolutionary theory, based on the overall assumption that there are no absolutes.

In general terms, to this generation all of the values, mores, honorable traditions—even documented history of past events—are held up to question. This approach to subjective analysis is fundamentally sourced at a basic and false assumption—that the theory of relativity applies not just in the arena of physical sciences. By extension it is assumed that it generally may be applied to human behavior—religion, moral standards, ethics and human values. Thus we have the concept of “moral relativity,” which spawned the “new morality” of the 1960s, giving birth to a new and uncontrollable communicable disease—aids.

The Third Way

Many of the current generation of foreign policy formulators and administrators have been termed “third wayers.” That is, politically they embrace neither capitalism solely, nor socialism solely. For political expedience, while holding on to their core values of socialism, “third wayers” have developed a center-left approach to politics which is having a devastatingly confusing effect on the world. The current administrations governing in Britain and America are of this “third way” flavor. Their politics have changed by expediency, in order to gain office—but their core “values” have not!

In respect of this phenomenon in America, Elliot Evans, president of the Ethics and Policy Center in Washington D.C., puts it this way: “The truly bloody battle lines in American politics today tend to be cultural rather than economic. On any number of these broadly cultural issues, ranging from extreme environmentalism to gay marriage to multiculturalism to partial-birth abortion, ideology and coalition politics once again conjoin to propel third-wayers far from the center. Advocates of these causes share a mind set, and they also share a reliance on government power to help bring about the changes in American life they demand” (Commentary, April 1999).

The real concern here is that it is generally such minds, which on the one hand seek to destroy the traditional (Bible-based) values of our Western democracies (particularly in Britain and the U.S.), that on the other are now grappling (with a huge lack of success) with the most dangerous of foreign policy considerations. “One cannot but notice another striking lacuna [gap] in the thought of third-wayers: exactly how their approach is supposed to function in the realm of foreign policy. Given who most of them are, and where they come from, that too is understandable. Children of the ’60s, they seem alternately suspicious of and nonplussed by the American military; in none of their voluminous literature will one find advocacy of increased military spending or for that matter of American military superiority. As confident as they are about the uses of government power at home, they are commensurately skittish about the possible use of national power abroad” (ibid.).

The result is the recent display of ineptness at the most senior levels of, especially, U.S. foreign policy. Indecision, lack of clear analysis and poor judgment have been rife in the approach of the world’s most powerful nation to its relations and interaction with such countries as Haiti, Somalia, Liberia, Angola, Iraq, North Korea, China, Bosnia—and so the list grows. The consequences are an inevitable decline in military morale, a most dangerous reduction in preparedness, with the emergence of what some experts now call a hollow army. “As Ronald Reagan well understood, there is no middle ground between strength and weakness, between greatness and decline” (ibid.).

Power Without Will

No single country presently comes close to America in extent of economic power or military strength. Yet no other single nation shows such a lack of will to use their power. The burning question is, given the apparent lack of will to effectively deploy its military might to actually win a victory in its numerous military adventures in recent years, why bother to deploy force at all, let alone in such a vast array of foreign centers in which the average American is not interested in the slightest, nor even able to find them on a map?

George Friedman, chairman of Stratfor Systems (www.stratfor.com), said about this phenomenon: “In one sense the U.S. is overwhelmingly powerful. The potential to raise military forces and deploy them is awesome. [Yet] the extent to which we are operating below our potential is breathtaking. We are in grave danger. We are in the odd situation of having unnecessarily drawn down our forces and then simultaneously and inexplicably increased the tempo of our operations.”

Comparing the relative success of the British, in their heyday of empire, with the current U.S. ineptness in foreign policy, Friedman declared, “Britain had a principle which was that Britain had no permanent friends, no permanent enemies, only permanent interests. That was a very shrewd view of the world.” It is a view that the U.S. should have noted well, before it assumed the role of world policeman.

Value Change

Throughout the period of the British Empire and the history of the United States’ dramatic surge to world prominence (up to World War II), it was generally held by most Western policy formulators, administrators of government and military leaders that a supreme, Creator God was the sustainer of all things, including the laws which govern human behavior—the biblical Ten Commandments. Military generals went to war with a Bible at hand. Britain and America fought for God-fearing values against the military might of Nazi Germany and of imperialistic Japan. We saw it as an honorable and moral cause. The formulators of the American Constitution drafted that famous document which guaranteed the fundamental freedoms and inalienable rights of its people based upon moral tenets founded upon the Ten Commandments.

Times have changed. And with the changes over the past 50 years has come the corruption of the morals of Britain and America. This moral decline has led to a dramatic decline in matters of honor (Isa. 3:1-3, 5). The corruption of moral standards, the decline in honorable behavior, has erosion of the will to use the supreme power which those old allies, Britain and America, once possessed for the purpose of fighting to preserve that which was perceived as good and right. Common sense is now sacrificed on the altar of personal anarchy—“you may do whatever you wish to do in private, as long as it is deemed to do no hurt to anyone else.” Of course, the standards by which doing hurt is measured and judged are no longer pinned down to any fundamental, fixed values. So basically, the system allows, if you can afford the legal fees, if you vote for the party presently in power and you get the popular press on your side, you can literally get away with murder.

It is in such a climate, such a turgid moral morass, that the foreign policy formulators and the drafters of international law of today grope around trying to establish new meaning under the prevailing constancy of “wars and rumors of wars” (Matt. 24:6). It is by no accident that the decline in honor and respect for things British and American has coincided with the dramatic decline in demonstrated power and will by these nations to use what power they still possess.

Where There Is No Vision…

In the final analysis, what is it that is lacking from the judgments of our most senior foreign policy gurus? Given unimpeachable facts, given the most brilliant minds applied to analysis and strategic thinking, the very best that a foreign policy expert can do is assess the probable outcomes of any given international situation, based on the facts, considering past history, the predictability of human nature and the connection between cause and effect.

But the vision that enables a human mind to see all human interaction, be it at the family, state or international level, and predict inevitable outcomes with confidence, is plainly not given to man as a natural part of his make-up. It takes that which is supernatural, added to the mind of man, to gain such vision of future events. This is the phenomenon of divine revelation. It is open to man, but only to those whom God alone chooses to give it. It is simply termed, in biblical language, the Holy Spirit.

This is the power that Simon Magus sought to buy almost two millennia ago (Acts 8:18-20). It is the power which Jesus Christ simply called “the Comforter” (John 14:26). A power of which He declared, “But the Comforter, which is the Holy [Spirit], whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you” (John 14:26). It is the Spirit of God which, upon repentance and baptism into the family of God, imparts continuing revelation to the human mind. Revelation of truth, revelation of prophecy, literally an understanding of the predictions of the future which almighty God made through the prophets of old, Jesus Christ being the chief prophet.

It is this power which is needed so greatly by those who would deal in foreign policy, matched with an understanding of the laws of God which govern human behavior. (Write for your free copy of our book Mystery of the Ages for a full explanation.)

Only when the minds of men are opened, by the power of God’s Holy Spirit, to discern the reality of human nature, to understand the laws and covenants, statutes and principles of living which almighty God has set in place, by which to govern human behavior, will those in charge of foreign policy truly see the way to peace on earth. That day is coming when, as Jesus Christ declared, “I will give you teachers after mine own heart.”

As Hans Morgenthau pointed out, the power comes from control over man’s mind. Almighty God will simply have to step in and stop mankind’s headlong slide toward oblivion. He created the human mind. He created the laws which govern peace. He will simply send one to this earth to whom He has committed all power (Matt. 28:18) to implement and enforce, with a government of perfect family love backed up by a perfect law of love (I John 5:3), the way which will lead to peace among the nations (John 14:27). He will reason with man (Isa. 1:18) and show him the source of all wars (James 4:1). He will offer to man the power to quell all wars, the power to control his own mind so that man will learn to desire to give to his neighbor, instead of lusting to get from him! That’s real power! The power to control one’s own mind and bring every thought into subjection to the perfect will of the loving Father of all mankind (II Cor. 10:5)! He will simply enforce God’s perfect foreign policy for all the nations (Isa. 2:4).

This is the hope, the great hope of all mankind. The current events in the Middle East and the Balkans are simply a sign of its imminence. It’s time to look beyond the wars and rumors of wars, beyond the sad straggling masses of displaced refugees, beyond the petty, prancing dictators of this world, into the future. It’s time to really grasp the vision of a future which is bright with hope and the ultimate reconciliation of war-prone man to his Maker, a God of perfect peace. It’s time to anticipate and prepare for a true and lasting peace which will engirdle the globe for a thousand years under the Prince of peace, King of kings and Lord of lords. That’s the hope which your Maker offers you if you will only turn from your own ways and begin to obey Him.

Feeding The Dragon

Feeding The Dragon

Getty Images

Irresponsible behavior: How America has catapulted China to center stage. And why.
From the June 1999 Trumpet Print Edition

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 technologyand 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.

The Unseen Danger in Kosovo

A Rising Power: Germany is responsible for starting the civil war in Yugoslavia. It has been the strongest supporter of Albania against the Serbs in Kosovo. The Serbs warn about a rising German power in Yugoslavia. Let’s look behind the scenes at the real danger that most people in America and Britain refuse to face.
From the May 1999 Trumpet Print Edition

The Serbs fought on our side in two world wars, and Germany fought against us in both of those wars. How very strange to see that alliance reversed today.

Here is the simple truth that we all should be able to see. Serbia is no threat to Europe or America. But Germany has routinely been a dangerous threat to Europe and the world! And whether we realize it or not, they still are today—even more so than in the past.

The only real winner in our war with Yugoslavia will be Germany. America and Britain will be the great losers. They will grow weaker as Germany grows in power.

It has been said often that “the first casualty of war is the truth.” That probably has never been more true than in this war.

Germany Backs Albania

Yugoslavia has already lost the states of Croatia and Slovenia because of Germany. A December 8, 1991, article in the New York Times titled, “U.S. is at Odds With German Backing for Slovenia and Croatia,” explains Germany’s historical ties with the Yugoslav “breakaway” republics (emphasis mine throughout): “Germany has long historical ties, both glorious and shameful, to Slovenia and Croatia. Slovenia was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and many people there still identify with the German-speaking world. There has also been German influence in Croatia, and during World War II, Croatia was ruled by a pro-Nazi regime.

“This aspect of Croatian history, and the fact that the Tudjman government has refused to disassociate itself from the Croatian fascists who ruled the republic in the 1940s, has made European leaders unwilling to move quickly toward recognition.”

That was said in 1991. As it turns out, because of German pressure, those leaders did move quickly! They should not have even recognized Slovenia and Croatia, considering Germany’s past—a nation which caused the deaths of 60-70 million people by starting both World Wars. That is in the living memory of many people on this earth.

Remember this important principle: If you start building on a faulty foundation, the structure cannot stand the storms and tests of time. If we build on a false premise, it will end badly.

Germany recognized these breakaway republics and then supported them with troops and armaments. America (and almost the whole world) strongly opposed Germany’s plans in the beginning. But the U.S. weakened and then even decided to support Germany in their war to control the Balkans!

Then the civil war spread into Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Serbs lost control of a large portion of this republic also.

Now the Serbs see Germany supporting a guerrilla army of Albanians. The guerrillas call themselves the Kosovo Liberation Army (k.l.a.). Kosovo was comprised of 90 percent Albanians. These Kosovar Albanians, along with Albania and Germany, support the guerrilla army against the Serbs.

“The German Ambassador made evident the very good relations between the two countries [Albania and Germany] and voiced the will of his government to consolidate and promote further these relations. He highlighted the efficiency of various projects of the German assistance in Albania and stressed that they will be expanded in the coming months.

“Albanian Foreign Minister Milo stressed that Germany is one of the most important countries in the foreign policy of Albania” (Albanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs press release, Aug. 6, 1997).

Germany is probably the strongest foreign industrial power in Albania. So their ties are unusually close.

There is also direct support coming from Germany. There are 600,000 Albanians in Germany. Many of the k.l.a. guerrillas left their families behind in Germany to come and fight against the Serbs in a civil war which the German-supported Albanians started.

Germany is also giving financial support to the k.l.a. According to BBC News, “In addition to money sent home to relatives [in Germany], Kosovo’s internationally unrecognized government-in-exile has been collecting a tax of 3 percent of earnings. Its Prime Minister, Bujar Bukoshi, who is based in Germany, has repeatedly denied that the money is used to buy arms—he says that it’s spent on running the health and education services” (Aug. 5, 1998). But does anybody believe that?

Kosovo’s “internationally unrecognized government-in-exile” has a prime minister, who is based in Germany, and operates freely with the blessings (and direction?) of the German government!

The k.l.a. guerrilla force didn’t just happen. They were raised up, and are now directly supported by Germany—the powerhouse of Europe.

Germany has also been encouraging nato attacks with the strongest language. The German defense minister, Rudolf Scharping, said in a March television interview on ZDF that “genocide is starting.” Very strong vocabulary. He caused many to think about genocide. Now it is common to hear that word used regarding Kosovo.

The Australian newspaper reported on April 1, 1999: “With thousands of refugees continuing to stream out of the war-torn province, German Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping claimed in Bonn last night that evidence had emerged of concentration camps being set up by Serb forces.”

People watch television and see the streams of Albanian refugees. Then they totally blame the Serbs. Most know very little about Kosovo, yet talk of “genocide”—the deliberate and systematic destruction of a race. Now there is talk about “concentration camps.” “Genocide” and “concentration camps”—words introduced by the German defense minister.

It is true that after a powerful nato air attack, the Serbs responded violently to save what remains of their country. But there was little mentioned about refugees before the nato attacks. In fact, the initial purpose of the war was to protect the Kosovar people in their homeland. That purpose has failed. Is nato blameless?

Germany Pressures nato

Here is a most alarming report from Stratfor Intelligence Systems: “Serbian Radio in Belgrade on September 22 broadcast a scathing commentary, charging Germany with ‘warmongering’ and warning Europe against the alleged rebirth of German fascism” (Sept. 25, 1998).

Call the Serbs what you like, but that is exactly what is happening in Yugoslavia!

The report continues: “More pointedly, Serbian Radio cited Germany’s record in the two World Wars, and charged that Germany harbors ‘open ambition to become the master of Europe.’ Questioning Europe’s silence on Germany’s behavior, commentator Milika Sundic said, ‘It is difficult to comprehend and accept that Europe has become Germany’s slave.’ Sundic went on to claim that ‘Germany contributed the most to the breakdown of the former Yugoslavia,’ and that ‘Serbia has known for some time that Germany was behind the [k.l.a.] terrorism in [Kosovo].’

Who can present any evidence to refute these powerful words?

“The fact is that Germany is one of the leading voices pushing for nato intervention in Kosovo. In a meeting of natodefense ministers in Portugal on September 24, which resulted in a virtual ultimatum to Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to cease the fighting in Kosovo or face natoair strikes, only Germany’s Rühe called for a firm deadline to be set for intervention. Rühe said, ‘We must move quickly to an ultimatum in the next ten days or less…. We must do something for the people on the ground and not just issue one more resolution after another.’… [Is German’s penchant for blitzkrieg warfare beginning to surface?]

“Rühe has argued against awaiting a [United Nations] mandate on the use of force against Serbia. Said Rühe, ‘Pictures of people [in Kosovo] camping out in the open…are in themselves an ultimatum.’ Moreover, and more to the point, Rühe said, ‘We must avoid to be dependent on a Russian veto.’ He claimed that the current relationship between nato and Russia presumes that ‘Russia has no veto whenever nato needs to act.’…

Germany is leading the campaign for a quick and, if necessary, military solution to the conflict in Kosovo.

“Germany is also extremely concerned about U.S. vacillation in its military commitment to European stability, particularly to the use of nato as a policing tool. That U.S. vacillation has led to the utter disdain in which Serbia holds nato. Germany is looking ahead to the day when it must take a leading role in the defense of Western Europe, and it does not want to take on that role with a dull knife.”

The Serbs see clearly that Germany is behind the breakdown of the former Yugoslavia. Let’s not forget that all of Europe, the U.S. and the UN were against Germany, when they recognized and strongly supported the breakaway of Slovenia and Croatia. But Germany prevailed. Croatia’s breakaway led to civil war, which continues to this day. America’s secretary of state at the time said that “Germany had a certain responsibility” for the Yugoslav war. But he was quickly silenced! And no leader in our government has made such a statement since.

Germany’s Master Plan

Germany has a master plan. We have warned about that master plan since immediately after World War II. (Write for our free booklet, The History and Prophecy of Germany.)

Margaret Thatcher, former British prime minister, said this about the European Union in October 1995: “You have not anchored Germany to Europe; you have anchored Europe to a newly dominant, unified Germany. In the end, my friends, you’ll find it will not work.”

Bernard Connolly, in The Rotten Heart of Europe, said the European Union was only a “cloak for German ambitions.”

At least we ought to consider such authoritative voices.

First of all, the Germans want to control Europe. That means they must gain control of the Balkans. Their fiercest enemy there is the Serbs.

Now, if 75 percent of nato’s military power is supplied by the U.S., what does that mean? Germany is actually pressuring and directing nato—especially the U.S.—to carry out their own ambitions within Europe!

All of Europe, the UN and America caved in to Germany, in spite of their responsibility for the deaths of 60-70 million people in World Wars I and II!

Now Germany has all of nato fighting for their cause, and it seems nobody wants to even discuss how it all began.

Is it so hard to understand why the Serbs are so enraged? Their country is being systematically destroyed—primarily by Germany. What country would not fight against such an outrage? Does any nation really see the Serbs’ point of view?

The German master plan is very similar to what they have done in the past. The only real difference is, it is much more subtle—so far.

If the Western world would only remember the recent past of Germany, it would frighten the life out of us.

The March 26 New York Times stated, “For the first time since the end of World War II, German fighter jets have gone to war, taking part in the attack on Yugoslavia as part of a nato force and marking this country’s definitive emancipation from post-war pacifism….

“Still, the German participation in air raids on Yugoslavia is potentially explosive, for it will confirm every dark Serbian suspicion about the West. If there has been a single obsession in Serbian policy this century, it has been to prevent what Belgrade sees as German expansionism in the Balkans. [This is not an obsession without justification.]

“‘We are not ready to make a distinction between the bombs of Adolf Hitler from 1941 and the bombs of nato,’ Vuk Draskovic, the Yugoslavian Deputy Prime Minister, said.

“Strong German support for Croatian independence from Yugoslavia, and Croatia’s adoption of the hymn ‘Danke Deutschland’ when that independence came in 1991, only reinforced Serbian misgivings.” Croatia clearly knows that their revolt succeeded because of Germany.

Are the Serbs the only ones who see the dangerous rise of a militant Germany once again? Germany poses a danger thousands of times greater than the Serbs could ever pose to Europe and the world.

The Serbs have good reason to fear, since they were victims of the German and Croatian Nazis of World War II. One Trumpet reader from Indiana recently wrote to us, “After reading your article ‘Croatia Reveals the Rising Beast’ in the January 1999 issue…I would like to drop you a few lines in order to express my deepest gratitude to you for what you have done for me as a human being by publishing that article so that millions of other human beings in the world can understand the Serbs.

“As an American of Serbian descent and a survivor of the horrible Croatian Holocaust during World War II, I would like to tell you, my dear friend, how much I appreciate your personal involvement and effort, and how immensely I am grateful to you for your courage, humanity and patriotism for publishing that article in your magazine. I can assure you that from now on, you’ll be my dear friend as long as we live.”

A Warning Unheeded

On several occasions, we have alerted our readers to a shocking World War II intelligence document. The U.S. declassified it in 1996 and it received only sparse news coverage. Yet, even more disturbing than the deep stupor the press is in is the fact that the U.S. government did not make it public until 1996!

The document, detailing an August 1944 meeting between top German industrialists, reveals a secret post-war plan to restore the Nazis to power. Several of Germany’s elite industries were represented, including Messerschmitt and Volkswagenwerk. These companies, the document asserts, must “prepare themselves to finance the Nazi party which would be forced to go underground.”

By 1944, they knew they would lose World War II and were already planning for the next round! “Existing financial reserves in foreign countries,” it says, “must be placed at the disposal of the Party so that a strong German Empire can be created after the defeat.”

Those at the 1944 meeting understood that the most prominent members of the Nazi party would be condemned as war criminals. “However,” the document maintains, “in cooperation with the industrialists it is arranging to place its less conspicuous but most important members in positions with various German factories as technical experts or members of its research and designing offices.”

How alarming! Why was so little written about this in 1996? Why did it take so long for it to be declassified? America and Britain have fallen asleep—our peoples do not understand what is happening behind the scenes!

That is why we feel compelled to return to some of these issues again and again. No one else will! (Since we first referred to this document, several have asked how they might obtain a copy. It is printed in full on pages 9-10.)

Historians have long debated whether or not a secret Nazi plan was made for a post-war, international network. Now that it has been confirmed, as Elan Steinberg of the World Jewish Congress said, “the central question is whether it has been carried out.”

Brian Connell, in his 1957 book A Watcher on the Rhine, offered abundant proof of that plan being carried out. He drew attention to a watershed event in 1947, just two years after the war, when Allied authorities foolishly handed over denazification responsibilities to, of all people, the Germans! After 1947, denazification in Germany, according to Connell, was a farce!

Consider Bavaria as just one example. “The Bavarian administration,” Connell wrote, “is largely in the hands of those who controlled it under Hitler…. Almost all of the 1000 teachers who were removed for political reasons have been reappointed, representing roughly 60 percent of the teaching staff employed by the Ministry of Education. Sixty percent of the 15,000 employees in the finance ministry are former Nazis, and 81 percent of the 924 judges, magistrates and prosecutors in the Ministry of Justice.”

There was also an attempt made to liberalize a narrow method of teaching in education. Connell states, “New teachers were appointed, and a degree of independence assured to individual instructions, which should have made education for democracy a feasible proposition. But many of the former Nazi teachers have found their way back.”

Later, Connell states, “In western Germany, the newly prosperous Ruhr industrialists, the still impenitent core of former Nazis…represents a challenge to the democratic order.”

Nazism is far from being dead in Germany! Today, right-wing extremism continues to increase dramatically—even in German elections! Should that surprise us?

Trumpet readers are also well aware of another report we have drawn attention to. Like the declassified document, this report has never received much press coverage.

The report was given by Herbert W. Armstrong from the United Nations on May 9, 1945, just nine months after the secret meeting between German industrialists. In it, Mr. Armstrong said “The war is over, in Europe—or is it?”

What does he mean by that? Did he know something no one else did? He sure did!

“We don’t understand German thoroughness,” he said. From the very start of World War II, they have considered the possibility of losing this second round, as they did the first—and they have carefully, methodically planned, in such eventuality, the third round—World War III! Hitler has lost. This round of war, in Europe, is over. And the Nazis have now gone underground.”

Many people scoffed at Herbert W. Armstrong’s warning message in 1945. Yet look at how closely his report mirrors what was said in the secret document that was not made public until 50 years later! (Read excerpts of that 1945 radio address of Mr. Armstrong’s below.)

Only God’s messengercould give such a prophetic message over 50 years ago!

Think about what he said.

Think about what was determined at that secret meeting among top German industrialists.

Think about what Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt said right after the war, something we have also quoted often. (“It is our inflexible purpose to destroy German militarism and Nazism.”)

Yes, think about those things and then consider what is happening now. Our leaders today keep acting like Germany has repented. But the Germans continue in their militant spirit, in spite of the unparalleled crimes they have committed!

We have forgotten our strong commitment to control Germany after World War II, and we are going to pay an indescribable price for that weak and despicable failure in leadership!

You don’t prevent Germany from starting World War III by helping them build an empire in Yugoslavia and Europe!

The spirit of that intelligence document is being implemented in Yugoslavia today (and also in other parts of the world). Germany’s action is not that of a people deeply repentant for the deaths of 60-70 million people in two world wars!

Remember, the Bible says our end-time “lovers” are the ones who inflict great suffering upon us—not our obvious enemies. However, we like to think of ourselves as righteous while we reject God’s warnings!

What Herbert Armstrong prophesied for over 50 years has now come to pass in frightening detail! The Philadelphia Church of God continues to proclaim that same message.

This is all prophesied in your Bible. But you don’t even need the Bible to see that terror is about to strike our peoples!

The American and British peoples are without excuse. And so are you. Only God can save you from a disastrous future. Now is the time for every wise person to heed this message. There is so little time left to respond.

God’s Bigger Master Plan

In Isaiah 10:5, God says, “O Assyrian [the modern Germans], the rod of mine anger, and the staff in their hand is mine indignation.”

God says, “I will send him against an hypocritical nation, and against the people of my wrath will I give him a charge, to take the spoil, and to take the prey, and to tread them down like the mire of the streets” (v. 6). God says the Germans are a tool in His hands. They tread humans down “like the mire of the streets.” Germany’s rise to power is God’s doing, and we urgently need to understand why! The living God has a master plan too!

Isaiah’s prophecy was recorded in a book for this end time (Isa. 30:8). So God’s people must know who Assyria is in prophecy! Otherwise God looks like a fool.

God will use the Germans in His master plan. They are to be sent against “an hypocritical nation”—people who work hard to appear righteous, but are very evil.

This is God’s master plan for America and Britain if they don’t wake up and repent!

“Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so….” Even the soon-coming leader of the German-led beast power will not think he would ever destroy or cut off nations. But that’s precisely what the remainder of the verse says: “…but it is in his heart to destroy and cut off nations not a few” (Isa. 10:7).

Who in these modern times has cut off many nations in warfare? At least we should remember what Germany did in World Wars I and II! But that is the way Germany has acted throughout history. They are a great and talented people, but too often overwhelmed by an evil system.

Many nations have been destroyed by the power of the Germans. In Anvil of Civilization, author Leonard Cottrell says, “In all the annals of human conquest, it is difficult to find any people more dedicated to bloodshed and slaughter than the Assyrians. Their ferocity and cruelty have few parallels save in modern times”—meaning Germany.

The greatest war machine in all of history was Assyria. They were great conquerors. They had superior weapons and superior organization. And they are back on the world scene today, becoming very militant—but thankfully for the last time!

The Assyrians and the Germans are obviously the same people. Their militant, cruel ways continue until Christ returns.

God’s Protection

Zephaniah 2:1-3 says, “Gather yourselves together, yea, gather together, O nation not desired [God’s faithful people]; Before the decree bring forth, before the day pass as the chaff, before the fierce anger of the Lord come upon you, before the day of the Lord’s anger come upon you. Seek ye the Lord,all ye meek of the earth, which have wrought his judgment; seek righteousness, seek meekness: it may be ye shall be hid in the day of the Lord’s anger.” God is saying that if His people are loyal to what they have learned from Him, they can be hidden from the horrors that are soon to come upon this earth!

What is the key to being protected? We must seek God before the Tribulation strikes. That is the formula for escape. Seek God now! “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon” (Isa. 55:6-7).

What is happening in Kosovo is a major sign of how close Germany is to achieving its worldwide ambition.

The history of Germany reveals where the events in Europe today are leading. More importantly, God’s prophecies give us an advance preview of what is about to occur in Europe—and how it will affect the whole world. What can you do before it is too late? Seek God while He may be found.

Europe’s New Policeman

A shifting alliance: Searching for a new identity since the end of the Cold War, NATO hopes to have found one.
From the May 1999 Trumpet Print Edition

A global discussion is underway about the identity and role of nato. This is something the Trumpet has long anticipated. Written in 1999, this article contemplates what Europe would do without nato. It is as relevant today as it was 18 years ago.

For 40 years, nato stood firm as the bulwark against the Soviet Union and its Communist allies, helping secure the longest period of peace in European history. Its first secretary-general, Lord Ismay, famously defined its role as, “To keep the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down.”

Today, after winning the Cold War without ever firing a shot, nato is entangled in a messy conflict where tiny Kosovo, not global communism, threatens the pact’s future existence.

Since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, nato has been searching for a new identity. Nothing illustrates this better than the unprecedented bombing raids on Serbia. Unprecedented because of why the North Atlantic Treaty was signed. To understand, let us review some important history.

Nato was created in April 1949, quite simply, as a one-for-all, all-for-one defensive alliance between ten European nations, the United States and Canada. During the Cold War, four other nations joined the pact (Greece and Turkey in 1952, Germany in 1955 and Spain in 1982).

Article 5 of the Treaty says, “The parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an attack occurs, each of them … will assist the party or parties so attacked…including the use of armed force.”

The fact that it was established as a sort of “neighborhood watch” program makes today’s action dubious. All of the former Yugoslav states are outside nato’s neighborhood. None of them have attacked a nato member. That means nato has no business meddling in the affairs of a non-member nation—at least, not if it is to abide by the original charter’s intent.

Led by the U.S. and Germany, however, nato is shifting from a purely defensive alliance to one that’s more interventionist.

What does the future have in store for the nato alliance as it embarks upon its new, self-appointed role as regional policeman? Believe it or not, the Bible provides us with a prophetic blueprint around which we can draw certain conclusions about nato’s future.

In the book of Ezekiel, God compares the end-time descendants of Israel (U.S. and Britain mainly) to a harlot chasing her “lover,” or Assyria. We have proven in our booklet The History and Prophecy of Germany that Assyria today is Germany.

This illicit affair is prophesied to end in treacherous deceit (Ezekiel 23:9). Germany is prophesied to turn on its English-speaking nato partners, as it has historically.

Readers of the Trumpet have been repeatedly warned that Bible prophecy foretells one final restoration of the Roman Empire in Europe. The Bible calls this the beast power. Revelation 17:12 says it will be comprised of “ten horns”—meaning ten nations or ruling entities. Obviously, several nato members will be included in this number.

Others, however, will not. The U.S., Britain and Canada, though currently doting on their “lover,” will not be among this ten-nation combine.

With the Bible as our guide, we can look for the wedge between the English-speaking peoples and the rest of Europe to widen. Look for Europe, which has been without a credible foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, to assume a role independent of American direction.

Examine the actual events of the last ten years. World events, especially in Europe, are changing as fast as technology! (see sidebar). Be assured that as the European beast gathers steam, it will no longer rely on America. Right now, Europe is following America’s lead because it has to.

Europe needs America, not because it likes U.S. policy (it often despises it) or its inept leadership, but because it needs U.S. weapons. What would nato nations have been for the first 40 years of the pact without advanced U.S. weaponry? Soviet satellites, no doubt.

Once Europe no longer needs America’s forces, it will no longer need, or want, America. Until that happens, however, a German-led Europe will continue using nato to camouflage its imperialistic ambitions.

That is what makes Kosovo so significant. It is nato’s first mission outside the neighborhood. Clearly, Germany has pushed hardest for the attack. In fact, Germany is most responsible for Yugoslavia’s unravelling. Yet, 75 percent of nato’s firepower is American!

Right now, Germany and its European allies need America. But that is changing fast.

Kosovo may have crashed nato’s 50th anniversary bash in Washington last month, but it did not deter leaders from proposing significant changes in the alliance’s agenda for the 21st century.

The biggest change was proposed by European leaders who, for some time, have complained of American highhandedness. The new Strategic Concept reflects these concerns, specifically Article 30, which states, “The European Allies have taken decisions to enable them to assume greater responsibilities in the security and defense field in order to enhance the peace and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area and thus the security of the Allies.”

Thus, in accordance with what nato outlined in Berlin in 1996, the European Security and Defense Identity will continue to develop within nato. This, according to Article 30, “will assist the European Allies to act by themselves as required through the readiness of the Alliance, on a case-by-case basis and by consensus, to make its assets and capabilities available for operations in which the Alliance is not engaged militarily under the political control and strategic direction either of the Western European Union or as otherwise agreed, taking into account the full participation of all European Allies if they were so to choose.”

In other words, Europe can draw on nato resources to pursue objectives the United States is not interested in. They also discussed a plan to share America’s technological superiority in its military forces.

The stage is set for the gap to widen between Europe and America!

Turkey is the only nation that objected to the wording of Article 30—not surprising, since it has been snubbed by the European Union. What is surprising, however, is that no one else voiced disapproval—specifically, the United States and Britain. As it turns out, Turkey raised a big enough fuss to guarantee that non-European Union members of nato would be consulted before nato’s resources were called upon for emergency action.

Despite nato’s big plans, the crisis in Kosovo hung over the summit in Washington like an ominous cloud. It was a constant reminder that while heads of state were celebrating the alliance’s anniversary, nato planes were bombing Serbian oil refineries, bridges, rail lines, factories, television stations—even one of SlobodanMilosevic’s homes. Yet Milosevic remains defiant, refugees continue to stream out of Kosovo and stories of atrocity fill space in newspapers.

Noting the obvious irony, many commentators questioned whether the alliance would even last. Francois Heisbourg, chairman-designate of the Geneva Center for Security Policy, said, “We are staring defeat in the face. If we are not capable of preventing the worst humanitarian disaster in Europe since 1945 with the full array of nato power against the dictator of a country with 8 million people, we might as well reduce our defense budgets to zero and give up.”

“We are facing defeat in terms of criteria we set for ourselves,” Heisbourg said. “One was to get Milosevic to sign the Rambouillet peace agreement. Forget that. Another was to improve the humanitarian situation. The opposite is happening. A third was establishing the credibility of nato. It’s being undermined.”

Former U.S. Senator Bob Dole put it this way: “If we fail and allow Serbian aggression in Kosovo to stand, [April’s] celebration at the 50th anniversary of the founding of nato conceivably could become nato’s funeral.”

For its first 40 years, the fact that nato was small and had one, common enemy was the glue which held the alliance together. For the past ten years, nato has been expanding and has lost its traditional enemy. That does not bode well for what some have called the world’s most successful military alliance.

“Too many are arguing that the alliance should divide its forces,” says former nato commander Alexander Haig—“the European allies to take care of Europe, the U.S. to take care of interests outside of Europe. But if nato’s vital interests are divisible, then the mainspring of the alliance’s success—shared interests, shared risks and shared responsibilities—will be broken. America and Europe will go their own way.”

That has already begun. It started with the unification of Germany and the Soviet Union’s collapse earlier this decade. Of late, this eventuality has gathered steam because of nato expansion, the crisis in Kosovo and Europe’s dissatisfaction with American hegemony within the alliance. That resulted in Article 30 at last month’s Washington Summit.

A European peace-keeping organization is a clearly defined goal of the European Union. For now, however, Europe will continue to use American firepower—but only as long as it needs it. When that is no longer the case, nato’s forces will be superseded by the European Union’s, leaving a weakened Britain, Canada and America on the outside looking in.

It won’t be long before Europe completely severs its ties with these English-speaking nations. True, America’s military forces are still far superior to any other power in the world.

But things change—fast.

In 1933, Adolf Hitler inherited a run-down, dilapidated military force, fully incapable of carrying out his clear objective for world rule. Five years later, he had transformed that into the awesome Wehrmacht.

Considering that, and how much has happened in the last ten years, it will not take long for the European Union, led by Germany, to accumulate enough force to turn on America and her few remaining allies.


NATO: Why Bomb Serbia

NATO: Why Bomb Serbia

AFP/AFP/Getty Images

If it’s just as the politicians and the press say, NATO had plenty of chances before this one to act.
From the May 1999 Trumpet Print Edition

Current media spin is false. Nato is not bombing Serbia just so displaced Albanian refugees can return home. If that was the reason, nato would have invaded Croatia four years ago to put an end to “Operation Storm”—when Croatia’s army chased more than 350,000 Serbs out of its territory.

Consider the Croatian town of Knin. Before the war between Croatia and Serbia, which ended in 1995, the city’s population was only 11 percent Croat. After Operation Storm, with the city reduced to half its original size, 71 percent of its residents were Croats. Serbian staff were removed from hospitals, law enforcement agencies and school systems. Even streets were given new Croatian names.

That’s called ethnic cleansing.

In fact, Carl Bildt, former European Community mediator in the Balkans, calls it “the most efficient ethnic cleansing we’ve seen in the Balkans.”

President Clinton has vowed that all 600,000 Kosovar refugees will be returned to their homes. Four years after Operation Storm, less than 20 percent of the 350,000 Serbs have returned to Croatia. And of those who have, many complain that Croatia is making it difficult to obtain citizenship.

Nato has done virtually nothing to help Serbs return home. In fact, as Trumpet readers are well aware, nato forces actually supported Croatia’s secession from Yugoslavia—at Germany’s insistence—despite the ethnic cleansing and the fact that Croatian fascists helped exterminate more than 700,000 Serbs in World War II. (Croatian President, Franjo Tudjman, has refused to disassociate his country from its fascist past.)

As pointed out in “The Unseen Danger in Kosovo” (page 6), Germany stood against the whole world in 1991 by recognizing Croatia. That, not Slobodan Milosevic, is the reason civil war has erupted in Yugoslavia. That point cannot be overemphasized.

Today, it is that same German insistence, working behind the scenes, which is most responsible for nato bombing raids on Serbia. It might not appear that way, since the U.S. is at the forefront of the assault. But again, if we look behind the scenes, as Stratfor’s George Friedman says, you see the “Germans under the table…playing an extremely aggressive role.”

Nato, the new regional policeman, chose Milosevic as its first target for one reason: because Serbia has historically been an avowed enemy of Germany.

The Unseen Hand

The Unseen Hand

Trumpet

Hope for the future.
From the May 1999 Trumpet Print Edition

In a world hurtling toward destruction, hope is on the horizon. Not a hope born of humanity, because it will not come from man. Not a hope built by society—it will not come from groups of men. Rather, a hope soon to come upon the earth from an unseen hand.

As 1940 wore on toward June, a stage was being set for the now-famous and well-documented “Battle of Britain”—the time when a small number of men hurtled their planes into the air to engage a numerically superior enemy in mortal combat. Looking back on that time is easy for us today, but it wasn’t so positive for those who were about to receive the severe onslaught of the German Luftwaffe.

At that time of Britain’s darkest hour, Winston Churchill’s “blood, sweat and tears” speech moved a nation. It shot through to the hearts of the British people. It firmed their determination that if they were to survive as a nation they must be willing to suffer any sacrifice.

After World War II failed to bring real peace, and the nuclear age became dominant, one of America’s leading newsmagazines, U.S. News and World Report, made a statement to the general effect that our only hope for human survival is in the power of a Strong Hand from somewhere. That statement continues to become more true with every passing day.

As surely as Britain faced the question of survival then, all humanity faces the question of survival now—the survival of the human race! In 1934, a work began to publish and broadcast the truth of a coming time of peace. The founder of that work, Herbert W. Armstrong, wrote, “Thirty-eight years ago a tiny handful of financially poor but sober people did face up to [world events]. They volunteered to join me in a ‘blood, sweat and tears’ sacrifice to do something about it.

“As time went on, others caught the vision, volunteered to join with them. Now, in humanity’s darkest hour—with most of humanity lethargically refusing to face up to it, our deliverance is near. Glorious victory is in sight; humanity will be saved alive. The peaceful, happy, prosperous, joyful world tomorrow is soon to dawn.”

Today, our eyes must be opened to the serious and sobering news events. We should see the way humanity is going—the threat to human existence.

The film footage of the thousands of refugees streaming out of Kosovo is but a prelude of what is soon to come upon the whole earth. Today, we continue to send the warning of a coming holocaust, but we also send a message of hope. The ultimate truth is, there is a solution—a solution to world problems, by and through this unseen Strong Hand from somewhere!

News sources today only report the news. Of those sources, only a few give world news from different perspectives. And of all the sources, none show the solutions that are going to save this world. That’s because only the Trumpet magazine is able to accurately analyze today’s news in light of biblical prophecy. Only the Trumpet magazine and The Key of David television program bring good news of a better tomorrow. The time when a Prince of Peace will rule the earth with outgoing love and concern. A time when implements of war will be turned into implements of peace. The Trumpet magazine is the only source of that good news, and it is given without cost to you!

People often ask: “How can you do it? How can you publish such a quality magazine without advertising, and without subscription price? The answer is, it is done by people who believe in that hope and want to be a part of it. As more and more people have come to recognize the challenge—to realize this great Work offers them an opportunity to have a part in actually saving the world—the number who have volunteered to become co-workers has increased. They are those who contribute financially in order that the world may receive this hope.

It is time to give recognition for the loving service, often at great personal sacrifice, by that small army of staff and volunteers. They have made it possible for you to hold this fine-quality magazine—The Trumpet, in your hands. These are the loyal workers and co-workers who, also, make possible the Key of David program.

There is an unseen strong hand! There will be supernatural intervention to save humanity alive. And the revelation given mankind through this work by the Supreme Personage that wields that Strong Hand explains why so few laborers can do such a mighty work!

We know that we have been given a very great mission. That mission is to awaken a drowsy, lethargic humanity to the fact that its wrong ways are leading all humanity into a crisis that would mean the extinction of human life if the almighty God did not come to our rescue. We have been called to proclaim to the world the fact that the Creator is also the ruler over His creation—that humanity as a whole has transgressed His laws and therefore brought on itself all the accumulated evils that now exist in this world.

We have been assigned to proclaim the very imminent coming of the great Messiah in total supernatural power and glory to set up the government of God over all nations, and to bring this unhappy world peace at last!