War Over the Nile River

War Over the Nile River

Eugene Regis

Will Egypt topple the Ethiopian government?

War may soon be coming to Ethiopia.

In March of 2011, at the height of the political revolution in Egypt, Ethiopia strategically announced that it would soon start construction on a massive hydroelectric dam on the headwaters of the Nile River. This is an explosive declaration. Not only will this dam undoubtedly reduce the amount of water flowing into Sudan and Egypt for several years and perhaps permanently, it is an existential threat to Egypt.

For Egypt, allowing Ethiopia to construct this dam is somewhat like Israel allowing Iran to build a nuclear arsenal.

Egypt is nothing without the Nile. Almost 100 percent of Egypt’s 83 million inhabitants live along the Nile River. It is literally the lifeblood of the country. It does more than just support agriculture and industry; it provides the water necessary to push the turbines at Egypt’s giant Aswan Dam. This dam, one of the biggest hydroelectric engineering feats of all time, helped transform modern Egypt into a Middle Eastern superpower. The massive lake created by the dam allowed Egypt to expand its agricultural production like never before. It turned whole swaths of desert into lush, irrigated farmland. Electricity production allowed businesses and manufacturers to expand. Egyptian standards of living rose—and the population skyrocketed.

The power to shut down the Nile—even temporarily—is the power to destroy Egypt.

To say Egypt and Ethiopia do not have the best of relationships is putting it mildly. During the 1960s, Egypt was ground zero for the formation of the Eritrean Liberation movement and the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front, the primary force behind Eritrea’s long war for independence from Ethiopia. During the ’70s and ’80s, Egypt actively supported several other terrorist groups that also worked to overthrow the government in Ethiopia. When Eritrea finally gained independence in 1994, it had Egypt to thank.

But Egypt’s strength, and its ability to project force and policy on its neighbors, is a function of not just its military, but its economy—and the economic treaties in force. This is one of the roots of contention between Egypt and Ethiopia.

Due to colonial-era treaties between Egypt, Sudan and the United Kingdom, Egypt holds sole authority over the Nile River’s water—forever. Until recently, this meant that if any upstream nation (also former British protectorates/colonies at the time) wanted to use water from any tributary flowing into the Nile, they had to seek Egyptian approval.

Over the years, nations such as Kenya, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania and Ethiopia have largely abided by these pre-independence treaties—often to the detriment of their own people.

But now that may be about to change.

Ethiopia’s Blue Nile River generates approximately 85 percent of the total water flowing into the Nile. Ethiopia contends that it was not a signatory to the 1959 treaty, and thus it should not have to abide by a treaty that takes virtually 100 percent of its water that flows into the Nile. Thus Ethiopia is leading the charge to rewrite the treaties.

More than leading the charge—it is now the first nation to actively challenge Egypt’s monopoly on the Nile.

Ethiopia claims that the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam is needed for its own domestic electricity requirements. This dam, which is currently under construction, will become one of the top 10 biggest dams in the world. It will be able to generate three times the power the Hoover Dam does. It will also greatly increase Ethiopia’s regional importance by providing desperately needed electricity to its neighbors.

In 2010, Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania signed an agreement rejecting Egypt’s claim to the Nile and formed a new partnership to redistribute the river’s water more equitably.

Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam is the first test of this agreement—and Egypt’s resolve. It is scheduled for completion in three years, at which time large amounts of water will be withheld from the Nile. But perhaps even more importantly from Egypt’s perspective, if not stopped it could herald a gold rush of other hydro-electric projects that will inevitably lead to increased agricultural projects within the region. If Ethiopia succeeds, it will be the end of Egypt’s control of the Nile. In water-limited Africa, that would be an unmitigated disaster for the land of the pharaohs.

What will Egypt do?

In the April 2011 issue of the Trumpet, Mr. Flurry prophesied specifically that Libya and Ethiopia would become the victims of radical Islam. At the time, there was very little physical evidence to suggest Ethiopia could ever be threatened. But he made that prediction based upon the prophecy in Daniel 11:40-43, which foretells an end-time clash between a German-led Holy Roman Empire and an Iranian-led Islamic coalition called the king of the south. In verse 43, Daniel lists the “Libyans and the Ethiopians” as part of the king of the south alliance. “This verse states that Libya and Ethiopia are also going to be closely allied with Iran!” stated Mr. Flurry.

When this article was published, people said the idea that largely Christian Ethiopia could ever fall into the radical Islamist camp was outrageous. Muslims and Christians had been peacefully coexisting for years, they said.

Based on the physical evidence at that time, these critics seemed right. But look at Ethiopia now.

In November 2011, the Ethiopian government discovered plans by a group of Wahhabi Muslims to turn Ethiopia into an Islamic country governed by sharia law. In a press conference, the Ethiopian government expressed concern over the increasing incidence of violence against moderate Muslims and Christians by radical Wahhabi Muslims. Since then, as Trumpet columnist Brad Macdonald wrote, there has been a huge uptick in Islamic inspired protests and riots. Even Western newspapers like the Christian Science Monitor and the Washington Times are warning about an Islamic backlash and the radicalization of Ethiopian Muslims. “Is this the start of radical Islam’s takeover of Ethiopia?” he asked.

Then on August 20, Ethiopia’s longtime prime minister, Meles Zenawi, suddenly died. His successor is untested and comes from a small protestant group as opposed to one of the major religious affiliations. There is talk of a power struggle.

On August 22, just two days after Zenawi died, Gerald Flurry said on a Key of David program that Daniel 11:43 shows that Egypt is about to have a “major impact on other nations in the Middle East, and in Libya and Ethiopia, in particular.” He went on to say that Egypt would play a critical role in turning Ethiopia into an Egypt-Iran allied state.

Events are now bearing out that prophecy.

According to Stratfor, Egypt has three choices. First, Egypt can bring political and economic pressure on Ethiopia to prevent the construction of the dam. This has already had a limited effect, but it probably won’t be enough to stop Ethiopia. Although Egypt and Sudan have successfully discouraged international investors from financing the $5 billion project, Ethiopia appears to be internally funding construction.

Second, Egypt could resort to direct military intervention. Although Stratfor says this is a last option, it also warns that “Cairo will use any tool at its disposal to stop the project, including military force if necessary. This jives with the Stratfor files that were stolen by WikiLeaks and published on August 31. According to these WikiLeak documents, Egypt has procured the use of Sudanese military bases to launch military attacks on Ethiopia’s dam project.

Third, Stratfor says Egypt could reactivate and support proxy militant groups. There are at least a dozen such armed groups scattered across ethnically divided Ethiopia that are working to overthrow the government or carve out independent regions.

Egypt could also use its allies in Eritrea to destabilize Ethiopia. This is exactly what appears to be happening.

Yesterday Ethiopia announced that it had seized 500 weapons and thousands of rounds of ammunition being smuggled into the country from Sudan. The seizure comes just a month after six exiled Ethiopian opposition groups announced the formation of armed movements against the government. According to Africa Review, 12 armed opposition groups have recently taken up arms against the Ethiopian government.

Ethiopia may quickly be headed for civil war—instigated by Egypt! According to one report, most of these groups are proxies of Egypt’s Eritrean and Sudanese allies.

Will Egypt soon topple the Ethiopian government? Egypt has tens of billions of dollars’ worth of U.S. military hardware. It has well positioned and locally supported militant groups based in Ethiopia and on its borders. And it is facing the prospect of losing control of its most important and strategic asset—a river that is the lifeblood of its existence.

The Bible says Egypt will soon be instrumental in bringing a radical political reorientation to Ethiopia. Watch while it happens.

UN Plans to Send European Troops to Syria

UN Plans to Send European Troops to Syria


Already embedded in Lebanon, European forces are seen as the best choice for patrolling Syria.

The new United Nations peace envoy to Syria is creating plans to send 3,000 peacekeeping troops to Syria. Where will the 3,000 come from? The envoy, Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi, feels his options are limited. He reportedly considers African troops too ill equipped, soldiers from neighboring Arab countries too close to the rebels to be considered neutral, and Britain and American forces tainted in the eyes of the locals by their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. And Russia and China’s support for the Assad regime rules them out.

This leaves just one region: Europe.

“Brahimi has asked for the lists of troop contributing countries, and has already ruled out a number of countries, which essentially leaves European troops,” the Telegraph quote an anonymous source saying, October 13. “He is looking at all options and not putting all his eggs in the peacekeeping basket, but all information points to him exploring the peacekeeping option in a very serious manner.”

European troops are also seen as being most familiar with the region. Just south of Syria, the bulk of the 15,000 strong United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (unifl) is made up of European soldiers. Italy, France, Spain, Germany and Ireland are among the largest contributors to the mission. One of these five “would be expected to play a leading role in the Syria peacekeeping force,” writes the Telegraph.

Nations contributing to unifil are “alone are thought to have the infrastructure and on-the-ground knowledge that any peacekeeping operation would require,” the Telegraph says.

The Telegraph also reports that Brahimi “has spent recent weeks quietly sounding out which countries would be willing to contribute soldiers.”

Brahimi’s plans tie directly in to Bible prophecy. In September’s Trumpet magazine, editor in chief Gerald Flurry described how Europe will soon get very involved in Syria, in his article “How the Syrian Crisis Will End.” He described how Syria will end up a German ally. Now Europe, including Germany, is the top candidate for leading a peacekeeping mission to the country.

There are still great obstacles to the mission going ahead. It would have to gain the approval of Russia and China. But Germany is dedicated to gaining influence in the area. A German government adviser said last April that in the event of military intervention in Syria, “German participation should be assured,” according to German-Foreign-Policy.com. This region is so important to Europe that they have committed thousands of troops to unfil, gaining vital experience in the area. Even if the peacekeeping mission is blocked, they will find a way to turn Syria around into a European ally.

But Brahimi’s plan ties in to an even more significant prophecy.

The Bible prophesies that European forces will be invited in to Israel as peacekeepers. These peacekeepers will then double cross the Israelis and wipe out Jerusalem.

The same criteria that make European troops the logical choice for Syria would commend them equally well to Israel. Imagine if, after Arab attacks, both sides ask for peacekeepers from the UN. Once again, African troops would be seen as under-resourced. America may be seen as too close to Israel, and tainted by Iraq. The Arabs would be too close to the Palestinians. European forces, already embedded in Lebanon, would be the obvious choice.

The arrival of European peacekeepers around Jerusalem is a key step on the road to Christ’s return. Europe’s formation of an anti-Iranian alliance is all part of a clash that ultimately revolves around Jerusalem.

For more information on Europe’s involvement in the Middle East and this double-cross in Israel, read Mr. Flurry’s August article “Watch Jerusalem!

Eurozone to Get Its Own Budget

Eurozone to Get Its Own Budget


The eurozone prepares a practical step toward becoming a superstate.

Eurozone nations could gain their own budget, separate from the European Union’s budget, under draft proposals published October 8 and supported by key member states. These proposals would put the eurozone on the path to developing a common taxation and spending policy and common treasure. It is a practical step toward becoming a superstate.

Reuters writes: “The fund could be used to help a country such as Spain, which has unemployment of 25 percent and is struggling to reinvigorate growth. In exchange for budget rigor, the pan-eurozone fund could provide targeted assistance.”

It would be a carrot to persuade nations to submit to the EU’s central control. It would also make the eurozone more like a single nation, where money is channeled to regions that are struggling. Eurozone nations would then be under further pressure to harmonize their taxation, spending and social problems, so some countries aren’t constantly leaching off the common fund.

“So this is a discussion which is just beginning,” wrote Chris Morris, a Europe correspondent at the bbc. “But it’s another sign of the kind of change which is coming in the EU.”

Reuters reports that Germany and France “strongly support” the proposal. British Prime Minister David Cameron publicly supported it, as he hopes it will mean Britain will have to give less money to the overall EU budget. His thinking is that if more spending is done by the eurozone, which Britain is not a part of, then the overall EU will spend less.

EU Observer reports, “Even for non-euro countries—which are usually wary of creating a ‘two speed’ Europe—the idea is becoming acceptable as long as it does not mean less money in the common pot.”

The proposal is in the draft conclusions to be discussed at a European Council meeting October 18 to 19.

Over the past few weeks, key European leaders have talked a lot about creating a federal Europe and pooling sovereignty. A common eurozone budget is a practical first step in that direction. Watch for a Europe superstate to steadily move from rhetoric to reality.

Germany Blocks Arms Merger

Germany Blocks Arms Merger


The two defense and aerospace conglomerates bae systems and eads announced that they would not be merging to form the world’s largest defense company, October 10. Most commentators blame Germany, or more specifically Chancellor Angela Merkel, for the collapse.

Former German Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg strongly condemned Germany for sinking the deal, in a rare criticism of the government he used to be a part of. In an article in the Financial Times, Guttenberg cited reports that German insistence on the new defense giant being headquartered in Munich led to the collapse of talks.

British leaders, however, were completely in favor of the deal. The Daily Mail’s Alex Brummer wrote that Britain’s prime minister, deputy prime minister and business secretary were “were falling over each other to let it be known they were broadly in favor” of the deal.

As we noted earlier, giving up bae systems would be completely foolish for Britain, despite the business advantages it has for the company. The fact that the deal fell through doesn’t make Britain any less foolish, just more fortunate.

And there is still a chance that the deal may be revived. Reuters notes that eads itself came together several weeks after talks about its formation fell apart.

The Bible prophecies that Britain would try to hire “lovers.” Describing modern Israel—the United States and Britain—Ezekiel 16:33 states, “Thou givest thy gifts to all thy lovers, and hirest them.” Continually, the emphasis is on Britain pursuing and hiring foreign lovers, not the other way around. Negotiations over the bae/eads certainly fits this pattern. Perhaps Britain and France will even give in to Germany in the end.

Nonetheless, just seeking and approving this deals shows Britain is a foolish nation. Hosea 7:11 calls Britain “a silly dove, without sense.” Offering to give up your biggest and most valuable defense company is certainly “silly dove” defense policy.

This deal may be over, but the trend isn’t. Watch for Britain to continue to trust in Europe for its safety as it hires lovers for itself.

Dangerously Deadly Irony: EU Wins Nobel Peace Prize

The European Union was awarded the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize on Friday. In gesture towards EU solidarity, Thorbjørn Jagland, the head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee said that “This is, in a way, a message to Europe to secure everything we have achieved and move forward.”

Commenting on the prize, EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso said the “award today by the Nobel Committee shows that, even in this difficult time, the European Union remains an inspiration for countries and people all over the world, and that the international community needs a strong European Union.”

It sends “a very important message to Europe, that the European Union is something very precious, and we should cherish it, for the good of Europeans, and indeed for the good of all the world,” he said.

Sadly, hardly anything could be further from the truth.

The EU grew out of the tremendous devastation of World War ii and was fueled by the conviction that ever-closer economic ties would bring peace to the world.

However, a unified Europe will not bring peace. In reality it will lead to World War iii. This is something we have been warning about since 1945—at a time Germany was in ruins and few people could imagine an superpower ever rising in Europe.

“The world is about to be bludgeoned into this reality,” wrote Gerald Flurry in 2010. “The Holy Roman Empire has risen six times in Europe. Each time, it has soaked the continent in blood. The seventh head is going to shed blood around the world. Its past strongly indicates what it will do in the future. Its history alone should make people tremble with fear today!”

Bible prophesy indicates a German-led European union will start the next global war. Gerald Flurry explains in his new Key of David television program titled: “Crown of the Holy Roman Empire.” In it he explains exactly where we are in Bible prophecy and where European unification is leading.

What Joe Biden Got Right

What Joe Biden Got Right

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

Thoughts on the vice presidential debate

I wrote in a recent column about the “alternate universe” that some of our politicians seem to inhabit. Last night, watching America’s vice presidential debate, much of the time I felt like I was listening to a conversation in that universe.

Several statements from Vice President Biden were particularly perplexing:

  • He said Iran was on the ascendancy when President Obama took office, whereas now it is more isolated than ever, and far less powerful. He is looking at a completely different set of criteria than I am.
  • He said the American and Israeli military and intelligence communities are in perfect agreement that Iran is “a good way away” from getting a nuclear weapon. Is Benjamin Netanyahu aware of this? Why then has he been traveling around talking about a “red line,” complaining about America’s lack of concern over this existential threat to his country, and turning to Germany for help?
  • The vice president admitted that Iran has grown in its capacity to produce fissile material, but said it doesn’t matter because Iran doesn’t have a weapon to deliver it. I have never heard this defense of Iran’s nuclear program before. Apparently there’s nothing to worry about with all this talk of uranium enrichment; Iran hasn’t even started to build an actual weapon yet. This is supposed to make us all a lot less concerned about the regular reports we hear about missiles Iran is developing, including missiles that can reach Israel and even Europe.
  • The vice president said of President Obama, “This is a guy who’s repaired our alliances so the rest of the world follows us again.” Which alliances is he talking about? Britain? Israel? Pakistan? Egypt? Russia? China? Mexico? Maybe Venezuela? And did you know that the rest of the world is following America’s lead again? This is news to me.
  • He said that the White House’s account of the 9/11 Benghazi attack was “exactly” what the intelligence community had told them. In reality, the State Department was calling it a premeditated terrorist attack almost immediately, while the White House stuck to its story that it was a protest against a YouTube video for weeks.
  • He said the White House wasn’t told the U.S. consulate in Libya wanted more security. But it has been proven the State Department had received those requests and turned them down. The vice president blamed the security lapse in Benghazi on, of all things, Congressman Ryan’s budget, which “cut embassy security … by $300 million below what we asked for.” Of course, the U.S. doesn’t use Ryan’s budget—or any budget at all for that matter. It hasn’t had a budget for more than three years. And even if the security budget did lack that $300 million, the State Department decides where to spend its dollars based on the threats to its interests. Clearly the lack of protection in Benghazi was a serious mistake, one that this administration will not even acknowledge, let alone take responsibility for.
  • He blamed the national debt on Republicans in Congress, even though it has risen nearly $5 trillion under President Obama.
  • He said that no religious institution would have to “refer contraception … pay for contraception … [or] be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide.” What in the world, then, is the Catholic Church thinking by suing over Obamacare’s insistence that it support contraception?
  • He said he believes life begins at conception, but “I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that—women they can’t control their body.” How can these both be true? If life begins at conception, people are being murdered. This is not a matter of opinion, or simply a woman controlling her own body. It is life or death. Yet the vice president went so far as to warn that a Romney administration could well install one or two conservative Supreme Court justices who could overturn Roe v. Wade, thus denying women the right to choose to murder the life within them that begins at conception.
  • Just a few “alternate universe” statements. What, though, are the headlines today? It was a big win for the vice president. “Feisty Biden gives Democrats reason to smile after debate,” wrote cbs News.

    I do think Joe Biden got one thing right, and that was to expose the weakness in the Romney/Ryan foreign policy. He pressed the issue on what exactly a Romney administration would do against Iran, and against Syria—would it actually go to war against those countries? Governor Romney strongly criticizes the present administration, but in the end, I’m not convinced he would do anything substantially different. America is simply in no mood for another war in the Middle East.

    Biden pressed the congressman about the 2014 timetable in Afghanistan, and I honestly couldn’t detect any substantive difference between what the Obama administration has done and what Ryan was advocating: He said he wants to pull out in 2014 and would really work to do so. With the possible exception of Governor Romney’s willingness to be openly friendly to Israel, it seems that most of what we’re getting from him foreign policy-wise amounts to a difference in rhetoric more than of substance.

    It’s always hard watching these debates because it feels like the truth is given so little respect. There were a few exchanges last night where the vice president was directly contradicting everything Congressman Ryan was saying, point by point. Who are we to believe? After every debate we need professional fact checkers to tell us what was true, what was partially true, and what was completely false, and even there we get conflicting accounts.

    I feel like I’m listening to my children explaining an incident where I’m getting contradictory stories because each child is shading the facts in order to put themselves in the best possible light while making the other look as guilty as possible. That is, if they’re not simply outright lying.