Zimbabwe Resigns From Commonwealth

IRAQ WAR OPPONENTS BARRED FROM BIDDING

As Associated Press reported on December 9, 2003, “The Pentagon has formally barred companies from countries opposed to the Iraq war from bidding on $18.6 billion worth of reconstruction contracts… The ruling bars companies from U.S. allies such as France, Germany and Canada from bidding on the contracts because their governments opposed the American-led war that ousted Saddam Hussein’s regime.”

Reuters added the following in their report of December 9, 2003:

“The move is likely to anger France and Germany and other traditional allies in NATO and the U.N. Security Council who are being blocked out of prime contracts after their opposition to the war.” Procurement specialist Prof. Steven Schooner from George Washington University was quoted as saying, “This kind of decision just begs for RETALIATION and a TIT-FOR-TAT RESPONSE from countries (such as Germany, France and Russia).” The article also explained that there are “more than 60 countries eligible for contracts funded by the $18.6 billion appropriated by Congress to rebuild Iraq. The list included Britain, Australia, Poland, Japan, Italy, Norway, Spain, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, South Korea, the Philippines, Romania and Saudi-Arabia.”

As could be expected, the European press of barred countries reacted furiously. Der Spiegel Online reported: “Governmental officials condemned the decision and announced resistance.” The German government spoke of an unacceptable decision and of “extremely selfish economic interests” of the United States. Associated Press added that Joschka Fischer said, “We will be speaking about it with the American side.” Russia reminded the United States of their promise to allow the entire international community to help reconstruct Iraq, according to Der Spiegel Online.

Associated Press added that it will be “difficult for [Canada] to give further money for the reconstruction of Iraq.” Canada has contributed so far $225 million to the rebuilding effort. The article also pointed out that “The White House… said Wednesday that countries wanting a slice of that lucrative pie must participate militarily in the post-war effort. Responding to the ANGRY RESPONSE FROM GERMANY, CANADA AND OTHER U.S. ALLIES, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the policy was ‘appropriate and reasonable.'” Earlier, U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz had cited “national security reasons” for the decision.

Associated Press reported on December 11, 2003: “A conference of companies seeking $18.6 billion in reconstruction costs in Iraq has been delayed by eight days until December 19… The delay comes amid a FUROR over a Pentagon memo barring countries that didn’t support the U.S.-led war from bidding on the reconstruction contracts… [The government] declined to comment on whether the delay was linked to the dispute over the Pentagon directive.”

In a related article, Associated Press stated on December 11, 2003: “Europe’s foreign affairs chief… called the U.S. decision… ‘ [extremely] unhelpful.’… But the British government said Washington was fully entitled to limit construction contracts in Iraq to countries that were part of the U.S.-led coalition. The White House said THE BAN WAS NOT UP FOR RECONSIDERATION… The European Commission called the contract ban a ‘political mistake,’ and said it would examine the contracts to see if Washington had violated its commitments to the World Trade Organization… French President Jacques Chirac, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Russian President Vladimir Putin all raised the contracting issue during previously scheduled telephone calls with President Bush on Wednesday… [The] conservative French newspaper Le Figaro said Thursday the exclusion was ‘bordering on PROVOCATION.’ ‘For the United States, it is truly a shame that the politics of George W. Bush be presented, once again, in such a petty manner,’ the newspaper said. ‘THE ANTI-AMERICANISM THAT NEEDS TO BE COMBATED IS GOING TO BE REVIVED.’… Russia signaled it would take a hard line on reconstructing after being excluded from the contracts. ‘Iraq’s debt to the Russia Federation comes to $8 billion and as far as the Russian government’s position on this, it is not planning any kind of a write-off of that debt,’ [the Russian government stated]… [It] suggested the CONTRACT BAN COULD UNDERMINE THE INTERNATIONAL CAMPAIGN AGAINST TERRORISM.”

Der Spiegel Online published several articles on December 11, addressing the worldwide reactions to Washington’s decision. German politicians spoke of “REVENGE AND BLACKMAIL.” The magazine pointed out that German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder would like to see “constructive conduct” in accordance with “international law.” U.N. General-Secretary Kofi Annan, who was visiting Germany, asked the U.S. government to REVISE their decision. The magazine reported, too, that China is “angry,” and that they have voiced their concern. It added, “Pentagon Spokesman Larry Di Rita said that ‘this is not a final list. It might perhaps include additional countries.'”

Reuters reported on December 11 that President Bush rejected European criticism. He was quoted as follows: “It’s very simple. Our people risked their lives. Friendly coalition folks risked their lives, and therefore the contracting is going to reflect that, and that’s what the U.S. taxpayers expect.”

Not everyone in the United States agreed with the Pentagon’s ruling. As A.P. reported, “Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean… cited the policy as an example of the Bush administration’s ‘confrontation’ approach ‘all over the world.'” He added, “We are now the most feared country on the face of the earth but no longer the most respected.”

As God’s Church has announced for decades, the relationship between the United States and Europe WILL deteriorate. Some, who once understood this truth, have forgotten it and have looked for and begun to preach “alternative” end-time scenarios. However, there is NO ALTERNATIVE for the truth of the Bible.

UPDATE ON EUROPEAN CONSTITUTION

As FT.com reported on December 5, 2003, “The European Union risks falling apart if heads of government put in place a flawed constitution next week, according to Valery Giscard d’Estaing, the former French president who was the architect of the draft constitution.” The article continued: “Mr. Giscard d’Estaing told the European parliament: ‘History teaches us that bad constitutions, those which are felt to be unjust or ineffective by citizens, lead to revolution or rebellion.’… Should EU leaders fail to overcome their differences next week, Mr. Giscard d’Estaing suggested they should then allow ‘time for reflection,’ possibly until after the June parliamentary decisions, rather than rush into a new round of talks: ‘If there is no political will today… there would be nothing to expect from pushing the negotiations.'”

The article pointed out that “Germany is leading to push to have a system where voting clout is closely tied to population size… On the size of the future European Commission…, [Mr. Giscard d’Estaing] reiterated his belief that the EU’s executive could not operate effectively with as many as 31 commissioners… The draft constitution proposes having 15 commissioners with full voting powers.”

Associated Press reported on December 8 that “European Union foreign ministers admitted defeat Monday in their efforts to find a constitutional compromise between countries seeking greater integration and those who fear a European superstate. Their failure after nearly two months of arduous negotiations diminished hopes for a deal on a first-ever EU constitution despite a weekend deadline for action. The ministers said the issue was so divisive it could only be resolved by EU leaders, who arrive Friday for a two-day summit.”

The article continued:

“The countries also remained at odds over how to bolster the EU’s defense policy without endangering s
ecurity ties with the United States or trampling on some countries’ cherished neutrality. In an eleventh-hour appeal, neutral EU nations Sweden, Ireland, Finland and Austria objected strongly to a proposed mutual defense pledge, similar to NATO’S, stating that if one EU member is attacked, the others are obliged to provide assistance… Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini, who chaired the talks, said he would revise the clause for a new proposal… De Villepin [of France] WARNED Frattini NOT TO WATER IT DOWN… ‘The solidarity as expressed in this clause must not be downgraded,’ he told reporters.”

Der Spiegel Online reported on December 10, 2003, that “Great Britain’s Prime Minister Tony Blair is apparently concerned that he will be treated less than equal by Germany and France regarding the battle for the EU constitution.” The two countries stated, according to the article, that they would work together more closely if a EU Constitution should not become reality at this point.

In an additional article, Der Spiegel Online reported on December 10 about the “European Fear of ‘Francallemagne.'” It pointed out: “A new German-French power bloc is developing in Europe. Smaller nations are looking at this development with concern.” The article continued: “It’s all about power in Europe… Joschka Fischer declared that there would be smaller groups in Europe if a European Constitution should not be adopted… Especially Britain looks with suspicion at the new love between the former arch-enemies, Germany and France… The message: Be aware of a powerful Germany, and be even more aware of a powerful Germany together with an already powerful France… Former German Chancellor, Helmut Schmidt, is also not supportive of a German-French power bloc. ‘We need a new agreement for a greater Europe, and not one for France and Germany,'” he was quoted in the article.

Associated Press reported on December 11, 2003, that “a new draft constitution has failed to resolve divisions among European Union governments on a voting system for the enlarged union, with growing signs leaders will miss their weekend deadline for agreement. Instead nations hardened their positions as they prepared for the summit of EU leaders starting Friday to debate the union’s first-ever constitution. EU officials have said about 100 issues remain to be decided, including whether God should be mentioned in the charter and whether there should be a majority voting on foreign policy.”

Der Spiegel Online quoted Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi as saying, “If we reach an agreement, that would be a MIRACLE. But sometimes, miracles happen.” The magazine stated, too, that Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski announced that he does not agree with the current draft EU constitution. Jean-Claude Juncker, Prime Minister of Luxembourg, warned that a failure would be catastrophic for Europe. He was quoted as saying that this was the last chance for Europe to reach a political union for all European member states. Otherwise, he added, the core states of the EU might go their separate ways. This would then place a grave responsibility on the countries which originally founded the European Community in 1957, i.e., Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg.

Prophecy is marching on. The Bible reveals that ultimately, ten nations or groups of nations will lead Europe. It is exciting to see how this will work out on the political scene. It is important to watch these world events, as their fulfillment indicates the imminent return of Jesus Christ.

US RETREATS FROM GERMANY

Associated Press reported on December 8 that “the United States briefed NATO allies Monday on plans for an overhaul of American forces in Europe that may see tens of thousands of troops transferred from Cold War-era bases in Germany to new bases closer to potential trouble spots.” The article pointed out that “U.S. officials have previously said the realignment is likely to close or scale down many of the permanent bases set up in Germany and other NATO nations to face the Soviet threat. Instead troops will be shifted to smaller, lightly equipped centers ready for rapid deployment to places like the Middle East, the Balkans or Central Asia.”

AUSTRALIA JOINS U.S. MISSILE DEFENSE

Reuters reported on December 4, 2003, that “Australia has decided in principle to join a U.S.-led missile defense system, strengthening military ties with Washington.” The article pointed out, too, that “Australia has also joined the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program to develop an advanced stealth fighter-bomber.” Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer was quoted as follows: “Our long and vigorous alliance with the United States benefits the security of both countries and will be strengthened by our participation in missile defense.” The article continued: “Canberra’s decision to join the U.S. program could spark renewed accusations by some Asian neighbors that Australia is playing ‘deputy sheriff’ for Washington in the Asia-Pacific region.”

ZIMBABWE RESIGNS FROM COMMONWEALTH

As Der Spiegel Online reported on December 8, 2003, the African state of Zimbabwe, formerly known as Rhodesia, resigned from the Commonwealth of Nations, after Zimbabwe’s membership had been suspended last year, due to alleged governmental election fraud and a refusal of President Mugabe to open the country to democratic reforms. During a Commonwealth summit in Nigeria, the vast majority of especially Western countries voted for a continuation of the suspension, while eight African countries were asking to revoke the suspension.

The Commonwealth of Nations represents one-third of the world population. It is a loose and voluntary confederation of currently 53 independent sovereign states, formed mostly by the United Kingdom and most of its former colonies. It was formerly known as the British Commonwealth, and many still call it mistakenly by that name.

As nationmaster.com explains, the Commonwealth is the successor of the British Empire and has its origins in the Imperial Conference of the late 1920s. After World War II, the Empire was gradually dismantled, “partly owing to the rise of independent movements in the then subject territories (most importantly India…), and partly owing to the British Government’s straitened circumstances resulting from the cost of the war. Burma (now Myanmar) (1948) and South Yemen (1967) are among the only former colonies that did not join the Commonwealth on independence. Ireland was a member, but left the Commonwealth upon becoming a republic in 1949.”

The article continued:

“India is the most populous member, with a billion people at the 2001 census, while Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria each contain more than 100 million people. Tuvalu, in contrast, has only 11,000 inhabitants… One member of the present Commonwealth was never attached to the British Empire [i.e.,] Mozambique. [It] applied for and received membership in 1995… Fiji and Pakistan have had their memberships suspended in recent years because of military coups… South Africa’s membership was effectively suspended during the apartheid era… but was reinstated… in 1994. Nigeria was suspended between 1995 and 1999. Pakistan had earlier left on January 30, 1972… but rejoined in 1989. Zimbabwe was suspended in 2002 over concerns with the electoral and land reform policies of Robert Mugabe’s… government. Charles de Gaulle once suggested that France, though it was never a member of the British Empire (even if for centuries English/British monarchs claimed the title ‘King of France’), should apply for Commonwealth membership. This never happened.”

The current Commonwealth Members and their membership dates are as follows:

Antigua and Barbuda (1981); Australia (1931); The Bahamas (1973); Bangladesh (1972); Barbados (1966); Belize (1981); Botswana (1966); Brunei (1984); Cameroon (1995); Canada (1931); Cyprus (1961); Domini
ca (1978); Fiji (1970, left in 1987, rejoined in 1997); The Gambia (1965); Ghana (1957); Grenada (1974); Guyana (1966); India (1947); Jamaica (1962); Kenya (1963); Kiribati (1979); Lesotho (1966); Malawi (1964); Malaysia (1957); Maldives (1982); Malta (1964); Mauritius (1968); Mozambique (1995); Namibia (1990); Nauru (1999); New Zealand (1931); Nigeria (1960, was suspended in 1995, but readmitted in 1999); Pakistan (1947, left in 1972, rejoined in 1989); Papua New Guinea (1975); Samoa (1970); Seychelles (1976); Sierra Leone (1961); Singapore (1965); Solomon Islands (1978); South Africa (1931, left in 1961, rejoined in 1994); Sri Lanka (1948); St. Kitts and Nevis (1983); St. Lucia (1979); St. Vincent and The Grenadines (1979); Swaziland (1968); Tanzania (1961); Tonga (1979); Trinidad and Tobago (1962); Tuvalu (1978); Uganda (1962); United Kingdom (1931); Vanuatu (1980); Zambia (1964).

As mentioned above, Ireland left in 1949; Pakistan has been suspended since 1999; and Zimbabwe was suspended on March 20, 2002, and left on December 8, 2003.

From the above-mentioned Commonwealth Member states, the following 17 member states recognize the Queen of England, represented by a governor-general, as their Head of State, according to Swishweb.com, 2002:

Antigua and Barbuda; Australia; Bahamas; Bangladesh; Barbados; Belize; Canada; Grenada; Jamaica; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; St. Kitts and Nevis; St. Lucia; St. Vincent and the Grenadines; Solomon Islands; Tavula; and Mauritius.

It may also not be widely known or commonly recognized that the following 20 member states are still monarchies, according to the Commonwealth of Learning, June 1999:

Antigua and Barbuda; Australia; The Bahamas; Barbados; Belize; Canada; Grenada; Jamaica; Lesotho; Malaysia; New Zealand; Papua New Guinea; St. Kitts and Nevis; St. Lucia; St. Vincent and the Grenadines; Solomon Islands; Swaziland; Tonga; Tuvalu; and the United Kingdom.

At one time the Commonwealth of Nations, formerly called the British Commonwealth, was a very powerful group of nations under British control. This is no longer the case, as nationmaster.com points out:

“With the mutual decline of interest in each other as former British colonies forge closer relationships with non-Commonwealth trading partners and close geographical neighbors, the Commonwealth’s direct political and economic importance has declined.”

Both Great Britain’s rise to power and the influential formation of a British-controlled Commonwealth, as well as Britain’s and the British Commonwealth’s political and economic decline were prophesied to occur thousands of years ago in the Bible. We will continue to inform our readers about these startling developments, as they are happening in front of our very eyes.

EU WARNS ISRAEL

As AFP reported on December 3, “The EU delivered a stern warning to Israel, declaring that its security barrier ‘must not invade’ Palestinian territory.” The article continued: “While Israel’s ‘fundamental’ security needs were obvious, ‘the route of the wall must not invade Palestinian territory,’ … [Italy’s Foreign Minister] Franco Frattini [said]. ‘We have repeated that frankly and many times to our Israeli friends,’ he added.”

EU MILITARY

Although a meeting of the European Foreign Affairs Ministers of last Friday and Saturday in Naples, Italy, did not reach agreement on the final wording of the European Constitution in such areas as voting powers and a reference to Christian heritage in the Constitution, much was accomplished during the meeting. As AP reported on November 29, “A plan by France, Britain and Germany to craft an INDEPENDENT MILITARY ROLE FOR THE EUROPEAN UNION while keeping NATO as the continent’s primary defender WON BROAD SUPPORT Saturday from foreign ministers meeting to draft a new EU constitution.” The article continued:

“The plan would create a planning and command cell for the EU at NATO’S military headquarters in southern Belgium… The draft text reads: ‘If a member state is the victim of an armed aggression on its territory, the other member states shall give it aid and assistance by all the means of their power.'”

Donald Rumsfeld criticized this proposal. The United States is very skeptical regarding the European desires for an independent army. As Der Spiegel Online reported on December 1, 2003, German Foreign Minister Peter Struck rejected Mr. Rumsfeld’s concerns, stating that the proposal intends to”strengthen the European pillar of NATO. The proposal does not intend to compete with NATO, but it is an addition.”

EU CONSTITUTION IN DOUBT?

As AP reported on November 29, “[fifteen] foreign ministers facing a deadline in two weeks for a final draft European Union constitution must still decide whether it should provide for a foreign minister or mention God when the expanded grouping [of ten new member states] enters the world stage [next May].” If the charter would be agreed on during the next summit in Brussels on December 12 and 13, it would take effect January 1, 2005. As Zenit reported on November 26, “at least eight countries — Spain, Italy, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Portugal, the Czech Republic and Slovakia — of the 25 that will make up the European Union beginning next May are calling for the introduction of a reference to Christianity in the preamble of the future Constitution. The Pope has voiced his support for this proposal repeatedly. France and Belgium have rejected the proposal.”

Another hurdle is the allocation of voting power. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said in November: “You can’t just go and give 82 million Germans 29 votes, and then give a combined 80 million Poles and Spaniards 54 votes.” On foreign policy, Great Britain objects to the title of foreign minister, arguing it suggests a European super-state.

FISCHER PREDESTINED TO BE EU FOREIGN MINISTER?

As euobserver.com reported on December 1, 2003, “the current German Foreign Minister, Joschka Fischer is ‘pre-destined’ to be the EU’s first Foreign Minister, according to close friend and colleague Daniel Cohn-Bendit.” The article quoted Cohn-Bendit as saying, “You can hear it all over Europe.” He predicted that once Schroeder and Fischer win the next German elections in 2006, thereby guaranteeing Fischer’s continued post as German Foreign Minister, Fischer could then go to Brussels. Der Spiegel Online reported that, according to close friends of Fischer, Fischer never gave up his goal to become EU Foreign Minister.

US ANTI-TERRORISM PROGRAM ENDED

As USA Today reported on December 2, 2003, “The Bush administration is ending an anti-terrorism program that required tens of thousands of foreigners to register and stay in contact with the government while visiting the USA. The program, created after the 2001 terrorist attacks, required men and boys from 25 mostly Middle Eastern countries to re-register after 30 days and again one year after arrival.”

Those 25 countries are:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Egypt, Eritrea, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Lebanon, Morocco, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

The article pointed out the relative failure of this program, as follows: “But critics noted that would-be terrorists were least likely to register with the government and get fingerprinted and photographed. And on Monday, Asa Hutchinson, the Department of Homeland Security’s border and transportation chief, acknowledged that no ‘national security leads’ came out of it.” In addition, the negative side-effects of the program were described as follows:

“Of the 83,519 visitors registered since November 2002, nearly 14,000 were told to appear in court. Officials said most of those likely will be deported for minor visa violations.”

Beginning in January, the US government will enforce a new “entry-exit program for visitors” at airports and seaports nationwide. According to the article, “visitors with visas will be digitally photographed and fingerprinted. Those who would have been required to register under the old program [men and boys from 25 mostly Middle Eastern countries, listed above] will be put through a second, more detailed round of questioning.” 
 

European Force

As Associated Press reported on November 24, “British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac… announced plans for a small rapid-reaction force of EU peacekeepers… Blair and Chirac said the European Union should be capable of dispatching a 1,500-strong force within 15 days to respond to a crisis.” The article continued: “The United States generally is supportive of the EU boosting its military brawn, but wants the Europeans to rely on NATO to plan and run operations. Washington is worried about plans, strongly advocated by France, to set up a separate planning and command headquarters for running military operations outside the NATO… Earlier this year, European defense ministers agreed to establish a 60,000-strong force that could be deployed within 60 days if the U.N. requested it.” The article quoted Timothy Garden of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, stating that the rapid-reaction force “showed a commitment to boosting Europe’s defense capability and would encourage other member states to bolster their military strength.”

EUROPE ANTI-SEMITIC?

As Der Spiegel Online reported on November 24, Israel’s Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, accused the Europeans of being inherently and collectively anti-Semitic. In an interview with EUpolitix.com, he stated: “What we are facing in Europe is an anti-Semitism that has always existed, and it really is not a new phenomenon.” According to Der Spiegel, Sharon also denied that one could distinguish between anti-Semitism and criticism of the Israeli government, stating, “There is no distinction today. We talk about collective anti-Semitism. The state of Israel is a Jewish state, and the positions against the state of Israel are accordingly.” He continued that Israel cannot afford to turn over their fate to the Europeans. He also said that the increasing number of Muslims in the EU certainly endangers the life of Jewish people.

On November 25, The Guardian quoted Yaron Ezrahi, an Israeli political scientist, as responding to Sharon’s remarks, as follows: “We should bear in mind that during the time of the peace process, when Rabin and Peres were leading, Israel was the favourite of the west… There was so much support from Europe and its public. Why was anti-Semitism so limited during the time Rabin and Peres led the peace process and gave the world the message that Israel was prepared to abandon the occupied territories? Sharon has a long record of calling Israeli critics of his policies traitors, and foreign critics anti-Semites. The left is concerned that Sharon’s policies are endangering Israel’s future by FUELLING VIRULENT AND VIOLENT ANTI-SEMITISM.”

SUPPORT FOR HOHMANN?

As Der Spiegel Online reported on November 25, more than “1000 CDU and CSU-members have signed a statement” to “critically support” Martin Hohmann. Hohmann had been stripped of his right to vote in parliament for the CDU, due to a controversial speech in October. The joint statement was published in the “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung,” criticizing the party leaders of CDU and CSU (Angela Merkel and Sigmund Stoiber) for their conduct toward Hohmann. Similar ads had been published before in other daily newspapers. The most recent statement read that Hohmann’s speech was “partially problematic, but not anti-Semitic.” The statement included a quote from history professor Arnulf Baring, who had said on German TV: “Of course, his speech is problematic, but his expulsion is a poor witness for the CDU and for the liberal foundational understanding in this country.” The recent statement was initiated by Fritz Schenk, former moderator of a popular TV broadcast on German public television, the “ZDF-Magazin.”

SPAIN VS. UNITED STATES?

As Der Spiegel Online reported on November 25, the Spanish Government “had been one of the most supportive voices for Bush’s Iraq war. Now, foreign minister Ana Palacio admitted that the situation in Baghdad is worse than it was under Saddam Hussein.” The article continued: “According to Spanish press releases, the minister said that we have ‘a serious security problem in Baghdad.'” Spain’s Minister-President, Jose Maria Aznar, was quoted as stating that the alliance made “mistakes” after the war.

ATTACK ON FREE PRESS IN IRAQ?

As Associated Press reported on November 24, “the U.S.-appointed government raided the offices of Al-Arabiya television on Monday, banned its broadcasts from Iraq and threatened to imprison its journalists. Media groups said the action called into question the future of a free press in the country.” The article continued to explain that the station was banned from working in Iraq “for broadcasting an audiotape a week ago of a voice it said belonged to Saddam Hussein.” The Iraqi Governing Council declared, through its current council president, that “Al-Arabiya incites murder because it’s calling for killings through the voice of Saddam Hussein.”

The Council’s action was sharply criticized and condemned by numerous organizations and individuals, including the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ); the Paris-based media watchdog group Reporters Without Borders (RWB); and Josh Friedman, head of international programs at Columbia University’s School of Journalism in New York. They warned of “heavy-handed actions… toward the media that make us apprehensive about the future of free press freedoms in Iraq” (CPJ), and of “methods… that are contrary to the promise of setting up a democracy in Iraq” (RWB).

FUTURE OF EU CONSTITUTION

As www.thescotsman.co.uk reported on Tuesday, “Britain is preparing to abandon the European Union constitution if the differences between the 15 member states cannot be resolved.” The news release continued: “In an attempt to break the deadlock, Italy — which holds the EU presidency — is to present a compromise draft to foreign ministers at the end of this week.” In addition, the article pointed out: “Ian Davidson, the MP for Glasgow Pollok and chairman of Labour against the euro, was glad to hear that the British government was considering walking away from the proposed EU constitution. He said: ‘Since it was all about the creation of an EU superstate, I welcome the fact that Britain is prepared to walk away from something not in the national interest.'”

The proposed European constitution was also criticized again by the Catholic Church. As Zenit reported on November 20, the Catholic Church has been insisting that the future constitution “includes a reference to Europe’s Christian roots.” Cardinal Paul Poupard, president of the Pontifical Council for Culture, said: “The defense carried out by the Pope has, as its objective, the VERY IDENTITY OF EUROPE.” He also criticized the present wording of Article 51 of Title VII of the proposed constitution, as it might allow to “distinguish between sects, alternative religious movements, and deep-rooted Churches in Europe.”

OUTRAGE OVER BUSH REMARKS

As WorldNetDaily reported on November 24, “many Evangelical Christians in the U.S… are outraged over President George Bush’s statement [on Thursday, during a joint press conference in England with Tony Blair] that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.” The article continued: “Bush’s equivalence of the Judeo-Christian and Muslim gods brought reactions of shock and dismay from Christians in the U.S. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest Protestant denomination, was… saying the president ‘is simply mistaken… The Bible is clear in this: The one and true god is Jehovah, and his only begotten son is Jesus Christ.'” The article also quoted Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, as contradicting the president and as saying: “The Christian God encourages freedom, love, forgiveness, prosperity and health. The Muslim god appears to value the opposite.”

Religious Rights Threatened

TERROR IN ISTANBUL

As USA Today reported on November 20, 2003, at least two explosions in Istanbul “hit the high-rise headquarters of the London-based HSBC bank and the British consulate on Thursday, killing at least 25 people and wounding nearly 400.” Der Spiegel Online reported that the death toll might reach 100, and that British Consul General Roger Short was killed. USA Today continued: “The attacks, which Turkish media reported were suicide bombings, coincided with the visit of President Bush to London and were blamed on al-Qaeda… Turkish authorities said the same groups were behind Saturday’s nearly simultaneous synagogue bombings in Istanbul, which killed 23 people and the two attackers [both Turks]… On Sunday, the al-Qaeda terror network claimed responsibility for the bombings.”

The city of Istanbul has a rich history. Originally called Byzantium, it was named Constantinople in 324 by Roman emperor Constantine I. Like Rome, Constantinople was built on seven hills. The name was changed to Istanbul in 1930. It is the largest city in Turkey. Historically, it had been the capital of the Byzantine Empire and later of the Ottoman Empire. As Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia points out, “Istanbul is famous as one of the most often besieged cities in the world. Before the Turkish conquest its assailants included the Arabs (673-78, 717-18), the Bulgarians (813, 913), and the armies of the Fourth Crusade, which twice succeeded in taking the city (1203, 1204). After Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453, the city became the capital of the Ottoman, or Turkish, Empire; it was the capital of present-day Turkey until 1923, when the newly founded Turkish Republic declared Ankara (then Angora) the capital. From 1918 until 1923 Great Britain, France, and Italy occupied the city.”

The encyclopedia also states that “Istanbul is the headquarters of the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Eastern Orthodox church and the archdiocese of the Patriarch of the Armenians in Turkey; the city has nearly 200 Christian churches.”

Turkey has been understood as modern “Edom” in Biblical prophecy. The prophetic book of Obadiah foretells the future of Turkey. Sadly, it shows that Turkey and its major cities, including Istanbul, will have to face further terror, sieges, war and death.

DANGER FROM THE SUN?

Associated Press reported on November 15 about the recent “solar fireworks,” asking the question whether more is to come. The article stated, “The sun is demanding everyone’s attention, three weeks into perhaps the most dramatic and unexpected chain of eruptions ever observed… There have been as many as 11 salvos since October 19. And the fireworks could reach a new crescendo by Thanksgiving… NASA scientists compare it to a blizzard in July – in California… The biggest solar storm to affect Earth in the recent cycle was October 28… It caused a blackout in Sweden, damaged two Japanese satellites and upset radio communications and navigation systems for jets and ships. Airlines in the northern latitudes flew lower to protect passengers from extra doses of radiation… Scientists worry that a new round of eruptions could do more of the same or worse. Each solar burst hurls into space huge clouds of superheated, charged particle clouds that are 13 times the size of Earth… What will the sun do next? Astronomers can only watch and wait.”

VIOLENCE NECESSARY?

On his recent trip to Great Britain, President Bush told academics gathered at Banqueting House on November 19, 2003: “In some cases, the measured use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force… There are principled objections to the use of force in every generation and I credit the motives behind these views… Those in authority, however, are not judged only by good motivations. The people have given us the duty to defend them and that duty sometimes requires the violent restraint of violent men… Let us never forget how Europe’s unity was achieved: by allied armies of liberation and NATO’S armies of defense.”

From his point of view, President Bush is correct. The people did elect him, as their President and as the Commander-in-Chief, to be protected from violent men, if need be, by force. That is one of the reasons why a true Christian who rejects violence and puts his trust in God, should not participate in governmental elections.

U.S. DOLLAR KEEPS FALLING

Bloomberg.com reported on November 15 that “for the first week, the dollar dropped 2.2 percent, the biggest decline since May 9.” The article quoted a chief investment officer, saying, “Dollar weakness is a trend that is well entrenched.” Another expert was quoted as saying, “We see the dollar… going down.” A senior currency strategist added, “The U.S. dollar is being shunned.” At the same time, the EU predicts that “Europe’s economic growth will accelerate next year,” according to the article.

GAY RIGHTS ON THE MARCH…

“Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Tuesday that same-sex couples are legally entitled to wed under the state constitution,” according to MSNBC News Service. The majority opinion stated that “barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution.” The article pointed out that the “Massachusetts Legislature… has been considering a constitutional amendment that would legally define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.”

It continued: “Gay and lesbian advocates had been cheered by a series of advances this year, including U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down anti-sodomy laws, the ordination of an openly gay bishop in the Episcopal Church, and a Canadian appeals court ruling that it was unconstitutional to deny gay couples the same marriage rights as heterosexual couples… In addition to Vermont, courts in Hawaii and Alaska have previously ruled that the states did not have a right to deny marriage to gay couples. In those two states, the decisions were followed by the adoption of constitutional amendments limiting marriage to heterosexual couples.”

In an article by Christianity Today that was posted on November 19, 2003, several conservative commentators were quoted as expressing outrage regarding the recent decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Family Research Council President Tony Perkins called it “the most intolerant act of judicial tyranny in recent memory.” Focus on the Family founder James Dobson was quoted as saying, “This is a very sad day in the life of this country, and one that I believe invites the very judgment of God as we move arrogantly away from our moral underpinnings… He will not be mocked, and He warned us through the prophet Isaiah, ‘Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.'” Syndicated Columnist Cal Thomas was quoted as saying that the judges “are playing God.” He wrote: “It is like morally corrupt ancient Israel when there was no king ‘and everyone did what was right in his own eyes.'”

Robert Knight, director of Concerned Women for America’s Culture and Family Institute, was quoted by Christianity Today, as follows: “Christians are sure to be targets of persecution for their beliefs if ‘gay’ marriage is given legal backing.” The article concluded, “In any case, this decision is huge news, both in itself and in its implications.”

… WHILE RELIGIOUS RIGHTS ARE THREATENED

Associated Press reported on November 14 that Alabama chief justice Roy Moore was ousted “for refusing to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state courthouse.” The article continued: “The nine members of the Court of the Judiciary handed out the harshest penalty possible, saying Moore left them with no choice by repeatedly insisting he would never obey a federal judge’s order to move” the monument from the courthouse.

Moore’s legal opponents announced that they “intend now to file a complaint
with the Alabama State Bar Association asking that Moore be disbarred.” If this should happen, the consequences for any Christian judge or lawyer in Alabama might be catastrophic. It could mean, for instance, that a Christian lawyer, who is conscientiously opposed to serving on a jury, might have to obey an order to serve and thereby to violate his religious convictions, or face disbarment.

A poem was circulated this year over the Internet that has been attributed to Judge Roy Moore. Here are some excerpts:

“Babies piled in dumpsters,
Abortion on demand.
Oh, sweet land of liberty,
Your house is on the sand.

Our children wander aimlessly
Poisoned by cocaine,
Choosing to indulge their lusts,
When God has said abstain.

….

You think that God’s not angry,
That our land’s a moral slum?
How much longer will He wait
Before his judgment comes?”

GERMANY AND FRANCE?

Deutsche Welle, a German television broadcasting company, published an article on November 14, wondering about the future relationship between France and Germany. It stated, “If a French newspaper is right, German-French ties could go from its current love affair status to downright marriage in the future, with foreign, defense and economic policy being merged. Already united in their opposition to the Iraq war, their miserable economies and desire to keep power in the European Union in the hands of the big players, France and Germany might have even more in store. The French newspaper Le Figaro reported this week that the governments in Paris and Berlin are thinking about merging important policy fields as well… In particular the smaller countries, among them the ten new members of the European Union, fear a French-German axis could turn into a formidable bloc in the EU decision-making process… The two [France and Germany] are also in favor of a constitution provision that would limit the number of seats in the powerful European Commission in the future to the current 15.”

GERMANY’S ONGOING PARANOIA

As Associated Press reported on November 14, “Germany’s Christian Democrats [CDU] on Friday stripped a lawmaker [Martin Hohmann] of his rights to vote with or speak for the conservative opposition party in parliament.” This move followed his controversial speech on October 3, which was labeled by much of the press as “anti-Semitic.” The article also pointed out that the CDU has “also begun moves to expel Hohmann from the party entirely, a process that could take years.” Der Stern reported on November 14, that 195 of the CDU members of parliament voted for the expulsion. Nevertheless, the CDU leadership was “surprised” that 28 members of parliament voted against it, 16 members abstained, and four votes were invalid. Before the vote was cast, “letters, emails or phone calls were received by the CDU, criticizing the planned expulsion of Hohmann,” according to Der Spiegel, dated November 13. Numerous resignations of party members from the CDU were also registered.

Hohmann had addressed the CDU members of Parliament before the vote, asking for forgiveness. He stated, according to Der Spiegel of November 13:

“I have apologized three times… I have trusted the promise of [a journalist] not to reveal the identity of [Army General Guenzel, who had congratulated Hohmann on his speech in a personal letter]… The main sentence of my speech stated: ‘Neither the Germans nor the Jews are a people of perpetrators.’… Contrary to this main sentence, [another journalist] stated on October 30 on public television: ‘Hohmann calls Jews a people of perpetrators.’ This report was false. With this malicious change the journalist started the media scandal.”

Hohmann also said, according to the magazine: “In my Parliamentary address of June 6, 2003, pertaining to the Treaty between the state of Germany and the German Jewish Community, I quoted, with conviction, a passage from the book of Genesis, to warn against any attacks on Jews. God told Abraham: ‘I will bless those who bless you, And I will curse him who curses you; And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’ I am very saddened that I am now publicly viewed as someone who has hurt the feelings of the Jews, or who is an Anti-Semite. My goal was the opposite. My wife and my children suffer, too, because I am labeled as an Anti-Semite. I have apologized several times. I want to do everything to heal the hurt caused by me, and I beg once again for forgiveness.”

PACT SIGNED

“The Holy See and Brandenburg signed an agreement to regulate relations between the Catholic Church and the majority-Protestant German state,” according to Zenit, of November 13. The press statement of the Vatican explained: “The teaching of Catholic religion in public schools and the ecclesiastical management of schools and institutions of formation at all levels will also be regulated.” The Vatican Information Service added on November 13: “The present accord… departing from agreements with the German Reich and Prussia which are still in force… and acknowledging the reciprocal independence of Church and state and their desire for mutual cooperation, gives a permanent code to the relations between the Catholic Church and the state.”

It is obvious from the foregoing that there is not really an independence of church and state, when Catholic religion is being taught in public schools.

ZIMBABWE’S UNCERTAIN FUTURE

We were given a letter from a citizen of Zimbabwe, describing the terrible situation in that African country. Sadly, little, if anything, has been made public in the Western press. We are bringing a few excerpts from the letter:

“You probably know about the governmental doctors’ strike. They wanted their salaries hiked… The government refused, and now there is a mass exodus of these people… Things here are pretty bad. I believe we are standing at a turning point. There could either be a magical political resolution or there will be civil war. The minimum wage for a gardener is currently 12 K a month. Bread costs 3 K a loaf. How many loaves is that a month? Four. So someone with a family to support [has to] survive on four loaves of bread a month… Unemployment is increasing every day… If war breaks out…, the value of the houses is gone… In a developed country, if you work in a fast-food restaurant, you can at least rent an apartment and have food on the table. There is no chance of that here… I tell you plainly, I don’t see things continuing like this for much longer.”

Reinstitution of the U.S. Draft?

As the Seattle-Post reported on November 8, “talk of a [military] draft has heated up in recent days,” and the “option of a possible military draft is gaining traction.”

The article continued: “The Defense Department fueled the debate this week when it placed a notice on its Web site asking for ‘men and women in the community who might be willing to serve as members of a local draft board.’ The notice, which appeared on an official Web page for the Selective Service System titled ‘Defend America,’ explained: ‘If a military draft becomes necessary, approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim, receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on Federal guidelines. Positions are available in many communities across the Nation.’ The Pentagon wouldn’t comment on the notice, and by yesterday it had been pulled from the Web site without explanation.”

Whether or not a draft is instituted, each member of the Church of the Eternal God and its corporate affiliates should know the Biblical reasons compelling him or her to refuse participating in Military Service and War. In the Q&A of this Update, we have set forth these Scriptural reasons in detail. We encourage all eligible Church members to study the material and use it as a basis for a personal declaration, signed and dated in the presence of witnesses, setting forth his or her personal convictions in this matter.

Germany vs. USA

All seemed to have been forgotten, after a recent visit between President Bush and Chancellor Schroeder, with a handshake and a joint appearance before running cameras. But the “truce” did not last long. As Der Spiegel Online reported on November 3, German Defense Minister Peter Struck gave another speech critical of the Bush Administration, labeling the American military policy as “problematic” for NATO. He said: “The question can be asked whether it was legal according to International Law, what the United States did in Iraq.” He also stated that “a coalition of the willing” is harmful to NATO, and that “NATO is not the complying agent of Washington’s decisions.”

A New European World Order?

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer stated on November 1, 2003, according to “Die Tageszeitung,” that “we must create a New World Order, which is not defined by those who have the power.”

Homosexuality in England

An unbelievable development is occurring in England. As Christianity Today reported earlier this week, the local police was investigating Peter Forster, the Church of England’s Bishop of Chester, for his statement that “some people who are primarily homosexual can reorientate themselves.” This comment was investigated “as a breach of public order,” and possibly as a “hate crime.” The police chief was quoted as saying that such a comment “is totally unacceptable.” Later in the week, Christianity Today reported that the investigation was dropped, as “there are no laws prohibiting ‘incited hatred’ against the gay community.”

One must still ask the question: If Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, would be alive and say today what he wrote in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, would he also have faced an initial investigation and would he also have been initially charged with having committed a hate crime? Would he, too, be viewed as having “‘incited hatred’ against the gay community”? After all, that is what he wrote, under the inspiration of God Almighty: “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such WERE some of you. But you WERE WASHED, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God.”

Russia – Stalin Remains Popular

As AP reported on November 7, a monument to Josef Stalin has been restored in a small Siberian city. The article continued: “Opinion polls show that Stalin remains popular among many Russians, who ignore the purges that killed an estimated 10 million Russians and a government-induced famine that killed some 10 million more. They credit him with leading the Soviet Union to victory in World War II and turning a backward agrarian nation into a nuclear superpower.”

Ongoing Paranoia in Germany?

As we reported in our last Update (Update #116, World News Headlines, “Unbalanced Fear of Anti-Semitism?”), Christian Democrat (CDU) Martin Hohmann has been accused of anti-Semitic remarks, following a speech of October 3, 2003. A high-ranking army general, Reinhard Guenzel, was dismissed from the army for congratulating Hohmann on his speech. Many German politicians and the majority of the German press condemned Hohmann and Guenzel for uttering or supporting “anti-Semitic” remarks.

However, the affair is far from over.

In an interview with Frontal 21, Hohmann reconfirmed on November 1 that he did NOT describe the Jews as a “people of perpetrators.” He explained: “I have said, verbatim, Neither the Jews, nor the Germans, are a people of perpetrators. This means, neither the Jews nor the Germans are a people of perpetrators. It is inconceivable to me how one can construe this comment as anti-Semitic.” According to the Financial Times, dated November 11, Guenzel is considering a complaint against German Defense Minister Peter Struck (Social Democrat, SPD) for libel and slander. Struck had described Guenzel as a “confused general” for supporting anti-Semitic ideas. Guenzel said that he always promoted cooperation with the Israelis, “because they are fantastic human beings and soldiers. To suggest that I am anti-Semitic or a right-wing radical is ridiculous – it’s the joke of the century.” He also mentioned that he is a good friend of Gadi Schamni, a general of the Israeli army.

Much of the German press has attempted to downplay any possible connection with or sympathy for Hohmann’s speech. The tabloid “Bild” even published selected excerpts from a highly controversial editorial in the “New York Post,” stating that that editorial proved how much Hohmann damaged the German reputation in foreign countries. However, when actually reading the entire editorial in the New York Post, dated November 6, 2003, one can readily see that Hohmann’s speech was just a minor contributing factor to the author’s opinion. The author of the editorial stated (which was not published by Bild, to our knowledge): “Of course, there are good Germans. Plenty of them. But they live in Philadelphia, not Frankfurt. They or their ancestors all left Germany by 1938… The German resistance? Almost as big a lie as the denial of the Holocaust. Count von Stauffenberg and his fellow aristocrats, whose inept attempt to kill Hitler with a bomb in 1944 is forever cited as an example of German courage, never lifted a finger against the Nazi regime until the Red Army closed in on their hereditary lands in East Prussia. They weren’t fighting for high ideals. They were defending their real estate.”

To get a more balanced viewpoint on the life and the motives of Count von Stauffenberg, we might suggest reading some historical accounts, such as, “Stauffenberg – Symbol of German Unity,” by Wolfgang Venohr (edited 1986).

The reaction to this editorial by some readers of the New York Post was quite remarkable (Bild, however, did not publish any of those comments, either, to our knowledge). One comment read, “I am a Holocaust survivor. Let me remind you that Germany has supported Israel morally and financially. This new generation has performed enough of a mea culpa. Spain had the inquisition and Russia the pogroms. When will all this hatred end?… Enough already.”

Another reader commented: “… one can certainly agree that anti-Semitism is a major problem in Germany and in other European countries. However, one can’t agree with his premise that all Germans living in Germany are evil anti-Semites.”

A third reader said, “Regardless of what I think about Germans, this kind of hate-mongering is what tears people apart… [Such] prejudice and nasty generalizations… have no place anywhere in America… In the interest of all of us who do not wish to be judged based on being Jewish, African-American or anything else, do not spread such prejudice and hatred.”

The German political scene and much of the German press have been very anxious in trying to eliminate whatever they perceive to be a sign of anti-Semitism. Hohmann’s speech came to light at the same time when most European citizens (almost 60%) stated in a poll that they consider Israel as the greatest enemy to world peace. In Germany, 65 percent felt that Israel was a danger for peace. This result was quite a shock to European politicians, so they began to belittle their own poll, by stating that the questions were too difficult or too misleading, so that the people questioned did not really understand them (Spiegel Online, November 3, 2003).

At the same time, published articles in the German press and official statements of German politicians do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the German people. The “Community of Conservative Christians” released a statement, pointing out that Hohmann had related facts that had been recently presented by Russian Nobel Peace Prize Recipient, Alexander Solzhenitsyn. They were also claiming that some of those criticizing Hohmann were trying to prevent reconciliation between Germans and Jews, as Hohmann was trying to show both sides that they had made mistakes, and that they must forgive each other. They also stated, “Today is Reformation Day. With it, we celebrate the courage of Martin Luther to stop an unchristian, overbearing papacy. The arch-Catholic Martin Hohmann… has expressed, in a historical setting, his love toward God, all people of good will, and his father land.”

The debate surrounding Hohmann within the German public continues. Hohmann had come under attack before, when he spoke out against legalization of homosexual relationships. In a n-tv poll, readers were asked whether Hohmann should separate from his party, the CDU. 69% voted that he should not (n-tv.de, November 11, 2003).

According to a poll by Der Stern, published on November 12, 2003, 41 % of CDU members supported Hohmann’s expulsion from the party, while 41 % felt that he should remain a party member. 18% were undecided.

As Der Spiegel Online reported on November 11, the “big majority” of participants of the CDU’s Internet-forum has been siding with Hohmann. Some participants characterized the situation as a “witch hunt,” while charging Paul Spiegel, the leader of the German Jews, with uttering “anti-German” statements.

To be clear, anti-Semitism in all its different forms, shapes and colors is wrong. A true Christian could never be an anti-Semite. After all, Jesus was a Jew (see our Update #115, Q&A, “Genealogy of Christ”), and Christ said that “salvation is of the Jews” (John 4:22). Paul added that the “oracles of God” were committed to the Jews (Romans 3:2). He also said that “the covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, and the promises” were given to “the Israelites” (Romans 9:4), that is, to those who later became the “house of Israel” and the “house of Judah,” the Jews. True Christians uphold God’s law, including the keeping of the weekly Sabbath, the annual Holy Days, or the dietary laws.

At the same time, a true Christian will not participate in suppressing part of the truth, or in the dissemination of information that is mislabeled, falsely characterized, misleading or untrue. This is why we must be careful to listen to whatever we hear. We must analyze and evaluate information with “godly understanding,” based on the Bible and its prophecies.

The current situation in Germany will not go away easily. To be sure, how it is being handled by the press and politicians will not help, in the long run, to extinguish anti-Semitism in Germany and Europe.

Religious Persecution in Germany?

The concept of home schooling may be a well-established institution in the United States. This is not the case in Germany. As Der Spiegel Online reported on November 5, 2003, Christian parents were fined for not sending their children to school, due to their religious convictions. Although the German Constitution guarantees its citizens the free exercise of their religion and parenting, it also regulates the duty for children to go to school. A court of appeals decided that the children’s duty to go to school is more important than the two constitutional rights of the parents. The Christian parents objected to the teaching of their children in public school, as they would be taught an unacceptable form of “sexual education,” the wrong concept of the evolution theory, and witchcraft and meditation therapies, derived from Buddhism. The parents also complained that schools teach the children to become disobedient to their parents.

The court did not agree that there was any impermissible indoctrination of school children. It stated that one could not object to the teaching of the evolution theory or sex education, “as it only reflects what children experience on a daily basis, although [in regard to sexual education] it sometimes comes close to what may be unacceptable.”

Does it really surprise anyone when we hear of young German teens (as young as 12 years old!) engaging in premarital sex, or of young people growing up without a solid foundation of a belief in God, when such court-approved “values” are communicated to them in schools on a daily basis?

MOSCOW BANS HALLOWEEN

As MSNBC reported on October 31, “city authorities told children Friday not to celebrate Halloween because it was psychologically damaging and not in line with educational aims.” The article continued:

“Moscow’s Education Department sent a letter asking schools to ban the PAGAN festival, which is said to be based on a ‘cult of death.’…’The religious elements of Halloween’ are destructive for the psychological, moral and spiritual well-being of the pupils,'” a spokesman for the education department said. MSNBC also mentioned that “Russia’s Orthodox Church swiftly agreed there was NO LIGHT-HEARTED WAY OF LOOKING AT A CELEBRATION WHERE CHILDREN IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE WORLD DRESS UP AS WITCHES AND VAMPIRES AND KNOCK ON FRONT DOORS TO ASK FOR SWEETS. ‘The church knows from its spiritual experience that you cannot associate with evil forces in jest,'” a church spokesman was quoted.

WITCHES ACCEPTED?

Der Stern Online published an article, dated October 31, pointing out that today, “witches are cult – as heroes in children’s books, or as prophets for interested customers.” It was stated that “in the 70’s, due to the women’s liberation movement, a positive change toward witches developed… Today, witches are being revered as women with secret knowledge.”

This attitude toward witches and the celebration of Halloween goes hand in hand, and cannot be separated from each other. For more information, please read our Q&A in Update #115 on the origin of Halloween.

EARLY CHRISTIANS WERE PACIFISTS

Christianity Today published on 10/28/2003 an interesting article, proving from ancient historical records that early Christians were opposed to military service and war. The article stated:

“The ancient church understood that war has been around as long as human beings and [war and] SIN have coexisted. It is a consistent tenet throughout the Christian tradition that WAR IS THE RESULT OF SIN. The responses to war, however, have followed two basic trains of thought: pacifism, and the idea that certain wars can be just.”

The article proceeded to show that the very early Christian Church was preaching and practicing PACIFISM. Later, though, due to pagan influences and Christian involvement in the affairs of the state, the concept of a so-called “just war” developed. To continue with the article:

“Pacifism is characteristic of the EARLY CENTURIES OF CHRISTIANITY like the North African apologist Tertullian (160-220 A.D.), who regularly warned Christians to DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM PAGAN CULTURE. He wrote: ‘How will he serve in the army even during peacetime without the sword that Jesus Christ has taken away? … We are not allowed to wear any uniform that symbolizes a sinful act’ (On Idolatry 19.3).

“The third-century Roman Presbyter Hippolytus wrote the Apostolic Tradition, Canon 16 (ca. 215 A.D.) which opposed serving in the military as a matter of church discipline: ‘A soldier in lower ranks shall kill no one. If ordered to do so, he shall not obey, and he shall not take an oath. If he does not want to comply with this directive, let him be dismissed [from the church].'”

The article continued that “the Constantinian era brought about a change. Previously marginalized Christians were now involved in THE AFFAIRS OF STATE. Though there were many Christian soldiers before the time of Constantine, IT WASN’T UNTIL previously marginalized Christians BECAME INVOLVED IN THE AFFAIRS OF STATE that the church fathers BEGAN NUANCING THEIR OPPOSITION TO MILITARY ACTION. The issue then became how one could remain a Christian when the demands of the state required use of force to combat evil or prevent injury.” As the article pointed out, this then led to the Catholic teaching of a “just war.”

To find out what the BIBLE has to say about a Christian’s role in war, please listen to our three-part audio series on the topic, by going to the audio section of our Website (www.eternalgod.org), and clicking on the three sermons, posted November 4, November 25, and December 9, 2000, titled “Military Service and War.”

UNBALANCED FEAR OF ANTI-SEMITISM?

A frightening development has been observed for some time now in Germany – a phenomenon associated with anti-Semitism. However, the phenomenon that we want to address in this article does not really involve the practice of anti-Semitism, but the FEAR of anti-Semitism. For instance, former Vice-Chancellor of Germany, Juergen Moellemann, was sharply criticized and labeled as anti-Semite, when he recently questioned Mr. Ariel Sharon’s actions. Virtually the entire press in Germany, as well as politicians from all parties, jumped on the bandwagon. An unspeakable and unparalleled hate-campaign against Moellemann developed – and in the end, Moellemann died in a tragic parachute accident. Many feel that Moellemann committed suicide, because he could not tolerate the criticism; others even suggest that murder might have been involved.

In the most recent news, Martin Hohmann, a conservative German lawmaker, was labelled as anti-Semitic, following a controversial speech on October 3. The German and international press reported that Hohmann had spoken of “guilt of the Jews” – or of “Jewish perpetrators” – during the Russian revolution. The reaction was fierce. The German Jewish leader, Paul Spiegel, announced that he would press criminal charges against Hohmann. German Defense Minster Peter Struck immediately dismissed a high ranking influential and crucial German army general, Reinhard Guenzel, for praising Hohman’s speech. Guenzel had praised Hohmann’s “courage” in a personal letter, stating the following:

“… An excellent address – if I may say so – as one seldom hears or reads such courage for truth and clarity in our country. You can be sure that your thoughts are shared by the majority of our people, even though our published opinion places all those agreeing with you in the right-wing environment. I hope that you will not be shaken by the accusations from mainly the left, and that you will courageously continue on your course.”

When analyzing the reports in the press and comparing them with Hohman’s address, one must conclude that, in many cases, the sensational press “releases” are neither fair nor balanced. The irony is, Hohmann did NOT say that the Jews are a “people of perpetrators,” or that there is “Jewish guilt.” Rather, he was drawing a parallel with the “guilt” of the German people. On October 31, 2003, Der Spiegel Online published excerpts from Hohmann’s speech. From those excerpts, it is clear what he said – and what he did not say:

“The German people have addressed, in a unique and relentless way, the crime of the Hitler era, asking for forgiveness and – as much as they could – paying billions of deutsch marks for reparation, especially to the Jews… Based on this background, I am asking the provocative question: Is there a dark side in the recent history amongst the Jewish people, while we always look at them solely as victims?… We have seen how strong and effective Jews impressed on the revolutionary movement in Russia and middle-European states. That is why American President Woodrow Wilson said in 1919 that the Bolschevic movement was ‘led by Jews.’ With a certain justification, one could ask, looking at the millions of dead people during this first phase of the revolution, whether there was any ‘guilt’ of Jews [or, in a different translation, whether Jews were ‘perpetrators’]… This may sound terrible. It follows the same logic, however, as the one talking about Germans as ‘a people of perpetrators’… We must analyze this more closely. The Jews, who supported Bolschevism and the revolution, had first separated themselves from their religious ties. They were Jews from origin and education, but they had become fierce haters of any religion. Something similar happened to Nazi-Socialists. Most of them had Christian parents. They had abolished their religion, however, and had become enemies of the Christian and Jewish faiths. A combining element between Bolschevism and National Socialism was a hatred of religion and godlessness. Therefore, neither ‘the Germans’ nor ‘the Jews’ are a people of perpetrators. One is justified to say: The godless people with their godless ideologies were the perpetrators of the last, bloody century… “

In the furor ensuing from this speech, many of its key elements were overlooked or ignored. Der Stern Online revealed on November 11, 2003, that Hohmann’s statements about the role of Jews during the Russian Revolution were apparently taken, to an extent verbatim, from a recent book, published by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, well-known Russian author and recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

All of this shows that the fear of anti-Semitism is alive and so big that it can become unrealistic. Politicians and the press must be careful that their “reporting” does not lead to the kind of anti-Semitism that every decent citizen fears and abhors. If unbalanced viewpoints continue to be highly propagated, however, it could become again a self-fulfilling prophecy.

UN and Iraq

U.N. and Iraq

In a most surprising move, constituting a “major diplomatic victory for the Bush administration, the U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution Thursday (October 16, 2003), endorsing the struggling U.S. occupation of Iraq and calling other nations to contribute troops and economic aid,” according to the “San Francisco Chronicle” of October 17, 2003. What can only be viewed as the U.N.’s political hypocritical duplicity, “the 15-0 vote came as a surprise because France, Germany and Russia had vehemently opposed the resolution… But their opposition melted in last-minute negotiations… Even Syria… went along in the end,” according to the article. The practical effect of the resolution is minimal, however. As the newspaper pointed out, “President Bush… is likely to receive little extra foreign troops and cash… Japan is offering $1.5 billion, while Europe has approved only $233 million.”

The resolution was sharply criticized by the ambassadors of France, Russia, Germany and Pakistan. They said in a joint statement that “their governments will not make any new military or financial contributions to support the occupation… Germany’s U.N. ambassador Gunter Pleuger said the council squandered the chance to give a ‘clear signal that the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis will be accelerated,'” according to the newspaper article.

 

War on Terrorism and Satan

As the Associated Press reported on October 17, “Pentagon leaders spoke up in support… of a top general [Three-star Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin, Pentagon’s deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence] who had told church audiences that the war on terrorism is a battle with Satan and that Muslims worship idols.” The article continued, “Boykin said Islamic extremists hate the United States ‘because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian… And the enemy is a guy named Satan.'” The article also published the reaction of Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. He was quoted as saying, “‘Putting a man with such extremist views in a critical policy-making position sends entirely the wrong message to a Muslim world that is already skeptical about America’s motives and intentions.'” Awad also noted that “a verse in the Koran says Muslims believe in the same God as Jews and Christians.”

We might mention that this last statement is blatantly false, insofar as the true Christianity of the Bible is concerned. The Bible reveals that God is a Family, consisting of God the Father and Jesus Christ the Son. Neither Jews nor Muslims believe in the God Family. Neither does traditional Christianity, as they teach the Trinity — three Persons in one Person, erroneously claiming that the Holy Spirit is a Person. For more information, please read our free booklets on “Is God a Trinity?” and “God is a Family.”

 

Malaysia vs. Jews

The Associated Press reported on October 17 that Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad “told a summit of Muslim leaders… that Jews ruled the world and recruited others ‘to fight and die for them.'” The article quoted Mahathir as follows: “‘The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million, but today the Jews rule the world by proxy… They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong.'”

A.P. continued: “Mahathir’s speech drew immediate criticism from Israel and Jewish organizations, which feared it could fan violence against Jews, but a standing ovation from the kings, presidents, sheiks and emirs — INCLUDING KEY U.S. ALLIES — gathered in Malaysia’s new capital, Putrajaya. A.P. pointed out that “Malaysia is considered by the United States a RELIABLE — if prickly — ALLY, cooperating in breaking terrorist networks in Southeast Asia… [Mahathir] remained a blunt opponent of the U.S. attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq, and repeatedly warned that the war on terrorism is becoming a war against Muslims.”

When reading this, one wonders how reliable those U.S.allies really are.

In the aftermath of this very antagonistic speech by Malaysia’s prime minister, President Bush openly rebuked him at the APEC summit. According to www.cnn.com, “Bush told Mahathir Mohamad, who steps down as prime minister next month, that his comments about Jews ‘stands squarely against what I believe’ and went on to characterize them as ‘wrong and divisive.’ “

Bible prophecy reveals that the Jews along with the British and American people will increasingly become isolated and at odds with the rest of the nations of this earth. The very fact that these modern descendants of the greater nation of Israel are lumped together in political alignments, is precise fulfillment of events that God foretold long ago.

 

The Catholic Church and Hinduism

Zenit published on October 14 a written message, sent by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue to Hindus on the occasion of Diwali, the festival of lights. To better understand this festival and the significance of the Vatican’s message, here is a brief summary of the meaning and origin of that Hindu festival:

Of all the festivals celebrated in India, Diwali is by far the most glamorous and important. Diwali celebrations are similar to Christmas celebrations. Homes are decorated, sweets are distributed and thousands of lamps lit to create a world of fantasy. Although the ancient stories of the origin of Diwali differ, the festival is mainly said to have started, especially in the north of India, as a celebration of the divine king Rama’s coronation after his epic war with Ravana, the demon king of Lanka, and his and queen Sita’s return to Ayodhya after 14 years of exile. In the south of India, the origin of Diwali is seen in Krishna’s victory over Narakasura, the demon of hell, or Vishnu’s victory over “King Bali, the benevolent demon king of the netherworld.” Vishnu gave this demon-king the lamp of knowledge to light up the dark underworld, and allowed him to return once a year to light millions of lamps for the people.

During the festival, on the “dark new moon night,” the entrances of all homes are lit up and decorated to welcome Lakshmi, the radiant consort of Vishnu and the goddess of wealth and luster. In many Krishna temples, Diwali is celebrated as a day of feeding and venerating cows. The sacredness of the cow goes back to the myth of the churning of the cosmic ocean by the gods. Kamadhenu, the celestial cow, was venerated as the mother of the universe. A cow is the constant companion of Krishna.

Considering the Catholic Church’s history of embracing pagan rites and customs and placing a “Christian” mantle over them, the following excerpts from the Catholic Church’s written message to the Hindus are quite remarkable:

“Dear Hindu Friends, This year I am pleased to greet you and share with you a short message on the occasion of Diwali, the feast which you celebrate according to your venerable religious tradition… Diwali is a time for families to get together, and celebrate in a meaningful way the rites prescribed by the ancient dharma… I have always been impressed by the fact that on the occasion of Diwali there are some Hindus who make every effort to bring about reconciliation within families and between neighbors, friends and acquaintances. Could not Catholics and Hindus extend these efforts to bring about wider reconciliation and a more lasting peace in our towns and villages and indeed throughout our countries and the world at large?… The occasion of the festival of Diwali provides us with ample food for thought when the Hindu tradition informs us of how light overcomes darkness, how the victory of good is achieved over evil and how hatred gives way to love through forgiveness… Dear Hindu friends, may you, your families, friends and even the strangers in your midst experience joy, peace, serenity, and light on the feast of Diwali, as symbolized by the innumerable flames…”

Reconciliation sounds good — but it must never be achieved through the adoption of pagan ideas and customs and the compromise with God’s Holy Word. In describing our present western societies, Isaiah says in no uncertain terms about the God of the Bible: “You have forsaken Your people, the house of Jacob, Because they are filled with eastern ways” (Isaiah 2:6). In this context, be sure to read our Q&A section in this issue, discussing “Halloween.”

 

The Catholic Church’s Future Role

In spite of agonizing and reprehensible actions on the part of many priests in the United States that have come to light over the past several months, that “bad press” has largely evaporated as, once again, the Catholic Church in Rome has taken center stage.

The occasion for world attention has emerged as the pope celebrated his 25th anniversary as pontiff. There have been many ceremonies highlighting this event, but underlying this celebration is the health of the pope. According to www.mcjonline.com (10/22/03), “Showing the frailty that marked her last days, Pope John Paul II beatified late nun Mother Teresa in Vatican City Sunday, October 19, for of up to 300,000 people, one of its largest crowds ever.” This article continues: “Yet, for the first time in a major Vatican ceremony, the pontiff was unable to utter a word of his homily, leaving other prelates to do so. In the few prayers he did say, his words were so slurred and shaky they could barely be understood, reporters noticed.”

Another event at this celebration also drew much attention and speculation about the pope’s health. From www.guardian.co (10/22/2003), “Pope John Paul II, who is in declining health, yesterday announced 31 new cardinals to join the ranks of those who will eventually choose his successor.”

It is noteworthy that the Catholic Church may indeed undergo a change of papal administration in the coming months. This is especially critical at this point in time as Europe struggles to unify. Although there is an overall move in the direction of building a cohesive union, both political and religious union are still lacking. A younger, vigorous and dedicated pope would not only revive the fortunes of the Catholic Church, but new religious leadership would certainly help the cause of European unification.

The United States and Germany

DER SPIEGEL Online reported on September 29, 2003, about the “new-found friendship” between President Bush and Chancellor Schroeder. The magazine commented, as follows:
“… the most important objective of the meeting with Bush already seemed to have been achieved: The Chancellor wanted to reestablish a basis for discussion, something the German government and its most powerful ally, following their heated dispute surrounding the Iraq policy, had lacked for a sixteen-month period. The prevailing opinion at the White House was that it’s about time, and Schröder also felt that it was time to break the silence. He likes to say that nations do not pursue romantic relationships, and in this respect his sentiments echo the words of Otto von Bismarck, former Chancellor of the German Reich, who once wrote in his memoirs that ‘not even the king’ has the right to subordinate the interests of the state to his personal sympathies or antipathies…

“After all, the meeting was poised to begin on a less than positive note. In an earlier meeting, French President Jacques Chirac had given his US colleague an affected lecture on war, peace and international law. According to American sources, George Bush was… [extremely angered] and became all the more so when Chirac railed against a ‘policy of fait accompli’ in his speech before the General Assembly of the United Nations…

“Have German-American relations returned to their former state of normalcy? Schröder and Fischer, at least, would disagree, since they did not in fact abandon any of their prewar positions. On his flight to New York, the Chancellor declared that he was not traveling to the United States as a supplicant, and on his return flight one of his advisors repeated the sentence that was considered a rallying cry just a few months ago, but now describes little more than a state of affairs: ‘German foreign policy is determined in Berlin.’

“… So the relationship between the superpower and the ‘European central power’ (Schröder) has returned to that sober footing where personal sympathy is important but not decisive. In the future, both sides will deal with one another more cautiously and with fewer illusions. ‘There can be no greater error,’ said the first American president, George Washington, ‘than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation.’ When seen in this light, Americans and Germans are henceforth partners without pathos.”

BILD Online published a commentary, dated September 23, addressing the deteriorated relationship between the United States and Germany. The commentary stated, “When the United States got rid of one of the worst dictators, Saddam Hussein, we saw anti-Americanism unleashed in Germany. The world power [United States] hit back. That was bad politics. And it will take a long time until the consequences will disappear. But at least — a beginning has been made.”

The United States and Europe

DER SPIEGEL Online published on September 29, 2003, an interview with Washington’s former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, discussing the feud between transatlantic allies, the US role, the Europeans’ failings and perceptions. We are bringing experts of Mrs. Albright’s insightful interview, as follows:

“…What has happened here in the United States as well as in Europe is so painful to me. There have always been times when there were anti-European sentiments in the United States and anti-American feelings in Europe. But when both trends occur at the same time, we have a vicious circle. This is precisely what has happened now. It’s disgusting to watch Europeans gloat over the chaos in Iraq or the recent power outages in the United States, for example. Conversely, should we be pleased when 10,000 people die in a French heat wave? Well, at least the squabblers are talking to each other again. But both sides bear responsibility for letting things get so far out of hand…

“There were some [European leaders] who preferred an entirely different approach to Saddam. There were many attempts in the Security Council, especially on the part of France, to ease the sanctions regime against Iraq. This already complicated the relationship with Europe… Chancellor Schröder could certainly have campaigned for reelection somewhat more elegantly – not exclusively at the expense of the United States. And President Chirac made the situation unbelievably complicated. In truth, both sides prevented the UN from playing an important role before the war. President Bush because he kept saying: ‘I don’t care what they say,’ and President Chirac because he said: ‘I will submit my veto, no matter what.’ Both contributed to the decline in the UN’s significance…

“The Europeans allowed a horrible disaster to happen in Bosnia, and that’s why it was important for us to intervene. But not alone. It’s sometimes difficult to do anything right for the Europeans. If the role the United States takes is too strong, we’re criticized. If we do nothing, we’re neglecting our commitments. It isn’t always easy to be the United States… I’ve always been fascinated by Germany. I was born in Czechoslovakia. When we fled to London, I knew that the bombs that were falling around me were German bombs. Consequently, my impressions of Germany were of course very negative. But in every conversation with Joschka Fischer I sensed that he was quite conscious of Germany’s responsibility for the past. When we discussed the Kosovo conflict and talked about how intellectuals from Pristina had been taken away, he said: ‘Yes, that is exactly what happened with the Nazis.’ I asked him more than once about his days as a street protester. His only response was this: ‘You know, Madeleine, you would have done the same thing if you had literally suspected every single authority figure around you – the police officer, the doctor, the teacher – of having supported the Nazis.'”

New European Plans?

The Guardian reported on September 23, 2003 about a “super region” plan to revive the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. The article pointed out: “Political leaders from three countries, including Austria’s controversial far-rightwinger, Jorg Haider, are pushing for creation of a new European ‘super-region’ that would slice through national boundaries and take in a large part of the old Austro-Hungarian empire.

“The plan is likely to meet a frosty response from Tony Blair and other European leaders who are keen to ensure that power in the European Union stays with nation states.

“Riccardo Illy, recently elected president of the north-eastern Italian region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia, told the newspaper La Stampa the projected ‘super-region’ was planned to extend from Austria to Rijeka on the Croatian coast. It would also include his own region and parts of Slovenia.

“He said Mr. Haider, governor of the Austrian state of Carinthia, had been ‘very positive.’ The scheme had won the backing of the mayor of a key Croatian local authority and was under discussion with the Slovenian government… His plan would reunite territories that all formed part of the Austro-Hungarian empire that ended in 1918.”

Euobserver.com reported on October 2, 2003, that “France and Austria clash over [the proposed European] Constitution.” The article continued, “Austria finds itself at the head of the group of smaller countries arguing for substantial changes to the draft, whereas France — along with the UK and Germany — are wary of unravelling the text drafted by former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing.”

Water Shortage in Australia

ABC News reported on Wednesday, October 1, 2003, about mandatory restrictions for Sydney, the Illawarra and the Blue Mountains. The article pointed out that “the region’s main water supply, the Googong Dam, is now at 36 per cent capacity. Recent rain has done little to alleviate the region’s water crisis. Even though water consumption is already below the stage three target of 127 megalitres a day, total dam levels are still below 50 per cent. The ACT Government has described Canberra as being on a knife-edge, warning there is no room for complacency, particularly during summer. From today sprinklers are banned, as is washing your car at home. Private gardens can only be watered with hand-held hoses or buckets on alternate days, though pools can be topped up as long as they are covered. Anyone caught breaking the rules could face fines of up to $5,000.”

We are informed that there have virtually never been water restrictions in Canberra before. The Googong dam, about five minutes drive from Canberry, has usually been fairly full. An additional indication for the unusual events in Sydney can be seen by the fact that Sydney usually has high rainfall and is semi-tropical.

 

Meteorites in India

BBC News reported about a meteorite that crashed in eastern India. Fortunately, only three people had been injured as a result of the meteorite falling to earth. Officials investigating the event say it was part of the most spectacular meteor shower in the country’s recent history, according to BBC News.

The article continued, “Flaming debris from the space rock lit up the sky in Orissa state on Saturday night, and sent villagers running after its burning fragments set fire to their houses. ‘I have never seen a meteor covering such a large area with a huge fireball and roaring sound,’ said Basant Kumar Mohanty, senior director of the Geological Survey of India. According to state authorities, two large fragments of the meteorite, weighing roughly five kilograms each, have been recovered.”
 
 

Germany and the United States

On September 22, 2003, Der Spiegel Online published a very insightful lengthy article on the German-American relationship. The article was titled, “Schroeder’s New Center,” discussing the German Chancellor’s search for a “German direction” in foreign policy. The article, which was published only days before Mr. Schroeder’s visit with President Bush, pointed out the following:

“There is hardly a region that escapes [German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s] interest, particularly as German troops are currently serving in EIGHT countries… So far no consistent foreign policy discernible to the man on the street has emerged from the loose ends of Schröder’s various activities. Unlike former Chancellor Konrad Adenauer with his connection to the West, Willy Brandt with his reconciliation with the East, or Helmut Kohl, who was a clear proponent of Germany unity, the current German head of state is still searching for solid ground… Although Schröder wishes to embody a ‘self-confidence without arrogance’ to serve the interests of an enlarged Germany, his approach so far has been characterized by questions:

“Just how much of a friendship with France can the German-American relationship tolerate? Could the close ties within Europe that Schröder currently values so highly isolate him worldwide as well as on the continent?
“What will become of German-British relations, as difficult as they are important? In light of growing British skepticism about the Euro and a pronounced anti-war mood in Germany, where does future common ground lie? Should the expansion of the European court system be advanced without London, given the fact that every EU convention only serves to widen the rift between the continent and the island kingdom?

“Added to all of this is the complicated relationship with the United States, that stubborn and often self-loving world power, without which neither NATO nor the UN can survive. Even Schröder knows that the cool relations of the recent past cannot be allowed to continue. However, a return to the old German-American friendship is also UNLIKELY… [About] 60 percent of the EU population feels that the UN and NATO represent the strongest guarantees of German security – well ahead of the United States, which only 38 percent of respondents felt was capable of guaranteeing German security… Germans are essentially in favor of a course diverging from that taken by Washington… [Two-thirds] were even in favor of Europe becoming a ‘counterweight’ to America…

“A German delegation visiting the White House heard Condoleeza Rice, the President’s powerful National Security Advisor, utter a sentence they had not expected to hear for some time: ‘OUR RELATIONS WITH GERMANY ARE OUR CENTRAL RELATIONS WITH EUROPE.’… Schröder, until recently an unwelcome guest in Washington, seems to be making an effort to tone down his cockiness. He knows that his sudden popularity is not a result of his own performance, but rather of the poor fortunes of the Americans, who have managed to get themselves into an untenable situation in Iraq and are now desperately seeking partners… [In] Berlin last Thursday, Chirac loudly and enthusiastically proclaimed that the GERMAN-FRENCH PARTNERSHIP represents ‘the FUTURE of our people and OF EUROPE,’ then promptly moved closer to his German partner…”

Before addressing the United Nations and meeting with Gerhard Schroeder, President Bush stated that he understands the German resistance to the war with Iraq, since the “Germans are fundamentally pacifists” (Der Spiegel Online, September 23, 2003; Die Welt, September 24, 2003). This questionable assessment, judging by the long history of the German peoples, was undoubtedly prompted by Mr. Bush’s wish to normalize the American-German relationship and to gain support from Mr. Schroeder. Before meeting with Mr. Schroeder, President Bush spoke on September 23, 2003, to the United Nations, following U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s address, who had “criticized Bush’s ‘pre-emptive’ attack on Iraq” (USA Today, September 24, 2003). Reactions to President Bush’s speech were overwhelmingly negative — both in the U.S. and abroad.

The “Tages-Anzeiger” in Switzerland commented, “The United Sates are not able to stabilize Iraq. Bush wants financial and military help from the world community. At the same time, he does not want to… admit mistakes… Under those conditions, he will not get much support.”

The “Financial Times” in London stated that President Bush did not show an inkling of repentance, when talking about the right of the US to act alone. The paper also pointed out that he did not clarify that he would not go alone again — and that is what the world fears the most.

“de Volkskrant” in The Netherlands commented that Mr. Bush “presented a picture of a powerful president over a powerful country, who is standing more and more alone.”

The “Washington Post” pointed out that President Bush missed an important chance to gather international support in a decisive matter.

After his speech, President Bush and Chancellor Schroeder met for 45 minutes on September 24 — the first meeting between the two leaders in 16 months. They were accompanied by Colin Powell and Joschka Fischer. After the meeting, both leaders declared that they had left any differences behind, and that they both wanted to look into the future together. These declarations should not prompt one to think that from now on, everything will be fine between the two countries. Der Spiegel Online stated on September 24, 2003, that there was little agreement between the two leaders in regard to the issues. “Schroeder continues to consider Bush’s Iraq policy as wrong,” the magazine pointed out.

After the meeting with President Bush, Chancellor Schroeder addressed the United Nations. Reuters reports:

“German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder appealed Wednesday for a DECISIVE ROLE FOR THE UNITED NATIONS in the reconstruction of Iraq but softened past differences with the United States…. Schroeder said Germany was prepared to provide humanitarian, technical and economic aid and train the Iraqi security forces. Berlin has ruled out sending its own troops… [Schroeder] warned against states going it alone in crises and said the United Nations’ monopoly on the use of force must be strengthened… Schroeder also said the International Criminal Court, which the United States strongly opposes, was an important instrument of global justice against war crimes… Schroeder spelled out Germany’s ambition to win a permanent seat on the Security Council… ‘On behalf of Germany, I repeat that we are prepared to take on more responsibility in the framework of such a reform,’ he said.”

He who has ears to hear, let him hear…

The Jesus Box–Fact or Fake?

The scientific discussion regarding the genuineness of the “Jesus Box” continues. Christianity Today published in its October 2003 (Vol. 47, No. 10, page 42) edition an insightful article by Ben Witherington, professor of the New Testament, titled, “Bones of Contention — Why I still think the James bone box is likely to be authentic.”

In the lengthy article, the following was stated:
“The press conference of the Israeli Antiquities Authority was announced with much fanfare, and headlines went out around the world — JAMES OSSUARY DECLARED HOAX, INSCRIPTION SAID TO BE CERTAINLY A MODERN FORGERY… Two months later, as I am writing this, only a summary of the findings has been released (though it is called a ‘final report’). One must wonder why the IAA is holding back the data, when the commission finished its work nearly three months ago… Something is rotten in Jerusalem, and this whole investigation begins to look more and more political… No internationally known scholars on this commission were from anywhere outside Israel. Nor were there any Christian scholars on this commission, even though some outstanding ones live in Jerusalem. Christian participation would have assured us that theological agendas were not at play…

“There are serious problems with a self-chosen body like the IAA commission, especially when several of the members on the commission spoke publicly against the authenticity of the ossuary inscription before they conducted scientific tests on it… it is simply mind-boggling that the IAA can be so confident that the inscription cuts through the patina on the ossuary, when the Toronto team (which also examined the letters carefully under electron microscope) says it does not… There are some glaring omissions in the summary report… Why has the IAA ignored the data presented by other scholars?… I am still convinced the inscription is likely to be genuine, and will be vindicated as even further study and testing is done. In the meantime, let the scholarly debate continue, and let no one think that the IAA report is anything like the definitive word on this issue….”

Canadian Christians Accused of Hate Crimes?

Christianity Today published an article on September 15, 2002, reporting that the Canadian House of Commons “passed a bill adding sexual orientation to the country’s hate-propaganda law.” The bill must still pass the Canadian Senate and be given royal assent. The article continued, “‘Canadians who are speaking out against the redefinition of marriage are already being accused of “hate” speech by homosexual activists,’ Canada Family Action Coalition executive director Brian Rushfeldt told The Vancouver Sun. ‘[Under C-250,] the activists will begin to insist on prosecution to silence their critics with criminal sanctions.’… Under the law, promotion of hatred is punishable by up to five years in prison.”

Saudi Arabia and Nuclear Weapons

“Saudis consider nuclear bomb,” according to the headline of an article published by The Guardian in the U.K., dated September 18. The article pointed out, “Saudi Arabia, in response to the current upheaval in the Middle East, has embarked on a strategic review that includes acquiring nuclear weapons, the Guardian has learned. This new threat of proliferation in one of the most dangerous regions of the world comes on top of a crisis over Iran’s alleged nuclear programme.”

These and similar announcements serve as a reminder that we will yet see a mighty and unified power bloc emerge as described in the Bible as the King of the South. This will happen despite all the good intentions of the US and its allies to “fix” the Middle East with Western Democracy.

The Vatican and the World

Zenit reported on September 21 that “the Holy See would be prepared to become a full member of the United Nations, says the Vatican’s secretary of state [Cardinal Angelo Sodano]… Currently, the Holy See is a permanent observer of the United Nations, which allows it to address meetings called by that organization. But it has no voting power. Since 1978, the Holy See has established diplomatic relations with 82 countries, INCREASING THE TOTAL NUMBER TO 174… ‘Papal sovereignty in the international realm is not determined by its temporal power,’ [Sodano] said.”
 

ISRAEL & THE UNITED STATES vs THE WORLD?

Dramatic developments in the Middle East during these past two weeks have shown how quickly Israel and the United States can find themselves isolated and condemned by world opinion.

As the Jerusalem Post reported on September 13, 2003, “the United Nations Security Council’s 15 member-nations warned Israel Saturday against carrying out its decision to ‘remove’ the Palestinian leader [Yasser Arafat].” The threat “set off pro-Arafat marches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and drew opposition from the European Union, the United Nations and Arab countries,” according to the article. The paper continued, “The Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, the military wing of Yasser Arafat’s Fatah movement, threatened it would wage an ‘all out war’ against Israel if Arafat were to be harmed in any way. In a statement released Friday, the group said Israel would be ‘flooded’ with suicide bombers if action was taken against Arafat. ‘We will prove that we know how to defend our leader and symbol of our resistance,’ the group said.”

The newspaper also pointed out that “a poll conducted Thursday evening and published Friday in the Yediot Ahronot daily shows sixty percent of Israelis would like to see Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat killed or expelled.”

Israel’s reaction to the unanimous view of the Security Council, including the United States, Great Britain, Germany and France, was one of defiance, stating that Arafat is “a complete obstacle to peace and should have been cast aside years ago,” according to the Jerusalem Post.

Subsequently, the United States vetoed a proposed Syrian-sponsored resolution of the 15 Security Council members that would have demanded of Israel not to expel or kill Arafat. Bulgaria, Germany and Great Britain abstained, while France, China, Russia, Cameroon, Guinea, Mexico, Syria, Angola, Pakistan, Chile and Spain voted for the resolution. Many commentators see the US veto as having been prompted by pressure from Israel. As USA Today reported, Washington vetoed the resolution as it did not condemn terrorist groups attacking Israel. Although Washington explained that it continues to oppose expelling Arafat from the West Bank, many observers are doubtful. “Arabs were dismayed by the veto, with some saying the vote showed the United States had lost its credibility as an honest broker in the Middle East,” according to USA Today. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher said that the reasoning for Washington’s veto was “baseless.” He voiced his concern that the veto might be seen as a license to go after Arafat. France said “it regretted that the U.N. resolution on Israel didn’t pass. The resolution had ‘ a balanced message that we believed could bring a consensus,’ Cecile Pozzo di Borgo, the French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, said in Paris.”

Der Spiegel Online added that observers predict serious consequences for which the United States will be held responsible. Germany’s ambassador to the UN, Gunter Pleuger, stated that he was disappointed by the vote, as it had sent the wrong signal, and not all options had been explored.

Arafat dismissed the aborted effort of the Security Council to pass the resolution against Israel. A resolution “will not shake us,” Arafat said, “regardless as to where it’s coming from. We are more important than any resolution,” he added, according to Spiegel Online.

 

IRAQ’S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION?

The London based Sunday Times newspaper reported that inspectors had found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It stated that British defense intelligence sources had confirmed that the Iraq Survey Group, an Anglo-American team of 1400 scientists, military and intelligence experts, has delayed indefinitely the publication of a full report, which had been due on September 15. The newspaper added that the report may not be published at all.

JAPAN vs NORTH KOREA

news.independent.co.uk reported on September 15 that “Japan’s Defence Minister [Shigeru Ishiba] has stressed his country’s right to strike North Korean missile sites if an attack is thought imminent.” The article continued that North Korea has allegedly “at least 100 Rodong ballistic missiles capable of striking Japan.” According to Ishiba, “‘the threat from North Korea…. is not just aimed at Japan and the U.S., it’s a problem for the whole world.’… He believes that President George Bush’s strategy is closer to his own approach, than the strategy of Bill Clinton. ‘Clinton’s policy toward North Korea was based on two false premises: one, that Pyongyang would keep its promises [regarding the 1994 agreement to abandon its nuclear programme]; and two, that North Korea would collapse,’ he said. ‘North Korea neither kept its promises nor collapsed. We are now faced with the consequences.'”

The article pointed out, too, that “a number of senior politicians have recently floated the idea of Japan developing its own nuclear weapons, and in June, a bipartisan defence group of 103 junior politicians called for the government to change its defence-only policy to allow for a ‘minimum’ level of offensive capability to attack an enemy.”

SWEDEN AGAINST EURO

“Sweden got a clear message on Monday that it will pay a political price for snubbing the euro by being frozen out of EU decision-making,” according to MSNBC News of September 15. The article continued, “The resounding 56-42 percent ‘No’ to the euro in Sunday’s referendum follows a rejection of the European Union single currency by the Danes in 2000 and a ‘not yet’ from Britain… Asked if Sweden would lose influence by staying outside the 12-nation euro zone along with fellow EU members Britain and Denmark, [European Commission chief Romano] Prosi told Swedish Television: ‘Certainly, yes.’… Britain saw the rejection of the EU’s most ambitious economic project as a blow to Prime Minister Tony Blair. Tabloid daily the Sun said it would ‘send shock waves round Europe and dent Tony Blair’s dream of getting Britain to dump sterling.'”

GERMANY’S NEO-NAZIS

“The threat to Germany from neo-Nazis has risen to a new level, Interior Minister Otto Shily has warned,” according to news.bbc.co.uk of September 15. The article continued, “The discovery of a suspected plot to bomb a Munich Jewish centre during a visit by the German president [Johannes Rau, as well as Bavarian governor Edmund Stoiber and Jewish leader Paul Spiegel] has ‘dramatically confirmed’ the danger to society, he said on Monday… Officials believe plans were being made to bomb the centre on 9 November, when its foundation stone is due to be laid at a ceremony… The suspected attack would have coincided with the anniversary of the Nazis’ 1938 Kristallnacht attacks, when thousands of Jewish targets were attacked and dozens murdered… ‘There have been hints that right extremists are really a great potential danger for our society… This has now been dramatically confirmed,’ [Schily said]… ‘Faced with the flood of pictures from the Middle East, we had forgotten what extremists could also plan here at home,’ wrote Guido Heinen in Die Welt. ‘German political terrorism is back.'”

SCHILY CONDEMNS UNITED STATES ANTI-TERROR PRACTICE

In other news, Schily attacked the United States in an unusually serious way. According to Der Spiegel Online, dated September 9, Schily condemned the U.S. practice in its fight against terrorism to neutralize suspects without trial, stating that this practice violates fundamental principles of International Law. Schily, himself an attorney who had defended German terrorists in his earlier years, continued that the U.S. did not resolve fundamental questions, but he was hopeful that the thought process in the United States would lead to acceptable solutions.

GARNER TED ARMSTRONG DIES AT 73

As Associated Press reported on September 16, “Evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong … died Monday from complications of pneumonia… He is survived by his wife, three sons and five grandchildren.”