Page 1

A New World Order Watch Media Publication (www.thevisionreport.com)          February 2012: Issue 20

The Vision Report Watch is a publication of Rema Marketing (www.remamarketing.com) and is published once per calendar month.   The Vision Report Watch is a private membership service. For any queries regarding this subscription service please contact us at  admin@remamarketing.com. 


A New World Order Watch Media Publication (www.thevisionreport.com)          February 2012: Issue 20

3 LETTER FROM THE EDITOR 

An initial  welcome from the chief editor of  the Vision Report Watch.   

4 SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE ‐ PROPHETIC? 

17 EU CONTROL OF THE MIDDLE EAST 

23 BOOK REVIEW OF THE MONTH 

A fascinating  look  at  whether  the  debate  on  independence  for  Scotland  is  part  of  a  prophetic  move  in  the  creation  of  a  Roman  only European super state.  

The European  Union  Foreign  Policy  in  a  Changing  World  is  a  major  work  on  understanding  the  direction  taken  by  the  European  Union  in  regards  to  a  number  of  21st century threats and opportunities. 

  9  THE MEDITERRANEAN UNION 

The Mediterranean Union is seen by some to  the  vehicle  by  which  Europe  is  seeking  to  bolster  its  influence  within  the  Middle  East  and  North  Africa  yet  scriptures  already  prophesied this thousands of years ago. 

The Arab  Spring  has  been  a  monumental  period  in  the  history  of  the  Arab  World yet  through  the  chaos  and  vacuum,  Europe  seems  to  be  increasing  its  desire  to  take  advantage of the situation. 

24 APPENDIX A 

We include  some  information  from  the  December 23rd edition of the Global Watch  Weekly  report  to  provide  a  foundation  for  the  “Scottish  Independence  ‐  Prophetic?”  section. 

.

The Vision Report Watch is a publication of Rema Marketing (www.remamarketing.com) and is published every month.   The Vision Report Watch is a private membership service. For any queries regarding this subscription service please contact us at  admin@remamarketing.com. 


Welcome to the Vision Report Watch  In this edition of the Vision Report Watch we examine one of the most interesting aspects of Bible Prophecy. Understanding the correlation between the old ancient Roman Empire and the Revived Roman Empire to come, specifically focusing on Scotland and the Middle East. If you are a follower of world news you may be aware that over the last several weeks there has been increasing publicity on the debate within the United Kingdom regarding the political ambition of Scotland to disengage from the United Kingdom and become its own independent autonomous nation. Something like this may seem trivial until you realize that from a historical perspective Rome never ever conquered Scotland. On further investigation and with the help with one of our researchers, an interesting and fascinating viewpoint has been put forward which we wanted to share with you. It is based on the premise that within the European Union today there are nations who were not part of the original Roman Empire. Additionally we also take a look at the Arab Spring and the changing landscape within the Middle East and North Africa. What does all this mean and what are the prophetic nuances. Surely such a monumental chapter in the history of the Arab world cannot be merely coincidence.

Enjoy the read.    Reece Woodstock    Chief Editor, Vision Report Watch 


D

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE - PROPHETIC Blackberry Under the Spotlight? His offer followed days of manoeuvring between the government and Salmond's devolved Scottish administration as both sides competed for the high ground in an increasingly acrimonious debate over the future of the 300-year-old union between The First War (1296–1328) began with the English Scotland and England. invasion of Scotland in 1296, and ended with the Salmond said he wanted to signing of the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton in hold a referendum in late 2014 1328. The Second War (1332–1357) began with the on breaking away from the rest English-supported invasion of Edward Baliol and the of Britain, while Cameron has "Disinherited" in 1332, and ended in 1357 with the said it should be held sooner signing of the Treaty of Berwick. The wars were part rather than later to dispel of a great national crisis for Scotland and the period uncertainty he says is became one of the most defining moments in the damaging the Scottish nation's history. At the end of both wars, Scotland economy. retained its status as an independent nation Scotland was independent and remained thus, until the unification of the English and Scottish crowns in Cameron and all the main British parties want to keep the United Kingdom intact while Salmond's Scottish National Party (SNP) campaigns for Scottish independence. The Wars of Scottish Independence were a series of military campaigns fought between the independent Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England in the late 13th and early 14th centuries.

"The prime minister has made it clear he is happy to meet Alex Salmond and arrangements for that will be made in the coming days," a spokeswoman for Cameron said, saying no date had been set for the meeting. Two opinion polls published in February showed support for Scottish independence is stronger among English voters than it is among Scots.

1603, when the Kingdom of England, already in personal union with the Kingdom of Ireland since 1542, was inherited by James VI, King of Scots. The formal unification of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland to create the single Kingdom of Great Britain was completed in the Treaty of Union of 1707.

The polls may reflect a view in some parts of Britain that Scotland gains financially from the current UK set-up, which gives its devolved parliament power over issues like health and education, funded by a grant from British government coffers.

The SNP says that view does not take account of North Sea oil revenues, which flow to the Treasury in London. An independent Scotland could lay claim Yet hundreds of years later the reality of an to a large part of those revenues. independent Scotland is again at the forefront of Both polls found Scottish opponents of discussions. independence leading supporters, although their In January 2012, British Prime Minister David lead in one poll was slim. Cameron offered to hold talks with Scottish leader Alex Salmond to thrash out their differences over The SNP won a majority in Scottish elections last arrangements for a referendum on Scottish year, putting Salmond in a strong position to push independence that could lead to a breakup of the for a referendum. United Kingdom.

www.globalreport2010.com

4


D

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE - PROPHETIC Blackberry Under the Spotlight? The British government intervened, saying the Scottish government could not legally hold a referendum but offered to allow one under certain conditions. London supports a referendum with a straight yes or no question on independence while Salmond is open to having a second question on the ballot, offering Scottish voters a greater degree of devolution from London. Salmond objects to interference in Scottish affairs by a British government led by Conservatives, who are unpopular north of the border.

The ancient roman empire since the revival is a reemergence of something that was there before.

The reasoning is interesting because it still seeks to reconcile that Daniel 7:4 is still referring to an Anglo American power. If so, then the question is how could Britain be prophetically part of an Anglo American power in Daniel 7:4 and yet still be part of a Revived Roman Empire that is dominated by ten nations (Daniel 7:7) as Daniel details them as separate end time powers. Surely this implies a contradiction.

However at such a time, Agricola was summoned by Domitian back to Rome. Apparently with the empire stretched to the limit, militarily, in regions stretching from Europe down into North Africa and the far east, Domitian had decided to withdraw support for Agricola's plan to conquer all of Scotland and then Ireland.

According to historical data the Roman armies began their conquest of Britain in AD 42 under the rule of emperor Claudius. Britain had long been known for its resources in metal, timber cattle and slaves, and was seen as one of the last outposts of the western world. It was in AD 43 that the Roman legions actually moved along the English Channel to the kentish coast rapidly moving along the Thames and capturing Colchester; the first City in Britain to become the centre of Caesar worship. By A POSSIBLE PROPHETICAL PERSPECTIVE AD 54 the Romans controlled virtually all of Is the independence of Scotland an event that could England, south of Lincoln. be prophetic? In one of the previous editions of our weekly Global Watch Weekly we had spent some time discussing the role of Great Britain in prophecy (See Appendix A). Our belief had been that a possible interpretation of Daniel 7 and the decoding of the first beast in this vision would indicate the Anglo Saxon alliance composed of the United States and the United Kingdom would be a separate world power to the final Revived Roman Empire. This would thus imply that there would be a future exclusion of Great Britain from the European Union (The European Union being a precursor to a final Wales was eventually captured by Frontinus, a prophetic ten nation super power). provincial governor appointed by the new emperor However there are others in our camp who offer a Domitian. Known as an expert on military tactics fascinating diversion in which they believe that Frontinus pushed westwards rather than Great Britain could remain as part of the European northwards. The increasing Roman capital pouring super power to come, but that this would require a into England had increased the resolve of Rome to revision of the United Kingdom in which Scotland conquer the whole of the island. As a result, when would break away as an independent nation leading Julius Agricola succeeded Frontinus, he resumed to Northern Ireland also breaking away to reunify the surge northward penetrating into Scotland as far as Perth winning a famous victory. with the Republic Ireland as one nation.

Although such a plan would have rounded off Rome's conquest of the western hemisphere, such The starting point of this alternate view is that if a program would have overtaxed the military European unification is an embryonic stage that will resources of the empire, especially in holding to lead to a revived Roman empire then the empire subdued areas under threat from strong resistance from various British tribes. needs to closely mirror the ancient boundaries of

www.globalreport2010.com

5


D

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE - PROPHETIC Blackberry Under the Spotlight? The last phase of Rome's presence in Britain was seen under the Roman senator Hadrian who terminated Agricola's northward advance. Historical records state that the Roman garrisons were thinly dispersed over a line stretching from Tyne to Perth, and as a result were under extreme pressure from resistance groups on the northern frontiers of the province. When Hadrian reached Britain he called for retreat of the Roman armies from these advanced positions back towards the Scottish border. A whole legion had been wiped out in protecting the conquered northern territory, and thus to protect Roman security, a fortification was erected called Hadrian's wall. The purpose of the wall was to keep resistance groups away from the military defence zone manned by the soldiers. By cutting off communication between the tribes on either side the wall served as a measure of enabling Rome to maintain her authority this far into Britain for almost three hundred years. The wall had also served note that the Romans had decided against conquering Scotland or Ireland for that matter.

there must be a future shakeup of the United Kingdom where the Scottish will breakaway in independence, and there will be a reunification of Ireland. That would leave England and Wales to revise themselves in a new commonwealth that would remain part of European unification. Since the Revived Roman empire will be a revival of ancient Rome not only in policy, but geography, and if the European Union is to be an embryonic form of a coming Revived Roman Empire, then it follows that non Roman nations who are presently part of the European Union will eventually drop out of European unification processes. Rome never conquered Scotland or any part of Ireland. Since the United Kingdom consists of nations which were originally not part of ancient Rome (Scotland and Northern Ireland), then some believe that the government of Britain is in a sense holding onto "non Roman territory" which it must give up, if it is to remain in the coming Revived Roman empire. RECONCILIATION WITH DANIEL 2 So how does this view explain reconcile with Daniel 7:4. The separation of the eagles wings from the Lion in Daniel 7:4 primarily indicates (1) the establishing of America as a legitimate superpower without former dependence on Britain and (2) The loss of British imperial power due to the limitation of the Lions movement without wings; could it be probable that the separation also symbolised a separation of the actual angloamerican alliance.

Was it that the separation occurs because Britain was becoming embroiled in a master plan for European unification, and thus could not preserve the angloamerican alliance. If this is the case then the representation of the first beast at the time that The historical importance of this is that England and the fourth beast rises could be just the American Wales were under Roman occupation for hundreds power itself rather than the angloamerican alliance. of years. The Roman culture was slowly absorbed Remember the vision of the first beast is in two as the Romans left their mark on the land. phases (1)The lion with eagles wings (2)The lion Judging from history, England is very much Roman and the establishment of the eagle as a separate and as a result its membership within European entity with a mans heart. Therefore in the second unification complements the treaty on which phase, the Lion is just a relic of the first phase unification was first made. The treaty of Rome. relationship. It is just an imagery. Thus Britain could Historically speaking if Revived Rome is to be one of the ten European nations in the fourth complement ancient Rome, then some believe that

www.globalreport2010.com

6


THE FRAME OF REFERENCE The boundaries of the ancient Roman Empire continually changed until the end of the Western Roman Empire in AD 476. After AD 476 the eastern side (Byzantine) of the Roman Empire continued for a further one thousand years until it was conquered by the Ottoman Turks in AD 1453. So in discussion the relevance of the Roman Empire and the vision of the legs of iron in Daniel 2 to the future Roman Empire and the vision of the ten toes of iron and clay, the baseline we use is the geography of the Roman Empire at the time that Jerusalem was under control of the Romans all the way up until AD 70, since the future Roman Empire will reach its prophetic stage several years before the Second Coming of Christ in which Jerusalem will again come under control of the future Roman Empire The Boundaries of the Roman Empire during the years leading up to AD70 North: The British Channel, the Rhine, the Danube, and the Black Sea South: The deserts of Africa, the cataracts of the Nile, & the Arabian deserts East: The Euphrates

7


D

SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE - PROPHETIC Blackberry Under the Spotlight? Beast (or part of the revived roman empire but not necessarily one of the main ten nations - i.e. possibly a two tier European empire with full unity only between the main ten nations) as the first beast phase present at the fourth beast rise, would be the American power alone.

superstate, and not surrendering sovereignty over monetary policy and other issues to the supergovernment….Political leaders in Britain who participated in the Bilderberg meeting were instructed to attack Mrs Thatcher politically in an effort to bend the Iron Lady's will. It was suggested that enough public pressure could be generated to force her to yield her nations sovereignty to save her own government…..The plan for a European superstate, with no trade or travel barriers among the nations of western Europe, and Britain, and ultimately, a common currency-the ECU-has been on the Bilderberg agenda for years. It is viewed as a major step towards their goal of a world government."

Those who hold to this view believe that a weakening of the angloamerican alliance not only evolves around Britain European commitments overshadowing its national policy with America, but also that America is also in the midst of transition. In the post cold war era, relationships are not governed war as before, but by economics. With the world in a recession, and with communism vanquished (supposedly), Americas economic relationships with Germany and Japan will become The fall of Margaret Thatcher was a masterminded more important than its military relationship with conspiracy to overthrow the Iron Lady who sought to rip Britain from European unification. The arrival Britain. of John Major as the new Prime Minister after Thatcher’s resignation, and his cabinet yielded a THE MARGARET THATCHER DEMISE renewal of commitment to the future of Europe. Adherents also cite the fall of John Major’s Foreign secretary at the time, Douglas former UK prime Minister Hurd stated. Margaret Thatcher, as further proof based on events which "What is decided in Europe affects us, our security, transpired on the Spanish our prosperity. And nearly in all these matters the choice is whether we are confidently going to be island of La Toja in 1989. part of that discussion and those decisions, or The Bilderbergers a group whether we are going to step back and isolate pressing for w o r l d ourselves from that discussion, and those government and consisting of decisions." men of powerful economic and political positions had met for its annual Nigel Lawson, Major’s chancellor at the time stated, conference. Usually conferences are steeped in secrecy with high security. However in 1989 "The "That overriding the fear of a federal Europe, should Spotlight" a newsmagazine exposing world not lead to unratification of the Maastricht Treaty, as government mechanisms, managed to retrieve this would leave Britain as the villains of Europe. information on what was discussed during this Rather Britain's interests should be staying in conference. The title of the section was "Thatcher Europe, and being an important force within decision making, helping France counterbalance targeted by Elite." and stated, German domination." "Sources inside the secret society of international financiers and political leaders said their clandestine However who will remember when John Major in meeting this year emphasised the need to bring 1992 who seemed to be in opinion polls, facing down Mrs Thatcher because of her refusal to yield defeat by a resurgent Labour party led by Neil British Sovereignty to the European super-state that Kinnock (who supported Scottish independence), is to emerge in 1992.Mrs Thatcher was denounced and in a most emotional speech to the British for her provincialism and nationalism for insisting people, stood on a black box and cried out in loud that Britain would retain control over who enters the tones. country instead of accepting passports of the "The United Kingdom is in danger, Wake up, wake up."

www.globalreport2010.com

8


D

THE MEDITERRANEAN UNION Blackberry Under the Spotlight Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) is a multilateral partnership that encompasses 43 countries from Europe and the Mediterranean Basin: the 27 member states of the European Union and 16 Mediterranean partner countries from North Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans. It was created in July 2008 as a re-launched Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (the Barcelona Process), when a plan to create an autonomous Mediterranean Union was dropped. The Union has the aim of promoting stability and prosperity throughout the Mediterranean region. Nevertheless, its 2009 and 2010 Summits could not be held due to the stalemate of the Arab-Israeli peace process after the Gaza war.

From the side of the Mediterranean Partner countries: Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Mauritania, Monaco, Montenegro, Morocco, the Palestinian Authority, Syria (selfsuspended on 22 June 2011), Tunisia and Turkey. Libya as an observer state.

The Union for the Mediterranean introduced new institutions into the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership with the aim of increasing its visibility such as the creation of a Secretariat. The commercial connections between the European countries and the African ones are very important. They have created the premises for a future economic union between the Mediterranean non European states and the communitarian countries. The Mediterranean Union reunites countries from Europe, Middle Est. and North Africa countries that have access to the Mediterranean Sea, forming an economic community by taking the model of the early European Union.

De-pollution of the Mediterranean. This broad project encompasses many initiatives that target good environmental governance, access to drinkable water, water management, pollution reduction and protection of the Mediterranean biodiversity. Maritime and land highways. The purpose of this project is to increase and improve the circulation of commodities and people throughout the EuroMediterranean region by improving its ports, and building highways and railways. Specifically, the Paris and Marseilles Declarations refer to the construction of both a Trans-Maghrebi railway and highway systems, connecting Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia.

As it would be formed by the E.U. states and the Mediterranean countries, the Mediterranean Union would have a State President Council, an executive council, ministerial councils, a Permanent Commission that would act like a Secretary Department, a consolidated Parliament reunion and its own bank. Such an organization could have a big Civil protection. The civil protection project aims at role in the area in solving diverse problems, form improving the prevention, preparedness and response to both natural and man-made disasters. ecological issues to immigration The ultimate goal is to "bring the Mediterranean From the European Union side: the 27 European Partner Countries progressively closer to the Union member states (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, European Civil Protection Mechanism. Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Alternative energies: Mediterranean solar plan. Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, The goal of this project is to promote the production Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, and use of renewable energies. More specifically, it aims at turning the Mediterranean partner countries Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and United Kingdom.) into producers of solar energy and then circulating the resulting electricity through the EuroMediterranean region.

www.globalreport2010.com

9


D

THE MEDITERRANEAN UNION

With pro-Sharia parties looking to play a significant role in new governments in North Africa and the Middle East, one would think that the French Foreign Minister might think this would be a good time to disengage from Euro-Med partnership initiatives. No such luck. In light of the uprisings in the Arab world the Union for the Mediterranean project, launched in 2008 in Paris, is needed more than ever. The statement was made by the French foreign minister, Alain Juppe’, who already has insisted on the need to revive this ambitious project. During a speech to the Paris National Assembly in 2011, Juppe’ stated that ”The Mediterranean Union is an idea that is needed more than ever before”, and added that ”Our common interest is to ensure that the development of the two shores will allow citizens of the south to live at home, on their land, in their countries, and to find there their rightful peace, freedom, work and prosperity.” That is what we will do by reviving the Mediterranean Union with the support of all European Union Countries”. The Union for the Mediterranean, a cooperation project between the EU and the Countries of the south shore of the Mediterranean, among which Israel, was one of the initiatives that was strongly desired by president Nicolas Sarkozy. But the stalemate in the peace process between Israel and Palestine still has not allowed the project to take off. However the project is of great significance from a prophetical perspective because specific passages within the Bible seem to imply that there will be a final super power known as the Revived Roman Empire. However this empire which has commonly been associated with the rise of the European Union will not only engulf the nations of Europe which were previously part of the ancient Roman Empire but this latter day power will also extend its sphere of influence and engulf the whole Mediterranean basin which includes North Africa and the Middle East.

10


D

THE MEDITERRANEAN UNION DANIEL 11 AND THE ARMAGEDDON TRIGGER The Antichrist is a worldwide leader (Dan. 11:36-45) who was prophetically foreshadowed by Antiochus Epiphanes (Antiochus IV; 175-164 BC). It is clear that Dan. 11:21-35 was partially fulfilled by Antiochus IV. Some view Antiochus Epiphanes as the main person in this passage. However, the historical facts of Daniel. 11:36-45 do not at all fit Antiochus’s life and military career. For example, Antiochus did not exalt himself above every god (Dan. 11:36-37), nor did he reject “the gods of his fathers,” or worship “a god unknown to his fathers” (Dan. 11:38). Rather he worshiped the Greek pantheon that his fathers did and built an altar to Zeus in the Jerusalem temple. Antiochus IV did not die or “come to his end” in Israel (Dan. 11:45). He died at Tabae in Persia. In other words, Dan. 11:36-45 was not remotely fulfilled by Antiochus IV. The most popular view among the Church fathers (Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret, etc.) is that this king was the Antichrist. Jerome wrote, “all these things are spoken prophetically of the Antichrist who is to arise in the end time”. Some scholars see this king as referring to the Roman Emperor (Calvin). To interpret this passage this ways requires one overlook many key details. The context makes clear this king will live in the End-Times just before the Second Coming (Dan. 11:40; 12:1; 10:14). In Dan. 10-12, Daniel gave a report of the details of one vision in which the End-Times is the primary theme. This “king” will reign in the time just before believers are resurrected and immediately after Israel is delivered from this king (Dan. 12:2). Even though the Antichrist is not called the King of the West we can make the assumption that the empire from which he will come to prominence will be from the west of Israel since the power blocks which come against him in Israel will be from the north, south and east. An interesting perspective to be observed is that if the ten toes of the image in Nebuchadnezzar's (Daniel 2) are in reference to the emergence of a Revival of the Roman Empire (the interpretation is that the two legs of iron represented ancient rome whereas the ten toes are a future fulfilment since they are crushed by the second coming of Christ) which many believe that the European Union will fulfil. Daniel 11:40 states that whilst the Antichrist (leader of a Masonic New World Order) is in Israel that the fragile world government he is trying to create will be tested when two major groups will rebel and attack him in an attempt to come against his authority. Daniel 11:40 clearly identities that a major military challenge will rise from the South and North of Israel (“time of the end” denotes it is a latter day event). 11:40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over. 11:41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. 11:42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape. 11:43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

Many researchers have identified the King of the South as Egypt based on the historical and literal interpretation of the term “King of the South” in Daniel 11 and its detailed account of the Ptolemaic (southern section of the Grecian world empire) dynasties that arose during the reign of Alexander the Great. The Ptolemaic empire covered more than present day Egypt and there is flexibility in the interpretation that Egypt may bring along other North African nations into this conflict prompting the Antichrist to extend his influence beyond Egypt further into Africa i.e. Ethiopia, Libya.

11


D

THE MEDITERRANEAN UNION The identity of the King of the North is more controversial. Whilst the mainstream tendency has been to associate the King of the North as referring to Russia and linking this to Ezekiel 38 (which describes in greater detail a Russian invasion of the Middle East along with an Islamic confederacy), others believe that a correct literal and historical interpretation is that the King of the North is Syria since all previous references to “King of the North” in Daniel 11 were in reference to the Seleucid dynasty (northern point of the Grecian empire) which was north of Israel and was involved in a power struggle with Egypt during ancient times over control of Israel. Interestingly the Seleucid empire not only was north of Israel (present day Syria) but also extended east including Iraq (or known back then as Mesopotamia). The scriptures state that through this struggle for supremacy in the Middle East the Antichrist will consolidate his geographical stranglehold across not only Syria (including Iraq based on the geographical status of the King of the North during the time of Antiochus Epiphanies), Egypt, Ethiopia and Libya but also Edom and Moab which is associated with modern day Jordan. The Revived Roman Empire will thus have a centralized sphere of power over the Middle East from the west, east, north and south of Israel. If you take a look at the map below of the boundaries of ancient Rome at the time of Christ and 100 years after, one would see that the Roman Empire’s geographical power had fully extended across past Egypt across the whole of North Africa capturing the whole of the Mediterranean basin. It would seem according to Daniel 11:40 that the latter day Roman Empire will seek to duplicate a geographical stranglehold that will mirror exactly that as over 2000 years ago. This is why it is of great significance that Europe is now using France to spearhead the Mediterranean initiative to bring the nations of the Middle East and North Africa into a close economic relationship with the European Union. Could this all be embryonic steps of Europe’s attempts dominate the nerve center of the world before deciding to fully conquer these territories through military subjugation when they begin to rebel against the Antichrist rule when they realize he is a dictator. One may wonder why would the Antichrist be in Israel at the time of this attack. This question ties into the significant premise alluded to regarding the fact that the world’s most powerful Masonic lodges are financing the excavations around the temple mount in Jerusalem along with plans to rebuild the third temple of Solomon on the temple mount and witness the coming of their Masonic “Christ”. Jerusalem is the key prize. Considering the fact that the Dome of the Rock presently sits on the temple mount one could imagine the significant turmoil and objection that such an event would raise within the Islamic world. Some believe that the rebuilding of Solomon's Temple and control of the temple mount by a powerful individual who is supported by the illuminati and in league with Israel could be the spark needed for a literal holy war especially if there is a threat to the Dome of the Rock as a consequence of a Jewish temple being rebuilt.

12


D

THE MEDITERRANEAN UNION THE ROME BYZANTINE THEORY The Rome Byzantine Theory has made a significant play on the rise of the Mediterranean Union and is based on an unorthodox interpretation of Daniel 2 and the description of Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the great image. Daniel was given a dream interpretation which detailed Israel's long-term future. Specifically, Daniel saw a great statue which consisted of different metals. There were four distinctly different metals in this statue. The head of the statue was made of gold, the chest and arms were silver, the belly and thighs were made from bronze and the legs were made of iron. This would be confusing and difficult to understand, but Daniel was given a full explanation of the meaning of this statue in Daniel 2:36-49. These four metals represented the 4 gentile empires that would rule over Israel, successively through time: Gold Head: Babylonian Empire (626 BC - 539 BC) Silver Chest/Arms: Medo-Persian Empire (539 BC - 330 BC) Bronze Belly and Thighs: Greecian Empire (330 BC - 63 BC) Iron Legs: Roman Empire (63 BC ->) Note that Daniel was told that only 4 empires gentile empires would rule over Israel. Daniel was also told that the last empire, the Roman Empire, would ultimately be destroyed by Christ at the Second Advent (Daniel 2:35 The Byzantine theory teaches that that the two legs are considered to represent the split that took place in the Roman Empire, into a Byzantine Eastern half (Constantinople) and a Roman Western half (Rome). After Constantine became Emperor of the Roman Empire, in 330 AD he moved the capital from Rome to what was then called Byzantium. He renamed the city to Constantinople, the “New Rome”. He also kept the symbol of the city, the crescent moon and star, as his flag. This established the Eastern Roman Empire, which also was known as the Byzantine Empire. When the Eastern Empire began, it controlled Jerusalem. This Empire, The Byzantine Empire, remained until 1453 AD when it was taken over by the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was a theocracy, with the sultans dedicated to the advancement of the Sunni branch of Islam through military means. With the decline of the Ottoman Empire during World War I, four dominant states arose: Greece, Turkey, Syria, and Egypt—which were restorations of the four heads of Daniel’s third beast, the Grecian Empire. Thus according to this view the dominant power of today’s eastern “leg” of the old Roman Empire seems to lie with the Arab nations. This had led proponents of the Byanztium theory to postulate that the final ten nation Revived Roman Empire super power will be composed of five nations from Western Europe and five nations from the Middle East. A KEY PROBLEM WITH THE BYZANTINE THEORY One of the problems with this view is that the eastern leg of the Roman Empire (called the Byzantine Empire) did not come into existence for a few centuries after the time of Christ. Yet Daniel 9:26 — the verse that teaches that the Antichrist will emerge from the Roman Empire — says he will come from the same people who destroyed the city and the sanctuary. This destruction occurred in 70 A.D., when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Jewish temple. Since the eastern leg didn’t exist in 70 A.D, then the Romans who destroyed the city and sanctuary couldn’t have referred to the people from the much later, eastern leg. This is why prophecy scholars have

13


D

THE MEDITERRANEAN UNION historically believed that the Antichrist will come from the people of the old Roman Empire (represented today in Western Europe). Yet to salvage their theory, some proponents of the Byzantine theory supporters say that the Roman army included conscripted soldiers from Syria, so the Antichrist will be of Syrian origin and come from the Byzantine side of the Roman Emperor. But this is nonsense to claim that, somehow, conscripted soldiers who are merely following orders represent the Roman Empire. However the valuable contribution of the Byzantine Theory is that it highlights the importance of understanding that the ancient Roman Empire was not just a European empire but one which also assimilated some of the countries of the Middle East. CHALLENGES OF ARAB SPRING CREATES OPPORTUNITY FOR MEDITERRANEAN UNION The diffusion of innovations, resulting from the current and continuously evolving informational revolution has directly impacted socio-cultural living standards, and has influenced structural-sectoral shifts in the economy. These 'shifts' can be smooth or can create crisis and renewal, a process which Joseph Alois Schumpeter (8 February 1883 – 8 January 1950) an Austrian-American economist and political scientist called, "creative destruction." The present popular uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa give witness to the power of knowledge and technology and diffusion within a growing globalized society and its tremendous influence these have also, on political change. Twelve years ago, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu in a speech at CPAC February 17, 2001 at the Ronald Reagan banquet, astutely observed and predicted, "It is the information revolution that is beginning to collapse the totalitarian regimes of our time. This is the first real change that is producing not only economic changes, not only social changes, but enormously important political changes. Because up to now, technology has really been at the service of dictatorships... "The greatest service that dictatorships have received in the 20th century was this thing, the microphone. And the microphone would give a single dictator the ability to control the minds and hearts of millions of people, to tell them who is the enemy, who are the well poisoners of the earth, who are the cancer that has to be excised. That's how Israel was referred to in the Middle East. That's how the Jewish people were referred to in the heart of Europe by the Nazis. It is the power of the microphone, the power of mass communications, controlled from above, that was the greatest threat to freedom in the 20th century." "We are witnessing the breakup of that monolithic control. Because you now have, or very soon will have, millions of people, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of people, ultimately billions of people, who can access networks of information and communication from below, who can become their own broadcasters, or narrowcasters and that is fundamentally eroding the power of dictatorships." The Biblical Prophet Daniel received the prophecy over 2500 years ago that there would be a remarkable increase in knowledge and technology in the last days: "But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase." Daniel 12:4 Daniel also received prophecy about the empires of the world (Daniel Chapter. 2 and 7) and he prophesied that the last world empire to rule before the Messiah's everlasting reign would be a (revived) Roman empire. Prophecy teacher Jack Kelley writes this warning in his study of Daniel's prophecy of 70 weeks, "A ruler who will come from the territory of the old Roman Empire will confirm a 7 year covenant with Israel that permits them to build a Temple and re-instate their Old Covenant worship system. 3 1/2 years later he will violate the covenant by setting up an abomination that causes the Temple to become desolate, putting an end to their worship. This abomination brings the wrath of God down upon him and he will be destroyed."

14


D

THE MEDITERRANEAN UNION This last Gentile empire to rule is still future. It will be the empire of the Antichrist. Dr. David Reagan wrote in his article entitled, Europe In Bible Prophecy: "The most important prophetic development of the 20th Century was the regathering of the Jewish people to their historic homeland in the Middle East, resulting in the creation of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948. The second most important development was the formation of a European confederation known as The European Union. Both of these momentous historical events point to the fact that we are living in the end times, right on the threshold of the Tribulation and the Lord’s return." However the Mediterranean Union has further added a significant dimension to the ambitions of the European Union. French President Nicolas Sarkozy proposed to establish a 'Mediterranean Union' as part of his presidential campaign in 2007. The idea was anteceded by the Barcelona Process, also known as the EuroMediterranean Partnership. The aim of the 1995 Barcelona Declaration initiative was stated as "turning the Mediterranean basin into an area of dialogue, exchange and cooperation guaranteeing peace, stability and prosperity." Nicolas Sarkozy envisioned this Union to follow the model of the European Union with a shared judicial area and common institutions, and as a forum for dialogue between Israel and its Arab Neighbors. Turkey opposed the idea initially, skeptical that membership of the Mediterranean Union was being offered to them as an alternative to full accession to the EU. (Libya was also very hesitant) On the 13th of July, 2008 in Paris, France, the ‘Barcelona Process: Union for the Mediterranean'‚ was launched according to the Joint Declaration adopted at the heads of state and Government. For the past several years the Union for the Mediterranean has not progressed as expected due to stalemates with the Israel-Arab peace process and cancelling of summits. This may soon change. As the revolts in North Africa, and Arab nations along the Mediterranean and in the Middle East proceed to overturn political systems, vacant areas of political and economic structure are left in need of leadership and direction. The EU recognizes this, and has plans to plant roots of 'deep democracy' in the region. It is interesting to see the EU now reviving in such a way with a framework in place that could possibly meet the needs and challenges of the 'New Middle East.' However, it is precisely for this reason - the fact that it is practical, makes sense, and involves Israel - that is concerning; a reviving roman empire signals the end of days, and the time to be on the alert. Upon reviewing a map of the Union for the Mediterranean nations in comparison with a map of the Roman empire at or about the time of Christ 2000 years ago, those who study bible prophecy can not help but to be amazed at the similarity. The first image below shows the nations part of the Mediterranean Union and the second image shows the boundaries of the ancient Roman Empire at the time of Christ.

15


D

THE MEDITERRANEAN UNION One possible obstacle holding back full implementation of the emergence of the revived Roman Empire, is competition from another set of nations vying for world power, wealth and domination. Caroline Glick in her recent article entitled, The New Middle East points out that the Iranian regime are the main benefactors of the New Middle East that is taking shape due to long-developed ties and connections with opposition figures that give the Iranians the ability to influence the policies of post-revolutionary allied regimes. She predicts a very dark future should there be an Iranian takeover: "If the mullahs aren’t overthrown, the New Middle East will be a very dark and dangerous place." Caroline Glick mentioned four nations that are named in the bible in future prophecies. She pointed out that Russia's (Natural Gas/Energy) Gazprom announcement to sell Syria the Yakhont supersonic anti-ship cruise missile was a testament to Iran’s rising regional power and the US’s loss of power - an important fact considering that for the EU empire to rise, the West would logically, decline from its former super-power status. Glick also mentions the growing alliance between Russia and Turkey, "Russia’s announcement that it sides with Iran’s ally Turkey in its support for reducing UN Security Council sanctions against Iran indicates that the US no longer has the regional posture necessary to contain Iran on the international stage." This 'obstacle' of competitive nations to a revived Roman empire may possibly be removed by the fulfilment of the Isaiah 17:1,14; Jeremiah 49:23-27; Amos 1:3-5; Zechariah 9:1-8 prophecy against Damascus, Syria and the Ezekiel 38 and 39 prophecy of the Gog Magog war; a Russian (Magog) and Iran (Persia) led coalition of muslim nations (Turkey (Meshech and Tubal/Gomer/Togarmah) Libya (Put), Sudan/Ethiopia (Cush), who will attempt a doomed attack on Israel, greatly reducing their influence in the region. "Rumors of war" and rumors of 'peace and security' seem to be the prevalent themes of the day. In closing, the Bible warns of a 'creative destruction' of sorts resulting from the advances of man-kind in the realms of peace-making via the emergence of a union set to undermine the sovereignty of nations in the guise of 'democracy.' Israel is unlike any other nation in the world as it can not be contained by such a global union that will eventually be led by the Antichrist. Israel is like a banner to the world that the Word of God is the truth, and Jerusalem as prophesied by Zechariah will be a burdensome stone to all the nations who attempt division or conquest of her. The conflict in the Middle East that brings Israel and her neighbors to the decision table is rooted in the spiritual realm and no corruptible man-made plan can bring lasting peace and security based upon unscriptural and dishonest means or motives. It is the confirming of the (false) peace treaty that initiates the time of Jacob's trouble, and judgment upon all the earth.

16


D

EU CONTROL OF THE MIDDLE EAST The Middle East and North Africa are in the process of being divided into spheres of influence between the European Union and the United States. Essentially the division of the Middle East and North Africa are between Franco-German and AngloAmerican interests. There is a unified stance within NATO in regards to this re-division.

These spheres of influence are really spheres of responsibility in a long campaign to restructure the Middle East and North Africa. The services agreement between Total S.A. and Chevron to jointly develop Iraqi energy reserves, NATO agreements in the Persian Gulf, and the establishment of a permanent French military base in the U.A.E. are all results of these objectives. Militant globalization and force is at work from Iraq and Lebanon to the Maghreb. Redrawing European Security Borders: The Road to Redrawing the Map of the Middle East “The politics [foreign policy] of a state are in its geography.” -Napoleon Bonaparte I, Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, and Mediator of the Helvetic (Swiss) Confederation

While on the surface Iraq falls within the AngloAmerican orbit, the Eastern Mediterranean and its gas resources have been set to fall into the FrancoGerman orbit. In fact the Mediterranean region as a whole, from Morocco and gas-rich Algeria to the Levant is coveted by Franco-German interests, but there is more to this complex picture than meets the eye. Unknown to the global public, several milestone decisions have been made to end Franco-German and Anglo-American squabbling that will ultimately call for joint management of the spoils of war. Franco -German and Anglo-American interests are converging into one. The reality of the situation is that the area ranging from Mauritania to the Persian Gulf and Afghanistan will be shared by America, Britain, France, Germany, and their allies.

Before NATO’s Riga Summit it was agreed upon that the western periphery of the “Arc of Instability” would be manned by NATO and fall under FrancoGerman responsibility. Signs of the consensus reached between the Anglo-American and FrancoGerman sides had emerged through FrancoGerman representatives a month prior to NATO’s conference in Riga, Latvia. While lecturing at Princeton University in October 2006, Joschka Fischer the former German Foreign Affairs Minister, a member of the Green Party of Germany, and a representative of the Franco-German entente gave a profound revelation about the direction of the foreign, security, and defence policy that Germany and France were heading towards. The direction according to Joschka Fischer was “eastward,” with both the Middle East and its Eastern Mediterranean waters being named as the new borders of Europe. This region would be part of the new security sphere of the E.U. and Europe. The former German minister stated that the terrorist bombings in London, Britain and Madrid, Spain showed that the Middle East “is truly our [Europe’s] backyard, and we in the E.U. must cease our shortsightedness and recognize that.” Furthermore, Joschka Fischer warned that Europe needed to shift its attention to the Middle East and Turkey - a member of NATO and one of the “gateways” or “entrances” into the Middle East.

17


D

EU CONTROL OF THE MIDDLE EAST It is not coincidental that The New York Times also argued for the expansion of NATO into the Middle East just months after the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003. By 2004 and through the joint AngloAmerican and Franco-German coordination in Lebanon it was clear that France and Germany had agreed to be America’s bridgeheads in Eurasia. This is what brought about the leadership of Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy in Berlin and Paris. The statements of Joschka Fischer reflected a broader attitude within the leading circles of France and Germany. They are not coincidental remarks or innovative in nature or isolated statements. They are part of long-standing objectives and policies that have existed for decades. Fischer’s lecture foreshadowed the drive towards the harmonization of foreign policy in the Middle East between France, Germany, Britain, and the United States. What Joschka Fischer said marked the rapprochement of the Franco-German entente and the Anglo-American alliance and foreshadowed the greater role the E.U. and NATO would play in U.S. foreign policy.

Merkel intensified her calls for the inclusion of Turkey within the framework of the E.U. through a “special relationship,” but not as part of the actual European bloc. This also foreshadowed what Nicolas Sarkozy would later propose to the Turks.

This could mean one of two things: Franco-German policy is part of a continuum regardless of leadership and party politics or that the outcome of the 2007 French presidential elections were known in Berlin or decided beforehand. Whatever the case, the German statements expose a calculated agenda in Paris, Berlin, and other European circles for expansion linked to the Anglo-American march to war. Paris and Berlin act in tandem regardless as to whosoever is leading their respective governments. It is Franco-German policy at its core depends on powerful economic interests. The latter call the shots and override the elected politicians. These economic interests determine in both France and Germany, as well as at the level of the E.U., the nature of government policy.

The Daily Princetonian, Princeton’s school/university newspaper, quoted the former German official as making the following statements: .1. “Europe’s security is no longer defined on its [Europe’s] eastern borders, but in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.” .2. “Turkey should be a security pillar for the European community, and the efforts to derail that relationship are impossibly shortsighted.” Joschka Fischer’s statements also foreshadow Nicolas Sarkozy’s public campaign in the Mediterranean region. Franco-German policy is also exposed in regards to Turkey; before Nicolas Sarkozy was elected in France, Chancellor Angela

The Mediterranean Union: Expanding the E.U. into the Middle East and North Africa The whole Mediterranean is slated to eventually fall within the European Union’s sphere of influence. This initiative is being spearheaded by France and was officially kicked off by Nicolas Sarkozy on a tour of the Mediterranean that started in Algeria. The idea of a “Mediterranean Union” was presented to Europeans with the election of Nicolas Sarkozy, but this idea is not as new as the mainstream media presents it. Zbigniew Brzezinski acknowledged in 1997 that “France not only seeks a central political role in a unified Europe but also sees itself as the nucleus of a Mediterranean-North African cluster of states that share common concerns.”

18 17


D

EU CONTROL OF THE MIDDLE EAST An extension of the E.U. sphere of influence will also result in an extension of Anglo-American influence and the economic diktats of the Washington Consensus. In this case the question is how much Anglo-American influence will there be within the Mediterranean Union? The E.U. is a shared body which support both AngloAmerican and Franco-German interests. It is through America’s “special relationship” with Britain and NATO that America has a foothold in the European Union. However, the E.U. is still predominately managed by Paris and Berlin. Thus, the Mediterranean littoral will be brought largely under Franco-German influence when the E.U. model is fused onto the Mediterranean. The mechanism and structure established by the extension of the E.U. in the Mediterranean will determine the level of Anglo-American influence within the Mediterranean littoral. If the E.U. creates an overlapping mechanism in the Mediterranean where the nations of the Mediterranean littoral are linked only directly with E.U. members bordering the Mediterranean and indirectly with other E.U. members, then Anglo-American influence will be much weaker than it would be in the case of full integration between the E.U. and Mediterranean. This type of relationship would greatly empower Paris and Berlin within the Mediterranean. Hypothetically, this arrangement could exclude Britain, as well as America. The Mediterranean could strictly fall into the Franco-German orbit, but this seems to be an unlikely scenario. Anglo-American control and influence will be maximized if the Mediterranean is wholly amalgamated into the European Union. However, this could damage the E.U. and hurt Anglo-American and Franco-German interests for different reasons, including demographics, if it is not done at a proper pace. If amalgamation is not achieved gradually, the E.U. could face internal instability. In reality, it is in the interests of the Anglo-American and Franco-German sides to share the Mediterranean. This is another case where cooperation with the Franco-German entente, is in the interest of both and Britain and America. To insure a strong AngloAmerican role, NATO has been involved, and Israel has been integrated into the framework for a Mediterranean Union. Israel’s role in this process also hinges upon its bilateral relationship with Turkey.

The role of Turkey as a Mediterranean country is considered pivotal in the creation of a “union in the Mediterranean region,” as one of its backbones. What has been created is an extensive network of relationships and links that will make the whole structure of a Mediterranean Union easy and quick to formalize. The far-reaching economic and military ties between Turkey and Israel will ensure that Israel is well integrated into the proposed Mediterranean entity.

Dual membership for Turkey within the E.U. and the Mediterranean Union, but without full E.U. benefits, would also benefit Anglo-American interests. This may explain why Britain and America publicly support the direct entry of Turkey into the European Union. The roles of Turkey and Israel in the Mediterranean are also topics that must be touched upon to themselves.

19 17


D

EU CONTROL OF THE MIDDLE EAST Establishing a Mediterranean Free Trade Zone and Sharing the Spoils of Libya’s Oil Wealth Both the Franco-German and Anglo-American sides are sharing the spoils in Libya, one of the targets of threats of war through the “Global War on Terror.” After the fall of Baghdad in 2003, Libya surrendered peacefully to demands from the “Western Powers.” The Washington Consensus made its breakthrough into Libya. Tripoli was on a blacklist of nations, which included Somalia, Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Iran. It was also in 2003 that construction of the Greenstream Pipeline was made to supply the E.U. with Libyan natural gas via a route running through the Mediterranean Sea to the Italian island of Sicily. It seems just like yesterday when Libya was categorized as a “rogue state” and vilified as a supporter of international terrorism. Its status changed almost overnight with the opening up of its markets. A country’s economic policy is what determines its status in the eyes of Washington and London. There have been no political or ideological changes in Libya nor has there been any change in leadership, but Libya is no longer seen as a rogue state. The only thing that has changes is that Libya has flung its doors open to U.S. and E.U. economic interests. The economic, energy, and weapons deals signed with Libya in 2007 reveal the ultimate economic intent of the “Global War on Terror.” Moreover, Libya has committed itself to a program of “national reform.” The media has picked up on this, but fails to talk about the real shape of reform in Libya. The reforms are being presented as merely “democratic reform.” In practice, Libya has also accepted to undertake a “free market” program of economic restructuring in accordance with the demands of the U.S., Britain, France, and Germany. Additionally, Colonel Qaddafi the ruler and Libya’s authority can not be challenged, which exposes the true cosmetic face of these so-called democratic reforms. Moreover, the Barcelona Declaration of 1995 that calls for a Euro-Mediterranean Partnership stands in the backdrop of the neo-liberal economic reforms,

which will open up the Libyan economy to foreign investors. The Barcelona Declaration was intended to establish a European dominated free trade zone in North Africa, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean region by 2010. Everything is on track, in regards to the objectives of the Barcelona Declaration. The U.S. Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA) is also a parallel to this. The E.U.’s Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), an aggressive free trade agreement being imposed under economic threats on former European colonies, also has similar templates in regards to the ACP States in Africa, the Caribbean, and the Pacific. Justifying ties to Libya: Bulgarian Nurses and a Shameless E.U. Public Relations Campaign It is no accident that a group of Bulgarian nurses were freed by Libya in connection with the visit of President Sarkozy while he was on a Mediterranean tour to talk about the establishment of the Mediterranean Union. The whole event was an E.U. public relations stunt. Nicolas Sarkozy arrived in Libya on July 25, 2007 to sign five major deals with Libya just one day after his former wife, Cécilia Ciganer-Albéniz, shuttled out of Tripoli on board a French presidential jet with the five Bulgarian nurses and the Palestinian doctor that France and the E.U. had negotiated for.

20 17


D

EU CONTROL OF THE MIDDLE EAST The Bulgarian nurse ordeal has been used as a justification for improving economic ties with Libya, a nation otherwise demonized as an international rogue, despite the E.U. claims of commercial relationships being tied to human rights. The whole affair was stage managed and was an attempt to hide the underlying economic interests that dictate foreign policy in the E.U. and America. At the time, it was also reported that Libya blackmailed the E.U. for economic benefits in regards to the freedom of the Bulgarian nurses. However, in reality it is the E.U. that benefiting from the economic arrangements with Libya and not the other way around.

announced a major Anglo-American arms and energy deal while visiting Libya and Colonel Qaddafi. The French, with the knowledge and support of their German partners, also announced an arms deal between the European Aeronautics and Defence Space Company (EADS) and Libya. France also announced a major nuclear deal with Libya. France, like Britain and the U.S., has coddled Libya in pursuit of economic interests and this should dispel for once and for all the mirage that the U.S. and the E.U. are defenders of democracy and human rights. In a related event Colonel Qaddafi has also told African leaders that if plans for an African Union were delayed that Libya would divert billions of dollars worth of investments from the African continent to the Mediterranean region and become its most influential player. Pertaining to the Mediterranean Union Qaddafi also stated that the fates of Libya and North Africa are tied to Europe. Exposing Paris and Berlin at their game: Germany’s role in the Mediterranean Union

The mainstream press in the E.U. attempted to make it look like President Sarkozy was acting on his own in regards to Libya and started calling him a maverick, but nothing could be further from the truth. The French government claimed that their business deals with Libya were part of an effort to bring Libya into the light of “respectability” and that human right issues were also discussed between the French President and Colonel Qaddafi.

It has been reported in the mainstream media that the weapons and nuclear agreements between France and Libya have upset Berlin, but German officials have denied this as untrue. Chancellor Angela Merkel has also claimed that France’s idea of a Mediterranean Union threatens the E.U. and its institutions. German leaders are playing a game of on-and-off-again opposition to Paris in regards to Libya and the Mediterranean Union. Berlin makes critical statements of French actions, but then denies them to create a shroud of confusion.

However, Colonel Qaddafi stated at UNESCO Headquarters, in Paris, that human rights were never even talked about between the French President and himself. This was during a highly reported five-day state visit made by Colonel Qaddafi to France where the Libyan leader was welcomed by President Sarkozy on December 10, 2007. The freedom of the Bulgarian nurses also came after major Anglo-American arms and energy deals were announced with Libya. Both Anglo-American and Franco-German economic interests were being served in Libya. In May of 2007, in a state of irony, the British prime minister at the time, Tony Blair,

21 17


D

EU CONTROL OF THE MIDDLE EAST Media reports and Berlin’s statements are utterly false and intended to deliberately mislead the public. Germany had to approve the French deals with Libya, because EADS is a Franco-German company that has both private and governmental interests and representation from both Paris and Berlin. The contracts with Libya could never have been formalized without the okay of the German government.

Nicolas Sarkozy has moved forward with the staged act of presenting a compromise by saying that Germany and any other non-Mediterranean E.U. members (e.g. Britain) that want to participate in the creation of the Mediterranean Union are welcome. This is all a complete act. This is part of the commencement of publicly making the Mediterranean Union into what it already was, which is an E.U. initiative.

Germany is fully involved in the creation of the Mediterranean Union, as are America and Britain. The hypocrisy of the whole act that is being played out in Paris, Berlin, and E.U. capital cities is part of a tactic to mislead the public opinion. In Britain, The Financial Times called attention to the fact that Angela Merkel really wants Germany and the E.U. to be fully involved in the creation of the Mediterranean Union:

It should also be noted that German representatives were also in West Africa in connection to the French initiatives in the Mediterranean region. The Germans are also preparing for the road ahead when the Mediterranean Union would economically link Africa to Europe and set the stage for further expansionism.

“Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, pointedly told France’s ruling UMP [Union pour un Mouvement Populaire/Union for a Popular Movement] party yesterday that the future stability of the Mediterranean region affected the whole European Union and that all 27 [E.U.] member states should be involved in the engagement process.” The context of the German Chancellor’s speech was for the creation of something going beyond the Barcelona Process of 1995, which she called too “bureaucratic,” that would fully include all E.U. members. Frau Merkel emphasized that the Mediterranean was vital for Germany and northern E.U. members and not just France and Mediterranean E.U. members like Spain and Italy: “‘Germany wants to assume its responsibilities in the Mediterranean and we want to offer to all [E.U.] member countries the possibility to participate,’ she said. ‘We should have a reinforced co-operation [between the E.U. and Mediterranean]. I am convinced that all European countries are interested in this.’” In her speech, Frau Merkel stated that she was convinced that all E.U. members would be interested in having roles in the creation of the Mediterranean Union, but this is an untruthful statement — Frau Merkel knows that the entire E.U. was slated from the start to be a part of the process. The issue is not about interest, but about a calculated long-term arrangement.

E.U. Declarations of support for the Mediterranean Union The Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, has also announced Spain’s support for the creation of a Mediterranean Union and for new migration laws during a meeting with Nicolas Sarkozy. Although it is not being tied to the creation of the Mediterranean Union, the rationale for a drive to establish new migration laws is precisely because of the Mediterranean Union and the influx of migrants that could arrive into the E.U. from the poorer countries of the Mediterranean. Italy has also signalled its support for the Mediterranean Union and new migration laws in the E.U. during the same meetings between Prime Minister Zapatero and President Sarkozy, which involved Prime Minister Prodi. All the Mediterranean members of the E.U., also called the “Olive Group,” have also declared their support for the creation of a Mediterranean Union at a two-day conference (January 17-18, 2008) held in Paphos, Cyprus. The Cypriot Foreign Minister, Eros Kazakou-Marcoullis told the international press that the Mediterranean members of the E.U. fully back the creation of a Mediterranean Union: “We reaffirmed our support to all efforts which have as an objective the strengthening of the cooperation between European and Mediterranean countries and reiterated the importance of the Mediterranean region for the security, stability and prosperity of the European Union.”

22 17


"The book is very clearly written and its arguments are always logical and straight-forward. While being theoretically informed it is also very rich in empirical data regarding different aspects of European foreign policy." International Spectator "Karen Smith may ask the same basic questions as she did in the original edition of this work in 2003, but that is because they remain fundamental to the evolution of the EU as a foreign policy actor. What makes this an invaluable new edition is that Smith includes a mass of new material, both academic (including her own more detailed work on human rights) and documentary, to deepen as well as update her analysis. And it remains probably the best and most clearly written introduction to European foreign policies and foreign policy-making we have ? clear and succinct, logical and reasonable in its judgements and, at all times, utterly relevant." Geoffrey Edwards, University of Cambridge

"This excellent book smoothly guides the readers through the labyrinth of European foreign policy. Smith does not speculate on what constitutes the EU; rather she tries to show its work in international relations and the resulting effects. Her comprehensive treatment of foreign policy casts a bright light on the range of Europe's external engagements: from conflict prevention, regional cooperation and the fight against international crime, to protection and promotion of human rights, good governance and democracy. She emphasizes the EU's leverage and normative commitment while also revealing its institutional complexity and lack of consistency. This work is a truly impressive achievement which can be highly recommended to all students of European politics." Jan Zielonka, European Studies Centre, University of Oxford1

"Astutely avoiding the inconclusive debates that attempt to characterize the EU?s global role, Smith opts instead for an empirically rich and theoretically informed analysis of what the EU actually does. She provides a comprehensive framework for exploring why and how ? and how well ? the EU pursues a range of foreign policy objectives. Written with unusual clarity and authority, Smith's conclusions about the distinctiveness of the EU in world affairs are knowledgeable, well-supported, and compelling." Katie Verlin Laatikainen, Adelphi University This second edition of European Union Foreign Policy in a Changing World provides a clear introduction to the complexities of contemporary European foreign policy and offers a fresh and distinctive perspective on the nature of the EU’s international identity. Thoroughly revised and expanded, the book explores how and why the EU tries to achieve five core foreign policy objectives: the encouragement of regional cooperation; the advancement of human rights; the promotion of democracy and good governance; the prevention of violent conflicts; and the fight against international crime, including terrorism. In pursuing these goals, the book illustrates how the EU is faced with acute policy dilemmas because 23 the five objectives not only clash with each other, but also with additional policy priorities


D

APPENDIX - DANIEL 7 INTERPRETATION Blackberry Under the Spotlight The information in this Appendix is taken from the kingdoms have a continuation, Daniel 7:11-12. This December 23rd edition of the Global Watch Weekly verse sets the context for the interpretation rather than trying to interpret these beasts as being for the purpose of relation to Page 5. ancient empires. The scripture tells us that the first beast is represented by a Lion with eagles wings. The fact the eagles wings are then plucked from the Lion and given a heart and made to stand on the earth indicates a change from reliance or co-operation to self sustenance and independence. The plucking of the wings from the Lion means that the Lion loses its ability to fly and thus loses geographical influence due to limited movement. “The first was like a lion, and it had the wings of an eagle. I watched until its wings were torn off and it was lifted from the ground so that it stood on two feet like a human being, and the mind of a human was given to it. “

It is a natural fact that the Lion is prominently known as the national symbol of Great Britain. Could it be that the Lion represents Great Britain during height of its power during the early half of the twentieth century and its involvement with the Zionist In the identification of the four beasts of Daniel 7, it movement to bring the nation of Israel back into is good to keep in mind that they are identified existence. relative to the nation of Israel. That is these four beasts are representative of four kingdoms which will occupy the world stage during the end times in which Israel exists as a nation. The association to Israel is consistent with all other prophecies made by Daniel. In Daniel 2 we see that the empires symbolized by the great image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream were all ancient empires that played a significant role during the history of Israel. The same applies to the four beasts of Daniel 7 which play a significant role after the rebirth of Israel as a nation in 1948. The vast majority of all Bible commentaries and teaching material will tell you that the four beasts in Daniel's dream are the same four empires that are mentioned in Nebuchadnezzar's dream of an image in Daniel 2, namely Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome. Most of these commentaries were written decades ago, if not centuries ago, long before modern events began to fulfil these prophecies. It would have been impossible to identify these nations as we now can, as recently as one century ago! We know that the four beasts are modern day powers because at the time of the destruction of the fourth beast (the final world government) at the Second Coming of Christ, the previous three beast

www.globalreport2010.com

24


D

APPENDIX - DANIEL 7 INTERPRETATION Blackberry Under the Spotlight Throughout most of its history, England has employed the crowned lion as the official heraldry symbol of the royal families. The Lion appears on almost every coat of arms in the British royal line going back at least 700 years. It is also interesting to note that during World War II the common imagery used as part of the call for men to arms was one with Britain represented as a male Lion with the young lions as representative of the British English speaking colonies such as Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the USA.

To understand the significance of Britain relative to modern day Israel one must not forget the Balfour Declaration in which the British orally expressed their desire to facilitate a home for the Jewish People. Lord Arthur Balfour, the British foreign minister declaration was approved by his cabinet and then five years later approved by the League of Nations (the former name of the United Nations during the early part of the twentieth century).

Once Jerusalem was captured by the British on December 9th, 1917 from the Ottoman Turks the importance was that it would further facilitate the rebirth of Israel's existence due to the fact that the city was no longer under enemy control. The British then opened the door to Jewish immigration into the Holy Land. Britain's efforts towards the rebirth of Israel as a nation in 1948 was followed by the United States which since the demise of Britain as a world power inherited the role as the protector of Israel. Could it be that America is represented in Daniel 7:3 as the “eagles wings�. Note that the wings are first attached to the Lion indicating co-operation, possibly a mother-daughter relationship.

History shows that America descended from the British Isles and the connection between the Lion and eagles wings could possibly be interpreted as the Anglo American alliance that governed world politics during the mid part of the twentieth century.

Historically speaking, it i s n o t a n This could explain why the eagle is the national understatement to say symbol of America and on their dollar bill. that the action of the British throne in the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was the single most important move t o w a r d s t h e establishment of a Jewish state in modern history. If you remember your World War I history, you'll recall it was the British army, led by General George Allenby that liberated Jerusalem from the Moslems in 1917.

www.globalreport2010.com

25


Your Next Edition: On time March 23rd 2012         of the  

         

globalwatch-Feb, 2012  

February 2012: Issue 20 The Vision Report Watch is a publication of Rema Marketing (www.remamarketing.com) and is published once per calenda...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you