Information Related to "After Kosovo: Power Shift Taking Place?"
| Audio/Video |
After Kosovo: Power Shift Taking Place?
Is America surrendering its leadership of the Western world?
by Melvin Rhodes
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization
formed in 1949 as a bulwark against Soviet communism, which allied Europe with America's
interests. A war-weakened Germany was integrated into the alliance, making it subordinate
and dependent on U.S. military protection. As the 19 nations of NATO celebrate a
victory of sorts in the Balkan conflict and its 50th anniversary year as one of the
most enduring alliances in history, America's leadership of the Western world is
increasingly questioned.
Recognizing that the interests of Europe and the United States don't always overlap,
the leaders of 15 European nations decided in June to create a joint European Union
(EU) army, making the EU a military power for the first time since its formation
42 years ago.
The European Union, long an economic giant, plans to add military muscle to its economic
strength. By late 2000 the union plans to have in place the 60,000-strong Eurocorps--an
army almost twice as large as the total U.S. military forces deployed in the Kosovo
conflict--to project military power and protect European interests. The intended
move marks a major step in the development of a new, more assertive Europe.
ìThe union must have the capacity for autonomous action, backed by credible military
forces, the means to decide to use them, and a readiness to do so, in order to respond
to international crises without prejudice to actions by NATO,î declared the European
leaders.
The magazine Foreign Affairs summarized shifting world power and opinion over
recent years: ìEven old allies stubbornly resist American demands, while many other
nations view U.S. policy and ideals as openly hostile to their own. Washington is
blind to the fact that it no longer enjoys the dominance it had at the end of the
Cold Warî (March-April, p. II).
German Initiative
Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany, in office less than a year, recently
stepped forward to help fill a vacuum left by American vacillation in dealing with
Serbia. He apologized to the Chinese government and people for NATO's (actually,
America's) accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, defusing a potentially
dangerous escalating tension between two major powers.
The German leader and his foreign minister, Joshka Fischer, were also at the forefront
of negotiations with Russian envoy Victor Chernomyrdin, who was busy visiting the
major capitals of the nations involved in the conflict trying to bring peace.
Chancellor Schroeder ruled out any possibility of using ground troops against Serbia
by making it absolutely clear Germany would not support such action, weakening NATO
unity on this particular issue. For Germany to have done so might have brought the
fall of the fledgling coalition government, made up of Mr. Schroeder's Social Democrats
and the leftist environmental Green Party, which opposes all wars. Memories of Germany's
last military intervention in the area during the Nazi era linger.
Largely overlooked is that the conflict in Yugoslavia is rooted at least in part
in Germany's unilateral decision eight years ago to recognize the independence of
Croatia when that former Yugoslavian republic broke away from the Yugoslav federation.
This move took Germany's allies by surprise. In a short time other nations, following
Germany's lead, backed Croatia and sent the clear signal that the federation of Yugoslavia
was subject to further division. Inevitably, ancient ethnic rivalries came to the
fore, and the federation that was established only after World War I was progressively
dismembered.
Germany's support for Croatia followed almost immediately from the country's renewed
confidence after the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent reunification of
East and West Germany. Germany's World War II ties with Croatia were thought to be
behind the German government's far-reaching decision. The consequences have been
horrendous for the peoples in the Balkans and have sucked Germany's allies into a
quagmire.
America's Diplomatic and Military Troubles
Meanwhile, Russian and Chinese involvement in the Kosovo conflict has raised
the profile of these two nations and their leaders at the expense of the United States.
America has inadvertently opened the door for a Russian presence in the region. The
Clinton administration seems desperate to appease China to make up for its embassy
bombing mistake.
Over the course of the short war, American leaders appeared to make serious diplomatic
misjudgments and military mistakes even with the most sophisticated weaponry and
intelligence available. The greatest change as a result of the Kosovo conflict is
likely to be in America's relationship with Europe. Although most Western Europeans
supported action against the Serbs to save the Kosovar Albanians, support waned as
it became clear that the U.S.-led bombing campaign was perceived only to worsen the
plight of the refugees.
The conflict has further weakened America's military preparedness, already ragged
from the long stalemate in Iraq and deployments to other hot spots around the globe.
Difficulties such as the crash of an F117 stealth fighter--the most advanced weapon
in the United States Air Force arsenal--and several embarrassing bombing mishaps
blamed on faulty or outdated military intelligence have led to much soul-searching
among U.S. military planners and leaders.
The Pentagon has expressed concern about diminishing supplies of cruise missiles
and other munitions and admitted that, since cruise-missile production lines have
long since shut down, replacement orders cannot be filled for at least another year.
Additional burdens on the U.S. military around the world, coupled with defense cuts
at home, lower-than-expected enlistments and trained personnel leaving the armed
forces, point to a reduction in America's military role in the years ahead.
Many observers openly doubt the U.S. armed forces' longstanding commitment to be
able to wage ìlimited warsî simultaneously on two fronts. This obviously creates
a dangerous situation for U.S. troops should another conflict break out in such troubled
areas as Korea, Iraq or Taiwan.
Empires aren't Forever
It's difficult for people brought up since World War II to imagine a world not
dominated by the United States. But history shows power can shift dramatically and
suddenly, often as a result of war.
In 1937 it could be said the only superpower in the world was Great Britain. The
empire spanned a quarter of the globe, and its strategic military bases gave it prominence
seemingly everywhere. Within 10 years Britain was reduced to the No. 3 spot in the
world pecking order as the United States and the Soviet Union entered a 40-year period
of domination.
Those pivotal 10 years included World War II. Britain emerged victorious, but it
was so weakened it could no longer sustain its empire and military responsibilities.
The result was the gradual dismantling of its empire beginning with the Indian subcontinent
in 1947.
What happened to Britain was in many ways an echo of what had happened to France.
A century and a half earlier it had been the Napoleonic Wars between Britain and
France that reduced French military power and elevated Great Britain.
Beginning with the Korean War, the last 50 years has witnessed a string of conflicts
that have diminished American military power and prestige. As these prolonged hostilities
continue to weaken and at times embarrass America on a global scale, others are beginning
to recognize they will have to pick up the defense burden for the sake of their own
safety and security.
Prophesied Power Shift
When we look at Bible prophecy, we see descriptions of several dominant world
powers at the time immediately before God's dramatic intervention in human affairs.
But no power recognizable as the United States is among them. The books of Daniel
and Revelation both show us that the dominant power at the time will be an alliance
of 10 rulers, heirs of the old Roman Empire, who will suddenly arise and ultimately
turn on Jesus Christ at His return.
Revelation 17:12-14 talks of ìten kings who have received no kingdom as yet . . .
They receive authority for one hour (a short time) as kings with the beast . . .
These will make war with the Lamb (the returning Jesus Christ) . . .î
This final union of 10 kings--or heads of state such as prime ministers, chancellors,
presidents and premiers, as we would call them today--appears to be the last of a
series of attempts over the centuries to unite Europe, in effect resurrecting the
Roman Empire. It is a continuation of the ìfourth beastî of Daniel's vision in Daniel 7, which began more than 2,000 years ago. Daniel 7:7-27 shows the formation and rise
of this coalition of rulers will lead directly into the time of Christ's return.
For these prophecies to come to pass, the geopolitical balance of power must dramatically
shift. America's unchallenged preeminence will apparently come to an end, with a
revived, unified Europe eventually replacing it as the dominant power. Undoubtedly
Britain will find itself in a difficult dilemma as to whether to side with Continental
Europe or her traditional Atlantic ally, the United States.
Recognition of European military weakness in the face of challenges such as that
from Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, coupled with America's vacillation over
Kosovo and its own military problems, no doubt contributed to the announced intention
of forming a European defense force outside American control. Although it in no way
rivals America as a military power, things could change, especially considering that
the total armed forces of the European countries already exceed the military manpower
of the United States.
This is one scenario by which we may see the prophesied rise of a coalition of leaders
who join forces to create the world's next superpower.
Continue reading The Good News, and our other publications, to gain
a better understanding of Bible prophecy and its implications.
Recommended Reading
Can you know where this world is going? What's behind the trends that threaten
to overwhelm us? Is there a road map that can show us where we're going? To help
you better see where world events are headed, be sure to request your free copy of
The Gospel of the Kingdom. Please contact our office in your country (or the
country nearest you) listed on page 2 for your free copy. This booklet is also available
through our literature library on our Web site: www.ucg.org.
Callout:
ìOn issue after issue, the United States has found itself increasingly alone, with
one or a few partners . . . These issues include UN dues; sanctions against
Cuba, Iran, Iraq and Libya; the land-mines treaty; global warming; an international
war-crimes tribunal . . . On these and other issues, much of the international
community is one side and the United States is on the other.î--Samuel P. Huntington,
director of the John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies (Foreign Affairs,
March-April, p. 41).
Callout:
ìLike a kaleidoscope, the patterns of world affairs shift with each spin of the globe.
Rising dangers replace receding ones; old problems reemerge. As (Dean) Acheson (U.S.
secretary of state 1949-52) warned, no matter what the medicine is, the headaches
do not go away. The test of our leadership, although far different in specifics,
is essentially the same as that confronted by Acheson's postwar generation. One way
or another, we are in for it, and the only real question is whether we will realize
it in time.î--Madeleine Albright, U.S. secretary of state (Foreign Affairs, November-December
1998, p. 51).
© 1999-2022 United Church of God an International Association
Related Information:
Table of Contents that includes "After Kosovo: Power Shift Taking Place?"
Other Articles by Melvin Rhodes
Origin of article "After Kosovo: Power Shift Taking Place?"
Keywords: military America Germany
Germany: