The Last Chapter
How often did you hear him say it? “The Last Chapter of European History has not been written!” Garner Ted Armstrong wrote, and spoke those words before vast television audiences and in countless personal appearances. Twenty years ago he foretold the re-uniting of Germany, and its future dominance over a UNITED EUROPE. He named the Eastern European countries which have since emerged from behind the Iron Curtain, away from the brutal influence of the former Soviet Union and joined with central Europe in creating what is fast becoming a great ECONOMIC and MILITARY SUPERPOWER.
He lived to see the fall of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the establishment of the European Union and its currency, the Euro. He wrote extensively about the awkward position of the British in their attempt to participate in the EU, while still maintaining their own economic and military sovereignty, and their strong alliance with the U.S.A.
With the U.S. dollar dropping steadily against the Euro, a major summit convening in Brussels today, December 12, 2003, to hammer out details of the EU constitution, the future of NATO hanging in the balance, and scant mainstream media attention, Garner Ted Armstrong would have used this column to focus attention on the fact that the last chapter is being written NOW. It is in an early draft, but the outline is in place. The mainstream media may not yet have tumbled to the fact that these events transpiring NOW comprise the backdrop for what will soon be the BIG STORY.
The EU summit convening today is intended to finalize a draft constitution. A major unresolved issue is the role of a combined European military, how it will operate, where it will be headquartered, and what will it mean for NATO, the alliance which has successfully provided defense for the continent since the close of World War II.
Germany has taken a bold and aggressive posture in asserting influence over every aspect of the creation of the EU constitution. While fringe countries worry that their heritage and culture may be lost, their opinions ignored, German leaders are publicly asserting their “Patriotism” as justification for taking a leading role in Europe’s decision making. Statements to that effect are echoing through the Berlin Reichstag, and stated publicly by top German officials.
“Patriotism” is the justification for Germany to call the shots for the rest of Europe? A staple of debate since the fall of Hitler and his Nazi regime has been the concern that Germany never again rise to a position of military dominance in Europe. In large part, it was the reasoning which spawned the creation of NATO!
A German foreign policy think-tank ( published the following, in this instance referring primarily to economic clout, “The German Chancellor (Gerhardt Schroeder), the Leader of the Opposition and several leaders of other parliamentary parties declared that the yardstick of successful German activities in Europe was Patriotism...Several smaller EU States fear they are hostage to the monetary decisions of the German Government...Instead of responding to European-wide criticism and seeking to allay fears of German dominance, Parliament and Government seem by their actions to be strengthening external suspicions of ruthless German nationalism.” Another quote regarding the brash and very public demands of German officials for a dominating role in the EU reads as follows, “The open recognition of a national special role for Germany which rises above the interests of other EU members is the guiding light in Berlin’s European policy.”

The German Foreign Minister recently met with President Bush in Washington, and it’s hard to know what actually transpires in these diplomatic conferences. Often, they are viewed as photo ops, a show of mutual good will and so forth. Public statements by the German Diplomat following those meetings, however, are at least as alarming as anything you’ve read so far. The German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, in what is called a “high profile policy speech” offered “equal” partnership to the US administration in creating “a new world order.” He also made reference to American participation in achieving “positive globalization.” He said “all methods must be employed and belligerent actions are not specifically ruled out. Rather it is meant to strengthen the military capabilities of Europe.”

It is clear, now that he is talking not only about the creation of a defense force for Europe, but a military which can go on the offensive, and appealing to the U.S. to back the plan. He goes on to call for the creation of a “European armaments agency.” It makes you wonder if he actually ran all this by President Bush before he took his “high profile policy speech” on the road. The United States and Britain are committed to NATO, and will no doubt have deep concerns about a European military power dominated by the Germans.

The French, of course are on board. When have they ever stood up to Germany? The British periodical "The Economist" carried an article about the creation of an EU military under the sub head, “Wanted: One Swift Terrible Sword.” That article mentions that France, Germany, Luxumbourg and Belgium have floated a plan for setting up a military headquarters in Tervuren, outside Brussels, and mentions that, “This prospect was greeted with alarm in Washington...” The article later notes the concerns of other smaller EU members. “But poorer, pro-American countries, notably from central and eastern Europe sense a plot to keep them out of an inner defense group that would be DOMINATED by FRANCE and GERMANY” (emphasis mine). “Some NATO loyalists worry that, yet again, the EU may be challenging the primacy of the Atlantic alliance.”

Britain is still trying to straddle the fence, maintaining its membership in the European Union while trying to grapple with the impossible task of maintaining its own military and economic sovereignty. London’s stance is that it could only support actions by this new European military entity if NATO were unable or unwilling to undertake some action all the EU members agreed upon. That stance is obviously untenable, and Britain is on the rest of Europe’s black list because of their staunch loyalty to the U.S. in the war on terrorism. It appears all too obvious that Britain’s days as a member of the European Union are numbered.

And how brazen is it for the German Foreign Minister to be offering the United States of America an “equal partnership in a new world order”? How many new world orders can there be? Hitler called his plan to dominate the world the “New World Order.” It failed ultimately, but only after inflicting unbelievable carnage. Former President George Bush, Sr. called his coalition of nations in the last Gulf War a “New World Order.” But that one didn’t last long. What about this “New World Order” alluded to by the German diplomat?

President George W. Bush seems to believe in the tenents upon which the USA was founded. He promotes American sovereignty and has shown a willingness to act in the face of hostility from the United Nations, the big European powers and most of the world, save Britain. It is worth recognizing, however, that there is a social and political movement afoot here in these United States that is committed to abolishing our sovereignty. Much of the mainstream media, and nearly all of the entertainment industry have embraced this ideology, and they have some very powerful political champions maneuvering feverishly to overthrow the current administration in Washington.

The stakes may be higher than anyone imagines. This is way beyond “Republicans and Democrats.” The purpose of this organization is in no way “political.” It is however to be aware, to WATCH, to understand, and to make known these geopolitical movements as they progress toward a scenario which will ultimately upend the balance of power we take for granted on a GLOBAL SCALE.

If you’ve been a reader or a listener of much that my Dad, Garner Ted Armstrong wrote or said, you’ve already got a very good idea how all of this will turn out. He predicted a coming “New World Order,” one in which, sadly, the United States of America will not fare well. Talk about Patriotism! He loved this country deeply. Was proud to have served in the U.S. Navy during the Korean War, and he knew World War II inside out. Occasionally he’d run into somebody else well versed in the many facets of the second World War, and the conversation would be incredible.

He knew his history and his geography backward and forward. And he knew his Bible even better. He wrote and spoke volumes at every juncture, every twist and turn since the early 1950's, describing what was transpiring and where it was leading. He was acutely aware of every aspect of this continuing evolution of the European Union. And he looked at history and at Bible prophecy as his guide to understanding it all, and he shared that with all of us.

We may be lulled into a sense of security for now. But moves are underway which will affect our role in the Middle East ultimately, our economy, and yes, our sovereignty. We will continue to draw attention toward these relatively unrecognized trends with the perspective Garner Ted Armstrong brought to so many. You may have some of his printed materials and publications free of charge by calling the offices of the Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association. His work goes on.

Mark Armstrong