Home >> United States & Canada >> Foreign Policy & Military  Email  Print Barack Obama's Crossroads Lorna Thomas - 5/4/2009 Addressing students and young professionals gathered at Strasbourg in April 2009, for the NATO Youth Summit, President Barack Obama said "We find ourselves at a crossroads, ... all of us, for we've arrived at a moment where each nation and every citizen must choose, at last, how we respond to a world that has grown smaller and more connected than at any time in its existence." He added "But it's also a tremendous responsibility, because it is you who must ultimately decide what we do with this incredible moment in history."
As nations at a crossroads, what decisions are the U.S. and Britain taking at this crucial time of decision in world history and what road will Europe choose? Could history help warn of what lies ahead if certain decisions are taken?
President Sarkozy first proposed a high-level meeting to address the world's financial problems on 23 September, 2008 in a speech at the United Nations and two days later in Toulon spoke of his intention to "moralise capitalism.” President Bush was pressed by European leaders to host the first G20 summit in Washington in November 2008.
In the run up to the next summit, the London G20 summit, leaders including President Sarkozy, repeatedly pointed out that the financial crisis began in the U.S. A week before the summit, Gordon Brown stood beside Brazil's President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva who said: "This crisis was fostered and boosted by irrational behavior of some people that are white, blue-eyed. Before the crisis they looked like they knew everything about economics, and they have demonstrated they know nothing about economics."
see “'Blue-eyed bankers' to blame for crash, Lula tells Brown,” guardian.co.uk, Nicholas Watt, 26 March, 2009
In March 2009, prior to the G20 summit President Obama said “the United States is ready to lead, and we call upon our partners to join us with a sense of urgency and common purpose. I know that America bears our share of responsibility for the mess that we all face. But I also know that we need not choose between a chaotic and unforgiving capitalism and an oppressive government-run economy. That is a false choice that will not serve anyone.”
If anything, the proceedings and outcome of the two G20 summits in Washington and London stand out, as was referred to by leaders, as the formal start of “a new era”, “a new world order,” "a historic compromise", "a turning point" and a move towards increased state involvement in the world's economy which could in future have other far-reaching ramifications. The G20 also stands out as a humbling of the US and Britain as world financial leaders and a formal shift towards European control which ultimately could lead to tighter control over far more areas than economy.
The BBC reported of the London G20 summit that “it is the shift in the US position, which was previously the strongest opponent of international regulation, that has opened the way for a much broader attempt to regulate the financial sector”... “in the new Financial Stability Board, which will now incorporate all G20 members, there is the potential for a powerful new global financial regulator. Even more significant is the increased power given to the international financial institutions, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, who have been subcontracted by the G20 to monitor and run many of their policies.” “G20 leaders seal $1tn global deal,” Steve Schifferes, BBC News, 2 April, 2009
While regulations against tax havens and hedge funds are a start in the process of tighter global government regulations, in the future a global system could have the means to implement measures which drastically affect each nation and every citizen.
President Sarkozy again threatened to walk out of the London Summit if his demands for tighter global regulations were not met. (According to TIME Magazine dated 13 November, 2008 Sarkozy had threatened prior to the Washington Summit - "Let this be very clear: If I don't get concrete results, I'll take off. I'll leave Washington and come home.")
After the London summit he said: "That our Anglo-Saxon friends accepted all of this represents immense progress." He added "while there were moments of tension, we never thought we'd obtain such a big deal."
Germany's Chancellor Merkel described the summit outcome as “very, very good an almost historic compromise.” Compromise, however, came from the side of the U.S. and Britain, rather than Europe.
President Dmitry Medvedev stated of the summit: "I am almost tempted to say it was a turning point, except that would be irresponsible.”
With the weakening of the dollar, we are also seeing moves towards a supranational currency.
In 2008, ahead of the Washington G20 meeting, Mr Sarkozy had said: "I am leaving tomorrow for Washington to explain that the dollar cannot claim to be the only currency in the world..., what was true in 1945 can no longer be true today."
In March 2009 Russia called for the “creation of a supranational reserve currency to be issued by international institutions as part of a reform of the global financial system” and that the IMF take the lead in establishing a “super-reserve currency accepted by the whole of the international community.” According to Russia Today, Finance Minister Aleksey Kudrin said that “Russia's plan for a supranational currency was put on the back burner at the G20 for further consideration.” The plan is supported by China.
Before leaving the G20, Brazil's President Lula da Silva proposed to the Chinese premier Hu Jintao that they begin discussing commercial trade between the two countries being made in Brazilian and Chinese currencies rather than the dollar.
The G20 summit held on 2 April, 2009 in London, was hosted by Gordon Brown who has repeatedly promoted Europe's own agenda for a global financial system away from a “unipolar world” dominated by the U.S. Refusing to hold a promised referendum, Mr Brown has pushed for Britain's membership of the EU despite the threat of loss of British freedoms and autonomy feared by many of its citizens.
Mr Brown has frequently stated, as he did at the summit, that “global solutions” are needed “to a global problem.” He claimed the London summit was "the day the world came together to fight back against global recession not with words but with a plan for global recovery and for reform and with a clear timetable for its delivery." (While Mr Brown has made references to Bretton Woods, another economic conference held in London in 1933 to solve the world's problems during the Depression dashed hopes when it resulted in failure.)
Gordon Brown proclaimed that “the old Washington consensus is over” and “a new world order is emerging.”
A “new world order” is indeed emerging, but it may turn out to be far from what Mr Brown or Mr Obama - or indeed Mrs Merkel – envisage.
Should a future German and Russian leadership arise in Europe with strong anti-British and US bias, controlling not only finances, but security, politics and even religion, then the freedom and democracy Britain and the US fought for and valued so highly in the past will pay an extremely high price.
The NATO summit was held on its 60th anniversary, 4 April, 2009, during which France was re-integrated into NATO military command, Anders Rasmussen was appointed as the new Secretary-General from 1 August and agreement was reached to formally resume NATO-Russia Council meetings soon after the Strasbourg/Kehl Summit.
The NATO summit, too, showed another shift from the U.S. to Europe in terms of security, with President Obama saying the US cannot shoulder the burden on its own, calling on NATO members to send more troops to Afghanistan. President Sarkozy said what President Obama presented on Afghanistan is exactly what Europe has been pushing for.
It is of note that President Putin wanted a joint Europe-Russia-U.S. security plan in 2000 when he first presented the proposal to European leaders. Analysts at the time felt that this posed a threat to U.S. security as it could leave the U.S. vulnerable to a potential attack from Russia.
At a joint press conference with President Obama on 3 April, President Sarkozy said: “He doesn't need me in order to understand that a strong Europe - a strong Europe of defense is the best guarantee for the USA. President Obama's America doesn't want weak allies. They want strong allies who face up to their responsibilities. And we've been discussing this for a long time.” President Obama agreed: “We would like to see Europe have much more robust defense capabilities. That's not something we discourage.”
However, “a strong Europe of defense” under strong military leadership, potentially and very likely under a future Russian military leadership, may be far from the best guarantee of peace and security for the people of the USA or Britain should Europe once more take offensive action, even in the name of defense.
(Ria Novosti reported on 3 March, 2009 that the Russian and German defense ministers are discussing bilateral military cooperation including joint military exercises and the transit of supplies for German troops in Afghanistan via Russia. It stated that Russia is concerned over the worsening security situation in Afghanistan.)
It is not unlikely that Russia could again become involved in fighting in Afghanistan.
While Russia's use of force in the Georgia conflict is a recent reminder of “defensive” military action in a “peacekeeping” role (Russia receiving scant rebuke from Europe for its “disproportionate” use of force), the 20th century showed that Europe's militarily strength provided absolutely no “guarantee” for other nations. On the contrary.
Hitler's early plan of “defense” against the Jews is recorded in Mein Kampf when he stated: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”
One commentator has bluntly stated that the “desire for Germany to pull on its jackboot” is “stupid.” Decisions actively encouraging a greater role for Russian military leadership in Europe, even at first in the role of “peacekeeepers,”could also come back to haunt the US and Britain in the future.
Contrary to Mr Sarkozy's statement, a “strong Europe of defense” is not the “best guarantee” for the US or for Britain.
At this time of change, as nations and citizens we need to see that our real and lasting Defense and hope lie with the Creator of heaven and earth, the God of the Bible, the Saviour of the world.
We need to seek His help and turn to Him, changing our ways to conform to what He requires, lest we find ourselves overwhelmed by one crisis after another.
HISTORY SHOWS ECONOMIC CRISIS CAN LEAD TO SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CRISES
While some have pointed to the individual responsibility of nations and citizens spending beyond their means, the U.S. has been widely blamed for the financial crisis. (According to Brazil's President Lula da Silva, “white blue eyed” people are to blame.)
History shows that what may start as a financial and economic crisis can easily become a social and political crisis, eventually with a devastating results for all. Blame-placing or scapegoating can play a role or even be used to escalate one crisis into another.
In his Town Hall meeting on 3 April in Strasbourg, President Obama stated: “The reckless speculation of bankers that has now fueled a global economic downturn that's inflicting pain on workers and families is happening everywhere all across the globe....There's plenty of blame to go around for what has happened. The United States certainly shares the blame. We just emerged from an era marked by irresponsibility, and it would be easy to choose the path of selfishness or apathy, of blame or division.”
Given the negative effects of either blaming or scapegoating a group of people historically, concern has also been expressed that some have blamed the financial crisis on the Jews.
The Anti-Defamation League which has been involved in trying to combat anti-Semitism and bigotry of all kinds for 95 years took a poll in 7 countries between 1 December, 2008 and 13 January, 2009 which showed that 31% of Europeans blamed Jews for the financial crisis.
"This poll confirms that anti-Semitism remains alive and well in the minds of many Europeans," said Abe Foxman, the National Director of Anti-Defamation League. "In the wake of the global financial crisis, the strong belief of excessive Jewish influence on business and finance is especially worrisome..."
“Poll: 31% of Europeans blame Jews for global financial crisis”, Natasha Mozgovaya, Haaretz.com, 29 March, 2009
"We know from modern history that whenever there is a downturn in the global economy, there will be an upturn in the level of anti-Semitism and bigotry, and that is what we are seeing now," said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director. "The age-old canards about Jews and money are always just beneath the surface. As we witnessed after 9/11, whenever there is trouble or uncertainty in the economy or world events, Jews become the scapegoats, and ugly anti-Semitic canards are given new life."
“Press Release: ADL Reports Surge in Anti-Semitic Messages on Online Finance Sites in Response To Money Crisis,” Anti Defamation League, New York, 2 October, 2008
In Russia, which has a history of anti-Semitism and pograms against the Jews:
"Jews have begun to fear for the future of their community in Russia for the first time in many years," said Berel Lazar, the chief rabbi. "In the negative environment of the [financial] crisis, when material problems become exacerbated, some start looking for someone to blame and declare those who are unlike themselves to be guilty." 'Rabbis' expulsion worries Russia's Jews,”Los Angeles Times, Megan Stack, 18 March, 2009.
(German Jewish organizations, fearing a repeat of anti-Semitism associated with the first Conference held in Durban South Africa in 2001, called on Germany to boycott the United Nations' anti-racism conference, “The Durban Review Conference or “Durban II” to be held in Geneva starting April 20, 2009, the anniversary of Hitler's birthday, the preparatory document and negotiations described as filled with "aggressive and anti-Semitic statements.")
While Hitler persecuted other groups in Germany including the disabled, Slavs and Roma, in the years preceding WWII anti-Semitism was one of the initial and focal aspects of the Nazi regime.
“As soon as the Nazis assumed power, they made racism and anti-Semitism central components of their regime. During its first months in power the Nazi Party instigated anti-Semitic riots and campaigns of terror that climaxed on April 1, 1933, in a countrywide boycott of Jewish-owned shops and Jewish professionals, such as physicians and lawyers. In addition, the new government issued regulations and ordinances to deprive Jews of their civil rights and economic means of survival. On April 7, 1933, the Reichstag enacted a law that allowed the government to dismiss Jews from the German civil service.”
"Holocaust," Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2008
http://encarta.msn.com © 1997-2008 Microsoft Corporation
(Guenter Reimann (born Hans Steinicke) wrote "The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism" published in 1939, documenting how the Nazis introduced severe regulations and exceptionally large fines for petty offences crushing the autonomy of the private sector.)
Hitler was, amongst other things, heavily influenced by the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a forged document containing plans for supposed Jewish world domination, which was used as part of Nazi propaganda justifying persecution of the Jews. He also quoted from an anti-Semitic pamphlet attributed to Martin Luther, the 16th century Protestant reformer. (In the 13th century Pope Innocent III, one of the Catholic Church's most influential Popes, decreed all Jews were responsible for Christ's death in perpetuity, a decision overturned at Vatican II, but which has played a role in legitimizing Jewish persecution.) Hitler misapplied Christ's own actions to justify Jewish persecution.
Hitler blamed the Jews for Germany's past and present troubles, including its financial troubles, threatening that if they should “succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war,” then the result would be “the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!”
While proclaiming himself a prophet, after issuing this threat in January 1939, Hitler would himself be the initiator of World War II several months later. His promised “settlement” of the “Jewish problem” culminated in the Holocaust.
On 30 January 1939, his 6th anniversary as Chancellor, Hitler told the German Parliament:
“One thing I should like to say on this day which may be memorable for others as well as for us Germans: In the course of my life I have very often been a prophet, and have usually been ridiculed for it. During the time of my struggle for power it was in the first instance the Jewish race which only received my prophecies with laughter when I said that I would one day take over the leadership of the State, and with it that of the whole nation, and that I would then among many other things settle the Jewish problem. Their laughter was uproarious, but I think that for some time now they have been laughing on the other side of their face. Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!”
"The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, I, N.H. Baynes, ed., London, 1942"
On December 12, 1941, Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s minister for propaganda and national enlightenment, referred to Hitler's “prediction” and rationalization for extermination of the Jews in a note in his diary, “As concerns the Jewish question, [Hitler] is determined to make a clean sweep. He had prophesied to the Jews that if they once again brought about a world war they would experience their own extermination. This was not just an empty phrase. The World War is there, the extermination of Jewry must be the necessary consequence.”
Chancellor Merkel said in Israel in 2008 that “The mass murder of six million Jews, carried out in the name of Germany, has brought indescribable suffering to the Jewish people, Europe and the entire world."
Chancellor Merkel said, "The Shoah fills us Germans with shame. I bow before the victims. I bow before the survivors and before all those who helped them survive."
"I am deeply convinced that only if Germany avows itself to its everlasting responsibility for the moral disaster in German history, we can build the future humanely."
However, given the trends, which bear increasing resemblance to the past, it must be seriously considered that not all Germans share this vision of the future. According to a report in the Telegraph of 26 February, 2009 members of the NPD party “relish the idea of a new Holocaust against the Jews.” Racially motivated violence with attacks on foreigners has also increased in Germany and in other parts of Europe.
There has also been a rise of extreme nationalist movements in Russia characterized by racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia.
CLOSER TIES BY BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE HELPED HITLER'S UNHINDERED RISE TO POWER
Prior to WWII, economic depression, right wing extremism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism existed in Germany, with Hitler blaming the Jews for Germany's problems, including its financial troubles.
Closer ties existed between church and state, with Hitler's Reichskonkordat of 20 July, 1933 seen by historians as aiding his unhindered rise to total power.
The Concordat, Nazi Germany's first international treaty was negotiated by Cardinal Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII). It gave recognition to the new German government, and according to Hitler showed the world that National Socialism was “not hostile to religion.”
The Reichskonkordat concluded with the Vatican, prohibited Catholic partisan political involvement. This resulted in the disbanding of the Centre Party and possible opposition.
It silenced church leaders through the required oath of loyalty to the Reich. From his side, however, Hitler soon broke the terms of the Concordat which had promised religious rights and freedoms to the Catholic church.
Hitler also attempted to unite the 28 Protestant churches under a Reichsbishop. Some of the Protestant churches had been infiltrated by the pro-Nazi “German Christian Faith Movement” which espoused the so-called “Positive Christianity,” portraying Christ as an Aryan fighter against the Jews. Hitler saw himself as a “fighter against the Jews.”
While many Christians were initially deceived into thinking that Christianity and the Nazi regime could co-exist, in 1941 Martin Bornman would rightly say that National Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable. Christians who resisted the Nazi regime and its ideologies, like Protestant pastor Martin Niemoller were sent to concentration camps.
It is of note that President Sarkozy who is of Catholic and Jewish background, advocates closer ties between church and state and in 2007 presented a discourse on the subject in the Lateran Palace where Mussolini's Lateran Treaty was concluded conferring full sovereignty to the Holy See in the State of Vatican City in 1929.
President Sarkozy will no doubt pursue the issue of church-state involvement even as he has sought, amongst other things, to persuade the leaders of Britain and the U.S. to relinquish power to Europe in terms of economy, security, and politics including the “need” for global regulations in a global economy while replacing the so-called U.S. “unipolar” structure; the “need” for a security structure which will similarly move military and security leadership away from the U.S to a Europe which includes Russia. He has also argued the “need” for Britain to accept the Lisbon Treaty which will result in a loss of its sovereignty to Europe. In terms of economy, security and politics all such changes will greatly negatively impact the US and Britain in the future. And as history shows, a liaison between church and state can also have extremely far-reaching and negative consequences.
Today, aside from deepening economic troubles, there is growing right wing extremism, xenophobia and anti-semitism in Germany, including notably in the east German state of Saxony where NPD representation in the Saxon Landtag has increased since 2004 and there is neo-Nazi, skinhead and extremist action.
In 1993 there was consternation and outrage amongst Germans when Saxony's Justice minister, priest and lawyer, Steffen Heitmann, who was nominated by Chancellor Kohl for the role of German President, revealed extreme right wing views including on Germany's past and the Holocaust in a newspaper interview. This soon resulted in his withdrawal as candidate.
Ignatz Bubis, survivor of a Nazi work camp who became head of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, was known as the “moral conscience of Germany.” He met with Heitmann and warned that his election to high office would “make anti-Semitism respectable in Germany again.”
While the Reichskonkordat remains valid in Germany, Heitmann also ratified a Concordat between the Vatican and Saxony on 29 April,
1997 governing church-state relations.
Multiple elections in Germany in 2009 - including for German President, Saxon state and German national elections and European parliament elections - could see a different face and focus to German and European politics.
It should be considered that if a future German leadership has the support of extremists or holds a very different view of both the past and future to that expressed by Chancellor Merkel - in an empowered Europe as we now see emerging - this may again lead to extreme consequences and suffering for innumerable people.
The effects and eventual outcome of the Nazi regime under Hitler brought misery to millions, and to the German people themselves. Many millions, including Russians whose leadership had initially signed a pact with Germany, suffered in the war begun by Adolf Hitler, initially fueled and driven by anti-Semitism but which would eventually cut across nation, race, religion and ideologies to affect the entire world.
Hitler appeared to many in Germany as a “savior” or “messiah” in a time of trouble, but he did not save Germany, instead bringing further suffering and shame upon its people.
A world “at a crossroads,” faced with crisis after crisis, may find itself desperate for someone to lead it out of its troubles.
The world may be highly susceptible to looking to one or more individuals who, in a “messianic” role both in the religious or political arena, seem to offer “the solution” to the problems facing their country and the world, but who may instead lead them down a path of immense suffering.
At a time of crisis, when according to President Obama “each nation and every citizen must choose,” before we decide, we would do well to heed a warning by the One born as the true “Saviour of the world” (1 John 4:14), a warning He gave for the time of crisis preceding His visible return to earth in power and great glory in the clouds of heaven.
During that difficult time (even in the midst of deceptive signs and wonders being performed), rather than being swept along by the words, or actions of men, Jesus Christ warned that people should carefully evaluate what they heard and saw, when He said “Take heed that no man deceive you.” (Mat 24:4,11,24)
At this “incredible time” in man's history, and as nations with a Christian background, we would do well to “choose” to place our trust and our hope both in God and His Word.
Rather than blaming one another which, as history shows, has the potential for further escalation of trouble, each nation, every citizen should examine themselves according to the Word of God, the Bible, and see where their own actions fall short of God's standards - and then seek to change. To one degree or another, we have all fallen short.
Thousands of years ago, Moses told ancient Israel to make a choice between life and death, blessing and cursing, obedience to God or disobedience, to choose between following the true God or false gods. The choice is still the same:
See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil; In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them;
I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish, ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
That thou mayest love the Lord thy God, and that thou mayest obey his voice, and that thou mayest cleave unto him: for he is thy life, and the length of thy days: that thou mayest dwell in the land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, to give them. (Deut 30:15-19)
As nations and as citizens, what will we choose?
|
