APRIL 8th PREDICTION

[rollinTHUNDER]

Real and Imminent

Once again there is talk about a core group of nations forming to control the new, super EU (Read about it here)>>>> http://euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=16702

And, once again there will be speculation about this core group becoming the 10 kings of prophecy.

For those new to the subject of Bible prophecy, it is commonly held, in the end-times, a 10-king alliance will appear on the world stage. And many believe these kings will be from a revival of the old Roman Empire in Western Europe. They also believe this 10-nation alliance will become the kingdom of the Antichrist.

So, that's why when ever there is mention of a group of nations forming, prophecy students take special notice. And this is especially true if the group is in the EU, since the EU is seen by many to be a revival of the Roman Empire.

But, you know what? There already is a 10-nation alliance within the EU. It's a military alliance of both EU and NATO nations called the Western European Union. The significance of this fact is furthered by the terror threat facing the EU member states. According to Mohammed al Baradei, head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, the threat of a nuclear terror attack is both "real and imminent." (Read about it here)>>>> http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...ning%20Standard

You see, if a mega terror attack should occur anytime soon, you can bet your last Euro the emergency powers provided under Recommendation 666 would be evoked and the 10-nation alliance would rise to face the challenge.

Here's my point: While we students are still looking with expectation to the future, major fulfillments of Bible prophecy may have already occurred.

And the prophecies yet fulfilled may be "real and imminent."

06-23-04

http://fulfilledprophecy.com/real_and_imminent.htm

[rollinTHUNDER]

Portuguese PM Next President?

As I write, it's being reported the Portuguese Prime Minister Jos

[rollinTHUNDER]

Solana Superminister

That's what Solana will be -- he'll be a superminister (Read about it here)>>>> http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/040628174539.79iaoqff

(And here)>>>> http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.htm...143&sid=5044720

Perhaps the reason so few Americans are conscious of what's really going on in Europe is because the politics are different in the European Union. In most parts of the world a foreign minister is less than a president. Not in Euroland. In Euroland this new, super foreign minister will hold more power over foreign and security policy than the Commission President, or even the Council President.

Another reason few Americans understand the significance of Solana's appointment is few understand the significance of Solana's accomplishments. But, the EU heads understand -- all 25 of them. They know how Solana restructured NATO -- and thus the face of European security -- for the EU's benefit. That's why they created the Office of High Representative for him after his term as head of NATO was over -- so he could continue the job.

So, the idea that someone else would be given the job of handling the new, super EU's foreign and security policy always seemed absurd to me. Who could do it better than Solana?

But you know what? These weren't the reasons I noticed Solana. You see, if it hadn't been for the apparent fulfillments of Bible prophecies surrounding him, I wouldn't have a clue as to what's going on in the EU either.

I will list these apparent fulfillments once again.

In 1995, a 10-nation alliance appeared in Europe -- the Western European Union (WEU).

In 1999, the first Mr. Europe appeared among them. Javier Solana put on three hats and became the Secretary General of the 10-nation WEU, Secretary General of the Council of Europe and the EU's first High Representative of Common Foreign and Security Policy.

In 2000, Solana and the French EU presidency made the 10-nation alliance the EU's military wing and moved its command structures into the Council of Europe. And, they did it by implementing his WEU's Assembly Recommendation 666.

Now, in 2004, Solana has been approved to become the EU's first Foreign Minister. In this new post, Solana will have full control over the EU's foreign and security policy. He will be mandated to fight the EU's global war against terrorists and establish a new international order. He also will be mandated to bring peace to the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. In other words, when a deal is made with Israel, it will be made with him.

He'll be Solana superminister.

06-28-04

http://fulfilledprophecy.com/solana_superminister.htm

[rollinTHUNDER]

A Deal Not Refused

According to the EUobserver, Portuguese PM Jos

[2bba]

delete

[rollinTHUNDER]

Changing of the Heads

Today the EU beast is once again changing heads. As you know, the EU beast has 25 little, rotating heads now. Every six months these heads rotate so each one can have a turn at directing the beast. The result is, each six months the poor creature begins in a different direction.

For the last six months, the beast's Irish head was in control. And the EU beast -- and all its little heads -- were well pleased with the Irish head's leadership. The Irish head actually got the beast somewhere. It got the beast a new Constitution and a new Commission President (Read about it here)>>>> http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=16784

Now it's the beast's Dutch head's turn. And the Dutch head has a horn. Taken alone, that's not a bad thing. You see, the EU beast needs horns -- the more the better. It's a dangerous world to navigate in. And without horns, the beast can't protect itself.

But there are some problems. Firstly, the beast only has 10 heads with horns. And, these 10 heads with horns believe they should have more say over the direction of the beast than the other heads that don't have horns. After all, the heads with horns are the ones the beast will call on should danger arise.

And secondly, the 10 horns have their own leader -- you could say another horn. But, this eleventh horn is different from the others. It is smaller and it doesn't have a head.

Now it's understandable a fighting force of 10 horns would require their own leadership. But, the introduction of another leader for a beast that already has 25 heads at the helm has presented some directional difficulties that must be overcome.

Perhaps hope is in sight. As it turns out, the next two little heads in rotation for the helm of the beast also have horns. This means, the EU beast could have at least one and a half years where it will be able to steer a straight course. In other words, the EU beast may once again be able to get somewhere.

However, for these three horns to steer a straight course, something will be required.

The little horn must have control.

07-01-04

http://fulfilledprophecy.com/changing_of_heads.html

[rollinTHUNDER]

Solana To Replace EU Presidency

Did Javier Solana mean this the way it sounds? Taking his words at face value, it looks like he's once again saying he is the one in control of the European Union, not the EU Presidency.

Less than a week has gone by since Solana's term as High Representative was renewed and Solana was appointed the EU's new Foreign Minister, and already he's claiming full control.

_______________________________________________________________

Summary of remarks by

Javier SOLANA, EU High Representative for the CFSP,

at the EU-ASEAN Post Ministerial Conference

Jakarta, 1st July 2004

It is a pleasure to lead once again the EU delegation to the EU-ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Post Ministerial Conference.

Since our last meeting a year ago, there have been three key developments towards a more effective European Union Common Foreign and Security Policy which will be of interest to our ASEAN partners.

The first is of course the enlargement of the European Union on 1 May this year. It is now my privilege to co-ordinate and represent the collective interests, objectives and efforts of twenty five European countries. The European Union is now more diverse, but also more vibrant and united than it has ever been before.

The second is the agreement by EU leaders at their summit two weeks ago to a new Constitution. Once ratified, this Constitution will introduce a number of important changes in the area of foreign policy, including the creation of a Foreign Minister to replace the rotating Presidency system. This should help to ensure greater continuity in our dealings with our key international partners, including ASEAN.

Finally, in December 2003, EU Member States endorsed my proposal for a European Security Strategy. For the first time, EU Member States have agreed on the key security threats which face us, and have given clear direction on the measures which are needed to combat them.

Both Europe and the wider world are threatened by the scourges of terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Terrorists use increasingly sophisticated techniques to operate with impunity across national borders. The spread of technology which would enable development of weapons of mass destruction has been slowed by the long-established international treaty regimes and export control measures, but has continued: current developments in both Iran and North Korea are of deep concern to the EU in this respect.

To combat these threats, EU Member States have agreed and are implementing wide-ranging and challenging plans of action. In both areas, the EU has made clear our need and determination to cooperate closely with our international partners. And this brings me to the other key theme of the Security Strategy: the need to strengthen international order, on the basis of effective multilateralism.

Working together, we can be far more effective in tackling the threats which face us. The United Nations is the fundamental framework for international relations, and we should do all in our power to support its further development. We also need to work together in international organisations such as the World Trade Organisation and the International Criminal Court. The Strategy also makes clear that the EU must work together with other regional organisations to pursue our common objectives, and ASEAN is one of the only such organisations to be mentioned specifically by name.

I want to conclude my opening comments by underlining the commonality of our approach in many areas, and the scope for us to do more together. This was the publicly expressed wish of EU Foreign Ministers following their discussion on South East Asia earlier this year, and I look forward to discussing in greater detail later in this meeting how best we might do this.

http://ue.eu.int/cms3_fo/showPage.asp?id=1〈=en&mode=g

___________________________________________________________________

If you recall, this is what I've been saying. This new Foreign Minister appointment gives Javier Solana almost dictatorial powers over the new, super EU.

Finally there is someone who agrees with me.

And, it's none other than Solana himself.

07-03-04

http://fulfilledprophecy.com/solana_replace_presidency.html

[rollinTHUNDER]

Unwalling Israel

Thus says the Lord GOD, "It will come about on that day, that thoughts will come into your mind and you will devise an evil plan, and you will say, 'I will go up against the land of unwalled villages. I will go against those who are at rest, that live securely, all of them living without walls and having no bars or gates, to capture spoil and to seize plunder, to turn your hand against the waste places which are now inhabited, and against the people who are gathered from the nations, who have acquired cattle and goods, who live at the center of the world'" (Ezekiel 38:10-12 New American Standard Bible).

It is commonly believed God may have been speaking about a future Russian invasion of Israel in the above prophecy. Firstly, one of the titles God gives to the leader of this invasion is "prince of Rosh." Secondly, this leader will be to the extreme north of Israel. And thirdly, this leader will head a large confederacy of nations that will include modern day Iran (Ezekiel 38:1-7).

What has always fascinated me about this prophecy is how it says this invasion will happen in the last days after Israel has been restored from among the nations (Ezekiel 38:8). In other words, the restoration of Israel in 1948 is a strong indication we are living in the last days.

Does that mean the northern leader God is referring to is about to lead an invasion against the land of Israel? Not yet. You see, the prophecy also says this invasion will occur while Israel is living securely and in unwalled villages (Exekiel 38: 11).

Yet, as I write, Dr. Mohammed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is in Israel attempting to convince the Israeli people to go along with the idea of making the Middle East a nuclear free zone. In other words, ElBaradei is trying to persuade Israel to give up her nuclear arsenal (Read about it here)>>>> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.j...sID=0&listSrc=Y

Before we say this will never happen, there is another important meeting occurring. It turns out the Quartet -- representatives of the US, the EU, the UN and Russia -- are also meeting in Israel today (Read about it here)>>>> http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/afp...w/94084/1/.html

This is what I think: They're unwalling Israel. You see, by saying living in unwalled villages, I believe all God is saying is, when this invasion happens, Israel will be depending on others for her defense. And the situation God described may soon be a reality.

In a desperate attempt to bring peace to the region, the international community is working hard on a package deal. In order to get Israel's neighbors to give up their nuclear programs, Israel must give up her nuclear arsenal. In return, NATO and the international community will guarantee regional security.

If this kind of package deal happens, Israel will soon be seen as living securely in unwalled villages. This, in turn, will have set the stage for the foretold invasion from the north.

Stay tuned!

And you will come up against My people Israel like a cloud to cover the land. It shall come about in the last days that I will bring you against My land, so that the nations may know Me when I am sanctified through you before their eyes, O Gog (Ezekiel 38:16).

07-06-04

http://fulfilledprophecy.com/unwalling_israel.htm

[rollinTHUNDER]

Solana's Incredible EU Takeover

I've been thinking about this since Javier Solana spoke those words. Solana said, in the area of foreign policy, his new office of EU Foreign Minister was replacing the rotating Presidency system (Read about it here)>>>> http://fulfilledprophecy.com/solana_replace_presidency.html

(And here)>>>> http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.htm...143&sid=5044720

(And here)>>>> http://www.euobserver.com/index.phtml?sid=9&aid=16004

Even for me, someone who has written a book about the possibility of such an event, this is startling news.

You see, the EU has two Presidents. One is in the Commission and is appointed by the EU heads. The other is in the Council where the 25 EU heads take turns every six months. Well, first the Commission Presidency was sidelined, now the rotating Presidency has been sidelined. And, in both cases, it was Solana who so brilliantly managed the sidelining.

It started in 1991 when Western leaders decided the Europeans should play a bigger role in their own defense. This lead to NATO's so-called "European Security and Defense Identity."

In 1995, this new idea would be taken farther by Jaiver Solana when he was appointed the new head of NATO. Part of Solana's mandate was to restructure NATO to make Europe's defense wing possible. He divided NATO into two Strategic Commands, one in Virginia and one in Brussels. In other words, Solana split NATO down the middle -- half for the US, half for Europe.

When Solana's term at NATO ended in 1999, the EU leaders had new offices waiting for him. Solana would become the EU's first High Representative of Common Foreign and Security Policy and the Secretary General of the Council of Europe. And to keep their own defense identity alive, Solana was also made the Secretary General of the Western European Union (WEU). In other words, Solana was placed in charge of the 10 European NATO nations.

In 2000, Solana and the French EU Presidency, moved the command structures of the WEU into the Council of Europe. This lead some to say the EU was absorbing the WEU. But, as I write in my book, in reality just the opposite was occurring. I thought Solana and the WEU nations were absorbing the EU.

Now it's 2004 and it looks like I was right. On July 1, speaking before a group of Asian nations, Solana said he was the one who was going to be in charge of the EU's foreign and security affairs -- not the EU Commission or the EU Presidency.

So, did ten nations just finish taking control of the EU? I think they may have.

Call it Solana's incredible EU takeover.

07-07-04

http://fulfilledprophecy.com/solana_eu_takeover.htm

[rollinTHUNDER]

Date: 14/07/2004

A Security Strategy for Europe - The Solana Strategy in the Wake of Madrid

In short:

The first issue of the Oxford Journal on Good Governance compares and contrasts the new security strategy of the European Union with the national security strategy of the United States.

Source: Oxford Council on Good Governance

Author: Various authors

Other Analyses from the same source

The Oxford Journal on Good Governance (OCGG) presents "A Security Strategy for Europe", a discussion panel addressing the critical questions regarding the new EU Security Strategy in ten opinion papers written by leading academics and decision makers from both sides of the Atlantic. Contributors include External Relations commissioner Chris Patten and EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana.

Asle Toje, OCGG's editor, introduces the topic with the following words.

The European Union's engagement with the wider world is going through a time of great consequence. The Madrid bombings signify a departure from the voluntary security policies of the post-cold war era and reassert security imperatives under which opting out is not an option. In times of strife, our opinions and advice can have the greatest impact.

The views expressed in the contributions are those of the authors, as the policy recommendations are to be attributed to the OCGG alone. Although the contributors discuss various aspects of the security strategy, some key questions can be discerned. Perhaps the most fundamental issue addressed is simply: why does the EU need a common security and defence policy? This question has a number of answers.

The European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) has come about in the tension produced by new threats arising, the internal agendas of the European powers, the logic of integration and - to some degree - US pressures for Europe to shoulder their part of the international security burden. Most agree that if the foreign policy tools of the Union and its member States were more effectively coordinated, the EU could become a major force on the world stage. This is where the need for a common security strategy comes into play.

The strategy understandably does not dwell on the chequered history of attempts at European foreign policy co-operation, in which the Iraq dust-up is but the latest example. The EU has to date failed to shape international events in a way that could be expected of an actor this size. As one author points out, to date the must talked EU foreign policy 'tool box' has consisted of handing out cash while asking for very little in return. The notion of the EU as a 'different kind of super power' is largely a scholarly construct. This is no doubt a result of the relative powerlessness of most of the EU member states have made them forget that foreign policy can be used to induce change, not only uphold the status quo. Commissioning of a security strategy is in itself an important testimony to a newfound consensus that the EU through an effective foreign and security policy can help shape events. This leads us to consider what sort of security actor the EU is to be.

As the integration process appears to be entering a period of stagnation the Union is in search of a new vision to capture the collective imagination of Europeans. The answer may well lie in perusing European foreign policy. The positive response to the security strategy in most quarters was largely a result of its managing to toe the line between being jargon-free and to the point, while remaining ambiguous about what the ESDP is really about. Rhetorics aside, the strategy makes three main points. It acknowledges that the EU has an obligation to contribute to stability and good governance in its regional neighbourhood. In an implicit criticism of the current US policy mode, the strategy states the view that international peace and stability is best upheld by effective multilateral measures. And it goes some way towards building a shared transatlantic platform from which to address specific security concerns where terrorism, weapons of mass destruction proliferation and regional conflict are singled out alongside state failure and organised crime.

The strategy's catch-all listings of security "threats and challenges" has dismayed some commentators. Considering the varying security concerns of the member states, the wide approach of the strategy is unsurprising. That being said, terrorism is listed first among the "key threats". The terrorist atrocity in Madrid in March illustrated the relevance of the strategy and the need for the European states to pull together. The EU is doing their part of this work, amongst other elements, by applying the strategy into policy documents such as the new EU strategic objectives to combat terrorism and the strategy against proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. It will now depend on the member states to translate these efforts into actual security policy.

The EU security policy so far has resembled the English cuisine: The result is often less tasty than the sum of its ingredients. A primary reason for the EU under-performance is the persistent avoidance of tough questions. Many of the authors of the discussion panel express concern about a menacing turn in global security and its impact on the transatlantic security partnership. Elegantly the ESS mentions - but does not address - contentious issues such as the future role of NATO and the United States in Europe. It offers no pointers with regard to how to overcome the inherent dead-lock of collective decision making with 25 vetoing parties. It also steps back from spelling out what is to be done in those cases where "effective multilateralism" fails to deliver.

Arguably, its greatest weakness is that the ESS can hardly be called a strategy - at least insofar as it studiously avoids the using of military means to achieve political ends. Having said this, it would have been very difficult to write a traditional strategy at this stage of European security co-operation. The ESS is holistic, reasonably intellectually coherent and above all sufficiently flexible to allow the EU to meet new challenges in a time of rapid change. As several of the contributors point out, the existence of a EU security strategy is in itself an important first step towards a European strategic culture. The ESS is also a signal that the EU is exiting the creative-conceptual phase and entering international politics. One must not forget that EU foreign policy is not decided by the EU mandarins or academic pundits but by the leaders of the European states. Solana and his cabinet have done their part of the job - from here on it will be up to the European leaders, especially those of France and the UK, to chose whether the EU will be the vehicle for their aspirations. From here on the EU Foreign and Security Policy will be judged by the results of their labours. With an eye on the current debates, the OCGG offers six suggestions on how to help put Policy into the European Security and Defence Policy.

1) EU Security Council of 5

The Iraq war showed yet again that in times of crisis, EU unity crumbles under the conflicting short-term interests of its member states. The mode where dissent translates into paralysis must be discontinued. The EU states need to develop workable decision-making procedures. This cannot be done without acknowledging power relations. As other commentators have suggested, the time has come to establish a 'EU Security Council'. The council should be kept small in order to facilitate decision-making; only the three largest powers should hold permanent seats, with a fourth seat rotating among the three secondary powers and a fifth among the rest. This will clearly be a more effective policy-maker than a 'General Assembly' of 25. Such a move should be accompanied by abolishing the role of the rotating presidency in Foreign Policy matters. The day-to-day running of the CFSP should be left to the Foreign Policy Commissioner whose job looks set to be merged with that of the High Representative.

2) Increase budgets

First of all, the EU states should resist the temptation to revert to declaration-making and institution-building when the tough questions force themselves onto the agenda. There are enough declarations to last for a while and structures in place that work admirably - what is needed is funding. The