By Ron Fraser
Just where does Europe’s most powerful nation figure in the fallout following the appointment of the EU’s new president and foreign minister?
Those who watch what happens on the surface in Europe were left scratching their heads over the appointment of two unknowns to the two top positions created by the Lisbon Treaty/EU constitution. Dig below the surface, however, and the plot becomes clearer.
To really appreciate what is happening in Europe today, and in Germany in particular, one needs a historical perspective. But that perspective need not be long. Just a little over 100 years is sufficient. True, the political vision of Germany’s elites tracks back to Charlemagne in terms of its post-Roman Empire phase. Yet its true metamorphosis in a modern setting commences with the unification of Germany under Count Otto von Bismark.
Bismark was expert in creating alliances to favor German expansion by treaty. The strength of those alliances, as the French found out in 1871, was twofold. There was the power of the German military machine, especially its High Command. Then there was the influence of the elite bankers and industrialists who funded the war effort.
In terms of the process that seeks the extension of German power, nothing has really changed over the past 120 years. The European Union has been built via a series of treaties in which German politicians, its elite banker and industrialist cadre and its military officer cabal have, often behind the scenes, continued to wield primary influence.
Two entities have vied for power using the repetitively resurrecting Holy Roman Empire—the papacy and the German state.
From the time that Charlemagne consolidated the foundations laid by his predecessor Justinian for the seven consecutive resurrections of the Holy Roman Empire , there has been tension between church and state. Following the 19th-century crisis between Rome and Prussia—the Kulturkampf—during the time of Bismarck, that tension was largely resolved through the papal leadership of Leo XIII.
Leo’s attention then turned to resolving another conflict, which had arisen with the Industrial Revolution: the division between capital and labor. He released his famous encyclical “Rerum Novarum” (“On the Condition of Labor”) in 1891. It endorsed an essentially socialist approach to economic control.
From that time, we can trace the rising influence of Roman Catholicism within politics, industry, banking, commerce and the military in Germany. Its latter-day consequence has been an increasing penetration of the upper echelons of the movement toward European union. This has especially been the case since Germany’s defeat in World War ii.
After Kaiser Wilhelm’s unsuccessful attempt at global hegemony in World War i, Pope Pius XI issued his encyclical of May 15, 1931, titled “Quadragesimo Anno” (“On the Reconstruction of the Social Order”). That encyclical introduced the concept of subsidiarity that has since become a catch cry of the European Union.
In 1961, building on the themes established by Leo XIII and Pius XI, Pope John XXIII followed up with the introduction of the concept of globalism, calling for all peoples to live as one community working for the common good, in his encyclical titled “Mater et Magistra” (“Christianity and Social Progress”), issued May 15, 1961. This publicized the concept of a global “common market,” working for the good of the “global community”—themes deeply embedded in the general philosophy that undergirds the EU.
The theme of solidarity then threaded its way into Catholic social doctrine with the release of the encyclical “Populorum Progressio” (“The Development of Peoples”) by Pope Paul VI, March 26, 1967. Twenty years later, “Solidarity” became the motto of the Vatican-sponsored Polish workers’ movement, which underpinned the effort to break the Communist yoke on Eastern Europe, thus enabling the EU to build its long-awaited eastern leg (Daniel 2:33).
On the eve of that momentous change in the map of Europe, Pope John Paul II marked the 20th anniversary of “Populorum Progressio” with the release of his own encyclical on social doctrine, “Sollicitudo Rei Socialis” (“On the Social Concerns of the Church”), Dec. 30, 1987. That encyclical, produced less than two years before the fall of the Berlin Wall, was a reflection on the great social changes that had affected the world over the previous 20 years, destined to consummate in the collapse of Communist rule in Eastern Europe.
On July 7, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI issued the sixth papal dictum on Catholic social doctrine with his encyclical titled “Caritas in Veritate” (“In Charity and Truth”). In that encyclical, Benedict expresses the conviction that Pope Paul VI’s “Populorum Progressio” “deserves to be considered ‘the “Rerum Novarum” of the present age,’ shedding light upon ‘humanity’s journey towards unity.’”
It is a peculiarity of papal encyclicals on social doctrine that—from the founding document defining Catholic social doctrine, Leo’s “Rerum Novarum,” to Benedict’s “Caritas in Veritate”—all support the intervention of the state in economic planning and control, rather than the free enterprise system. This, of course, has ancient origins tracking back to the interventionism of the Holy Roman Empire, and even more anciently to old Babylon.
Knowing the history of Rome’s approach to economic theory and, more importantly, the Bible prophecies that bespeak its effect on our immediate future, it ought to come as no surprise that Pope Benedict has endorsed such a central role for the state in economic affairs. In fact, reading both the lines and in between the lines of his latest encyclical, this pope is calling for a world order regulated and controlled by a central power that would govern the world economy. Central to such a move is the role of the central bankers.
Given this history, consider current events.
Some ask, why have Germany and France forced the appointment of two apparent unknowns to the two most senior positions in the European Union hierarchy as created by the Lisbon Treaty/European constitution?
The reason links back to the unfolding process of German hegemony, initiated in its latest postwar effort, under the auspices of the European Union (which itself is an innately German concept).
The global economic crisis—which is growing steadily worse each month—has presented to German elites the very crisis that creates the opportunity to seize control of the global financial system. To obtain that level of control, Germany simply needs direct control of the globe’s central bankers.
Having forced the joint Franco-German decision regarding Herman Van Rompuy’s appointment as EU president (and chief tax gatherer) onto the 27-nation EU combine, Germany lay largely silent on the appointment of the other top post created by the Lisbon Treaty/EU constitution, that of foreign minister.
Why? In light of the control that Germany exerts over EU foreign policy, that position is a lame-duck post at present. The newly appointed EU foreign minister, left-wing socialist Englishwoman Catherine Ashton, stands to be isolated, not only being bypassed by Washington and Moscow, but hung out to dry by a future British government, assuming that the Conservatives gain power in the UK at next year’s election.
Until the German-Russian axis is fully cemented, supplanting the transatlantic alliance, Germany needs the continuing cooperation of Washington. Berlin and Washington remain at the head of current EU foreign-policy decisions. While that situation continues in the short term, the phone link between Berlin and Washington remains of paramount importance.
“Generally diplomatic relations between Washington and Berlin have been running on a stable trajectory in recent years that doesn’t leave much room to maneuver for newcomers looking to make a unique impact” (Deutsche Welle, November 18). That goes for both Germany’s new foreign minister, Guido Westerwelle, and for his EU compatriot, Catherine Ashton.
Klaus Larres, a visiting senior research fellow with the U.S. Library of Congress, told Deutsche Welle, “Henry Kissinger asked years ago, ‘Who am I going to call if I want to call Europe,’ and that is still a question people ask themselves in Washington. … [S]o far it is largely [Germany’s Chancellor] Merkel the Americans would ring if they need to overcome a crisis or if they need someone who can mediate successfully as far as transatlantic relations are concerned” (ibid.).
But there is also another key reason why Germany was happy to retire from the ring after forcing its will on the EU presidency appointment.
“Conspicuously absent in the debate over two big-hitting EU posts up for grabs on Thursday, heavyweight Germany has aroused suspicions that it wants another job—president of the European Central Bank. … [O]bservers believe Germany could be saving itself to push for the top job at the ecb—arguably the most influential EU post, as the president governs monetary policy for all the countries that share the euro” (Expatica.com, November 20; emphasis mine).
The ECB is central banker to the world’s largest trading bloc. It sets interest rates for—and hence largely controls the economies of—16 EU member nations representing a collective population of over 300 million using the euro as their means of exchange.
But the power of the ECB president extends far beyond the EU. Of the richest and most influential nations—the G-20 which coordinate the global economy—the majority are EU member nations. With the G-20 member nations having a single vote each on matters of global economic and financial policy which the G-20 oversees, the majority vote will always rest with the EU. That’s how the world signed up to the future regulation of the global economy by the EU Financial Stability Board (FSB). It was won by the EU majority vote, hands down.
Within the G-20, it’s the powerful central bankers who call the tune. They control the purse strings of the world. Hence Germany’s desire to seize the top job of the most powerful and influential of all central banks, the European Central Bank. “The ecb president is and will remain one of the most powerful European voices in global policymaking,” said Marco Annunziata, chief economist at Italian bank UniCredit.
But Berlin will not be alone in competing for the ecb president’s job. The other strong contender is—guess who? Rome!
The tussle for the top central banking job may come down to two prime contenders. Germany’s candidate is Bundesbank head Axel Weber. Italy’s is none other than the governor of the Bank of Italy and head of the FSB, Mario Dragi.
Whether Berlin or Rome is successful in seizing what has become the most prominent central banking post on the planet doesn’t matter in the whole equation of unfolding events involving centralized control over the global economy. Either way, one powerful entity wins: the rapidly emerging seventh and final resurrection of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation! •
No comments:
Post a Comment