Only the divine interpretation of history and the divine revelation of the prophetic future of nations can give us a sure light in these troubled days.1

Just when I began to feel sure I had found the alliance that could soon become the 10 kings of prophecy, I heard some news that suggested otherwise. I heard a report that the Western European Union was being dismantled. Associated Press writer Jeffrey Ulbrich said:

   The Western European Union – the nearly defunct alliance that was briefly 
   revived as the military arm of the European Union – began preparations 
   today for its likely demise, with foreign and defense ministers organizing the 
   transfer of its functions to the European Union.2

Was this the end of the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers alliance?  If it was, prophetically speaking, I was up a wrong tree. They were not to become the 10 kings of prophecy after all.

I had known that the European leaders had wanted the EU to take over the peacekeeping tasks of the WEU for some time. I’d been following the discussions and knew the future shape of Europe’s new military wing was unresolved.

The biggest problem these European leaders seemed to be dealing with had to do with their plans for enlargement. The 15-nation EU was preparing to grow to 25 nations or more. The question was how such a large number of nations could democratically participate in the decision-making process of a military alliance without sacrificing its effectiveness.

One only has to recall how difficult it was keeping all 19 NATO nations together during the bombing campaign against Serbia. Each nation had its own set of targets it wanted hit and set of targets it didn’t want to hit. This led to a lot of unnecessary confusion in Allied headquarters and may even have contributed to the accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy.

On the other hand, the idea of not giving every member state a democratic voice in the EU’s military was also unacceptable. Member states couldn’t be expected to send their sons and daughters into harm’s way without representation. So, some kind of parliamentary body would have to be decided upon to provide this democratic element.

The WEU had already worked out these problems by organizing an assembly, made up of 28 nations – only 10 had full voting rights. Now that the EU was planning on taking over these WEU operations, the system that had been so effective would have to be recreated within the EU.

The European Parliament wanted to be the body that provided this democratic oversight. But until the enlargement process was completed, the European Parliament would only be made up of 15 nations. If the Rapid Reaction Force was ready by their goal of 2003, it would be up and running long before the other 12 candidate nations could have any say in the Parliament.

The other possibility for oversight of the new European military was the WEU Assembly. This parliamentary body was seen as a better choice because it was already made up of 28 nations. The WEU Assembly also had years of effective experience in giving many nations a voice in decisions regarding military matters.

Yet just turning the EU’s military wing over to the 28-nation WEU Assembly would violate the primacy of the EU’s 15 member states. After all, this was supposed to be the EU’s military.

But dealing with the lack of democracy wasn’t the only problem the EU would have to work out before it could take over the functions of the WEU. Article five of the modified Brussels Treaty still linked 10 nations together in a mutual defense agreement that could not be set aside or given to another organization.3  In other words, under the existing treaties, the EU leaders couldn’t completely do away with the WEU, no matter how badly they wanted to.

Besides, I was suspicious: If those 10 Brussels Treaty Powers that controlled the WEU were, in fact, to become the 10 kings of prophecy, then they wouldn’t be giving up their relationship to each other so easily. Although there may be talk about breaking them up, it wouldn’t happen.

Yes, things in Europe were getting complicated. When I stumbled across the Maastricht Treaty (effective 1993), I found that it didn’t call for the elimination of the WEU. Instead, it specified that the WEU would be the “armed force” that was to be used by the EU.4

But the leaders of the EU wanted more than just their own military machinery. They also wanted someone to run it for them. So in the Amsterdam Treaty (effective May 1999), the EU nations called for the creation of a new office of High Representative for the Common Foreign Security Policy (CFSP). This is an office Javier Solana currently holds. They also decided to transfer all military decision-making away from the WEU to the Council of the European Union and their new High Representative.

The Council has its headquarters in Brussels in the Justus Lipsius building. This building contains the office of the Council Secretary General and High Representative, posts currently held by Javier Solana. It also houses the Legal Service agency and 10 more agencies known as Directorates.

Then, in December 1999, the Helsinki European Council took even more away from the WEU organization. It called for new political and military bodies to be established within the Council of Europe headquarters in Brussels, to duplicate those that existed in the WEU.

In other words, the political and military bodies within the 10-nation WEU alliance were to be eliminated and duplicated within the Council of Europe. 

It was no wonder people were thinking the WEU was being done away with. But, in reality, this was not the case. As I said before, the elimination of the WEU would cause treaty problems that would take time for the EU leaders to work out. Those 10 nations still had their responsibility to each other under Article Five of the modified Brussels Treaty.

When I considered the huge tasks before the EU leaders – creating an effective decision-making process, eliminating the democratic deficit, preserving the primacy of the 15 member states, and maintaining the obligation of the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers – I didn’t see how they were going to do it. Yet these matters would all have to be resolved before their Rapid Reaction Force was ready in 2003. To me, their assignment seemed impossible.

Evidently, the EU leaders were also worried. So this is how they decided to deal with their dilemma. They called for temporary political and military bodies to be set up until all those difficult problems could be worked out. In the meantime, they wanted these interim bodies operational by March 2000. The new temporary bodies were to assist the Council in making recommendations and carrying out the daily operations of their new military wing until the permanent bodies were in place.

In other words, for the time being, Solana was to direct the EU’s new military wing from his Brussels office without any parliamentary oversight. And this dangerous lack of democracy would exist until the EU heads of state could figure out what to do about it.

So Solana went right to work establishing these new interim political and military bodies within his Council of Europe headquarters. And, sure enough, the Political and Security Committee held its first meeting on March 1, 2000. It was made up of ambassadors and senior officials of the member states. The next week, the military body held its first meeting. It was made up of military representatives of the member states. Then on March 8, Solana appointed Brigadier Graham Messervy-Whiting as the head of these military experts. Once again, Solana was doing his job well.

Now the fate of the WEU seemed uncertain. Its head (the decision- making element) had been severed from its body (the WEU Assembly) and a new head (the Political and Security Committee) was being created for it in the Council of Europe. From now on, the missions fulfilled by the WEU – the so-called “Petersberg tasks” (peacekeeping and peacemaking) – would become the responsibility of Solana and the Council of Europe.

Yet, as I said before, the Amsterdam Treaty didn’t call for the complete elimination of the WEU. The treaty did, however, allow for the possible integration of the WEU into the EU. But once the WEU had been integrated, it was to continue its life within the EU.

So the Associated Press writer, Jeffrey Ulbrich, said that the WEU had begun preparations for its demise. No doubt this is what Brussels had officially said. But the Brussels officials have a habit of doing what they say they’re not. They say they’re not creating a European army, but they are. They say they’re not weakening the NATO alliance, but they are. They say they’re not creating a new power center with the office of High Representative, but they are.

Despite everything they say, I knew something for sure. If the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers were to become the 10 kings of Bible prophecy, then they would somehow end up staying together. Not only that, but if they were to be those kings, then the relationship between them and the office of High Representative would continue to grow closer and stronger. And this is exactly what happened.

It (the Antichrist) very well could be some individual who is known as an international leader, someone whose true nature and character is not suspected; one to whom all the world will look as a deliverer, and never dream that this one will so give himself to the control of Satan that he will become the ‘little horn,’ ‘the king of fierce countenance,’ or, ‘the prince that shall come,’ the ‘abomination of desolation,’ ‘the lawless one,’ or ‘the Beast.’ 5

On July 1, 2000, France took over the six-month rotating presidency of the EU and the Council of the European Union. If you recall, the Council is the main decision-making body in the EU. Now one of the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers held the presidency of the EU. Immediately under the French presidency, the Council announced its decision to make the WEU Assembly the temporary assembly for Europe’s new military wing. The WEU Assembly was renamed the “Interim European Security and Defence Assembly.” So, the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers were still together – and they were in charge of managing Europe's new military.6

This was what I was expecting to happen. I never believed the 15-nation European Parliament was going to get the job of managing Europe’s new military. The 28-nation WEU Assembly was, by far, the best choice if the EU leaders wanted to give every nation a voice in the military decision-making process.

And for the time being, this firmly locked the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers in place since only they had full voting rights in this Assembly. The 10 nations I had been watching had just had their monopoly on Europe’s new military wing guaranteed. And to this day, they remain in charge of the military.

Then something else happened that frightened a lot of people. It was called the “Solana Decision.”  But before I tell you about the Solana Decision, I must explain something. This is because the politics in the EU can be very confusing.

The EU is actually built around five institutions. Through a series of treaties, the 15 nations that make up the EU give portions of their governmental responsibilities to these institutions. Of these institutions, three are considered the most powerful. These three are referred to as the “institutional triangle” – the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, and the European Commission. Only one of these institutions is made up of democratically elected officials – the European Parliament. The other two are made up of appointed officials.

The Council of the European Union is the main decision-making body within the EU. This concerns many citizens in Europe because, as I said, the Council is made up of unelected officials. Many citizens believe this creates a dangerous lack of democracy in the EU since the only representation they have is in the European Parliament.

Now that I’ve explained a little about these three EU institutions, I can tell you about the Solana Decision. On July 26, 2000, quickly following the French presidency’s decision to use the WEU Assembly for their military, Solana called a meeting of COREPER (committee of permanent representatives of the 15 member states). Strangely, he called this meeting while the European Parliament was in recess. Not only that, but he didn’t inform the national parliaments of the 15 member states about this meeting or any civil organizations.7

At the meeting, Solana put forward a resolution restricting the public’s access to all documents relating to military matters. It was quickly voted on and passed. In other words, from now on any actions by Solana and the Council of Europe regarding Europe's new military wing was going to be hidden behind closed doors. 

Not only was the public affected by this decision, but it also left the European Parliament – the only democratic element in the EU’s institutional triangle – completely in the dark. Even more serious, the Solana Decision reversed a commitment made in the Amsterdam Treaty guaranteeing the public’s right to these same documents. Without this guarantee, it’s doubtful if the parliaments of the 15 member states would have ratified the Amsterdam Treaty in the first place. 

This clampdown on public access to information became known as the infamous “Solana Decision.” Some journalists even went so far as to call it Solana’s “military coup.”8

Needless to say, the actions of the French presidency and the Solana Decision angered and alarmed the European Parliament. They felt that – without their right to military documents – they couldn’t provide the democratic oversight they were responsible to their citizens for. And they didn’t trust the WEU Assembly to do the job since only the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers had full voting rights.

A dangerous lack of democracy was being institutionalized inside the EU’s new foreign and security policy. The EU’s military wing was falling completely into the unelected hands of the Council of Europe. And the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers were maintaining their exclusive military monopoly. And this is the situation today.
I began to suspect that something big was going on in the EU just below the surface. 

The 10 Brussels Treaty Powers held the majority in the 15-nation EU. I realized that, if these 10 nations worked together in the Council of Europe, then they could do just about anything they wanted.

Evidently I wasn’t the only one who suspected something questionable might be going on. In fact, these events began a war in the EU – a press release war. For a while, I couldn’t keep up with all the opposing press releases coming from the different institutions.

The European Parliament fired the first shot. They countered the actions of the French Presidency and the Solana Decision. In draft reports submitted on October 6 and 16 of 2000, the Parliament called for the modified Brussels Treaty to be denounced and for the WEU and its Assembly to be abolished. In other words, they wanted to break up the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers.

This was something the Brussels Treaty Powers obviously didn’t want to happen. The WEU Assembly quickly responded by saying:

   The European Parliament is well aware that the collective defence cannot 
   become a task for the European Union in the medium term and that the WEU 
   member countries cannot therefore denounce the modified Brussels Treaty 
   in the foreseeable future. Indeed, our Governments have no intention of so 
   doing.9

Then the Netherlands fired their salvo. To the surprise of the other EU member states, the Netherlands filed a lawsuit in the European Court of Justice against the Solana Decision. Sweden and Finland gave their support to the Dutch. Interestingly, these were the only three EU nations that voted against Solana in the Council meeting on the day his decision was adopted.10

It goes without saying that the Euro-skeptics — the civil liberties organizations and other groups concerned with the free flow of information throughout the EU – were all going completely bananas.

Then on November 13, 2000, with the end of the six-month French presidency in sight, the Brussels Treaty Powers delivered their nuclear bomb – the Marseille Declaration. This decision once again reaffirmed these 10 nation’s relationship under the Modified Brussels Treaty and called for maintaining the WEU for this very purpose.

But the reason I called the Marseille decision a nuclear bomb was because it eliminated all but the10 Brussels Treaty Powers from the new decision-making process. In other words, now the democratic deficit in the new military wing would be complete.11

Although these 18 other nations never had the same full voting rights as the 10, they did play a big roll in the WEU assembly. Now, since all crisis management decisions would be the responsibility of the Council of Europe, they no longer had a voice. This is when the EU’s new military wing fell under the sole control of Solana and the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers. From then on, there’s been no democratic oversight in the EU’s fledgling military.

The reason the Council of Ministers gave for excluding these 18 nations from the decision-making process was because of the EU’s plans for enlargement. According to them, once these nations were integrated into the EU they would again “have their place at the table.”  In the meantime, the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers and the Council of Europe would enjoy complete control over the EU’s military.

I couldn’t help but think about how these 18 other nations in the WEU Assembly had recently spoken out in defense of the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers when the European Parliament called for their demise. This was the way they were rewarded. Now they had been excluded from the decision-making process by the same 10 nations they had defended.

But no one seemed to be catching on. The next day, on November 14, the AP news wire reported, “The Western European Union went out of business without a whimper Monday, after 52 years of biding time on the sidelines of history.” Yet, on December 5, Solana delivered a speech to the same WEU Assembly that supposedly had gone out of business. He said:

   Looking forward to the moment when the EU assumes direct responsibility 
   for crisis management, ministers in Marseille decided on the functions and 
   structures which would remain with WEU. Clearly, the modified Brussels 
   Treaty and the mutual defense commitment contained in its Article V are the 
   raison d'etre for maintaining WEU. The reaffirmation in Marseille by the 
   member states of that commitment is recognition that it remains an important 
   underpinning for their other European and Atlantic engagements.12

In other words, the final decision about the shape of the EU’s new military wing had been made under the French presidency. The WEU would continue, but in a much smaller and more controllable arrangement. It would be stripped of everything that wasn’t necessary for Solana and the 10 Brussels Powers to maintain control of Europe’s exclusive military club.

As I thought about all these events in last six months of 2000, I was reminded of the mandate the EU leaders gave to Solana. His job was to create a military and civilian crisis management capacity for the EU by 2003. But he was only given until the end of 2000 to work out all of the details. This explained why so much had happened during the last six months of the year 2000. With the help of the French presidency, Solana was working out those details. 

That the French presidency would play such a pivotal role in finalizing the details about the EU’s military wing should have come as no surprise. France has championed the creation of a European superstate from the beginning. And to become a superstate, you need an army. In fact, many Europeans trace the beginning of the EU to the “Schuman Declaration” – a proposal by French Foreign Minister Robert Schuman. On May 9, 1950, he suggested the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community. Schuman proposed this move as the first step in creating a European federation. Today Europeans recognize May 9 as Europe Day – the day the EU began. 

So where was America during all these events that took place in the EU during the last half of 2000? All eyes in America were glued to Florida. The wildly fluctuating election results coming in between Al Gore and George W. Bush were keeping the American public on the edge of their seats. It was the closest presidential election in modern history. The American news networks were consumed with hanging chads, uncounted ballets, and legal options available to the candidates.

No one in the American media seemed to notice what was taking place in Europe. Even if they had noticed, it was doubtful they could have understood it. They would have simply dismissed the political events occurring in Europe as they would events on some remote island.

Even for someone like me who had been watching, this flurry of events in the EU was hard at first to understand. Double-talk and contradictions flow from Brussels like biblical milk and honey. The account I’ve provided in this book has come from bringing together many loose pieces of information.

Yet in confusing times like these, Bible prophecy can come to our aid. The Apostle Peter calls prophecy “a lamp shinning in a dark place” (2 Peter 1:19). It doesn’t provide us with all the details, but it does tell us where these events in Europe are ultimately going. They are headed toward a seven-year security agreement between the revived Roman Empire and Israel – an agreement destined to be broken.

So I had my own understanding about what was going on in the EU. And my idea was quite different from what the officials in Brussels were saying. I recall thinking to myself, “The EU isn’t absorbing the WEU; Solana and the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers are absorbing the EU.”

This world ruler when he comes to authority in the European federation of nations will look over to Palestine and see that the Arab-Israeli dispute threatens world peace.13

He will pose as a great humanitarian, the friend of men, and the especial friend of the Jewish race, whom he will persuade that he has come to usher in the ‘Golden Age’ as pictured by the prophets, and who will receive him as their Messiah.14

    The past year has been a time of major innovation in the area of the Union’s 
   Common Foreign and Security Policy. Every European Council has proved to 
   be a new high-water mark in extending the range of instruments available 
   under the Common Foreign and Security Policy and moving towards a more 
   effective, more coherent and more visible Foreign Policy.

 After reminding his listeners that the world problems would not wait for the EU to get their foreign policy in order, he asked his audience three questions: “Are we willing to deliver? Are we capable of delivering?  And have we delivered in the course of the last year?” Then he answered his own questions. The most interesting answer, however, was probably the first. Regarding the EU’s willingness to deliver, he said:

   There is now a serious commitment to presenting a single political will to the 
   rest of the world, a commitment to match Europe’s economic power with 
   political influence. This is the enormous change, which we have witnessed in 
   Europe over the last year. The creation of the post of High Representative 
   itself was an indication of this new willingness by the member states of the 
   Union to make CFSP work.

Solana’s words were hauntingly familiar to me. Here he referred to a “single political will” and making the EU’s new Common Foreign Security Policy (CFSP) work. According to the Bible, this is the relationship the Antichrist is to have with the 10 kings. If you recall, referring to the Antichrist, the angel told John: 

   For God has put it in their [the 10 kings] hearts to execute His purpose by 
   having a common purpose [CFSP], and by giving their kingdom to the beast 
   [High Representative for the CFSP], until the words of God should be fulfilled 
   (Revelation 17:17). [Words in brackets are my own]

Also in answer to his first question, “Are we willing to deliver?”, Solana said, “CFSP is about Europe making a difference in international politics. It is about the European Union being able to project its values and its interests – the core of its political identity – effectively beyond its own borders.”

When I saw the words “core of its political identity,” I couldn’t help but wonder if there was a deeper meaning that many might not catch. Could Solana have been alluding to a hidden political agenda of certain core nations within the EU?

In his speech, Solana also said the EU needed to focus its new foreign policy where it was most needed. The first area it was needed was in regard to the EU’s neighbors – the surrounding European nations. He said this was why the enlargement process was so important. At the time of his speech, 12 new nations had applied for membership in the EU.

Yet he wasn’t just thinking about the current round of candidates. Solana went on to include other candidates by adding: “ Within the same fold, the countries of the Balkans and the Southern Mediterranean shore deserve our utmost attention.”

In other words, he wanted to someday admit Israel into the EU. Yes, there seems to be no way around it. Solana’s Mediterranean foreign policy could place him, and the European heads of state he has been working with, right smack in the middle of end-times Bible prophecy. If Solana were to succeed with these plans, the EU would indeed be a true revival of the Roman Empire.

At the time of this speech the Middle East had become a hot spot. In September 2000, violence had broken out in Israel when Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The riots that began that day on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem spread across all of Israel and soon the American-sponsored peace process had completely collapsed. Now Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was appealing to the European Union to come in and protect them from the Israeli army, and Solana was itching to get involved.

So, in his speech, Solana began talking about the Middle East. He said:

   A few weeks ago I was asked by EU foreign ministers to travel to the region to 
   meet all the parties concerned and to try to offer support in the search for an 
   end to the violence. The rounds of talks I held in the region paved the way for 
   participation by the European Union in the Sharm el-Sheikh summit, which 
   allowed us for the first time to be actively involved in the search for a solution 
   to the crises … I have been nominated by President Clinton and UN Secretary 
   General Kofi Annan to become a member of the fact-finding Commission set 
   up in Sharm-el-Sheikh. I will continue to work in support of the search for 
   peace in the Middle East; the European Union will continue to be fully 
   engaged.

Amazing. Now Solana had managed to secure a place for himself on the fact-finding Commission that had been set up to find a way to bring an end to the violence in the Middle East. Here he was just beginning his job as Mr. Europe and he was already positioning himself to be the one to bring peace to Israel. These are all things the foretold Antichrist is supposed to do.

By the time I had finished reading Solana’s speech, I was convinced that the recent events in the Mediterranean and Europe were prophetic road signs indicating that the end-times prophecies were about to be fulfilled. And once again, no one seemed to be noticing.

1. John F. Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, preface.
2. Jeffrey Ulbrich, “Euro Union Set for Its Own Demise,” The Associated
Press, Oporto, Portugal, Monday, May 15 2000; 3:48 a.m. EDT.
3. European Union (1954, October 23) “ Protocol Modifying and Completing the Brussels Treaty,” Europa, Internet: http://www.europa.eu.int.
4. European Union (1991) “Maastricht Treaty,” Europa, Internet:  http://www.europa.eu.int.
5. J. Dwight Pentecost, Prophecy For Today, 91.
6. Western European Union (2000, June 8) “France aims to preserve WEU-ESDA role as ‘forum,’” [press release] WEU Assembly, Internet: http://www.weu.int.
7. Deirdre Curtin, “Authoritarian Temptation Seduces EU Decision-makers,” Statewatch News Online, Internet: http://www.statewatch.org.
8. Ibid.
9. Western European Union (2000, October 26) “WEU Assembly rejects European Parliaments call to denounce the modified Brussels Treaty” [press release] WEU Assembly, Internet: http://www.weu.int. 
10. See note 7 above.
11. Western European Union (2000, December 5) “WEU-ESDA Assembly calls on WEU Ministers” [press release] WEU Assembly, Internet: http://www.weu.int.
12.  Javier Solana (2000, December 5) “Address by the WEU Secretary General to the WEU Assembly —  (Paris)” [speech] Europa, Internet: http://www.europa.eu.int.
13. J. Dwight Pentecost, Prophecy For Today, 84.
14. Clarence Larkin, Dispensational Truth, 122. 
15. Javier Solana (2000, November 14) “Where does the EU stand on Common Foreign and Security Policy – Forschungsinstitut der Deutschen Gesellschaft fuer Auswaertinge  Politik – Berlin” [speech] Europa, Internet: 
http://www.europa.eu.int.