The time will come when the nations of Europe will say to one man, ‘You take authority over us.’ 1

As I said before, if those 10 European nations known as the Brussels Treaty Powers are to become the 10 kings of Bible prophecy, then I knew one man would soon rise to a place of power alongside them. So I began watching for the creation of an office within the European Union that could accommodate such a person. This happened with the signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997.

Europe needed one voice to speak for the many nations that made up the European Union. They also needed someone to help the Council of the European Union in matters relating to their new Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The EU nations had big ambitions in this area. What they needed was someone who the world could call “Mr. Europe.”2 So, at Amsterdam, the 15 EU heads of state met together and decided to create the new office of High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Although the Amsterdam Treaty was signed in 1997, it didn’t become effective until May 1999. Then just five months later, on October 15, 1999, a remarkable man became the first to hold this office. He was a 56-year-old Spaniard by the name of Javier Solana Madariaga. He was a member of the Spanish Socialist Party and had been the prior head of NATO.

Solana’s position as High Representative also made him the Secretary General of the Council of the Europe Union. The Council is one of the three main governmental institutions that make up the EU. The other two institutions are the European Parliament and the European Commission. Although the Commission is thought to be the seat of power in the EU, many experts on European affairs believe the Council of the European Union holds the real reins of power in the EU.3

The reason for this is because the General Secretariat in the Council of Europe provides continuity to the policies being worked on by the EU’s rotating presidents. The 15 heads of the member states take turns at being president every six months. In other words, the EU presidents are only there for six months at a time. This hardly allows them time to get much done.

This is why the Council Secretariat is there to help them. With him, as the EU presidents come and go, the work in the Council can continue uninterrupted. The Secretary General of the Council – the office Solana was appointed to for a five-year term – administers the Council Secretariat. So when you add the office of High Representative to the office of Secretary General of the Council, you make Solana a very powerful man in the EU.

I wasn’t the only one thinking that Solana had been given tremendous power. In an official document for the Western European Union, Antonio Missiroli said that Solana’s combined positions could threaten the EU presidency itself. His warning was in the Chaillot Paper #38 for the Institute for Security Studies of the WEU. Missiroli said:
 

   Finally, Javier Solana’s appointment as EU Council Secretary-General and 
   High Representative (SG/HR) for the CFSP is expected to foster coordination 
   and consistency … however [Solana’s appointment], may also create a 
   dualism with the presidency of the Union and, more generally, tensions within 
   the new EU troika: in fact, the democratic element represented by the 
   rotational presidency may be easily offset by the SG/HR … And here, 
   predictably, the balance of power and influence will change according to the 
   size, political weight and specific attitude of the country holding the presidency 
   — including whether it belongs or not to the above-mentioned ‘core’ [the 10 
   Brussels Treaty Powers].4

Here, we once again find the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers. Missiroli referred to these nations in his paper as the “core.”  The implication of his remarks is that these so-called “core” nations carry more weight in the EU than the others. This was when I began to realize how unstable the politics in the EU were compared to the United States. Missiroli seemed to be saying that, now that Solana was on the scene, nobody knew for sure what was going to happen next in the EU.

Then on November 25 1999, while American was about to celebrate Thanksgiving Day, something big did happen – something even I wasn’t expecting. Solana’s already lofty position was made even more powerful. Solana put on his third hat and became the Secretary General of the WEU military alliance. In other words, Solana had now been placed in a position of influence over those “core” 10 Brussels Treaty Powers. He now was the head of Europe’s exclusive military club.

I was shocked by this news. The prophetic implications of this event were many. I knew if the Brussels Treaty Powers were to become the 10 kings of prophecy, then one man with influence in the EU would rise to power among them. And this had just happened. 

In fact, it was this event that caused me to write the column about Solana that Constance Cumbey read when she decided to give me a call. Needless to say, these three positions – High Representative, Secretary General of the Council of Europe, and now Secretary General of the WEU – made Solana an extremely powerful player in the EU. This would make him – or someone who is to hold his office in the future – a good candidate for the Antichrist.

Solana was not only the head of the most powerful agency in the EU (the Council of the European Union), but he was also the one entrusted with creating and directing Europe’s new Common Foreign and Security Policy. And now he was also in tight with those 10 core nations.

Alone, these events were significant. Taken together, they were astounding. It was becoming impossible for me to ignore what was going on in Europe as indications that the Bible prophecies were about to be fulfilled. In other words, I was becoming convinced that “signs of the times” were again occurring in our world. And once again they seemed to be going unnoticed.

Referring to the Antichrist, Willmington’s Guide to the Bible states:

   He will be an intellectual genius (Daniel 8:23). He will be an oratorical genius 
   (Daniel11:36). He will be a political genius (Revelation 17:11-12). He will be 
   a commercial genius (Revelation 13:16, Daniel 11:43). He will be a military 
   genius (Revelation 6:2, 13:2). He will be a religious genius (Revelation 13:8).5

So, could Javier Solana actually be the first to hold the office the Antichrist will someday hold? This idea was too bizarre to be believable. Yet I was looking for a Mr. Europe to come on the scene and, now that I’d found one, I didn’t know what to do with him. I decided to learn all I could about this first Mr. Europe – Javier Solana.

Since Solana was the former head of NATO, I figured he must have done a good job. If he hadn’t, then he wouldn’t have been given such a key position in the development of the EU’s new foreign policy. I was right.

Javier Solana became the Secretary General of the NATO Alliance in 1995. A nasty scandal in the organization had left the Western leaders groping to find a new head for NATO that everyone would like. Whoever this person turned out to be, he would have an important job. He would have to restructure NATO to face the realities of the post-Cold War.

There was also an immediate problem in the Balkans to deal with. The United States didn’t want to commit ground troops to the region, and NATO was preparing for air strikes. The job waiting for the new head of NATO would be no cakewalk.

The American Secretary of State Warren Christopher had learned to appreciate the diplomatic skills of Javier Solana while Solana was a Foreign Minister in Spain. Christopher recommended Solana to President Clinton, and Clinton took Christopher’s advice.6

Although most of the Western leaders liked the idea, Solana’s appointment came as quite a surprise. The reason for their surprise was that, as a youth, Solana had participated in anti-NATO demonstrations in Spain. In fact, Solana’s leftist political activism had been so extreme that he was expelled from Madrid’s Complutense University in 1963.7

Ironically, it was to this grown-up radical from the 1960s – a person who had once described himself as a pragmatic Marxist – that the Western leaders gave the job of restructuring NATO for the new post-Cold War era.

Under Solana’s supervision, the number of NATO headquarters was reduced from 65 to 20. The remaining headquarters were divided into two Strategic Commands – one for the Atlantic and another for Europe. It was as if NATO was split right down the middle.8

Solana’s restructuring made room for NATO expansion, an important part of the Western leaders' plans for the post-Cold War era. These leaders felt that NATO had done such a good job in Europe that the benefits of the alliance should be offered to other parts of Europe, and even possibly to the whole world.9 

What made the NATO alliance so desirable was the fact that it was only open to democratic governments with open markets. For a nation to join NATO it had to first meet these requirements.

Another desirable result of NATO expansion was the lessening of the chance for war. NATO members don’t go to war against each other.

Yet expansion was not the only reason NATO needed to be restructured. The Western leaders wanted to make it possible for the European nations to use NATO’s military assets without America’s participation. In other words, the EU wanted its own independent military capacity.

The war in Bosnia had once again driven home to the European leaders just how weak they really were. They first realized this during the Gulf War, and now they were facing their military impotence again.

So Solana was given quite a job as the new head of NATO. Not only did he have to win the war in Bosnia, but he also had to restructure NATO for the post-Cold War era. With this restructuring, the Western leaders wanted to make possible their dreams for a new pan-European security arrangement that, if properly shaped, could possibly go global. This was no small task.

Yet I couldn’t help but wonder: Why would we Americans want to make NATO resources available to our European allies for their independent use?  I realized that something big was happening in Europe that the American people didn't know about. 

The balance of military power that had existed for the last 50 years in America’s favor was going to change. Europe was on its way to once again becoming a military power. And they were going to do it with our equipment and help.

Again I ask, why would American want this to happen – let alone help it happen?  Perhaps the best man in the Clinton administration to answer that question was the Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbott. In July 1992, he wrote an essay for Time magazine titled, "The Birth of the Global Nation," where he revealed that he believed global government is inevitable.

The following year after the essay was published, he took his post as Deputy Secretary of Sate under the Clinton administration and helped shape the Clinton foreign policy from the very beginning.

In the same essay, Talbott said about federalism, “If that model does indeed work globally, it would be the logical extension of the Founding Fathers’ wisdom, therefore a special source of pride for a world government’s American constituents.” 10

To me it seems likely that Talbott’s views on federalism may have greatly influenced President Clinton and contributed to the idea of NATO expansion as a model for the New World Order.

So the Western leaders got together and decided to make NATO a model for their new post-Cold War security scheme. As I thought about this, I realized that NATO expansion was, in reality, an attempt to create a new pan-European security arrangement and, if possible, a New World Order. 

In fact, Solana said so himself. On January 11,1999, he said:

   Today, NATO and the EU stand as the world’s foremost models of 
   multinational, democratic cooperation. They exert a tremendous 
   attractiveness to the many nations who aspire to join or cooperate with them. 
   Both organizations have inspired the larger European project of integration, of 
   cooperation and reconciliation which is healing the unnatural divide of the 
   past between East and West. They are thus both leaders of the drawing 
   together of Europe, its rejuvenation and reconstruction. We must keep firmly 
   in our sights this higher political project that both organizations, in their own 
   respective ways, embody. Just as the European Union is more than a 
   common market, but the embodiment of a political ideal, so too NATO is 
   more than a military alliance for the collective defense of its members. It is a 
   symbol of how countries can strive together for peace, security and stability 
   across a whole continent.11 

While head of NATO, Solana was given the credit for holding the bickering allies together during the long bombing campaign directed against Serbia — something many didn’t think could be done.

But what most caught the approving eyes of the European leaders was the fact that Solana was personally responsible for talking Russia into allowing the NATO expansion. This expansion was something the Western leaders very much desired. 
Yet few in diplomatic circles thought Russia could ever be talked into letting former East Block countries become members of their rival military organization. But this is what Solana succeeded in doing.

It was reported that – after Solana worked out this agreement with Russia – he received a standing ovation at NATO headquarters in Brussels. The Western leaders credited Solana’s diplomacy for making possible the biggest change to Europe’s security since the Yalta Conference reshaped Europe at the end of World War II.12

But something Solana said near the end of his term as head of NATO should have shocked these Western leaders. In a moment of reflection, Solana actually referred to someone – possibly himself – as the “Head of the International Community.” At a press conference in Pristina, Kosovo, Solana said:

   A good part of my 4 years tenure as Secretary General of NATO has been 
   devoted to the Balkans and a good part devoted to Kosovo. You can image 
   with what emotion I am here today in Pristina for the last time in this capacity. 
   The challenges that lie ahead are immense. The tremendous tragedy of 
   Kosovo has been lived by many of you and many of us, but I think with good 
   will, with co-operation, with the visions of so many leaders here in Europe 
   and in the world, the Head of the International Community, with all that, we will 
   create the ingredients to create a new future for the population living here. You 
   can be sure that I will continue in my new capacity as High Representative of 
   Foreign and Security policy in the European Union, to engage which for me is 
   part of my life already.13

Constance Cumbey brought Solana's comment to my attention. She calls this press conference Solana’s “Head of the World” speech. And her point is well taken. Who did Solana mean when he referred to the “Head of the International Community?”  Was he referring to himself or to someone else?

No matter how much we choose to read into Solana’s words at that press conference one thing is clear – big changes are occurring to the balance of power on the European continent. And Javier Solana is right in the middle of them.

The resulting prosperity of Europe under this arrangement has brought forth many predictions of an ultimate United States of Europe which could eventually include not only Europe itself, but the Mediterranean world.14

Javier Solana was the first name I saw listed on the Barcelona Declaration. This document was adopted by the Council of Europe on November 1995 at a conference held in Madrid, Spain. The agreement created the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership for Peace. It established a large area of cooperation – including a free trade area – between the member states of the EU and twelve Mediterranean nations, including Israel.15

What interested me about the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership for Peace was that this kind of agreement was used to create the EU. It first began as a free-trade area known for a time as the Common Market. Gradually these nations began to integrate more deeply. Today, these European nations are hip-deep in a mire of confusing treaties binding them together in what has become known as the modern European Union.

In a persuasive speech, “Sleepwalking into the European Superstate,” an Englishman by the name of Sir James Goldsmith compared the current unification process going on in Europe to the events that created war-loving Prussia in 1834. 

Prussia gained control over her neighboring countries by first creating a free-trade area. From there, step by step, the nations lost their sovereignty to the Prussian bureaucrats. 

His speech was given as a warning. Goldsmith believes that the EU may be headed in the same direction as Prussia. Since the EU began as a free trade area – the European Common Market – Goldsmith believes the EU bureaucrats in Brussels could be using the same ploy as Prussia did to create a European Superstate.16

And part of the plans for the Superstate apparently include the Mediterranean since the EU is now attempting to extend its free trade area there. If their plans are successful, then once again the map of Europe would appear as it did during the time of Christ. The shadow of the Roman Empire would once again fall across Israel. And the ancient prophecies found in the Bible would again prove true.

As I mentioned, Javier Solana was the first name mentioned on the Barcelona Declaration. This agreement began a process of cooperation to create free trade between the 15 EU nations and the 12 Mediterranean nations – including Israel.

As a Foreign Minister in Spain, Solana held the rotating presidency of the Council of Europe the year of the Madrid Conference in 1995. He was very much involved with the details of the negotiations. We know this because Solana was credited with a bit of last-minute diplomacy during the conference that saved the day. When Syria and Israel were not able to come together on a sensitive issue, Solana came up with a compromise both nations were able to agree to.17

So Solana’s connection to the Middle East was established. He was personally playing a big role in the development of the EU’s foreign policy regarding the Mediterranean. I wondered how much more about this modern rebirth of the Roman Empire could be traced to Javier Solana. And I wondered how much more I was going to find linking Solana to Israel and the prophecies of the Bible. It was almost getting scary.

His god will be the god of fortresses. The antichrist will spend all his resources on military programs.18

This man will appear as a savior and deliverer. He will bring peace to world tension by settling the Arab-Israeli dispute by his united power.19

Without Solana’s personal intervention, Russia may never have agreed to NATO's eastward expansion. And without Russia’s approval, the European leaders’ new security plans would have been dangerous – if not impossible – to proceed with.

And here is where things started to get really prophetically interesting. A European Council’s decision at Helsinki gave Solana a mandate to create an independent army for the European Union by 2003.20 The EU heads of state, however, didn’t like calling it an army. They preferred to call it a military “capacity.”  The difference being, instead of a standing army, they were creating a “capacity” to draw forces from member states when needed. They also like to point out that the 15 nations that make up the EU do not have a mutual defense policy. They say NATO is available to the member states for this purpose. 

Yet no matter what they called it, everybody knew the EU was creating a European army. In fact, when Romano Prodi, the president of the European Commission, was jumped for using the "A-word," he snapped back: “When I was talking about the European army, I wasn’t joking. If you don’t want to call it a European army, don’t call it a European army. You can call it ‘Margaret’, you can call it ‘Mary Ann’, you can call it any name.”21

The official spin from Brussels was that the EU’s new military capacity would consist of 60,000 troops drawn from the member states. It was to be deployable for up to one year on a short notice. This force was only to be used for humanitarian and peacekeeping missions. Although Solana was told to have the force ready by 2003, he had only until the end of 2000 to work out the details.

Yet the Helsinki Council decision not only mandated that an independent military force be created, but it also called for the establishment of a “full range of crisis management capabilities.”  What this meant was that they also wanted Solana to establish non-military capacities. This non-military aspect would consist of civilian agencies that could distribute aid and disaster relief. It would also include a 5,000-officer paramilitary police force.

Like I said, this is where things got interesting. The EU heads of state wanted Solana to create a super police force to make and maintain world peace. According to Bible prophecy, this is how the Antichrist will rise to power – through a false peace program (Daniel 8:25).

The EU calls their missions to bring peace Petersberg Tasks. They identified these so-called Petersberg Tasks as humanitarian and rescue tasks, peacekeeping, crises management and peacemaking. And, they don’t plan on limiting these forces to the continent of Europe. They plan on deploying them anywhere in the world where they believe their interests are threatened.

A civil liberties organization in Europe, Statewatch, shares my concerns about the EU’s so-called Petersberg Tasks. In December 2000, they posted an online article, "Global 'Policing' Role for EU."  At the conclusion of the article they said:

   The distinction between the ‘defense’ of the EU (which is defined as NATO’s 
   job) and ‘peacekeeping [and] peacemaking’ is quite spurious. There are 
   genuine humanitarian situations where all the resources of the EU should be 
   used to save lives and there are also some situations where the UN has 
   authorized military interventions (controversial and otherwise). But the idea 
   that the EU should act independently (so-called ‘autonomous’) in military or 
   ‘non-military’ operations raises much bigger issues as does the use of non-
   military crises to ensure that the EU has ‘more reliable partners, more secure 
   investments’ (Solana).22

Consider what is being said. The reason the EU heads of state want Solana to create a military and non-military crisis management capacity is so they can force other nations into doing what they wish. Not only do they want military forces, but they also want a full range of non-military capabilities. These will include some kind of international police force.

What makes this even more frightening is that these are the kind of things the Antichrist is supposed to do in his rise to power. It is commonly believed that the Antichrist will come into his place of power through deceitful political maneuvering and false programs of peace. One reason people believe this is because of a passage in Daniel. Regarding the Antichrist Daniel said:

   And in the latter period of their rule, when the transgressors have run their 
   course, a king will arise, insolent and skilled in intrigue. And his power will be 
   mighty, but not by his own power, and he will destroy to an extraordinary 
   degree, and prosper and perform his will; he will destroy mighty men and the 
   holy people. And through his shrewdness he will cause deceit to succeed by 
   his influence; and he will magnify himself in his heart, and he will destroy 
   many while they are at ease. He will oppose the Prince of princes, but he will 
   be broken without human agency (Daniel 8:23-25).

While the New American Standard Bible says, “he will destroy many while they are at ease,” the King James Bible says, “and by peace shall destroy many.” And this appears to be the job description Solana has been given by the EU heads of state. He is to create for them a rapid reaction force and crisis management capacity. These combined forces are to be available for so-called Petersberg tasks – peacekeeping and peacemaking. And the EU wants these forces available anywhere in the world where its interests are threatened.

Things were getting quite interesting.

The final or third stage may be in a state of partial disintegration at the time of the second coming of Christ as indicated by the very fact that there is warfare and rebellion against the Roman ruler. 23

The creation of an independent European army brings Americans to an interesting question. In light of what we've been learning about the European Union’s ambitious new foreign policy, is war with our European allies a future possibility?

Even if Americans don’t think so, our allies might. According to an essay written by Carlos Masala, senior academic researcher for the Institute for Political Science and European Affairs at the University of Cologne, our European allies are already considering the possibility of such a conflict.

Masala believes a confrontation between the United States and the EU may be on the horizon because of the recent changes to the EU's foreign policy I’ve just mentioned — things most Americans aren't aware of.

One of the most important of these is the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership for Peace that came about because of the Barcelona Declaration. Masala acknowledges that the Barcelona Declaration is, in reality, a potentially global process for integrating other nations into the EU. The global process begins, however, with the 12 Mediterranean nations. And this could lead to problems with the United States.

As I’ve said before, the bottom line to America’s foreign policy in the Mediterranean area is the free flow of Arab oil. This is because any interruption in the oil supply would be a crisis to the American economy. So the United States could very well consider their vital interests threatened should they see the EU’s new foreign policy bearing any real fruit.

Another change that could stir up problems between the United States and Europe is the EU’s determination to create an independent military, led by its own High Representative. Many experts believe these moves will destroy NATO. In fact, on December 7, 2000, the Daily Telegraph reported that then U.S. Secretary of Defense William Cohen warned NATO ministers that if Europe continued with its plans for an independent military, then NATO would become a “relic of the past.”

By itself, the essay written by Masala would not have much importance. The problem is, his essay was published as an Occasional Paper by the Institute for Security Studies, a division of the Western European Union. In other words, this was an official paper for the 10 Brussels Treaty Powers that control the WEU and make up the EU’s new military.

Regarding the “worst case scenario” that could result because of all the recent changes to EU foreign policy – specifically the Barcelona process in regards to the Mediterranean area – Carlos Masala writes: “The Mediterranean region, especially the eastern Mediterranean would become an area of competition and maybe conflict between the former allies.”24

So, is the unthinkable occurring?  Are our European allies actually preparing for a possible conflict with the United States over the Mediterranean area? To me, the official reasons Brussels is giving us for forming an EU military do become suspect in light of the Euro-Mediterranean Partnership for Peace.

What are the official reasons coming out of Brussels? That depends on the audience. In a speech Solana gave to an audience concerned about the future of EU-NATO relations, he said, “The creation of a European Security and Defense Policy is aimed at strengthening, not weakening transatlantic ties. By pulling its full weight, the European Union will contribute to transatlantic relations by better sharing the burden of security.”25

Yet, in a speech at a Madrid university, Solana emphasized humanitarian concerns as the reason for creating an EU military. He said:

   The European Union is thus equipping itself for better crisis management ... 
   What we need now, is to supply the Union – as such – with the means and 
   the capacity to act in the field: whether for logistic purposes; or to protect 
   humanitarian staff and convoys; or to get access to the victims, in cases 
   where this would otherwise prove impossible. It is why the member states of 
   the European Union have committed themselves in Helsinki to the 
   deployment of a force of 60,000 military personnel, to be drawn from the 
   member states, by the year 2003.26

So, after 50 years of depending on the United States for security, why are our European allies suddenly willing to spend their citizens’ hard earned money for an independent military capacity?  They tell us it is to strengthen NATO. They also say it’s because of their global humanitarian concerns. And, perhaps, we still have friends in Europe who really believe this.

But, as we've been seeing, the prophecies in the Bible indicate there may be forces at work that have other plans for the EU’s new crises management capabilities. And these forces are definitely not our friends. I’m referring, of course, to those wicked spiritual forces that make up the mystery of lawlessness.

Since Javier Solana has become such an important player in the EU, I wanted to find out all I could about him. Here are some of the things I learned.

He was born on July 14, 1942, to an influential family in Madrid, Spain – a country bordering the Mediterranean. In his college days, he was kicked out of school because of his participation in anti-NATO demonstrations. His family managed to press the right buttons, and he was allowed to continue his education.

He earned his doctorate in physics as a Fulbright scholar at several American universities. While in America he witnessed the demonstrations over Vietnam and civil rights and looks back to these events with fondness.27  But he was afraid to participate because he wasn’t a citizen. While in America he also met and married his wife, Concepcion.

After completing his education, he and his wife moved back to Spain. Solana became a professor of solid-state physics at Madrid Complutense University. During his time there, he published more than 30 technical books on the subject.

In 1964, Solana joined the Spanish Socialist Party. From there, he rose to become a member of Parliament in 1974. When the Socialists came into power in 1982, he was appointed a Spanish Cabinet Minister. He held a Cabinet position in Spain until 1995, when he was appointed Secretary General of NATO – the organization he once tried to destroy.

And here is a bit of information that may prove important to our understanding of how the prophecies could relate to this man. Javier Solana just happens to be a member of the Spanish chapter of the Club of Rome.28

1. J. Dwight Pentecost, Prophecy For Today (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House,1961) 90.
2. Peter Ford, “Now U.S. can ring up Mr. Europe,” Christian Science Monitor, 4 June 1999, vol. 91, issue 132.
3. Derek Brown, “Who Holds the Reins of Power in Europe?,” special report: EU integration, 29 November 2000, Guardian Unlimited, Internet: http://www.guardian.co.
4. Antonio Missiroli (2000, February)  “CFSP, Defense and Flexibility” [Chaillot Paper 38] Western European Union, Institute for Securities Studies, Internet:http://www.weu.int.
5. H. L Willmington, Willmington’s Guide to the Bible, 563.
6. Jay Branegan, “A Straight-Shooting Spaniard at NATO,” Time, 13 January 1997, vol. 149 No.2, Europe.
7. Ibid.
8. “NATO Handbook,” 1998 edition, NATO, Internet: http://www.nato.int
9. NATO (1999, April 24) “The Alliance’s Strategic Concept”  [press release], Internet: http://www.nato.int.
10. Strobe Talbott, “The Birth of the Global Nation,” Time, 20 July 1992.
11. Javier Solana (1999, January 11) “NATO Agenda towards the Washington Summit” [speech] NATO, Internet: http://www.nato.int.
12. James Walsh, “A Done Deal,” Time, 26 May 1997, vol. 149 No. 21, Europe.
13. Javier Solana, (1999, September 27) “KFOR Press Conference by the NATO   Secretary General” [transcript] NATO, Internet:
 http://www.nato.int/kosovo/press/1999/k990927b.htm.
14. John F. Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, 93.
15. European Union, “Barcelona Declaration” (1995, September 27-28) Europa, Internet: http://www.europa.eu.int.
16. Sir. James Goldsmith (1996) “Sleepwalking into the European Superstate” [speech] Free Britain, Internet: http://www.freebritain.co.uk
17.  Benjamin Jones, “Javier Solana,” [profile] Europe magazine, Feb 1996, issue 353, 25,1p, 1c.
18. H. L. Willmington, Willmington’s Guide to the Bible, 242.
19. J. Dwight Pentecost, Prophecy For Today, 90.
20. European Union (1999, December 11-12) “Helsinki European Council” 
[presidency conclusion] Europa, Internet: http://www.europa.eu.int.
21. George Kerevan, “E.U. Marching Towards a Confederation Army,” The Scotsman, 21 November 2000, 1.
22.  Statewatch News Online, “Global ‘Policing’ Role for EU,” Statewatch News Online, Internet: http://www.statewatch.org.
23. John F. Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy, 89.
24. Carlos Masala, “XIV. Four Scenarios for the Relationship between the EMP and NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue,” published in Martin Ortega, ed. (2000, March) “The Future of the Euro-Mediterranean Security Dialogue,” [Occasional Papers] Western European Union, Institute for Security Studies, Internet: http://www.weu.int.
25. Solana (2000, November 8) “The Foreign Policy of the EU — Liberal International — The Hague,” [speech] Europa, Internet; http://www.europa.eu.int.
26. Solana (2000, July 7) “Inaugural Conference of the Course ‘Towards a New
International Morality: the Humanitarian Interventions,’” [speech] Europa, Internet: http://www.europa.eu.int.
28. Jay Branegan, “A Straight-Shooting Spaniard at NATO,” Time, 13 January 1997, Vol. 149 No. 2, Europe.
29. Europa, Internet: http://www.europa.eu.int.