I called one of my brothers in England early in December. He asked me what I thought of the "Big Debate." Assuming that he was referring to the election impasse in Florida that was dominating our nightly news, I began to share my opinions, only to be interrupted by his saying, "No, not that. The big debate." I hesitated, trying to think of what he might be referring to. Having been cut off from the rest of the world by the American media that seems incapable of focusing on more than one major issue at a time, I wasn't sure. I had to ask.

"The European Rapid Reaction Force, that's the big debate over here!"

Sure enough. A few days later my weekly Spectator magazine arrived from London and carried its own article on "The Big Debate" that had started millions of people talking about something that could, in time, fundamentally alter the postwar balance of power and change the direction of the United Kingdom for decades to come. Not only the United Kingdom, either-all of Europe and North America could be in for some big changes.

The announcement that triggered the big debate was the formation of the Rapid Reaction Force by the nations of the European Union. What is at stake is the future of the NATO alliance that has united the democratic nations of North America and western Europe for over 50 years and given all participants unparalleled peace and prosperity. The concern for America is that U.S. domination of the alliance may be coming to an end-that the European Rapid Reaction Force may be the beginning of the end for the EU-U.S. alliance. Concern in Washington led to the U.S. Secretary of Defense visiting Brussels to talk with European leaders.

An article in Britain's conservative Daily Mail newspaper showed that Prince Charles, the heir to the British throne who is not supposed to get directly involved in politics, is expressing his own grave concerns about the development of the new European military force, fearing that it will be the end of Britain's military alliance with America, which goes back to World War II. When asked for her opinions on the new force, former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher said: "I prefer NATO."

Nothing is imminent. The multinational force is not expected to be fully in place for three years. It will have only 60,000 troops in operation at any time, with an operational force of 90,000. The force is to be used in emergencies like the 1999 situation in Kosovo or the former ethnic conflicts throughout the Balkans, a region in Europe's own backyard. Its emphasis will be on humanitarian and peacekeeping responsibilities. The concerns being expressed are about where the rapid reaction force may be leading.

It was the continuing breakup of the former Yugoslavia during the '90s that exposed Europe's military weakness and dependency on the United States. Americans have been saying that Europe needs to do more and help the United States cut down on its military expenses in Europe. Europeans have been reminded on a number of occasions that they are as rich as the United States and should be willing to devote more of their GNPs to defense.

At the same time, while the United States has a huge deficit on its international trade, most European nations have a surplus. This means that the United States needs to cut expenditures overseas while the Europeans should be able to spend more. The EU's population also exceeds that of the United States, and most of the nations that make up the EU have compulsory military service, unlike the United States which is suffering a manpower shortage. The idea, therefore, of a European Rapid Reaction Force sounds logical. It makes sense. The traditionally independent-minded French, who have been in the driver's seat of the EU for the past six months, have been pushing for this. The big question is: Who will control the rapid reaction force? The United States is naturally concerned that American leadership of the Western world may be in question. America's recent electoral woes have contributed to this fear-will the new U.S. president have difficulty leading the West when his "credentials" have been contested so much at home?

Other European developments

The Rapid Reaction Force is not the only recent development in Europe. The December summit of EU leaders in Nice, France, shows a more urgent commitment to European expansion and European political unity. Also the increasing strength of the euro against the dollar amidst fears of a slowdown in the U.S. economy could lead to a loss of confidence in the United States to lead the free world.

Following the Nice summit, the BBC World Service's "Analysis" program raised the possibility of a new European superpower as it asked the following question: "In 1990 there were two superpowers. Now there is only one. Could there soon be another?" It was the first time this listener had heard Europe referred to as a superpower (though in the sense of a potential superpower). The BBC went on to state that any two superpowers will inevitably have areas of conflict and specifically mentioned the Middle East as an area of potential conflict between the United States (Israel's main supporter) and the EU (which tends to support the Palestinians).

The idea of a European superpower to rival or even surpass the United States is not an unrealistic one. At the turn of the last century the European powers dominated the globe. Great Britain was the world's most powerful nation. Germany, France, Austria and Russia were the other great ruling powers. Twice in the first half of the 20th century the central European Axis powers threatened the peace of the world-their second attempt at world conquest almost succeeded.

Throughout history different leaders have tried to forcibly bring about a united Europe. Because they used force they ended up fighting internal battles as well as wars with nations outside of Europe who were threatened by them. Napoleon and Hitler were recent examples of this drive to revive the idea of a united Europe, which goes back to the days of the Roman Empire.

In the prophetic Old Testament book of Daniel there is a prophecy of the four great gentile empires that would dominate the world between the time of Daniel and the establishment of the Kingdom of God. The fourth empire, the Roman system, was to be a dominant force in the world down to the second coming of the Messiah (Daniel 7:23-27). Revelation chapter 17 shows that there will be another resurrection of this system before Christ's return, and this union will lead right into the second coming of the Messiah (Revelation 17:12-14).

All previous attempts at European unification ultimately failed because they were dictatorships that used force and acted against the best interests of the people.

Aware of the mistakes of the past, today's European leaders are building a united Europe peacefully-no one man is trying to conquer the continent for his own ends. This means that the new Europe is coming together more slowly, but the hope is that it will be without many of the internal divisions and conflicts that characterized previous attempts at unification. Many of today's European leaders are inspired by the Emperor Charlemagne, crowned by the pope in 800 A.D., who had a vision of a united Christian Europe that would return the continent to the glory of ancient Rome. An annual Charlemagne prize is awarded by European leaders to the individual who has contributed the most to the idea of European unity in the past year. In 2000, U.S. President Bill Clinton became the third American recipient.

Leaders at the Nice summit pledged themselves to speed up the admission of new members to the EU which, by 2010, will likely have 28 members rather than the current 15. This cannot be achieved overnight. The countries requesting membership are all poorer than the average EU member. There are concerns that their economies could slow down EU momentum and that more prosperous EU countries could be swamped with millions of immigrants from new member nations seeking a higher standard of living. But EU members are pledged to welcome these new nations as full members. It's only a matter of time. The EU began as six countries in 1957 and has slowly expanded to the current 15.

The building of the new Europe has certainly taken time. As an article in a recent issue of the Spectator put it: "…the process of integration never stops…. Construction of the European Union resembles a glacier-you never see it moving. But at some point somebody has to sit up and say that it has moved" ("Season of Myths," by Sarah Helm, Spectator, November 25, 2000).

The glacier has certainly been moving. One thing today is very clear-European unity is an idea whose time has come.

The euro's slow progress

Nowhere is this fact better illustrated than with the euro, the EU's 11-member single currency launched two years ago. The transition from national currencies to one currency for the euro zone countries has been a difficult one, with the euro steadily sinking in value against the U.S. dollar even before euro coins and banknotes are actually in peoples' pockets. But this decline was reversed, at least temporarily, in December with heightened concern about the U.S. economy. Interestingly, the dollar continued to fall on international markets even after the election issue was resolved and George W. Bush was declared the new president-elect. Normally, a Republican victory would be seen as good for the world economy. This time the reaction has been much more cautious on international financial markets.

The euro may still have some serious challenges ahead, but the European member states remain committed to it in the enthusiastic drive toward European unity. With the recent addition of Greece as a member, 12 of the 15 EU members are now in the euro zone. There have been a number of advantages to the euro for member nations, mostly in the corporate bond market and in promoting trade between members who no longer have to hold back due to fears of fluctuating currency values. In January 2002 citizens will start to use the new coins and notes. Six months later the old currencies will cease to circulate. The continuing U.S. trade deficit is seen internationally as an indicator of a further weakening of the U.S. dollar. The dollar is not about to lose its preeminent role in world financial markets, but any weakening in the value of the dollar (thought to be necessary to correct the trade deficit) will benefit other major currencies.

European countries have been content to do nothing about the U.S. trade deficit as so many European companies were quite happy to use their surplus dollars to buy up American companies. But now that corporate profits are down in the United States, there is no use for those extra dollars and attention has focused on structural weaknesses in the American economy.

Europhiles vs. Europhobes

While most people on the continent of Europe are either enthused about the prospect of further European integration or at least willing to let it happen, there are many in the United Kingdom who are very skeptical, even fearful of further unity. There has always been an ambivalent attitude in the British Isles to Europe. The country has long had two factions-one can be called Europhiles; the other, Europhobes. Those who love Europe and those who don't.

For most of the last 450 years following the Protestant Reformation, the British saw their security and future beyond the seas, away from Europe. There was a determination to stay out of European affairs unless a European nation was threatening the peace and balance of power in Europe (France under Napoleon, Germany under the Second and Third Reich).

This started to change in the 20th century, as is illustrated by comparing the international interests of Britain's monarchs during the century. King Edward VII (1901-10) concentrated on building European ties, while his mother, Queen Victoria, had made the Empire her main focus of attention. Edward's son King George V (1910-36) again concentrated on the Empire, as did his successor King George VI (1936-52). Queen Elizabeth II began her reign in 1952 with the Empire and Commonwealth her main focus, but Europe has been increasingly important since Britain entered the European Common Market almost 30 years ago.

There are those in Britain who are very committed to the idea of a united Europe. They have had the upper hand for the last three decades. But there are those who are at best skeptical of European union and increasingly hostile to it. They see the EU as an increasing threat to Britain's independence and way of life. Asleep for most of the last 30 years, they are now waking up to the full implications of EU membership-loss of financial independence followed by loss of sovereignty.

The creation of the Rapid Reaction Force and the future of the euro are the two major issues for those opposed to the idea of a European super state. One could end Britain's close military alliance with the United States, which has been the foundation of Britain's defenses since the end of its empire. The other would remove Britain's control over its own finances, effectively giving control of its economy to foreign powers-ironically, the very powers Britain has fought the most in the last 300 years. WNP