01 April 2018

Cracks in the Atlantic Wall


What were once subtle signals of fissures in the Atlantic alliance are becoming more pronounced. I refer here to Atlanticism, the belief that Europe and America have a mutual need, values and destiny. This is a deeper and more pervasive concept that transcends military alliances like NATO. This relationship involves not just military but cultural and economic alliances.


Everyone acknowledges this relationship is especially close between Washington and London and yet since the end of World War II, Bonn and then a united Berlin, Rome, Madrid and to a degree Paris have all looked to and relied upon the United States and deemed it essential to European prosperity and security.
There have always been some Europeans that resent this relationship and view it as forced, even imposed. But apart from men like Charles de Gaulle most European leaders have supported the concept. Today, there are signals that some of Europe's leading politicians and intellectuals are beginning to seriously question Atlanticism, its institutions and assumptions.
And yet even this assertion cannot be made without qualification. The European Union (it is safe to say) is somewhat divided at the moment. The pro-Atlantic factions still dominate but the Continental Secessionists (for want of a better term) are quietly gaining strength.
The Secessionist project which continues to seek a truly autonomous European Union was the object of scorn during America's push for unipolarity in the 1990's. It was viewed as schismatic and revisionist and not a few in North America expressed bitterness toward nations that from their perspective had been 'lifted up' by the United States only to spurn its leadership and authority. During the dawn of computer age globalisation the new Trans-European economy and the new order of the European Union were viewed as a threat to US hegemony and unipolarity.
During the 1990's great strides were made to legitimise NATO and give it a new security mandate, often with a humanitarian gloss. While some within the European Establishment were eager to put the Cold War behind them, disband NATO and inaugurate a new era of European glory, there were others who believed that Cold War victories needed to be consolidated and relied on Atlanticist institutions to this end. Eastern Europe was quickly appropriated and began to be militarised. The Balkans were mostly subjugated but the elephant in the room was Russia.
Some can be forgiven if by the mid-to-late 1990's they viewed the 'Russia Question' as less than pressing. The nation was broken and corrupt, a plutocracy run by oligarchs and mafia figures. The United States had a proxy in Boris Yeltsin. There was little to fear. In the corridors of Washington, the sources of apprehension were Beijing and an increasingly powerful Brussels.
September 11th changed everything and while the Atlanticist European Deep State, its military and intelligence establishments (largely dominated by the US) were quick to submit to Washington's dictates, there were those in the political class that grew quite leery of Bush-era policies, particularly with regard to the Middle East. They had no quarrel with the notion of Western Supremacy (and even Neo-Colonialism in the developing world) but they took great umbrage at Bush's doctrine and style and they feared (with warrant) that his Iraq policy would tear apart the fabric of the Middle East.
It was during this period that the power centres of Brussels, Paris and Berlin began to look with earnest and greater unity toward a post-American world order, a return to multi-polarity, an era in which Europe could return to its historic geopolitical position. The ghost of Charles de Gaulle no doubt haunted their hearts and minds as they looked toward London which more than ever seemed to have become not only an American proxy but almost its lap-dog. De Gaulle saw the danger back in the 1960's and repeatedly blocked the UK's entrance into the Common Market or EEC, the predecessor organisation that would in the 1990's become the European Union.
He knew that London represented the American vote within the EU bureaucracy. Suspicions mounted and yet by the end of the Bush era the world was thrown into financial crisis which once again changed the nature and character of the debate.
The Obama era opened up a period of new possibilities. Atlanticism was revived yet again, albeit in weaker form. Broken bridges were mended and a still powerful America took on a more humble posture. Iraq had proven a disaster in military and diplomatic terms. The US economy was also shaken. Outwardly the United States had been knocked down a few pegs which allowed for not only greater parity but cooperation. The European project itself was under threat and many within the Establishment were now fearful of economic strife, resurgent nationalism, immigration and Moscow's attempts to check NATO/European expansion in the East. By 2008, the United States had reached a new low in its international standing. Bush left office in disgrace and defeat, a pariah under whom the world order was rent asunder and the global economy was left in a state of crisis, seemingly teetering on the edge of a cliff.
The absurd granting of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama in 2009 was among other things a clarion call to revive Atlanticism and re-bolster its vision and institutions. While Obama mended many fences he proved a massive disappointment.
For many democratic activists there was a moment of optimism as the Middle East rejected both the West and the Islamists in 2010-11. And yet these attempts at grass roots democracy were quickly corrupted and in some cases deliberately so. A new phase of the duplicitous War on Terror was born in the NATO sponsored regime-change in Libya, the coup in Egypt and the fomenting of civil war in Syria. Iraq soon descended into chaos, new waves of terror erupted and even Africa was astir as people fled the multitude of secret and proxy wars being fought in their midst.
Throughout all these trials and travails, these ups and downs there have been two minds at work within the European Establishment. Some have firmly believed in Atlanticism and a minority among them has (through all the storms) stayed true to the alliance with Washington. Other Atlanticists have vacillated and have experienced a virtual roller-coaster of emotions. Some were ready to turn their backs on Atlanticism in the 1990's and early 2000's but were ready to re-embrace the project in the age of Obama.
But now with the Trump Administration in office, the Secessionists are beginning to emerge once more. The desire for a truly independent Europe seems almost within their grasp... indeed it may even become a necessity. They believe the United States has betrayed them on multiple occasions. The ghosts of the 1990's Gladio scandal loom large. Though it's not talked about openly and was completely ignored by the American press, the revelations of US duplicity sent shockwaves across the European Establishment. After the Bush administration's antics and Obama era spying on European leaders, no one trusts Washington. There are hints once again of Deep State double-dealing in the recent spate of terrorist attacks. There are suspicions of ISIS connections to the Deep State. Weapons run by the US through its Eastern European proxies (Rumsfeld's 'New' Europe) repeatedly find their way into terrorist hands.
Europe has been forced to rely on the United States for its security and yet Trump has signalled that he won't stand by the mutual protection and security provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty. During the 1990's many US bases were closing across Europe, but now there's a proliferation of new bases, this time in the East.
Paris and Berlin in particular have long desired to re-assert themselves and recapture their historical Great Power roles. This can never happen in an Atlanticist framework. This desire is not just born of historical bitterness or a sense of wounded pride. These nations sit atop the EU's political and economic system and as such they want to chart their own course and pursue their own self-interests... and not the interests of Washington which are often counter to their own desired paths.
In the case of a nation like Germany, they've reached something of a limiting wall. Until they are free to pursue an independent foreign policy and are able to promote their own military-industrial footprint, they cannot continue to grow. Stagnation in a global capitalist economy signals an onset of decay and death. You're either growing or dying, gaining or losing. You cannot just reach a point of contentment or stasis. This is true of nations, corporations and individuals. This unfortunate principle is at the very heart of techno-industrial capitalist economics.
Whether one considers the dreams of the Berlin and Parisian elite to be legitimate aspirations or not, they nevertheless represent the mindset of those who run nations. And indeed, no one in the United States can take the moral high ground when it comes to such questions.
There is also the question of Russia and the designs of Vladimir Putin. The Atlanticist Establishment is promoting the Anti-Putin campaign and its being used to bolster the relationship with Washington... although this has been thrown into confusion with ascent of Donald Trump.
Consequently some Atlanticists are in a state of doubt. NATO seems weak and unreliable, the United States is in a state of volatility and social crisis. Tariffs and warmongering have placed Europe in jeopardy. Everyone knows that if a conventional war is fought between NATO and Russia it will be on European soil, rekindling the old tradition of Battleground Europe... a legacy most would like to leave buried in the grave.
For the Secessionist, this is the moment to strike. For the first time since the Bush Administration there's a chance to win over the doubting element among the Atlanticists. Trump is for them a gift. His warmongering and tariffs only strengthen their position. These leaders want to subtly begin breaking ties with the US, build a NATO independent European military force and pursue self-interested economic policies without reference to Washington.
And most important... Britain no longer has a voice. It cannot block Continental aspirations. Washington's lynchpin has been removed and the wheels are about to come off.
And for some, rather than antagonise resurgent Russia, they want to build bridges. They do not see Putin's Russia as a USSR-reborn. For strategic and economic reasons they want to maintain friendly relations with Moscow and seek a modus vivendi. In terms of Russia's transformation, they would pursue the long game. Students of history, they do not embrace the delusion that Russia can become a Western Democracy... at least not for a few more generations. In the meantime, a stable moderately pro-Western Moscow is desirable. Rapprochement with Putin would also afford an opportunity to put some distance between Brussels and Washington.
What are their secessionist goals with regard to the EU? These men are not Eurosceptics, they are not in league with the Far Right parties and nationalists like Viktor Orban though in some cases they can make use of them. Will they restructure the European Union? That's possible, especially if they want it to survive.
The secessionists are not in any kind of full agreement and this may be their undoing. Centre-Right figures like Jean-Claude Juncker clearly want to find friendly ground with Putin and yet at the same time support immigration. Sigmar Gabriel and Jean-Luc Melenchon hold similar views but at the same time Melenchon is highly critical of the EU and has no wish to see Paris wed to Berlin. Gabriel has angered the US in calling for parliamentary reform in the UN which would effectively break the power of the Security Council (UNSC) and has rejected the Pentagon's call to increase NATO spending. French president Emmanuel Macron supports the EU but also supports a NATO-independent military and more cordial relations with Russia. Like many French leaders he too would pursue a somewhat independent course that will frustrate Berlin and at times anger Washington. Other political movements like Italy's M5S and Spain's Podemos vacillate depending on the winds of the moment.
Why write about this? Why should we as Christians care about these issues?
Because tensions are growing and the society we live in is becoming increasingly volatile. Basic Beliefs and ethics are sure to be challenged and then there's the question of allegiance.
I'm not speaking of allegiance to the state. The New Testament is clear. We are citizens of the Holy Kingdom of Zion. I would argue contrary to the various promoters of Christian Sacralism that the New Testament does not teach a robust and civically engaged Christian citizenship. It teaches us to view the state as a necessary evil in a fallen world, an evil restraining evil that we're not to be part of. But because it is necessary and a component of God's Providential and temporary means of restraining chaos in this time-between-the times we are nevertheless to acknowledge the state's utility. We pay taxes and obey the laws as far as it is possible. Patriotism is a form idolatry and the notion that a Christian would don the badge or uniform of the state and become its enforcer is absurd and clearly in contrast with Paul's teachings in Romans 12-13 and other passages like 1 Thessalonians 5 and 1 Corinthians 5.
The Christian has no 'duty' to the state. The reference to obligation in Romans 13 is usually understood in terms of financial debt and that may be applicable but primarily Paul's concern is with regard to the Christian's relationship with the state and fiscal questions of tax. Apart from our first duty to our Brethren, our next obligation is to our neighbour a concept which transcends state allegiance. We live by a higher law and are governed by a different way of viewing the world.
This of course has been not only misunderstood by the Sacralist tradition but in the wake of the modern nation state it has been wholeheartedly rejected. Christians have become nationalists and partisans and have thanks to the wolves leading the Evangelical movement, lost sight of many basic truths revealed in the New Testament.
The question of Europe's relationship with the United States is important because it deals with questions of allegiance and even the threat of war. Passions are stirred and Christians, especially those blinded by the false teachings (and teachers) of Sacralist Christianity will certainly be led astray in how they think about and respond to these questions.
American Evangelicalism is filled with what I call 'Euro-bashers'. Sometimes they're Anglophile members of what I have also called the 'Churchill Cult' and in other cases they're not. Popular figures like Albert Mohler come to mind. At every opportunity he unleashes a scathing critique of Continental Europe and its values. He is especially embittered by what he perceives as Europe's treachery and lack of gratitude expressed toward the noble and sacrificial United States. No friend to Christ's Kingdom he is but one of many myth promoters who mislead God's flock by teaching a mixed allegiance and rank idolatry vis-à-vis the American state.
These lies and toxic manipulations reached a frenzy in the post-September 11 years. Evangelical pulpits and radio waves thundered against Europe and its lack of zeal for US imperialism was decried as secularism run amok, liberal weakness and a betrayal of the Western-Christian heritage. France became the target of particular ire and even today I hear so-called pastors of God's flock taking jabs from the pulpit at a France that is not sufficiently bellicose. Its virtue is questioned because it doesn't always stand with Washington and because it surrendered in 1940. Yes, these are the issues that really matter, Kingdom issues to be sure. We have Christians wallowing in ignorance of basic Biblical doctrine but they sure know their politics (or think they do) and to bash on France. During 2002-2003 it practically became a mark of piety. It was disgusting.
It was an ugly and disgraceful time. I remember wanting to retreat to the wilds, no longer desiring any kind of 'Christian' contact. Christ's warning about love growing cold became very real to me during that season.
From a worldly perspective it's not hard to understand why European leaders would want to 'secede' from and weaken (or even break) Atlanticism. I can't blame them.
My fear is not for Europe or America. I put no stock in the myth of the Judeo-Christian West or the heresy of Christendom. As one once deeply steeped in nationalism, a lover of history and Old World tradition one of the hardest things has been to 'break' with this way of thinking and attempt to see the world through Kingdom-eyes... a vision, a 'worldview' that transcends nations, cultures and even time as it is commonly thought of.
Only a century ago there were still Fundamentalists (for all their errors) who were able to think in these terms. They did not fall for the propaganda that led up to World War I and consequently were castigated by the American ecclesiastical and political Establishment. They were called traitors and pacifists, disloyal and subversive. On these points their testimony shone forth and condemned the prostituted Mainline Churches and even Confessional Churches.
But they lost their way in the wake of the war. Communism's shadow loomed in the post-war period, and the first Red Scare of the late teens and early 1920's affected them. By the time World War II broke out the old convictions has been lost and within a few years the new Evangelical movement would begin to quickly absorb these elements. The old principles of separation would be all but annihilated and reduced to cultural taboos about alcohol and tobacco. Apart from these scruples the new Evangelicals would become Cold War nationalists and capitalist zealots. This was the genesis of the Christian Right.
But as Christians we should be Internationalist in our thinking. This term is criticised because it smacks of communism, world government or maybe even the ecumenical movement. These anti-Christian movements are certainly wrong but like most philosophical systems they from time to time get something right. Sometimes there are things can be learned from their critiques. When I say Internationalist I am in no way suggesting the Internationalist or Trans-nationalist Church is going to solve the world's problems or create a socio-political order that will bind nations together. I mean nothing of the sort.
This age will continue to be plagued by nation rising up against nation, wars and rumours of war. That will not change and we shouldn't expect it to. Internationalist solutions, let alone nationalist ones are not going to change that or protect anyone. Likewise fortress-oriented thinking focusing on secure borders, guns, armies and the power of threat are visceral worldly responses that have nothing to do with the New Testament's ethics, imperatives or ethos.
Our sole allegiance is to Zion, the Kingdom of Heaven. As such our heavenly citizenship, loyalty and allegiance is to our Brethren across the globe. Contrary to the blind and deceptive teachers that dominate Evangelical and Confessional circles we shouldn't care about US interests vis-à-vis Europe and we certainly shouldn't care about or support the aspirations of Washington, Wall Street, NATO, Brussels, London or any other man-made construct that seeks in whatever capacity to rebuild the Tower of Babel.
Surveying the geopolitical scene and monitoring world events is warranted because we need to understand the times and grasp what movements and ideas seek to shape our thinking. We are bombarded by propaganda and information that seeks to manipulate how we think. Many enemies spew anti-Christian filth from 'conservative' pulpits and positions of ecclesiastical authority. They teach in seminaries and have radio and television shows and produce podcasts. Christian leaders should be teaching their flocks how to think and work through these things. They should be teaching them what the Bible actually says and how to apply it to our lives. Instead they are (for the most part) part of the prostituted 'Church', the bejeweled harlot in union with the Beast project. They are the masters of what Revelation 11 describes as the spiritual Sodom and Egypt, the false prophets that rule New Testament Ecclesiastical Israel and yet reject the Gospel and the witness of the remnant true Church.
Though some of them reject Donald Trump and much of what he stands for they have nevertheless set the stage for him and the worse things that are sure to come.
War and rumours of wars characterise this age. The student of history can see there is trouble on the horizon. The attempts to protect the world from global war in the wake of 1945 are collapsing and may soon enter free-fall... think of the video footage of the three Trade Center towers collapsing on 9/11. Once things enter that stage, chaos will ensue and many Christians will lose their way and give way to idolatrous fanaticism.
It happened during the world wars and during the controlled chaos of the Cold War. And sadly it happens even today wherever war breaks out.
This is what I fear.
Some will see this shift in Europe as a harbinger of fascism's return. Resurgent nationalism, militarism, anti-immigrant sentiment and romanticised tradition suggest this. How long before irredentism and overt racial bigotry come to the fore?
Will Christians in these nations succumb to these bestial impulses and turn on their immigrant brethren? Will they put nation over the welfare of Christians in other countries? Will fellow Bible-believing Christians turn on one another due to national allegiance? It's happened before.
Fascism is a slippery term and a difficult concept and apart from the many deceptive attempts on the Right to completely invert and redefine it, even scholars cannot agree as to what exactly it is in its essence.
Umberto Eco's well known essay on Ur-Fascism is helpful though not above critique. It's a starting point. Utilising his basic parameters and concepts it is clear that Atlanticist Secessionism is not fascism.
What is it then? It's a form of triangulation seeking to integrate Trans--nationalism within an Intra-European framework. Thus it takes on certain nationalist aspects. One thinks of the debate over whether or not Turkey should be admitted to the EU. And yet at the same time it is committed to trans-nationalism. A distinction between Trans-Nationalism and pure Internationalism might be helpful in understanding the framework.
Does resurgent militarism and a push toward imperialism (under the guise of humanitarian intervention and stability) represent a fascist impulse? It does but at that point what we're really discussing is not Atlanticist Secessionism but the nature of the modern nation-state/capitalist order.
The European political spectrum is diverse and complex. Fascism is certainly emerging from the shadows and some see it on the horizon. Can the rejection of Atlanticism play a part in this? Certainly but not necessarily and to label Secessionists as potential fascists is misleading. It is a case of fallacy of the converse. Just because there are elements of fascism in Secessionist thinking it does not follow they are fascists or that it is a fascist movement. By that estimation and reckoning one can find fascism in every Western political order.
While I discount such arguments I will nevertheless acknowledge that fascism exists and is becoming increasingly pervasive. Eco's essay is helpful because when talking about Italian Fascism he delineates the main concepts but also acknowledges variants. Not all fascists were anti-capitalists like Ezra Pound. Not all were caught up in folklore and European mythology but some were.
These are complicated questions and yet all these issues weave in and out of the fabric of the Western Church. Here I speak broadly in terms of the larger Established and Mainline bodies, Rome, Evangelicalism and the many smaller groups within the Evangelical spectrum still devoted to New Testament teaching. As Christians we need to be thinking, watching and waiting. We live in perilous times and a time in which great things are afoot. The war is spiritual. All Christians acknowledge this but most still think in terms of politics, nations, wealth and power. These things are but a component of the larger struggle and though they cannot be ignored they risk becoming dangerous distractions.
With regard to Europe, one thing is absolutely clear, the current leadership no longer trusts Washington. Trump isn't the source of this distrust but represents for many, the final straw.
Will European Christians sell out to the EU? Will they embrace nationalism? Will they fall for a new Judeo-Christian Western mythology?
Will American Christians succumb to nationalism and put nation over Church? Will they support militarism in the face of declining American power? Will they support a global order that foments war and exploits the poor in the developing world?
Will they turn off the talking heads, and the false teachers of 'worldview' and instead return to Scripture, revisiting it and the history of the past two thousand years? Rather than re-capture a mythologised version of the Magisterial Reformation, we desperately a need a new one based more firmly on Biblical concepts and categories.