Signs Of The Times (Part 235 of 0)

Signs of the Times – Part unknown

“Does France need de Gaulle?” During the past decade this question has been asked by the French people and nations throughout the world. Soon after his rise to power in 1958 de Gaulle answered the question himself with the statement, “I am France”. In the opening lines of his war memoirs, Charles de Gaulle wrote these words, “All my life I have thought of France in a certain way . . . as chosen for an exalted and exceptional destiny”.

The prominent position that France plays in European and world affairs is due almost entirely to the dreams of de Gaulle. His motto was, “France is only France when she is first rank”. During the past ten years, through his tremendous energy, his strong will and influence with the people he has developed France into a front rank nation. It only requires a brief review of history to realize what he has accomplished.

At the end of World War II France was liberated by the Allies and a provisional government was set up with de Gaulle as premier. There was so much bickering among the many political par­ties, he resigned in disgust. From then until 1958 numerous governments were set up. Each one in turn ended in failure and turned the reins of government over to another aspiring group. As conditions in the country approached anarchy it was realized the only hope of survival was under the leadership of Charles de Gaulle. Consequently in June 1958 he was appointed President of France. Under his guidance a constitution was adopted for the new government and France became stable for the first time in many years. She has continued to grow in economic and political standing throughout the world until this present time.

President de Gaulle always proceeded with strong goals in mind and almost single-handedly led France to the accomplishment of these aspirations. His goals were to make France an independent and dominant power, accompanied by the decrease of influence by the United States and Britain in Europe.

On April 28, 1969 Charles de Gaulle, after 11 years of rule, resigned as President of France, following an election of the people which failed to support his political proposals. Observers state that the resignation was based entirely on pride as the French constitution had not required him to tie his political future to his proposed reform program.

Now the question arises, what will France be without de Gaulle? There are many policies of France, particularly in international matters that have been adopted almost on his own by de Gaulle. Many of the policies do not have complete support of the various political factions or the common people generally, and it is almost certain there will be some changes made. Political analysts throughout the world all look forward to certain changes. De Gaulle’s veto kept Britain out of the Common Market whereas other French leaders were agreeable to including Britain. It is anticipated there will be a renewed drive for Western European unity, with greater cooperation between France and West Germany. In relation to NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) de Gaulle feared American domination in European affairs. He evicted all American bases from France and withdrew French forces from NATO command. The prospects now are for better military liaison between the armed forces of the United States and France.

Possibly the most important change might be the attitude of France toward the Middle East conflict. De Gaulle’s actions in this situation have been puzzling to his own people as well as those of other nations. At the beginning of the trouble he was pro-Israeli. He later transferred his support to the Arabs, accusing the Israelis of starting the 1967 six-day war. Then to the amazement of the entire world he placed an embargo on all arms to Israel. This included 50 French Mirage jets for which Israel had paid $100 million. Also the embargo included spare parts for equipment Israel had purchased without which it was not possible to repair tanks and other armaments damaged in combat. De Gaulle promised to lift the embargo only after Israel withdrew from occupied territory. Many believe that the French position in Big Four talks on the Middle East may swing away from the Arab-Soviet line closer to the United States and British views. However, it is not expected that the embargo against Israel will be lifted soon.

It is not anticipated that France will change in policy of co-operation with Soviet Russia. De Gaulle’s visits there have strengthened ties between the two nations and brought more sales of French products to the Red market. The leaders must keep in mind that the French Com­munist Party is the largest in western Europe and has considerable influence on their national elections.

One writer expresses the present conditions in these words, “France and the world are plunging into a new political era now that General Charles de Gaulle has gone.” It will require a strong and courageous leader to steer the nation of France through the stormy days ahead. The leading contender for this post appears to be Georges Pompidou, a very popular ex-premier. He was discharged from this position by de Gaulle last spring after Paris was besieged by riots, though the people gave him much credit for ending the chaos. Although Pompidou is not a man with the dreams of de Gaulle he is a man of great will and is very popular with the people.

As we view these present happenings in the light of scriptural prophecy we agree with the statement of de Gaulle that France is chosen for an exceptional

ever, it is not expected that the embargo against Israel will be lifted soon.

It is not anticipated that France will change in policy of co-operation with Soviet Russia. De Gaulle’s visits there have strengthened ties between the two nations and brought more sales of French products to the Red market. The leaders must keep in mind that the French Communist Party is the largest in western Europe and has considerable influence on their national elections.

One writer expresses the present conditions in these words, “France and the world are plunging into a new political era now that General Charles de Gaulle has gone.” It will require a strong and courageous leader to steer the nation of France through the stormy days ahead. The leading contender for this post appears to be Georges Pompidou, a very popular ex-premier. He was discharged from this position by de Gaulle last spring after Paris was besieged by riots, though the people gave him much credit for ending the chaos. Although Pompidou is not a man with the dreams of de Gaulle he is a man of great will and is very popular with the people.

As we view these present happenings in the light of scriptural prophecy we agree with the statement of de Gaulle that France is chosen for an exceptional destiny, although not in the same sense that he foresaw it.

One prophecy which refers to France is related in Revelations 16:13 where in vision “three unclean spirits like frogs” come out from various locations, “which go forth unto the kings of the earth and and the whole world, to gather them to the battle of the great day of God Almighty.”

In a study of history it is very interesting to learn that on the battle flags of the French armies in about the 16th century were pictured three frogs, representing the marshes from which the French sprang.

It was prophesied that the spirit of these frogs would go forth stirring up trouble that would bring nations to the final great war. This spirit is still going forth, even though the present change in the French government and its policies do not immediately bring about any more threat of war, but rather in some ways hope for peace. As previously expressed the whole world is plunged into a new political era. This new era brought about by France may result in differences and problems between nations. The sure word of prophecy makes this one point certain, these conditions will continue until the nations are brought together “to the battle of that great day of God Almighty”.

The word atom comes from the Greek “atomos”, not divisible, and until fifty years ago the atom was considered an “indivisible element”. This theory was included in text books on physics written by eminent scientists for use in universities. Since then the splitting of the atom has become commonplace and the world entered the era known as the Atomic Age. The tremendous energy released through this discovery is almost beyond belief. It is being used in the field of medicine, as motive power for ships and planes and to create electric energy for home and industry. Research continues and there is almost no limit to its uses. Science has declared it could bring a period of well-being exceeding any previous age.

But sadly enough the greatest use of atomic power has been in creating weapons of war. Atomic bombs were first developed by the United States, and in August 1945 a bomb was dropped on each of two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The result was devastating, thousands died instantly and many more suffered incurable disease from radiation. Although this ended the war with Japan the world looked on with dread and dismay at the awful possibilities.

In 1949 the United States realized that Russia had the secret of the A-bomb. Since then greater and more deadly weapons have been developed and in the words of one writer, “Man has his fate in his hands”. Another commentator writes, “In the race between education and catastrophe, atomic power has given catastrophe a fearful lead.”

The two greatest powers, the United States and Russia are in a race for supremacy. A recent newspaper article pointed out that both countries have hidden beneath the ground and on submarines below the ocean missiles tipped with ther­mo-nuclear warheads aimed at each other. Hopefully it is felt that the mutual strength of these two powers is in itself a deterrent to war. Each fears retaliation and the terrifying effects.

While billions are spent in the nuclear arms race, more of the country’s wealth is used in frantic efforts to find a means of defense. Anti-ballistic missiles have been developed to intercept and destroy incoming enemy warheads. At the present time there is at issue in the American Congress the question of whether or not stronger anti-missile protection should be developed. There is fear this might provoke Russia into a new arms race.

The heads of the leading nations realize the potentially destructive powers that men hold in their hands. They all have a feeling of fear that the development of these destructive weapons might proliferate, grow with rapidity and intensity, not only in capacity but in the number of nations acquiring them. With these dangers in mind the United States is proposing a nuclear non-proliferation treaty. There are many problems involved and any success in this endeavor is thought to be doubtful.

There is another spectacular and more glamorous use of nuclear power. In October 1957 Russia launched the first object into orbit beyond the atmosphere of the earth, and the world entered the Space Age. This object was about the size of a grapefruit and after a successful ejection it was tracked around the world and then lost sight of. Both the United States and Russia followed this first venture with larger objects. Then came the instrument-controlled capsules which were brought back to earth followed by the man-inhabited and controlled space craft. The vehicular missiles grew in size, in the number of men and the length of stay until the operation became near perfect and almost commonplace.

Man then looked beyond the earth and set their goals on the moon and now a trip to the area of the moon has been successful. In December 1968 three American astronauts broke free of the earth’s atmosphere and traveled nearly a quarter of a million miles to the vicinity of the moon, circled it ten times and returned safely to earth, a distance of 250,000 miles.

The success of the moon venture has increased the determination of scientists to land men there. As this article is being written three astronauts in spaceship Appolo 9 have made a ten-day orbit of the earth. Their prime mission was to test equipment known as the “lunar Module”. This is a spidery looking vehicle which it is hoped will eventually land two men on the moon. The first step is scheduled for May of this year when three men will journey to the vicinity of the moon carrying along a lunar module. It is planned that two men will enter the module, drop within 50,000 feet of the moon but not touch down. The final step in the series is scheduled for July or August. It is proposed that after two men make a touchdown in the lunar module they will leave the craft and spend up to three hours taking photographs of the lunar surface.

If the lunar venture is successful there is further ambition to reach into more distant space and contact the planets. As we contemplate these developments which to the human mind are almost unbelievable we wonder how far God will allow man to go. In the sight of the all powerful Creator who rules the vast universe man’s efforts are puny.

Meanwhile man is unable to control his affairs on earth. The rivalry and suspicion between the two principle nations, the United States and Russia, prevent a solution to any of the problems. The dread of nuclear war is ever present and the peace so desperately sought by the world will never be achieved while man rules. We turn to the Word of God for the only solution. “In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever”. (Daniel 2:44)

The world once again enters a new year with most of the nations plagued with turmoil and uncertainty. While there is hope for better conditions no real feeling of confidence exists that the year 1969 will bring much improvement. Rather there are grave doubts and a fear that the situation will worsen.

In the United States there is more significance to the new year than just the date change. After eight years controlled by the Democratic political regime we enter a new era under a Republican administration. Naturally the question arises, can the new regime influence national and international affairs enough to bring about improved conditions.

While the president is the elected leader of the government he has hundreds of appointed assistants from cabinet members down to staff aids. The new president comes into office with many beliefs and ideas divergent from the retiring president in the fields of politics, financing, government control and international relationships. Harmonious functioning of the various departments under the president requires that the many subordinates be in close political affiliation with him.

Hence we have witnessed in the new appointments an almost complete replacement of individuals. Many believe that these changes in personnel and policy will bring an improvement in conditions. Others foresee no real change.

As the president takes office the problems he faces are formidable. There is the war in Vietnam, already the longest in the history of the United States, threat of war in the Middle East, inflation, government finances, crime, welfare, schools and big cities. Any one of these is serious enough to severely tax the ingenuity of a president and his advisers. Still many people are expecting the new administration to cure all existent ills. Interviews disclose that many Americans are reassured about the future and look forward to a period of prosperity. This can be an illusive term. In general, prosperity is gauged by the volume of gross national products, the level of the stock market or the amount of personal income. There can be high ratings in all these and still a continuing war in Vietnam, the threat of war or actual war in the Mideast, plus riots throughout the nation and extreme poverty among some of the less fortunate classes of our population.

The Vietnam war which began in 1961 still goes on despite seven months of talks in Paris between representatives of the countries involved. The discussions have bogged down on procedural wrangling over such matters as the shape of the negotiating table and who should be seated. Hopes of a peaceful settlement is further complicated by fears of the various parties as to the final outcome of negotiations. South Vietnam does not want to negotiate with the Viet Cong National Liberation Front at this time. They are fearful that the United States may force them into a coalition government with the N.F.L. It is apparent the Communists are using delaying tactics, hopeful of a better negotiation under President Nixon. One of the election promises of the new president was the working out of a peaceful settlement in this conflict. With that in view, a new United States chief negotiator has been appointed. Meanwhile the fighting continues.

While the settlement of the Vietnam war is a major problem more concern is felt over the situation in the Middle East, and the possibility that the trouble between the Israeli and the Arabs could spread into a world-wide conflagration. In view of this President-elect Nixon has sent a special mission to the Middle East in order to have a first-hand account on what is actually taking place. According to published reports the information obtained by this commission is most disturbing. The survey discloses that the threat of a new war in the Mideast is rising dangerously.

Of importance in this survey is the fact that the findings were not from observation only but leaders and important people in the various countries were interviewed. The consensus of opinion seems to be that lasting peace is out of reach. Some conjecture that war is years away while others expect it before the end of 1969. Friction in this part of the world is nothing new but the danger of a new conflict with world-wide involvement is increasing.

The Soviet Union for some time has been strengthening its presence in the Mideast and at present has forty to fifty ships in the Mediterranean once dominated by the U. S. fleet. Russia has poured billions of dollars in economic and military aid into the various Arab countries. All this has built up the daring and confidence of the Arabs. In the event of another war with Israel many observers feel Russia may not stand by as it did in 1967, especially if the Arabs are in danger of defeat.

A serious blow to Israel was President De Gaulle’s proclamation on January 8 to deliver no more automotive spare parts for the armaments and equipment supplied by France. With no means of making repairs, tanks, planes, etc. would soon be out of use.

During his campaign President-elect Nixon made two pledges concerning the Mideast countries: To maintain Israel’s “technological military” superiority over its Arab neighbors in the face of a growing Soviet build-up and at the same time to try to “strengthen U.S. ties with America’s friends in the Arab World”. Both sides are looking to the fulfillment of these pledges.

While we are all affected to some extent by present conditions we have the assurance of the Word of God, “the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” Strong in faith we know that God’s plan with the earth will ultimately be carried out. The turmoil and “distress of nations” will eventually come to an end and Israel will take her rightful place, “a land which the Lord thy God careth for: the eyes of the Lord thy God are always upon it”. (Deut. 11:12)