Evangelical Fundamentalism US Foreign Policy

Evangelical Fundamentalism & US Foreign Policy* Jared D. Larson

R

egarding foreign policy, it cannot be doubted that there exists endless possible factors that may influence those politicians that shape it. For nearly all of the 20th century, political ideologies exercised a marked influence in all of the policies and stances of the superpowers. But after the fall of the Berlin Wall, religion has surfaced as a prominent factor - so much so that some have mentioned that a new Cold War between the West, or at least the United States, and Islam has appeared.1 For this reason, within what is known as the West, the possible influences of religion on foreign policy have been widely studied, but the focus has been almost exclusively on the possible influences of Islam on the stances of Muslim countries, and, on the other hand, relatively little attention has been paid to the influence of Christianity on Western foreign policy in general and on US policy in particular. Consequently, it must be determined what role religion plays in the foreign policy of the US. Since the inauguration of George W. Bush as the forty-third president of the United States, and especially since 9/11, hundreds of books and articles have appeared in the world press regarding the role of religion in the life and policies of the current president. The problem with the majority of the books and articles on the topic is that they do not analyze in depth the relationship between Christianity and US foreign policy. For example, few have paid attention to the historic link between evangelic fundamentalism (that to which Bush and millions of Americans are faithful) and Zionism, which reveals a great deal about US foreign policy since 1948 to today, regardless of the beliefs of whoever occupies the White House. Since its conception as a nation until today, the US has always maintained a culture influenced by religion, especially by protestant Christianity. In the US, “out of 281 million inhabitants, 168 million are members of a church and 158 million identify themselves as Christian. More than 200 television channels and some 1,500 radio broadcasters base their programming on the Bible.”2 Given the importance of these figures, there is no doubt that religion exerts an important influence on all aspects of daily American life, including the world of politics, which would imply that the strong religious beliefs of the president are not a strange nor isolated phenomenon. 1

HUNTINGTON, Samuel P.: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Touchstone, New York, 1996, pp. 212-213 y ANONYMOUS (SCHEUER, Michael): Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terrorism, Brassey’s, Inc., Washington, DC, 2004, pp. 249-250. 2 GONZÁLEZ, Enric: “La fe marca el paso de Bush,” El País, 2-12-2003, p. 4.

127

In fact, many authors and journalists from numerous countries have indicated the importance of being religious in order to be president of such a powerful and Christian nation as the US. The British essayist Martin Amis has indicated that “any president of the United States must be religious or pretend to be so.”3 Therefore, given that 95% of evangelicals support and trust the current president, and given that they tend to be absolutist - to not change their minds and to act as a united group - they are quite established within the Republican Party and have become absolutely necessary for the GOP’s survival. The Religious Right, consequently, forms the base of the conservative party. Many have alleged that Bush’s re-election in 2004 would not have been possible without the “fundamentalist vote.”4

Presidential Power and Foreign Policy It is important to stress that in the devising of US foreign policy, the president has a monopoly on power in the process. It is obvious that according to the Constitution, foreign policy powers are divided between the president and Congress. But, throughout American history, that is to say, since the administration of George Washington, practice has demonstrated a shift of power from Congress toward the executive as a consequence of various phenomena; the most influential phenomenon being a number of historical executive precedents.5 Perhaps the best historical example of this power shift from the Congress to the executive is the use of the Executive Agreement. The Executive Agreement is a direct action on the part of president that, according to International Law, is binding to the US, but is established without authorization by or even any intervention on the part of Congress.6 Between 1789 and 1980, Congress ratified 1,359 treaties while the executive signed 9,951 executive agreements. From these numbers we see that in 88% of all international pacts of which the United States is part, there had been absolutely no congressional checks or balances on the power of president. An excellent example of this type of agreement was signed between President McKinley and the Spanish government to set the terms of the end of the Spanish-American War of 1898,7 which, according to US domestic custom, was an executive agreement. For Spain, the agreement was known as the Treaty

AMIS, Martin: “En el Palacio final,” El País, 3-11-2003, p. 15. BLUMENTHAL, Max: “The Christian Right’s Humble Servant,” Alternet, 11-15-2004, http://www.alternet.org/election04/20499/. 5 McCORMICK, James M.: American Foreign Policy and American Values, F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., Itasca, Illinois, 1985, p. 162. 6 SHAW, Malcolm N.: International Law: Fourth Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997, p. 117. 7 McCORMICK, James M.: American Foreign Policy and American Values, F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., Itasca, Illinois, 1985, pp. 166-167. 3 4

128

of Paris of December 10, 1898 and is an example of a title of sovereignty that represents the transfer of Spanish territory to the United States.8 Thus, what is an executive agreement for the US has the effects of a bilateral international treaty and entails important rights and obligations for both parties. Another key example occurred in 1848. For numerous reasons, one of which will be explained in depth shortly, President Truman, through an oral pledge, committed the US to defend the newly-formed state of Israel. This pledge of good relations was subsequently codified between the US and Israel by executive agreement.9 The obvious danger that exists is that there is no congressional control in this process which, in the end, internationally binds the country. Truman’s aforementioned agreement with Israel, for example, was negotiated in secret without Truman having spoken to any member of his administration or member of Congress.10 It is the combination of this presidential freedom in the international arena and the possible influence of public opinion (whose perhaps most powerful voice today is the evangelical movement) which concerns us now.

Religious and Ethnic Interest Groups and American Diplomacy Public opinion, clearly, is not just the sum of individual voices. Public opinion consolidates and mobilizes through interest groups and political parties.11 Regarding political parties, in multi-party systems, individual parties are more influential in the discussion and devising of foreign policy. On the other hand, under a bipartisan system, as is the case of America, given the concentration of presidential power, normally there is little polarization between the two parties regarding international issues.12 Nonetheless, it is evident that Republicans and Democrats do indeed take different stances even on international matters. For example, criticism of Bush over the disastrous occupation of Iraq is quite frequent and harsher every day. Despite it all, the American tradition, requiring both parties work together in order to resolve the nation’s international problems, is maintained.13 Therefore, given the nature of the American system, here we will ignore the respective roles of the two major parties, and we will concentrate on the influence of interest groups. 8

CAMPOS GONZÁLEZ, J.D., SÁNCHEZ RODRÍGUEZ L.I. y SÁENZ DE SANTA MARÍA, P.A.: Curso de Derecho Internacional Público, Civitas, Madrid, 2002, p. 554. 9 McCORMICK, James M.: Op. Cit., p. 168. 10 PRICE, Randall: Fast Facts on the Middle East Conflict, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 2003, pp 42-43. 11 HOLSTI, K.J.: International Politics: A Framework for Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood, New Jersey, 1995, p. 265. 12 JENSEN, Lloyd: Explaining Foreign Policy, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1982, pp. 135137. 13 McCORMICK, James M.: Op Cit., p. 258. McCormick cites Reagan’s words from April 1984: “We must restore bipartisan consensus in support of U.S. foreign policy. We must restore America’s honorable tradition of partisan politics stopping at the water’s edge.”

129

Interest groups have two principal functions. The first is to pressure the executive and/or the legislative branches so that these approve policies that are in accordance with the ideas and interests of the particular group. That is, through an indirect affect, or perhaps by direct pressure, they try to influence the policies of the country. Their second function is to inform and, to a certain point, to try to influence public opinion as well. The impact of the efforts of these groups, albeit more notable than that of the public opinion, is generally limited, given that the groups themselves have no position of authority in the making of foreign policy. While the main role of public opinion, in practice, is to set the boundaries within which policy makers may be allowed to operate, lobbyists and interest groups attempt to directly persuade the politicians that formulate policy. The efficiency of these lobbies depends greatly upon the ideological bonds that exist among politicians, public opinion, and the interest groups themselves. As another limit on the efficiency of any group, the influence of other groups acts as a counterbalance, given the conflicting interests that exist among them.14 The most effective groups tend to be those that have close ties to and/or a special interest in a particular topic or cause. They must demonstrate why their voice is important in as much as to persuade politicians as public opinion. The most influential groups are those that, apart from having any particular skill, are connected to third countries through some specific ethnicity or ideology. Such groups are known as Linkage Groups. These domestic groups can influence the decisions of their nations’ governments to adopt policies which are in accordance with the aims of third states. At times, foreign policy decisions are made to some extent only to placate the so-called linkage groups. Although politicians may take advantage of these ethnic- or ideologically-motivated groups in order to obtain their own objectives and interests, in the long term, interest groups exert a notable influence on the formulation of foreign policy.15 The situation in the US is well described by this theory. There are numerous interest groups of varied natures, whose goals are very distinct in some cases, but nuanced in others. Among the diverse categories of international interest groups, such as industry, labor, or agricultural lobbies, here reference will be made only to the influence of religious organizations and ethnic groups. Various Christian groups have expressed their opinion regarding foreign policy. The group that has traditionally had the most weight is now the least united, The National Council of Churches. It is difficult for this group to exert a prominent influence even though it is comprised of numerous protestant groups, given that they hold divergent points of view regarding many topics.16 The principle international objectives of evangelical groups will be examined shortly,

14

McCORMICK, James M.: Op. Cit., p. 264 y p. 272. JENSEN, Lloyd: Op. Cit., pp. 138-139. KIMBALL, Charles: When Religion Becomes Evil, Harper, San Francisco, California, 2002, pp. 198-199; See also: JENSON, Joseph, “What are They Saying about Armageddon?” Currents in Theology and Mission, Vol. 13 Núm. 5, October 1986, pp. 299-300. 15 16

130

given their tendency toward radical fundamentalism and the ties they maintain with Zionism and the Jewish lobby. As the United States is a country of immigrants, there exist groups with ties to third states and various ethic groups that enjoy a respected influence in foreign policy. In some cases, these groups are seen as a true source of US foreign policy. For them, the stance of the US government toward certain regions or particular countries is an issue of utmost importance, defining the goals of each group. Among the most influential groups identified in the US are Irish American, Greek American, Latin American, and African American.17 But without a doubt, the ethnic group with the most weight and possibility to influence US policies and stances is the Israeli-Zionist lobby.

The Jewish Lobby The Jewish community in the United States has been very successful in obtaining both economic and military aid for Israel since Truman’s executive agreement of 1948. The efficiency of this ethnic and religious group is explained by its organization. A structural pyramid of multiple levels exists that unites different individual Jewish communities from all over the country with Jewish interest groups, such as the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations or the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), whose headquarters are in Washington and New York, respectively.18 It is through this network that the pro-Israel movement can mobilize, react and be influential at the national level when issues that affect Israel surface.19 Apart from internal organization, another four motives serve to explain the effectiveness of Jewish influence on numerous American policies. Firstly, AIPAC has good access to numerous members of Congress, and depending who is president, access to the executive. AIPAC has served as a catalyst to the passage of much pro-Israeli legislation. Perhaps the clearest example of this influence was the Jackson Amendment to the Trade Act of 1974. This legislation prevented the US from maintaining favorable commercial relations with any country that did not have a policy of free emigration, which was openly directed toward the USSR, to express America’s objection to the Soviet policy against Jewish emigration. This amendment enjoyed broad support in the Senate. Throughout the 70’s, the Senate generally supported all pro-Israel

17

McCORMICK, James M.: Op. Cit., pp. 261-262 y pp. 270-271; HOLSTI, K.J.: Op. Cit., pp. 265-266; JENSEN, Lloyd: Op. Cit., p. 138. 18 AIPAC is a lobby whose function is to protect Israel’s interests through its access to the American government. Its members speak in a manner in accordance with Fundamentalist Christian Doctrine, which we will examine straightaway, while they generate support from members of congress and the president through contributions to the Republican Party. See also HALSELL, Grace: Prophecy and Politics: Militant Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear War, Lawrence Hill & Company, Westport, Connecticut, 1986, pp. 166-167. 19 McCORMICK, James M.: Op. Cit., pp. 271-272.

131

legislation, with 84% of Senators voting for all such legislation, regardless of their political party.20 Another motive that explains the influence of the Jewish lobby is the sympathy that most Americans have for the Jewish people. The difficult situations the Jews have suffered throughout history have generated latent but broad support. Such latent support insures that international issues affecting Israel are important for many Americans. But many Americans, as well as the members of Congress who represent them, defend Israel for political motives as well. They back the Israeli state because, in spite of its historical difficulties, it has become the only “democratic” state in the region.21 In the third place, in accordance with the theory that politicians can manipulate the electorate and/or pass policies in order to placate the public, support for Israel may be due to domestic electoral considerations. The Jewish community in the US only constitutes three percent of the population, but there are concentrations of Jewish citizens in various “battleground states” on the East Coast, California, Illinois, and Ohio; moreover, Jewish communities have been very politically active.22 Consequently, the Jewish vote is as important in presidential as in congressional elections. As has just been indicated, the interest groups that tend to be the most effective are those that possess a knowledge monopoly on a certain topic, those that have ties to third states, and those that do not face another group that counterbalances their influence. In the United States, Jewish groups meet all of these requirements; and, moreover, as a fourth factor that explains their influence on US foreign policy, they have the support of a powerful movement that shares their motives without hoping for the same ends: the evangelical Christians.

The Ideological Bond between Christian Fundamentalism and the Jewish People As if the Jewish lobby were in need of more influence, its strange and suspicious relationship with the evangelical fundamentalist movement makes it all the more influential. Together they form an alliance that works for a common goal, that being the security of the Israeli state, but, in the end, fundamentalists hope for the destruction (or the religious conversion) of the Jewish people along with the rest of the world when the Second Coming occurs. It seems incredible that hoping for the Second Coming of Christ could be a factor of such political importance in a developed country in the 21st century, but the data show otherwise. In the US, a country of about 280 million inhabitants, some 171 million are Christian. Forty-seven percent of the population claims to attend a religious 20

HOLSTI, K.J.: Op. Cit., p. 265. McCORMICK, James M.: Op. Cit., p. 272. 22 HOLSTI, K.J.: Op. Cit., p. 265. 21

132

ceremony once a week.23 Forty-six percent identify themselves as “born again” or Evangelical;24 among this section of the American citizenry include George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, and the late Ronald Reagan. Up to 62% of the populace believes that Jesus Christ will literally return to Earth25 and 59% believe that the Apocalypse will occur.26 But if only three percent of the population is Jewish and most Americans are openly Christian, what common interest might there be between the two groups? Jewish groups in the US are concerned with what goes on in Israel, and thus they vote for politicians that legislatively support the Israeli state. This is a topic that also interests Evangelicals because, according to their doctrine and literal interpretation of the Bible, the Second Coming cannot occur until Israel gains complete sovereignty over its territory,27 that is, until the Jews re-occupy the Promised Land. There is a series of dispensations, or steps, in the process that culminates in the Second Coming that must occur so that God can establish His “Thousand Year Reign on Earth” after the final battle, the Apocalypse. This series, which in its entirety is defined as God’s Great Tribulation, will last seven years.28 For evangelical fundamentalists, the establishment of Israel in 1948 indicates that at any time the Tribulation could commence, and thus, the state of Israel must be protected. Some refer to Israel as “God’s clock.”29 The “theory” that justifies Christian support for Israel is based on, as is logical for fundamentalists, the Bible. For the fundamentalists, the Bible is not a reflection of the will of God, nor his plan for humanity, but rather the literal word of God.30 As some authors have claimed, if 30% of the Bible is dedicated to prophesy, why would it then not be an important issue for the many Christians that adhere to this doctrine? A sign that the Tribulation is about to begin, as has been mentioned, is the return of the Jews to God’s Promised Land, and it will end with the destruction of evil and the establishment of the reign of Jesus Christ on Earth. Fundamentalists cite verses from Genesis (12:1-7; 15:4-7; 17:1-8), Leviticus (22:44-45) and Deuteronomy (7:7-8), among others, in order to prove their theory.31 Given the importance of the Jewish people for God, Christians should do what they can so then the will of God comes to fruition. “The Fight for God,” The Economist, Vol. 365 Núm. 8304, 12-21-2002, pp. 62. KRISTOF, Nicolas D.: “God, Satan and the Media,” The New York Times, 3-4-2003, p. A25. 25 WACKER, Grant: “Planning Ahead: The Enduring Appeal of Prophesy Belief,” The Christian Century, 1-191994, p. 48. 26 “Behold the Rapture”, The Economist, Vol. 364 Núm. 8287, 24-VIII-2002, p. 27. 27 GONZÁEZ, Enric: Op. Cit., p. 4. 28 WACKER, Grant: Op. Cit., p. 48. 29 LaHAYE, Tim y JENKINS, Jerry B.: Are We Living in the End Times?, Tyndale House Publishing, Wheaton, Illinois, 1999, pp. 47-49. 30 HALSELL, Grace: Forcing God’s Hand: Why Millions Pray for a Quick Rapture and Destruction of Planet Earth, Amana Publishing, Beltsville, Maryland, 2002, p. 138. 31 WAGNER, Donald: “The Evangelical-Jewish Alliance: Marching to Zion,” The Christian Century, 6-282003, p. 21. For example, Ezekiel (36:8) says: “But on the mountains of Israel the trees will again grow leaves and bear fruit for you, my people Israel, You are going to come home soon.” 23 24

133

Therefore, for example, Christian fundamentalists tend to support any Israeli project that enhances Jewish control on Palestinian territories. According to many fundamentalists, for total control over the Holy Land, Jews must control all of the city of Jerusalem, including what today is the Al-Aqsa mosque, which is on of the holiest sites of Islam. This is because the mosque was constructed in 685 c.e. on the remains of a Jewish temple destroyed by the Romans in the year 70 c.e. It is thus a holy site of Jews as well.32 According to Christian fundamentalists, the Antichrist will occupy the newly constructed temple before Jesus Christ intervenes during another dispensation after the Apocalypse.33 It is important to mention that the founding of the state of Israel is not the start of the Tribulation, but rather a step towards it. According to the fundamentalists’ interpretation of Matthew 24:34-35, which says, “Remember that all these things will happen before the people now living have died. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.” It is believed that at any moment the dispensations can commence, that is, before the generation that saw the founding of Israel passes away. The first dispensation is the assent of the Antichrist. The Antichrist will be a key figure during the seven years of the Tribulation. He will possess a power of world-wide reach, will be a key protagonist in the Apocalypse and, in the end, will be vanquished by God. According to fundamentalists, various signs of the assent of the Antichrist are already visible. In the first place, if the Antichrist is someone with global power, they identify him with the secretary general of the United Nations. Furthermore, according to The Revelation to John 17:13, “These (the kings of the earth) have one mind, and give their power and authority to the beast.” Apart from the “danger” of the UN, another sign of the looming Tribulation is the European Union. The Euro and the dollarization of various Latin American economies is also a sign of the power that will be concentrated in the UN in the near future.34 For some fundamentalists, the Treaty of Rome indicates that the Antichrist will be a European politician. Revelation 17:9 mentions the seven hills of Babylon where the woman of the beast will sit, and Rome has seven hills.35 Moreover, in Daniel 9:26-27, it is announced that Antichrist will be of Roman or Mediterranean origin.36 According to fundamentalist doctrine, Daniel’s vision (11:36-39) explains that the Antichrist will be selfish, arrogant and blasphemous. He will be secular with great military power and will control world finances. The second dispensation is the Rapture. Little is known about this event by most other non-evangelical fundamentalist Christians.37 According to the doctrine, in the Rapture, Jesus will physically carry away all true believers, living 32

HALSELL, Grace: Op. Cit., p. 94. LaHAYE, Tim and JENKINS, Jerry B.: Op. Cit., pp. 128-129. 34 LaHAYE, Tim and JENKINS, Jerry B.: Op. Cit., pp. 198-201. 35 “Behold the Rapture”, Op Cit., p. 27. 36 LaHAYE, Tim and JENKINS, Jerry B.: Op. Cit., p 277. 37 JENSON, Joseph, Op. Cit.: p. 298. 33

134

and dead, off to Heaven. Although the word “Rapture” never appears in the Bible, fundamentalists believe that Paul’s First Letter to the Thessalonians (4: 1617) predicts the event: “[T]he Lord himself, with an assembling shout, with archangel's voice and with trump of God, shall descend from heaven; and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we, the living who remain, shall be caught up together with them in [the] clouds, to meet the Lord in [the] air; and thus we shall be always with [the] Lord.” As fundamentalists interpret the Bible literally, they believe that at any moment, in the Rapture, they could be picked up and carried away to heaven.38 During the first three and one-half years of the Tribulation, half of the planet’s population that has been “left behind,” that is, those that are not Christian, will die. The world will suffer plagues, meteorites will destroy entire cities and the oceans will boil.39 Meanwhile, the Antichrist will negotiate a peace treaty with Israel and will occupy the newly-constructed Temple of Jerusalem.40 The Antichrist will deceive the world in order to solidify his power. Daniel 9:27 says, “That ruler will have a firm agreement with many people for seven years, and when half this time is past, he will put an end to sacrifices and offerings. The Awful Horror he will be placed on the point of the Temple and will remain there until the one who put it there meets the end which God has prepared for him.” To provoke the Second Coming, the Antichrist must appear and occupy the Temple. For this reason, some fundamentalist Christians morally and economically support Jewish extremists in their attempt to recover the land where the two previous Temples stood. In fact, there are Christian groups in the US that work to achieve the destruction of the Al-Aqsa Mosque. They raise money from fundamentalist Christians to finance the efforts of Jewish extremists.41 The re-conquest of the Temple Mount may occur before or after the Rapture, but it must occur before the final battle begins. According to fundamentalist doctrine and its particular interpretations of the Bible, after three and one half years of the Tribulation have passed, due to the deception and evil of the Antichrist, an alliance of states will invade Israel. Russia will be the leader of this bellicose group.42 The invasion is predicted in Ezekiel 38:8-9, 15-16; 39:2, 7: “After many years I will order him (Russia) to invade a country where the people were brought back together from many nations and have lived without fear of war. He will invade the mountains of Israel, which were desolate and deserted so long, but where all the people now live in safety. He and his army will attack like a storm and cover the land like a cloud (…) […Now while my people Israel live in security, you will set out] to 38

WACKER, Grant: Op. Cit., pp. 48-52. The Rapture may occur before or after the assent of the Antichrist. There is discord among various fundamentalist groups regarding the exact order of the dispensations. Some believe that the Rapture will be the first dispensation that initiates the Tribulation, while others allege that it will occur in the middle or even near the end of the Tribulation.. 39 LaHAYE, Tim and JENKINS, Jerry B.: Op. Cit., pp. 193-194. 40 LaHAYE, Tim and JENKINS, Jerry B.: Op. Cit., pp. 126-128. 41 HALSELL, Grace: Op. Cit., 2002, pp. 63-73; HALSELL: Grace, Op. Cit., 1986, pp. 96-116. 42 JENSON, Joseph: Op. Cit., p. 294; WACKER, Grant: Op. Cit., p. 48.

135

come from your place in the far north, leading a large, powerful army of soldiers from many nations, all of them on horseback. You will attack my people Israel like a storm moving across the land. When the time comes (the end of days during the Tribulation) I will send you to invade my land in order to show my holiness by what I do through you (…) I will turn him in a new direction and lead him out of the far north until he comes to the mountains of Israel. I will make sure that my people Israel know my holy name, and I will not let me name be disgraced any more. Then the nations will know that I, the Lord, am the holy God of Israel.” It is difficult to imagine, but many fundamentalists believe that the Bible, the word of God, confirms that an international attack, instigated by Russia, will be lead against Israel, which at that time will be under the control of the Antichrist. Daniel 11:40-45 tells us who the members of the coalition will be: “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him; and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and overflow and pass through. And he shall enter into the land of beauty, and many [countries] shall be overthrown; but these shall escape out of his hand: Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon. And he shall stretch forth his hand upon the countries; and the land of Egypt shall not escape. And he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver, and over all the precious things of Egypt; and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps. But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him; and he shall go forth with great fury to exterminate, and utterly to destroy many. And he shall plant the tents of his palace between the sea and the mountain of holy beauty; and he shall come to his end, and there shall be none to help him.” For fundamentalists, the king of the north is the president of Russia and the king of the south will be an Arab leader. They claim that a mutual hatred of Israel is what unties Russia and the Arab world.43 The great battle, the Apocalypse, between the Antichrist and the coalition will begin on Israel’s Megiddo Mountain.44 After the Russian attack, only 144,000 Jews will be left alive, and they will convert to Christianity as “witnesses” to Jesus Christ, their Messiah.45 But according to prophesy, just as the Antichrist finishes off the Russians, 200 million Chinese will invade Israel, as the Euphrates will have dried up.46 In total, combat will last three and one half years, which will, in addition to the first three and one half years in which one half of the world’s population will perish, complete the seven years of the Tribulation. Alas, the Chinese will not destroy Israel because Jesus Christ will intervene to save the 144,000 converted Jews, to judge those living and dead who had not been carried off in the Rapture, LaHAYE, Tim and JENKINS, Jerry B.: Op. Cit., p 87; Ezekiel 30:5 also says: “That war will also kill the soldiers hired from Sudan, Libya, Lydia, Arabia, Kub and even from among my own people.” 44 Revelation 16:16 says: “Then the spirits brought the kinas together in the place that in Hebrew is called Armageddon.” In Hebrew, the prefix har means “mountain,” Meggido is the name of the mountain. 45 HALSELL, Grace: Op. Cit., 2002, p. 81. 46 JENSON, Joseph: Op. Cit., p. 294. 43

136

and to establish his Thousand Year Reign on Earth.47 It is this new kingdom of Heaven on Earth for which Christian fundamentalists pray, and that is why the Jewish people play a key role.

Future Considerations Both the fundamentalists and the Jewish community openly acknowledge that they do not agree with the ideology of the other party. Jews use the relationship to obtain support as well as to maintain and expand their network of settlements in Palestinian territory and to maintain its political influence in the US.48 Christians use the Jewish people as a biblical catalyst in order to be “raptured” to Heaven before the Apocalypse. According to the Christian ideology, in the end, the Jewish people will have but two options: convert to Christianity or die.49 At the moment, the two groups share the same interests, such as the well-being of Israel, but each thinks the other is religiously incorrect. Despite the presence and power of Christianity in the US, it is important to admit that not all American Christians observe the fundamentalist doctrine. But there is no doubt that the American government’s support for Israel is a product, if only in part, of this ideology. Between 1948 and 1995, the US government gave some $62.5 billion in economic aid to Israel. This was despite the fact that in 1967, during the Six Day War, during which Israel invaded and occupied Palestinian, Egyptian and Syrian territory, the Israeli Air Force attacked the USS Liberty, an American surveillance ship situated in international waters in the Mediterranean. Thirty-four members of the crew were killed and one hundred and seventy four were injured. President Johnson did not respond militarily, much less verbally. He refused to criticize or retaliate against Israel in the eyes of the American people.50 Every president since Truman, Republican or Democrat, has maintained a very special relationship with Israel. This has been the reality in part because American public opinion, just as much the Jewish opinion as that of Christian extremists, has insisted that the government blindly support the Israeli state. It is not known to what point, if at all, any president has believed in these ideas about the Rapture, the Tribulation and the Second Coming, but some have made reference to the doctrine. Reagan said in 1980 that it was possible that his generation would see the Apocalypse.51 In 1983, the Secretary of the Interior of the Reagan Administration, in front of the Committee of the Interior of the House of Representatives, said that it was unnecessary to bother conserving natural 47

WACKER, Grant: Op. Cit., p. 48. WAGNER, Donald E.: Op. Cit., p. 23. 49 JEWETT, Robert: Jesus Against the Rapture: Seven Unexpected Prophecies, Westminster John Knox Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1979, p. 11. 50 CHOMSKY, Noam: Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians, South End Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999, pp. 31-32 y pp. 449-450. 51 HALSELL, Grace: Op. Cit., 2002, p. 21. 48

137

resources, as it was not known how many generations were to pass before the Second Coming.52 We cannot know to what point the current president adheres to fundamentalist doctrine. But Bush knows without a doubt how the core of his party thinks. In fact, during his first term as president, Bush employed an evangelical speechwriter, Michael Gerson, whose principal function was to color each of the president’s speeches with fundamentalist jargon in order to attempt to manipulate public opinion regarding the invasion of Iraq.53 Despite the absence of fundamentalist support for the “Road Map,” which advocates the eventual creation of a Palestinian State (blasphemy according to fundamentalists), Bush won the election due to his foreign policy “leadership” and the evangelical vote against the Catholic (that is, heretic) John Kerry. During his second and current term of office, it seems that Bush is going to focus on domestic policy, which, ironically, he did during the past elections, so that the Republicans could avoid dealing with the topic of Iraq; meanwhile, the new generation of fundamentalist politicians is fighting amongst itself over topics of the utmost importance, such as abortion, euthanasia, the appointment of conservative judges, gay marriage, the privatization of Social Security, and lastly, the propagation of democracy in the Middle East. The politician who wins this internal conflict, within the conservative party, may be the republican candidate for president in 2008.

Jared D. Larson holds a post-graduate degree in International Law and International Relations from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid and a B.A. in Social Sciences from Emporia State University, where is currently a lecturer.

*This is the author’s translation of “O fundamentalismo evanxélico e a política exterior de EEUU,” Tempo Exterior: Revista de análise e estudios internacionais, Segunda Época, Number 10 (January-June 2005): 127-140, http://igadi.org/te/pdf/te_se10/te22_10_127jared_d_larson.pdf. For citation purposes, the pagination of the translation is the same.

52 53

HALSELL, Grace: Op. Cit., 2002, p. 103. WOODWARD, Bob: Plan of Attack, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2004, pp. 83-89.

138

Bibliography AMIS, Martin: “En el Palacio final”, El País, 3-11-2003, pp. 15-16. ANONYMOUS (SCHEUER, Michael): Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terrorism, Brassey’s, Inc., Washington, D.C., 2004. “Behold the Rapture”, The Economist, Vol. 364 Num. 8287, 8-24-2002, p. 27. BLUMENTHAL, Max: “The Christian Right’s Humble Servant”, Alternet, 1115-2004, http://www.alternet.org/election04/20499/. CAMPOS GONZÁLEZ, J.D., SÁNCHEZ RODRÍGUEZ L.I. y SÁENZ DE SANTA MARÍA, P.A.: Curso de Derecho Internacional Público, Civitas, Madrid, 2002. CHOMSKY, Noam: Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians, South End Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1999. “The Fight for God”, The Economist, Vol. 365 Num. 8304, 12-21-2002, pp. 6264. GONZÁLEZ, Enric: “La fe marca el paso de Bush”, El País, 2-12-2003, p. 4. HALSELL, Grace: Forcing God’s Hand: Why Millions Pray for a Quick Rapture and Destruction of Planet Earth, Amana Publishing, Beltsville, Maryland, 2002. HALSELL, Grace: Prophecy and Politics: Militant Evangelists on the Road to Nuclear War, Lawrence Hill & Company, Westport, Connecticut, 1986. HOGAN, Michael J. y PATTERSON, Thomas G. (eds.): Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations, Cambridge University Press, New York, 1991. HOLSTI, K.J.: International Politics: A Framework for Analysis, Prentice Hall, Englewood, New Jersey, 1995. HUNTINGTON, Samuel P.: The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, Touchstone, New York, 1996. JENSEN, Lloyd: Explaining Foreign Policy, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1982. JENSON, Joseph: “What are They Saying about Armageddon?”, Currents in Theology and Mission, Vol. 13 Num. 5, October 1986, pp. 292-301. JEWETT, Robert: Jesus Against the Rapture: Seven Unexpected Prophecies, Westminster John Knox Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1979. KIMBALL, Charles: When Religion Becomes Evil, Harper, San Francisco, 2002. KRISTOF, Nicolas D.: “God, Satan and the Media”, The New York Times, 3-42003, p. A25. LaHAYE, Tim y JENKINS, Jerry B.: Are We Living in the End Times?, Tyndale House Publishing, Wheaton, Illinois, 1999. McCORMICK, James M.: American Foreign Policy and American Values, F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc., Itasca, Illinois, 1985. PRICE, Randall: Fast Facts on the Middle East Conflict, Harvest House Publishing, Eugene, Oregon, 2003.

139

SHAW, Malcolm N.: International Law: Fourth Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997. WACKER, Grant: “Planning Ahead: The Enduring Appeal of Prophecy Belief”, The Christian Century, 1-19-1994, pp. 48-52. WAGNER, Donald E.: “The Evangelical-Jewish Alliance: Marching to Zion”, The Christian Century, 26-8-2003, pp. 20-24. WOODWARD, Bob: Plan of Attack, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2004.

140