2016 – The Year Ahead – Part One

                                                By Dr. Steve Elwart


You must realize, however that in the last days difficult times will come. People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, unfeeling, uncooperative, slanderous, degenerate, brutal, hateful of what is good, traitors, reckless, conceited, and lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God. They will hold to an outward form of godliness but deny its power. Stay away from such people. … But evil people and impostors will go from bad to worse as they deceive others and are themselves deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and found to be true, because you know from whom you learned it. From infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures that are able to give you the wisdom you need for salvation through faith in the Messiah Jesus.
— 2 Timothy 3:1–15 (ISV)
In the last eNews article for 2015, we talked about two ways of looking into the future: one from the perspective of the historian and one from the perspective of the scientist. Each has its problems.
For those of us who put our trust in Jesus, we can take solace in Him. The future did not trouble Jesus, nor was He preoccupied with what might happen. The Gospels make it clear that Jesus, more than anyone else who ever walked this planet, knew what the future held, both for Himself personally and for the world at large.
The past, present and future are in God’s control. The Bible holds many references to the future and judgment. Daniel’s prophecy outlines the succession of world empires, and this prophecy involved judgments (Dan. 2:28–29). The nations will face a time of doom in the future (Ezek. 30:3; Dan. 8:17, 19). Israel will also suffer in “the time of Jacob’s trouble” (Jer. 30:7). During that time many will fall (Matt. 24:10). Nations as well as individuals will face the future time of judgment (Ps. 81:15; Jer. 10:15). In fact, the demons realize that they will face a time of torment in the future (Matt. 8:29).
We at the Koinonia Institute do not date-set nor try to predict the future; we do, however, look at current events through a Biblical lens. We look at what is going on in the world and try to provide some analysis as to where the world is in the Biblical timeline.
With that in mind, let’s take a look at the 12 strategic trends that the Institute tracks and see what could be in store for them in 2016.

1. Israel

There have been two overarching principles in the Israel-U.S. alliance. It could be summed up as “No daylight” and “No surprises.” The “no daylight” principle meant that there was to be no variance between Israel’s strategic security aims for the country and that of the United States. The “no surprises” principle meant that any major foreign policy change affecting either nation would be run by the other country before it was publicly announced.
These principles had been in place since the early 1970s when Henry Kissinger — the first Jewish secretary of state — took over the State Department and the United States fully come to terms with the legitimacy of Israel and its alliance with America.
Under the current U.S. administration, both of these principles have been scuttled.

Some Daylight

Rays of daylight between the United States and Israel started to appear over the Jewish settlements in the “occupied territories.” The Obama administration felt that Israel was not living up to its promises of tearing down the settlements in the area. Israel said that they had not evacuated the settlements, but noted that removing the outposts meant permanently stationing a battalion of troops on the site to prevent the settlers from coming back. The settlement problem could only be solved within an overall peace agreement which the Palestinians refused to discuss. This difference in opinion on the settlements marked the start of a divergence between the two countries on their strategic goals for the region. As a result, the Obama administration “clarified” that principle as “no daylight on security but daylight on diplomacy.” The problem with this tactic was in the Middle East, it did not work. Unlike in the West, where security is measured in tanks, jets and guns, security in the Middle East is largely a product of impressions. A friend who stands by his friends on some issues but not on others is, in Middle Eastern eyes, not really a friend. In a region infamous for its unforgiving sun, any daylight is searing.

Many Surprises

Along with “no daylight,” another time-honored principle in the U.S.-Israel alliance was the “no surprises” doctrine. In previous administrations, Israeli leaders would receive advance drafts of any American announcement that touched on their interests and were welcomed to submit their comments. That practice has now been thrown under the bus. One reason for this was U.S. policy statements would be edited right up to the minute of their delivery. Israel, meanwhile, would be left to ask, “What’s he going to say?” Oft times the answer from the State Department was “You won’t be disappointed.”
Left unsaid was the principle that the two allies would not air their dirty laundry publicly.
This too was abandoned when President Obama abruptly left a meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister to have dinner with the first family in the Residence. To add insult to injury, Netanyahu and his party were left sitting in a White House meeting room and were served a non-kosher meal while they waited for the president. Later, Prime Minister Netanyahu returned the favor by addressing a joint session of Congress without notifying the president. This, in turn, infuriated the White House and relations between the two countries have degenerated into a series of petty tit-for-tat insults since.
Israel, having justifiable concerns about the reliability of the America as an ally, has caused it to look for friends elsewhere.

A New Paradigm

Israel has opened up a dialog with Russia on coordinating their efforts in Syria. In a statement released to the media the Israeli Prime Minister said:

I hope that Israel and Russia can see eye to eye on all the strategic matter, but I want to assure you that we believe that it’s within our powers to have very good coordination on the ground and in the air so that we do not create the kind of problems that we’ve been experiencing.

The coming year will probably see an increase cooperation between Israel and Russia. Many forget that when Israel first gained independence, it was a socialist country that was more closely aligned to Russia than it was to the United States. Initially supportive of Israel at the time of its founding, by the early 1950s the Soviets no longer regarded the Zionist state as useful for extending their influence into the Middle East.
Transferring their support to Arab side, the Soviets took on the role of armorer for both Syria and Egypt, supplying them with modern tanks, aircraft and later missiles. The Egyptian and Syrian armed forces primarily used Soviet weapons during the 1967 War and employed tactics developed by the Soviets. It was during this conflict that Israel was drawn closer to the United States as their protector.
Given the new dynamic in the Middle East, Israel seems to have decided that their future lies with closer ties with Russia and a loosening of ties with what they see as a feckless ally.

A Saudi Alliance

Just as Israel has started to doubt America’s intentions in the region, so too has Saudi Arabia. The United States has also backed away from Saudi Arabia as part of its “pivot toward Asia.” Saudi Arabia has started to acknowledge that the good times that came with an oil economy wouldn’t last; eventually the oil would run out, the superpowers would move on, and the country would have to stand on its own. For reasons described in a previous eNews article, modern Saudi Arabia finds itself in desperate circumstances, which call for desperate measures. The kingdom’s last best chance may be the one nobody saw coming: an alliance with Israel.
Busy signing a nuclear deal with Iran, despite Israeli protestations and Saudi anxieties, U.S. President Barack Obama was not particularly interested in Saudi Arabia’s troubles with Iran. Add to this America’s rising energy independence, and the Middle East became an afterthought in Washington.
With the chance of a two-state solution in Israel looking more and more remote, the Saudis would seem unlikely to openly embrace Tel Aviv. But there is already tacit Israeli-Saudi cooperation, including talks and tentative steps towards trade and normalization, which have gradually come to light.
There will be more such cooperation, and more openly: Saudi Arabia and Israel already find themselves on the same side of issues. They are both opposed to the Iran Deal, dislike the idea of Assad’s surviving in power, have different reasons for detesting Hezbollah and aren’t very keen on Moscow backing up an Iranian proxy responsible for more deaths and more brutality than even ISIS. When the enemy of your enemy is also your enemy, you’ve no choice but to determine who you’re less afraid of.
Welcome to the new Middle East.

2. America

What has been termed the “silly season” has come to America. That is, the presidential elections. President Barack Obama is preparing his final State of the Union Address and people of all political persuasions are wondering what the current president, one with an agenda, facing no future election, will do to ensure his legacy.

Executive Orders

During the start of the last part of his second term, the 44th president said, “I’ve got a pen, and I’ve got a phone.” He said he would use both to advance his agenda items that have not been acted upon. It is the president’s pen that many people worry about. The U.S. president has stated what Congress does not enact by law, he will enact through executive order. Many political observers see this action as a usurpation of power, bypassing the legislature and ruling by fiat. While this is a fear of many pundits, particularly on the right, the reality may be quite different. The number of executive orders President Obama has signed to date is large, but not out of line from previous presidents. (One Internet meme states the Obama has signed 923 executive orders which is an exaggeration.)
According to the National Archives, the number of executive orders signed by modern day presidents are as follows:

John F. Kennedy (1961–1963) – 214
Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–1969) – 324
Richard Nixon (1969–1974) – 346
Gerald R. Ford (1974–1977) – 169
Jimmy Carter (1977–1981) – 320
Ronald Reagan (1981–1989) – 381
George Bush (1989–1993) – 166
William J. Clinton (1993–2001) – 364
George W. Bush (2001–2009) – 291
Barack Obama (2009–Present) – 225

While the number may not be extraordinary, the severity of the of these orders will be debated for years to come.

A New Administration

With the current president winding down his term of office, political observers and pundits are wondering who will take his place.
In a surprising turn of events, the two candidates who seem to be generating the most excitement come from outside the political establishment.

Year of the Outsider

Donald Trump (R-NY) and Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.) are both political outsiders. Trump, a billionaire real estate mogul, is the current front runner for the Republican nomination for president. He also has a spotted past (three marriages and four bankruptcies) and is unapologetic for those and other political transgressions. When asked about his failed marriages and whether they reflect on his qualification to govern, Trumps response was, “My bad marriages don’t count because I wasn’t President of the United States.” When asked about his bankruptcies, he rightly claims he didn’t go bankrupt, his companies did. He says he used a business tool available to him. Other statements he has given have sent the Left into states of political paroxysms and had them running for their safe spaces. When challenged on his statements toward women, immigrants, Mexico, Islam and trade, Trump has usually doubled down on the statements, delighting his supporters.
During the first Republican presidential debate, the first question was a veiled reference to Trump. The question was, “Who on the stage will be willing to support the Republican nominee for president no matter who it is?” Every candidate raised their hand with the exception of Trump’s.
Given the current polls, the same question may need to be asked of the Republican establishment.
Bernie Sanders is cut from much the same cloth, but of a different weave. While Donald Trump is a capitalist (some say “crony capitalist”), Sanders is an unapologetic socialist. He doesn’t mince his words and actively promotes government control, if not outright takeover, of many of the free market institutions. He promotes wealth redistribution, a free college education for all, $15 per hour minimum wage (sometimes he says $20 per hour), open borders, and spending massive amounts of money to combat climate change. Many of positions are outside of the mainstream even for the man-in-the-street Democrat, but he too, is packing venues to the rafters.
Why the enthusiasm for these candidates?
It seems like these two men are striking a chord with the everyman. They are saying things their respective constituents want to say, but are afraid to. They are perceived to be the “real deal.”
However, there is a large difference between campaigning and governing. Either man would have trouble governing. Being outsiders to their political parties, they would face opposition not only from across the aisle, but also from within their own party.

Odds on Hillary

Most pundits believe these two men will not be either party’s nominee. Odds makers see the Republican nomination coming down to a three-way race between Marco Rubio (senator from Florida), Donald Trump and Ted Cruz (senator from Texas) with Rubio having a slight edge. They are also betting that Hillary Clinton (former Secretary of State) will win the Democratic nomination in a walk. They odds makers are also betting that Clinton will go on to win the presidency.
Whoever wins the office of president will have their hands full.

Future Challenges

Every day, it seems as if America wakes up to a new crisis, one it doesn’t seem ready to take on. Europe are trying to cope with Russian aggression while trying to grapple with the biggest refugee crisis since the end of the Second World War. Asia is looking on with worry as China rises in prominence and is making moves into the South China Sea while also challenging American and Southeast Asian interests in the region. Japan is leaving its postwar pacifist legacy behind to the consternation of its neighbors. North Korea boasts of a nuclear weapon and currently has a missile that can reach the North American continent.
As bad as these problems are, no area of the world is in greater tumult than the Middle East. From the destabilizing role of Iran to the chaos of Libya to the complete destruction of Syria and its implications for Iraq, Jordan, Turkey and beyond, the upheaval appears endless.

The “Vision Thing”

The United States is lacking in forming a cohesive foreign policy vision in these areas:

1. The paradox of enduring superpower status combined with lessening global influence. Because of its inherent advantages of demographics, national resources and geography, the U.S. is likely to remain the world hegemon for the next decade. At the same time, its ability to shape the behavior of other nations is in decline. Also, the United States has proven neither particularly patient nor adept at lengthy and multilateral conflicts such as it is facing in the Middle East and worldwide Islam-based terror. The reaction of the U.S. administration to these challenges is to go into denial and pretend these problems do not exist.
2. Closely aligned to this is the consistency (or lack of consistency) of American public support for international engagement. Many believe this is because America is entering a period similar to the ones after World Wars One and Two. American citizens are war-weary and want to disentangle themselves from foreign conflicts, but the sheer size of its economy and military make that very difficult. If there is a theme in American grand strategy that has persisted for the past 70 years, it is that taking a leading role in the world generally has to be to the benefit of U.S. interests. Those interests have themselves remained remarkably consistent: ensuring the security of U.S. territory and citizens; upholding treaty commitments, to include the security of allies; ensuring a liberal economic order in which American enterprise can compete fairly; and upholding the rule of law in international affairs, including respect for human rights. If a foreign policy does not seem to directly serve U.S. interests, the American public wants no part of it. While the Obama administration keeps denying that many recent attacks on U.S. soil have no connection to Islam, the American people think differently. If these attacks continue, however, the United States may feel it is in their national interest to engage the terror threat overseas.
3. Lastly, even if the United States has both the power and the will to take on the above foreign threats, they do not have the money. The United States has never had the wherewithal to act everywhere in the world, all the time, or with the same tools of power. It has always had to weigh the relative risks, the costs and prioritize. The current budget environment makes this problem harder. The United States Defense Department has contingency plans for everything. They are now looking at plans to engage in multiple locations under multiple scenarios. This is a tall order. In February 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had it right when he told West Point cadets: “When it comes to predicting the nature and location of our next military engagements, since Vietnam, our record has been perfect. We have never once gotten it right, from the Mayaguez to Grenada, Panama, Somalia, the Balkans, Haiti, Kuwait, Iraq and more — we had no idea a year before any of these missions that we would be so engaged.”

The last hurdle facing the incoming president was alluded to above. The United States is broke. Estimates of the total U.S. debt plus unfunded liabilities range from $125 trillion to over $200 trillion. Either way, the total debt is staggering. If the Federal Reserve votes to increase interest rates, the total revenue of United States would have to be used to pay just the interest on the debt. In other words, it will never be paid off. The only way out of the debt crisis is to either default on the liabilities or go into hyperinflation. Some economists say the day of reckoning is not far off, most believe it will come during the next presidential administration.
One wonders why anyone would want to be president at this point in time.

3. Europe/Russia

Imagine that a new faction raises its head in the European Parliament, consisting of 38 members from over eight European countries. The faction is so united that it votes 93 percent of the time in favor of the Kremlin’s positions. It opposes the EU-Ukraine Association Agreement, supports Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and refuses to condemn the murder of Russian opposition leader, Boris Nemtsov.
This isn’t the plot from an alternative history novel. This is a profile of the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF) faction in the European Parliament, which was formed in June 2015 and is led by conservative French leader of Front Nationale, Marine Le Pen. Ms. Le Pen received a €9 million loan from the Moscow-based First Czech-Russian Bank last November.
Moscow is making its presence felt in other ways beside its influence with the ENF and Ms. Le Pen.

Russian Dominance

Europe has become increasingly dominated by Russian television, radio and Internet sites. Local business magnates, in collusion with the Kremlin, have purchased many of the continent’s independent news outlets. Where once adversaries of the West tried to ban any type of Western influence in their country, today they assiduously copy it. They play popular music, provide human interest stories, report frequently on rampant corruption and decadence in the West and play on the fears of extremism by sprinkling in “news” stories of fascists taking over in Ukraine and European leaders subservient to their U.S. masters.
This reality is being created by the increasingly sophisticated Russian news outlet, RT (formerly Russia Today). RT claims to reach over 700 million people and has an annual budget comparable in size to the BBC’s World News Service. (The United Kingdom’s media regulator, Ofcom, has recently sanctioned RT for biased coverage of events in Ukraine.) While seen as biased in the U.K., it is taken as gospel in Eastern Europe.
The media is not the only area where Russian influence is taking over the European psyche. Moscow is exercising some very real hard power politics in Europe as well. Take, for example, Bulgaria. Once part of the Soviet sphere of influence, it is once again falling under the Russian umbrella. Bulgaria is 95 percent dependent on Russian gas imports. As a result, Bulgaria pays nearly twice as much for its gas than other European countries. Despite this incredible dependency and high cost, it has not taken any meaningful steps to reduce its dependency on Russian energy. That is because the only place it could get funding for such an infrastructure project is from Russia.

Putin’s Europe

Welcome to Putin’s Europe. The Bulgaria of today could very well be the European continent of the future. Many analysts believe that 2016 will begin the willing slide of more of Eastern Europe into the Russian sphere. Given the current political, economic and military climate it seems that there may be little the United States and Western Europe can do to counter this reality.
Although it was the policy of both the United States and Europe to help integrate Russia into Western structures, what Europe and the United States have failed to understand is that the Kremlin was using Western laws and institutions to extend its political and economic reach while simultaneously eroding European public support for democratically elected leaders and institutions. As much as President Putin has railed against a Western-organized “fifth column” in Russia, the Kremlin has been quite adept at creating one in Europe.

Germany and France

Besides the threat of a Russian-dominated Europe, Germany and France are facing other transitions as well.
Both countries have elections in 2017, and politically both are moving in a more nationalist and Euroskeptical direction. The foundation of the EU, the Franco-German relationship, will show signs of cracking as the interests of Paris and Berlin inevitably begin to diverge. Germany will oppose France’s proposals to deepen continental integration (especially among eurozone countries) and increase spending across the bloc. Berlin and Paris will find it increasingly difficult to find common ground on measures to protect the EU.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel will come under pressure as divisions widen between conservative and progressive members of her coalition. Regional elections in March will serve as a popularity test for Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union. Should her party perform poorly in the elections, calls for her resignation will grow louder.
Thanks to pressure from the conservatives, border controls will remain stringent, and Berlin will look for ways to prevent people from arriving in Germany. The conservatives will also compel Berlin to take a tougher stance on Greece, especially because Athens, in an effort to avoid social unrest, will drag its feet in enacting economic reforms.

Immigration

The immigration crisis will continue its cyclical behavior: During the early months of the year, cold temperatures and bad weather will probably lead to a reduction in the inflow of people into Europe. The flow will increase as summer approaches, but asylum seekers will find a different Europe in 2016. Borders will be tightened (proof that fences do work) and countries along the so called Balkan routes will be less tolerant of immigrants crossing their territories. For the first time since its creation, the Schengen Agreement will not end the year as it began it; either free movement will be somewhat constrained, or fewer countries will be members.
As a result, asylum seekers will find it harder to reach Northern Europe. Some of them will be forced to look for new routes while others will be stuck in the Western Balkans. This will increase the probability of violence in the region as some people become involuntary immigrants in countries already experiencing high unemployment, ethnic tension and fractious politics.
The immigration crisis is also triggering a breakup of the EU. As more countries close their borders to the refugees (and ISIS terrorists hidden among them), the agreements between the EU member countries are starting to breakdown. What started with an economic fractionalization of the Union due to the PIGS debt crisis is now spilling over into a political one as well.
Look to 2016 to be a year of further divisions among the EU countries and a rising anti-Islamic movement.