War in Syria alerts us to the presence of growing global governance
Recent activities involving the Syrian conflict confirm that international law is already upon us. It is formed by treaties, diplomatic accords, conventions, and institutions that govern most aspects of interstate relations, extending even to the rights and responsibilities of individual citizens. It is quickly becoming the basis for the centralized, socialistic and oppressive global government system prophesied in the Bible.
Syria’s “Brazen Act”
Although international law prohibits the use of chemical weapons, US President Barack Obama believes that Syrian President Bashar Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people. President Obama is convinced that this “brazen” act should be punished by missile strikes, with or without a consensus of the International Community. In a short address he gave on September 10, 2013 President Obama asked,
“What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way”?
According to the United Nations Charter, international law also prohibits the use of military force, unless it is for self-defense, or unless it is approved by the UN Security Council.
“There is no authority in the charter for a state to simply enforce international law, even the really important ones, on its own”. Steven R. Ratner, a University of Michigan law professor.
“The fundamental rule of contemporary international law is that states cannot attack other states. The UN Charter embodies this rule and makes only two exceptions to it: a state can attack another state if it is authorized to do so by a Security Council resolution, or if the attacking state is acting in genuine self-defense”, said Paul Campos, “Striking Syria Is Completely Illegal”. Time Magazine, September 5, 2013
Disregarding International Law
In the eyes of the International Community, if President Obama attacks Syria, he would be disregarding international law in order to punish a country for disregarding international law!
“Kerry and other Washington politicos, meanwhile, are attempting to justify the invasion on moral grounds, suggesting that it’s somehow permissible for the West to flout international law to impress upon Syrian President Bashar Assad that he shouldn’t flout international law.” Michael Shank, U.S. News & World Report, August 31, 2013
Putin Challenges Obama’s “Aggression”
On September 11, 2013 Russian President Vladimir Putin challenged President Obama’s intention to bomb Syria, bypass the United Nations, and take military action without Security Council authorization. He claimed, in an editorial published in the New York Times, September 11, 2013 that a missile strike would “unleash a new wave of terrorism”, which could “throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance”. Putin went on to say, “Under current international law, force is permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council. Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would constitute an act of aggression”.
Syria and the US Agree to Russian Plan
As President Putin drew attention to President Obama’s intentions, Congress demanded to be consulted about the use of force, and polls indicated that most Americans were against intervention in the Syrian conflict. So, President Obama decided to delay the strikes until Congress consented. Meanwhile, Syrian President Assad has agreed to a Russian proposal that Syria hand over its chemical weapons stockpile to the international community. President Obama gave his approval to the plan, as an “encouraging” sign prompted by the threat of the use of force against the Syrian regime.
Interpreting International Law
The dispute between Presidents Obama and Putin depicts the complexities involved in interpreting an extensive range of treaties, pacts, protocols, conventions, covenants and declarations that make up international law. Some of these agreements include the Geneva Protocol, prohibiting poison gas and bacterial warfare, the UN Charter, limiting military force to self-defense or UN approval, the Law of the Sea Treaties, concerned with pollution and redistributing wealth, the Biological Weapons and Chemical Weapons Conventions, Agenda 21, limiting environmental impact, and the Chemical Weapons Convention, which eliminates weapons of mass destruction.
League of Nations Covenant
The League of Nations, the brainchild of US President
Woodrow Wilson, was primarily founded to prevent another war as horrific as World War I. It became part of the Treaty of Versailles, which was signed on June 28, 1919 concluding World War I. The League of Nations was formally established on January 10, 1920 with a permanent headquarters in Geneva. However, the US Senate refused to consent to the League of Nations Covenant without substantial reservations. President Wilson refused to make those changes, and America never became party to the promise of peace and security pledged by this international system.
Salvation from World War III
By the end of World War II, after the nuclear detonations over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a total of 52 million people had lost their lives. The world began to realize that mankind now had the power to annihilate all life on the face of the earth. Accordingly, nations of the world decided to create an organization designed to prevent another world war – the United Nations.
“Unless we establish some form of world government, it will not be possible for us to avert a World War III in the future”. Winston Churchill, 1945
“As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable. There is no salvation for civilization, or even the human race, other than the creation of a world government”. Albert Einstein, 1945, World Citizen Quotes
United Nations…An Ancient Dream
Men have long dreamed of a more integrated and interdependent international organization, with global membership that would address a broad spectrum of international problems.
“Forty-five years ago, while the fires of an epic war still raged across two oceans and two continents, a small group of men and women began a search for hope amid the ruins. They gathered in San Francisco, stepping back from the haze and horror, to try to shape a new structure that might support an ancient dream”. President George Bush, October 1, 1990
Since the founding of the United Nations in 1945, although the world has been continually ravaged by local wars, this expanding new system of global governance has contributed to a tenuous prevention of World War III. It is impossible to rule out however, that, in some future conflict, international diplomacy will break down, a leader will panic, governments will refuse to back down, deterrence will fail and thermonuclear war could occur.
The UN attempts to have a positive influence on human rights, decolonization, aid and development, disarmament and arms control and promotes the rule of law in international relations. Furthermore, the UN is at the center of an extensive network of international institutions, bureaus and commissions, known commonly by their three or four-letter abbreviations.
“Alphabet Soup” of UN Agencies
There is a huge “alphabet soup” of specialized agencies which deal with almost every area of economic, social and scientific interaction. A list of some of the most well-known of these international agencies would include the World Bank and International Monetary Fund or IMF, financing development and managing payments, the World Trade Organization or WTO, regulating trade between countries and the International Civil Aviation Organization or ICAO, standardizing such things as English as the international language of aviation and biometric compliance for identification. The World Health Organization, or WHO, addresses the physical, mental and social well-being of the people of the world. The World Court or International Court of Justice, the ICJ, settles disputes between states. The International Criminal Court, or ICC, is a permanent world court claiming jurisdiction over individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression.
Individual Rights and Responsibilities
It used to be that only states were recognized as subjects of international law, addressing such things as sovereignty, peace and security. Recently, however, how states treat their citizens as holders of international rights and duties is prominent in global judicial activities.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
There is a fundamental human dignity that endows everyone with human rights, separate from the will of governments. This is why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted in 1948, proclaiming that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights”, and that “everyone has a right to life, liberty and security of person”. Thus, there is a minimum standard of treatment, a threshold below which no “civilized” nation should drop.
A New Phase in Human History?
Proponents of world government argue that the presently disconnected and uncoordinated approach to international governance hinders peace and eliminates many opportunities for international humanitarian cooperation. The centralized enforcement of international law is seen as a great gift; peace in our time, an era of international cooperation and an opportunity to deal with the big problems facing humanity.
“Rule of Law” and the New World Order
“New World Order” was a familiar catch phrase of the 1990s. President George Bush popularized it when he announced the US attack on Iraq January 16, 1991.
“This is an historic moment. We have in this past year made great progress in ending the long era of conflict and cold war. We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the law of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations”.
President Bush was referring to a globalist process, involving the integration of governments and economies into one worldwide network of “the rule of law”, administered and enforced by an expanded United Nations.
How could nations of radically different ideologies and cultures agree upon one common political authority? What about the inevitable resistance of nation-states who want to maintain their sovereignty, and the rebellion triggered by masses of people concerned about their loss of individual liberties? Henry Kissinger spoke to these issues in an address to the Bilderberg meeting at Evian, France, on May 21, 1992.
“Today Americans would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all peoples of the world will pledge with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by their world government”.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, terms such as World Community, International Community, international law and globalization began to appear more frequently. Universities in North America and Europe began to routinely advertise for positions in “global governance”. Following the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, under President George Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, the United States and the United Kingdom have been largely in crisis mode, under threat of domestic terrorist acts, generally ignoring many normal constitutional protections. The prevailing thought is that world order is essential to survival on a small planet when anarchy anywhere endangers peace everywhere. Alexander Wendt, an influential International Relations theorist, has recently suggested that a world government is simply “inevitable”. The concept of “world government” supports the creation of an international authority that can address the global problems that nation-states currently cannot.
The “Motherboard of Global Governance”
We are not anticipating the implementation of a one-world government under the rule of international law. It is already here. The Council on Foreign Relations believes that the UN Charter has already become the world’s central operating system.
“As we adapt to emerging global threats, let’s not lose sight of what we have achieved. The UN has largely fulfilled the chartered goals established in San Francisco sixty-seven years ago, and, in doing so, has spawned an extensive body of international law, treaties, norms, practices, and institutions that govern most facets of interstate relations. With these “apps”, the UN Charter has become the world’s central operating system–the motherboard of global governance–making it possible for ideas such as the Millennium Development Goals to become policy drivers, and for other organizations (notably NATO, the G8, the G20, and civil society) to function more effectively”. “The United Nations and the Future of Global Governance”. Council on Foreign Relations, September 24, 2012
Communist Background of the UN
The United Nations was originally promoted as a neutral meeting ground for the resolution of conflicts to avert war. The concept was that national sovereignty would be enhanced as peace was achieved. The world was recovering from traumatic war, holocaust and nuclear devastation. The acting Secretary General of the UN at its founding conference was later convicted, Soviet espionage agent, Alger Hiss. The American delegation to the founding conference was also mostly Communist or Stalinist sympathizers. It seems that their idea of peace was world socialism.
“I am appalled at the extensive evidence indicating that there is today in the UN among the American employees there, the greatest concentration of Communists that this committee has ever encountered…These people occupy high positions. They have very high salaries and almost all of these people have, in the past, been employees in the US government in high and sensitive positions”. Senator
James O. Eastland, testimony before Senate Committee, 1952
Revelation 17 gives a depiction of the world-governing, scarlet colored beast. The color red (scarlet) has traditionally represented communism in the world. So, this world-governing beast, representing the final global government, will be communistic or socialistic.
So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. Revelation 17:3
Putting it all together, we can conclude that the UN Charter, written by a communist, has become the world’s central operating system, the motherboard of global governance. They are no longer trying to hide their vision for what Lenin proposed in 1915, a “United States of the World”, and what the Communist International termed, in 1936, a “World Union of Soviet Socialist Republics”. This is yet another direct fulfillment of Bible prophecy to add to the list of prophecies being fulfilled perfectly every day.
What Globalization Means
The goal of the United Nations in 1945 was world government. That goal has never changed. Strobe Talbot summed it up in his article in Time magazine in 1992, when he said that in the 21st century national sovereignty as we have known it will cease to exist and we will all answer to a “single global authority”. “Globalization” means exactly what it sounds like; the conversion of the governments of the world into a global government. International law refers to the laws of international government. The World Bank, the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization are all elements of a 2,000-year-old Bible prophecy about a world-government beast, which rises to power after a devastating global war.
The Euphrates River War
According to Revelation 9:14, a war will originate from the area of the Euphrates River, which flows through the Middle East, the region of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
Saying to the sixth angel which had the trumpet, Loose the four angels which are bound in the great river Euphrates. And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men. Revelation 9:14-15
The war that is just ahead will bring human destruction beyond belief. It will kill over two billion human beings! Multitudes will beg for a strong man to lead the way out of the chaos into peace and security. This opens the way for the Antichrist to step onto the world scene at just the right moment. He will offer leadership and direction, but will demand absolute obedience.
The World Government Beast
Thus he said, The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. And the ten horns out of this kingdom are ten kings that shall arise: and another shall rise after them; and he shall be diverse from the first, and he shall subdue three kings. And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time. Daniel 7:23-25
After the war that kills one-third of mankind, concerns over national sovereignty and individual rights will fade. The beast in this passage refers to the man of sin, the son of perdition, the Antichrist himself. He will “devour” the whole earth. In verse 25 of Daniel 27, we are told that his reign will continue for “a time and times and the dividing of time”, prophetic terminology for three and one-half years.
And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. Revelation 13:5
Here we are told that the Antichrist’s reign will last for 42 months. This is the final world government, driven by international law, over which the Antichrist will soon rule. President Obama’s position on Syria has placed US-Russian relations in the spotlight of international politics, in a manner, evoking the distressing period of the Cold War. The World Community is once again yearning for a stabilizing world order, under the rule of international law, setting the stage for the establishment of the Antichrist’s final one-world government.
By Rick Brinegar