The Bible prophesies that a world government will gain control of the earth just before the Second Coming of Jesus and the Battle of Armageddon. Daniel 7:23 says, “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.”
Prophetic Fulfillments of 2011 World Government
By Irvin Baxter
Revelation 13:7 speaks about the leader of the endtime world government, the Antichrist: “And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.”
The formation of the League of Nations was the first attempt at forming a world government. Of course, it ended in failure. After World War II the United Nations was born, marking the first big step toward actually establishing an organization designed for global governance. Since that time we have witnessed the establishment of many organizations that will participate with the UN in the world government of the endtime. These include: The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, the World Court and, more recently, the International Criminal Court.
Advocates of world government strengthen and add to these tentacles of global governance at every available opportunity. They openly talk about globalization. Tony Blair said that globalization began with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Former President George H.W. Bush announced the emergence of a New World Order just twenty days after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
What is globalization?
Globalization is the process of moving the world from the nation-state structure that has governed mankind for approximately the last 200 years to a system of world government with a single authority. In his July 20, 1992, Time magazine article, “The Birth of the Global Nation”, Strobe Talbott said that in the 21st century, national sovereignty as we have known it will cease to exist. He said we would all answer to a single global authority.
What is driving globalization?
Many global planners have bought into the theory that the nation-state is the root cause for most wars. They contend that, if there were no nations, most conflicts would be eliminated. The argument goes that if there were only one global nation, there would be only one government and one army. If there were only one army, it would not go to war against itself, and therefore, wars would cease. They also say that, because of modern travel and instant communication, such a system of global governance is now possible, if not inevitable.
One other major factor driving the world toward the prophesied one-world government is the belief that the United Nations is now sufficiently developed and accepted to actually assume authority over the nations.
The flaw in the theory of globalization
Most human beings yearn for a world without war. Consequently, any idea that holds forth hope for lasting peace on earth is very attractive to us.
However, before we risk everything on this grandiose plan of world government, we need to ask one uncomfortable question. Once this world government is fully established, what would happen if an Adolf Hitler managed to gain control of it? Having dismantled all the armies that oppose the will of this world government, we would have destroyed the checks and balances that saved the world from enslavement to Nazism in World War II.
Once control of the world fell into the hands of an all-powerful leader, we would be plunged into the greatest era of tyranny the world has ever known.
Many would claim that such a development would never happen. However, this scenario is exactly what the Bible prophesies is going to happen in the near future. Except, the world leader will not be Adolf Hitler. It will be the Antichrist.
Steps taken toward world government in 2011
Many Americans were disturbed when President Obama disdained requesting permission from the US Congress before deploying US forces to Libya. Even more alarming was that he went to great lengths to obtain permission from the UN Security Council for the action against Muammar Qaddafi. It was obvious that, in Obama’s mind, we are already participating in a multilateral system of global governance that supersedes national sovereignty.
During 2011, the action of international forces in Libya illustrated more clearly than ever before the erosion of national sovereignty and the advance of global governance.
There were three elements used to overthrow Qaddafi and to install a new government in Libya: Responsibility to Protect, the International Criminal Court, and NATO serving as the military arm of global governance.
Responsibility to Protect
When the United Nations was founded in 1945, the UN Constitution authorized the UN to arbitrate between sovereign states. Interference in the internal affairs of nations was strictly forbidden. In order to become the world government the globalists envisioned, the prohibition against violation of national sovereignty had to be overcome somehow.
The opportunity to empower the UN to invade sovereign states presented itself at the 2005 UN World Summit. Under the premise of protecting people against abusive governments, the nations issued the outcome document of the 2005 Summit. It empowered the UN to use all necessary means to protect people against genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing. This new power, which effectively destroyed national sovereignty, was called the Responsibility to Protect.
It was under R2P that the United Nations passed Resolution 1973 on March 17, 2011. This resolution mandated the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya. The very broad application of Resolution 1973 resulted in more than just a no-fly zone. Pro-Qaddafi forces were bombed, and Qaddafi’s personal compound was bombed in an effort to assassinate him. All financial assets of the Libyan government and the Qaddafi family were frozen and then ultimately turned over to the rebels fighting against pro-Qaddafi troops. Finally, NATO ground troops were photographed fighting alongside the rebel forces against the pro-government forces.
The 2011 UN action in Libya became the most blatant demonstration yet of how Responsibility to Protect is being used to end the sovereignty of nations.
Mark P. Lagon, adjunct senior fellow in human rights at the Council on Foreign Relations and international relations chair for Georgetown University’s master of science in foreign service program, offers his assessment of R2P. The Responsibility to Protect principle is based on the premise that a government’s sovereignty is really a privilege as much as a right.
There it is in a nutshell. National sovereignty is now a privilege to be exercised until the world government decides you have violated certain principles. And who decides when a nation or leader is in violation? The world government system, of course. Where can a nation go to appeal the decisions of the global government? There is no appeal. The decisions of the world government are final.
NATO – A global army for global governance
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was established after World War II to stop the advance of Communism throughout Europe. The military alliance of the communist bloc, the Warsaw Pact, and NATO stood toe-to-toe all during the Cold War. When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, Mikhail Gorbachev said, “We are depriving you of an enemy.” He dismantled the Warsaw Pact and soon presided over the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Many thought that NATO would soon follow suit, but it didn’t.
For many years, NATO was a military giant without a mission. Yes, Europe felt more secure with NATO there, but Europe truthfully was no longer threatened by its neighbors.
It wasn’t until 1999 that NATO began to discover its new calling. The dream of a United States of Europe was being impeded by Yugoslavia and its leader, Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic knew that integration into the European Union would spell the end of Yugoslavian sovereignty, so he simply said no to EU overtures.
US President Bill Clinton used the excuse of the civil war that was occurring inside Yugoslavia to justify military action against Milosevic, accusing him of crimes against humanity. Clinton first went to the United Nations, but Russia and China used their veto power at the UN Security Council to block the resolution that would have authorized force against Yugoslavia. Furthermore, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said the UN Charter did not allow interference by the UN in a nation’s internal affairs.
Not to be deterred, Clinton lobbied the nations of NATO to authorize action against Yugoslavia. Using the incredible influence of the United States at NATO, Clinton received the approval that he sought. NATO became the de facto army for executing the policies of the emerging one-world government. Soon, Yugoslavia was a member of the European Union, Clinton received the $1 million Charlemagne Prize for contributing to European unification, and Milosevic was on trial at The Hague for crimes against humanity.
The 2011 action against Libya was the true coming-out party for NATO as the army of the world government. All pretense was set aside. The UN Security Council passed the resolution against Libya, and NATO supplied the military force to make it happen. NATO is now the military arm of the emerging world government.
The International Criminal Court
For many years, the World Federalist Association had lobbied for a world court that could try individuals, including heads-of-state, for genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and war crimes. During his 1997 speech at the opening of the 52nd UN General Assembly, President Clinton endorsed the establishment of just such a court.
On July 17, 1998, the International Criminal Court became reality. Proponents of the Court understood that, if heads-of-state could be placed on trial for violations of international law, they would be very careful to act in conformity to the ever-increasing body of international treaties that constituted international law. If world government was to succeed, it had to be able to enforce its will on the nations and leaders of the world.
The ICC slowly took shape after being approved in 1998. Several cases were prosecuted by the new court as it sought to gain acceptance in the world community. One hindering factor was that President George W. Bush had withdrawn the signature of the United States from the ICC. He understood the tremendous encroachment of the new court upon the sovereignty of the US. However, when the civil war in Sudan escalated, President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice encouraged the ICC to prosecute Sudan President Omar al-Bashir for crimes against humanity. In March of 2009, the ICC issued its very first warrant for the arrest of a sitting head-of-state.
In the spring of 2011, when Muammar Qaddafi’s regime was threatened by the rebels that rose up against him, Qaddafi responded with force in an effort to put down the uprising. The UN Security Council urged the International Criminal Court to prosecute Qaddafi. On June 27, 2011, the ICC issued a warrant for the arrest and trial of Qaddafi on charges of murder. This was the second arrest warrant issued by the ICC against a sitting head-of-state.
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon reflected at the ICC review conference in Kampala, Uganda concerning the ICC, “Now we have the ICC, permanent, increasingly powerful, casting a long shadow…” That long shadow was now causing all heads-of-state to look increasingly over their shoulders before making each decision. Each leader had to make sure his or her decisions were in compliance with the long arm of international law.
Vatican calls for “central world bank” with universal jurisdiction
On October 24, 2011, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace issued the “Note on the reform of the international financial and monetary systems in the context of global public authority.”
When the Vatican call for a central world bank hit the news, voices began to deny that such a call was made. Below are the exact quotes from the document. Judge for yourself.
“In fact, one can see an emerging requirement for a body that will carry out the functions of a kind of ‘central world bank’ that regulates the flow and system of monetary exchanges similar to the national central banks.”
Later in the document:
“These measures ought to be conceived of as some of the first steps in view of a public authority with universal jurisdiction; as a first stage in a longer effort by the global community to steer its institutions towards achieving the common good.”
The Vatican Today 10/24/11
Leave a Reply