Principalities and Globalism

[Chris]

Principalities and Globalism

Principalities and Globalism
By Terry James

The G-20 met this last week in Mexico to try to reach some degree of consensus on how to globally govern the rest of us. The phrase "some degree," in combination with the word "consensus," in my view, constitutes what is known as a non sequitur, or nonstarter. The sentiment, thus expressed, does not follow. Consensus is just that–consensus; i.e., it strongly implies harmony without substantial opinion to the contrary.

In international community diplomatic parlance, however, "some degree" is as close to consensus as it gets. And, this quandary is at the heart of the distress and perplexity world leaders face in trying to govern the rest of us in a global way. Globalism–as it has always been attempted–has been an abject failure. The contentiousness is just too great when efforts are made to get the nations of the world to agree on anything, much less on things as monumental as creating a one-world order. All such monolithic projects have failed miserably since the Babel builders saw their attempt at world order under one man, more or less, come crashing down when God destroyed the tower under construction and scattered the would-be, new-world-order masters and their subjects to different locations around the world (Genesis 11). There simply is not consensus in the matter of globalism.

The individual egos among world leaders are themselves monumental–as titanic as the tower of that Genesis 11 account. The lyrics in a country song sum up the gargantuan egos of today's national leaderships: They are "legends in their own minds."

Because of the pride and arrogance--not to mention the greed and lust--rampant within so many countries, neither consensus nor anything close to it can ever be reached to produce a single, governing global entity. Yet those of us who study God's prophetic Word believe there is ultimately to be a global order under one dictator, the man of sin, the Antichrist.

Since there can never be harmony on a worldwide scale that will bring order like that indicated in Revelation 13:16-18, how will the beast's regime come to fulfillment? While thinking on such things, I was struck with the realization–upon reading an article by my friend Wilfred Hahn—that globalism is, itself, a non sequitur, a nonstarter.

Hahn, an expert on global economic matters whose articles appear on Rapture Ready, wrote the following, quoting Moisés Naím, the well-known former editor-in-chief of Foreign Policy magazine and former executive director of the World Bank:

When was the last time you heard that a large number of countries agreed to a major international accord on a pressing issue? Not in more than a decade.… These failures represent not only the perpetual lack of international consensus, but also a flawed obsession with multilateralism as the panacea for all the world's ills. It has become far too dangerous to continue to rely on large-scale multilateral negotiations that stopped yielding results almost two decades ago. So what is to be done? To start, let's forget about trying to get the planet's nearly two hundred countries to agree. We need to abandon that fool's errand in favor of a new idea: minilateralism. By minilateralism, I mean a smarter, more targeted approach: We should bring to the table the smallest possible number of countries needed to have the largest possible impact on solving a particular problem. (Wilfred Hahn, " The Bible on the Next World Leader," Eternal Value Review, www.eternalvalue.com; see also, Newest Articles, raptureready.com)

This recommended minilateralist approach seems to precisely foreshadow the global configuration that will vault Antichrist to his dictatorship and sustain his power. It will be constructed by the principalities the apostle Paul exposes as recorded in Ephesians 6:12. We see this global arrangement for the climax of history just prior to Christ's return in the following scriptural passage: "And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast" (Revelation 17:12-13).

Since the prideful human power wielders will never easily come to consensus on governing on a worldwide basis, the most powerful dictator ever to be upon planet earth will use his demonic force of will to wrest control from the holdouts.

After this I saw in the night visions, and behold a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly; and it had great iron teeth: it devoured and brake in pieces, and stamped the residue with the feet of it: and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before whom there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots: and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things. (Daniel 7:8-9)

Watching the G-20 in action last week–or perhaps watching the inaction of the G-20 would be more appropriate terminology— makes ever more obvious that the minilateral approach is likely the methodology that will be used by the powers and principalities of Ephesians 6:12 to bring about Satan's final form of globalism. --

--Terry

[GlennO]

A sterling article....great insight!

[Shesho]

Whoa! That just turned upside-down everything I've been thinking for the past decade on the things to come. Minilateralism, huh? I'm going to ponder on this one. Ya'll may just have something.

[daygo]

Good article, will have to watch this situation very closely, I can see that the euro will die then the ten come into power then the anti-christ come onto the scene, you can almost see this happening cant you.

[ForgivenOne]

I can see it happening. Minilateralism will 'appear' to work, and everyone will hop on board. This brings to mind something I heard my father say when I was a child: "as Maine goes, so goes the nation". I was too young to know what that meant, and now I'm too old to remember in what context he used the phrase but I think it had to do with politics. Does anyone else remember hearing that?

[GlennO]

Wilfred Hahn



December 19, 2009

Barack Obama pursues 'minilateralism' in Copenhagen, bypassing UN for deal with China, India, Brazil and S Africa

One of the most interesting features of the Copenhagen summit was President Obama's decision to work with a very small number of nations once it had become clear that all nations gathered by the United Nations were not going to reach agreement.
The UK Liberal Democrat MEP Fiona Hall matter-of-factly noted the President's actions on LibDemVoice blog:

"After yesterday afternoon’s impasse on an international agreement, President Obama took matters into his own hands, struck a deal with China, India, Brazil and South Africa – and promptly left the country."

For a president who has been critical of his predecessor's go-it-aloneism the decision to form this small group is noteworthy. George W Bush had his coalition-of-the-willing in Iraq. Obama's grouping of China, India, Brazil and South Africa will probably get a name in due course too.
A technical name for what Obama engineered has already been proposed by Moisés Naím of Foreign Policy. He suggested that the failure of multilateralism will increasingly leads to minilateralism:
Naím on the failure of multilateralism: "When was the last time you heard that a large number of countries agreed to a major international accord on a pressing issue? Not in more than a decade. The last successful multilateral trade agreement dates back to 1994, when 123 countries gathered to negotiate the creation of the World Trade Organization and agreed on a new set of rules for international trade. Since then, all other attempts to reach a global trade deal have crashed. The same is true with multilateral efforts to curb nuclear proliferation; the last significant international nonproliferation agreement was in 1995, when 185 countries agreed to extend an existing nonproliferation treaty. In the decade and a half since, multilateral initiatives have not only failed, but India, Pakistan, and North Korea have demonstrated their certain status as nuclear powers. On the environment, the Kyoto Protocol, a global deal aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, has been ratified by 184 countries since it was adopted in 1997, but the United States, the world's second-largest air polluter after China, has not done so, and many of the signatories have missed their targets."
Naím on the need for minilateralism:"By minilateralism, I mean a smarter, more targeted approach: We should bring to the table the smallest possible number of countries needed to have the largest possible impact on solving a particular problem. Think of this as minilateralism's magic number. The magic number, of course, will vary greatly depending on the problem. Take trade, for example. The Group of Twenty (G-20), which includes both rich and poor countries from six continents, accounts for 85 percent of the world's economy. The members of the G-20 could reach a major trade deal among themselves and make it of even greater significance by allowing any other country to join if it wishes to do so. Presumably, many would. Same with climate change. There, too, the magic number is about 20: The world's 20 top polluters account for 75 percent of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions. The number for nuclear proliferation is 21—enough to include both recognized and de facto nuclear countries, and several other powers who care about them. African poverty? About a dozen, including all the major donor countries and the sub-Saharan countries most in need. As for HIV/AIDS, 19 countries account for nearly two thirds of the world's AIDS-related deaths."


Posted at 07:00 PM in American foreign policy, China, Climate change, India,Mini/Multilateralism, United Nations | Permalink

[GlennO]

Wilfred Hahn

{LINK}