The Last
Remaining
Superpower
...and it is NOT
the United States!
A Look at the United Nations in its Biblical Role
By Ken Raggio
This article was first published in 1998. More persuasive today.
God and Men's Agendas Are Colliding
Bible
prophecy prescribes a government of world-wide proportions for the time
of the end - one
that will have power over all people – "small and great, rich
and poor, free and
bond," Revelation 13.
This
universal government would have the power to implement and enforce political, military and economic sovereignty over all nations and people.
For
more than sixty years now, the United Nations has evolved steadily
toward a government of nations - a kind of international federalism..
The
earlier precursor to the UN, the League of Nations, created as a
result of World War I, would have sooner been what the UN is today
except for unfavorable
world opinion in its day.
Public
opinion in the first half of the twentieth century was quite
adversarial to the notion of an international parliament that might
somehow infringe upon
the sovereignty of independent nations. The US Congress ultimately said "no" to the League of Nations.
That climate has certainly changed.
Prior
to World War I, the
United States had never been involved in an
international war, and did not want to be.
But within a few short years,
American not only reversed that policy, but
emerged as a major force in policing international conflicts.
By the end of the second
World War, the United States and the USSR emerged as the only two "superpowers."
Lesser nations gradually
polarized and aligned themselves with one or the
other. "East" versus "West" sentiments provoked an ever-widening gap
that increasingly threatened world peace. Western Capitalism contended with Eastern Communism and vice versa.
The Cold War between the
"Free" world and the Communist world
escalated. All the world lived in terror of what seemed to be an
inevitable showdown
between these two opposing forces, especially the possibilities of a
nuclear showdown and
the resulting holocaust. In America, nuclear fallout shelters were thought to be a necessity of the day.
The war of words heated up. President Ronald Reagan referred to the
USSR as the "evil empire," while Eastern voices denounced the USA as
"the
Great Satan."
But now, old superpowers no
longer play their
old roles
Suddenly,
the "evil empire," the USSR appeared to have forfeited
the game. Under the peace-prize-winning leadership of Mikhail
Gorbachev, the Socialist
superpower suddenly disbanded!
The United States remained as the sole
superpower.
In
a devious show of false modesty, George H.W. Bush insisted that the United States should
no longer exercise unilateral force as a superpower, and insisted that the United States default to a
"New World
Order."
Who
was this NWO but an unbelievable alliance of many of America's former
adversaries in a unified international body, meeting in General
Assembly in New York as the United Nations.
At first,
America was being called upon to voluntarily cooperate with the efforts
of the United Nations, even though so many of its objectives ran
counter to the best interests of the United States.
This "voluntary compliance" of all
participating nations with the decisions of
the UN General Assembly, the UN Security Council, and a variety of
other agencies in the
UN infrastructure seemed at times, innocuous, and in the best interest of global stability.
Our
"voluntary compliance" was put to the maximum test during the days of
the Gulf War Crisis. The American military establishment was asked to
surrender to international command, with US troops serving in UN
uniforms and under a UN flag.
Since
that time, troops from
many nations have politely cooperated
with military chiefs of "foreign" nations, and in many cases, traded
their respective
uniforms and insignias for UN uniforms and UN insignias. Each and every
case stands as an example of nations abdicating their sovereignty to a
world government which has now become the world's last superpower.
Reluctant nations now default to the United
Nations
Not surprisingly, the United Nations emerged
from the Gulf War with dramatically enhanced abilities to exercise command
over "volunteer" troops from many nations.
Enthusiastic
supporters from around the world began to
verbalize the "need" for PERMANENT volunteer UN forces. (Note: History shows
that
enforced volunteerism is too often a prelude to involuntary conscription.)
"Why," they argued, "should the
UN be placed in the cumbersome position of
having to repeat its call for international assistance each and every
time a crisis
developed?"
Why
not establish a permanent
UN military presence that could stand ready
at any time for UN leaders to call into action without having to
"bother" the
individual nations?
After all, at any given time,
there are DOZENS of troublesome hot
spots around the globe where "peacekeeping" forces are needed!
Since 1948, the UN has
completed operations in dozens of countries, and is
presently engaged in dozens of countries with "peacekeeping" personnel.
In all UN
peacekeeping operations, there are now tens of thousands of "UN troops" inside at least 71 nations.
Particularly troublesome to
those who cherish national sovereignty, some
of these operations have been initiated without the invitation of the
countries involved.
This plainly speaks of
governance of sovereigns, or world government.
Among globalists there is an argument that there
is a difference between governance and
government. The textbook definition of governance is
1) the act, process, or power of governing; government, or
2) The state of being governed.
It is ominous, then that the
UN refers to itself with terms such as
"Global Governance."
Is "Global Governance" World
Government?
A 1995 international conference in Melbourne,
Australia was held
on the subject, "The United Nations - Between Sovereignty and Global
Governance."
The
Commission for World
Governance addressed the "Imperative for
Reform." Their call was for "a system of governance at the global level
which
offers humanity the chance of a more peaceful and prosperous future
than the years which
have just passed. A renewed United Nations should be at the centre of
any such
system."
An
argument was made for
"preventing and settling what once were
‘internal’ conflicts."
It becomes apparent that this
"Global Governance" (synonymous
with World Government) intends to aggressively assert itself into the
internal affairs of
nations it perceives to be in need of changes.
At first, universal
acceptance of these notions might by founded on the
public’s perceived concern about smaller nations in crisis.
But we may eventually be
horrified to find that the same liberties may be
taken in nations not WANTING intervention, including the United States.
PDD-25 - Bill Clinton's "end-run"
around National Sovereignty!
President
Bill Clinton initiated the controversial PDD-25 (Presidential Directive
Decision #25) in
May of 1994, in which he forwarded the "Command and Operational
Control"
clauses, simplifying and further legitimizing the handing over of
American military forces
to United Nations authorities in US approved peacekeeping operations.
Critics are concerned that
American troops may find themselves forced to
fire on their own troops in an international theater, or perhaps even
on American soil!
Measures such as PDD-25 are
of the precise nature referred to in the
Council on Foreign Relations journal when former deputy assistant
secretary of state
Richard Gardener wrote,
"…an end run around national
sovereignty, eroding it
piece by piece, is likely to get us to world order faster than the old
fashioned
assault."
Michael
New (pictured), a soldier
in the US Army, was court-martialed for refusing to follow an unlawful
order to deploy to
Macedonia; refusing the President's order to wear the UN uniform;
refusing to serve under
a foreign UN commander; and refusing to be required to carry only the
UN identification
card.
He
received a bad conduct
discharge and faced mountains of appeals
litigation in both military and civil courts.
His case serves to notify
Americans everywhere that the US Constitution
does not protect us from the arbitrary rule of force by the
United Nations.
Mike New's Action Fund, his legal defense
effort, published this
interesting logo:
The "New World Order" figures into God's strategy
While
there are many voices raised in opposition to these Big
Brother tactics and agendas, the Biblical perspective suggests that we
have little reason
to organize resistance.
The
19th chapter of Revelation reveals that
Jesus Christ will soon take these matters into His own hands, meeting
with heads of the
nations of the world in the Battle of Armageddon.
Several prophecies depict the European Union seizing
control of the United Nations. Whereas the United States has played a
very dominant role at the UN in the past, scriptures show the
transition to Europe. You can expect to see the European Union displace
the United States as the dominant power at the UN. Even though
Europeans have, in the past, often objected to the United States'
heavy-handed role at the UN, we will soon see Europe become the
heavy-handed one, and the United States may be rendered surprisingly
weak. See: WILL THE EU DISPLACE THE US?
Nevertheless,
the destiny of the world superpower, the United Nations, is to meet Jesus Christ on the hills of Israel for the Battle of Armageddon.
Nothing and nobody in Washington, New York, Moscow, London, Paris or
Rome is going to prevent that showdown. It has been written for
thousands of years, and none of the other prophecies have failed.
The
Book of Daniel shows Messiah as a Rock hewn out of
the mountain, crushing the world government in that ominous date with destiny.
True
Christians have the consolation that all these
developments are specifically called for in God’s agenda for
the end of the age. At that time, those who have been born again
according to the scriptures will be "redeemed" from that holocaust, and
will actually accompany Jesus Christ to that epic event.
