Light for the Last Days

United Nations and Globalisation

Extract from Countdown book written in 2010

Shortly after the First World War, as a result of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919, the League of Nations was founded with the aim of preventing war through collective security, disarmament, and settling international disputes through negotiation and arbitration.   It also produced treaties dealing with labour conditions, just treatment of minorities, the arms trade, global health and prisoners of war.  This was the first attempt to create a global organisation regulating the behaviour of nations.  Its weakness was that, although it could pass resolutions, it lacked the power to enforce them.   The rise of aggressive fascist powers in Europe and the Second World War effectively brought an end to the League.

The United Nations replaced it after the end of the Second World War and inherited a number of agencies and organisations founded by the League.  The stated aims of the UN are ‘facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and the achieving of world peace’.  On 25 April 1945, the UN Conference on International Organisation began in San Francisco, attended by 50 governments and a number of non-governmental organisations involved in drafting the Charter of the United Nations. The UN officially came into existence on 24 October 1945 upon ratification of the Charter by the five permanent members of the Security Council, France, the Republic of China, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States, and by a majority of the other 46 signatories.  

As with the League of Nations, one of the issues of the UN has been the lack of power to enforce resolutions and prevent outbreaks of conflict between nations and within nations.  A number of influential world politicians and leaders have spoken about the need for some kind of global government which would supersede national sovereignty and deal with global issues such as conflict and disarmament, the environment and financial stability.  The aim would be to set up a New World Order:

The New World Order is a world that has a supranational authority to regulate world commerce and industry; an international organisation that would control the production and consumption of oil; an international currency that would replace the dollar; a World Development Fund that would make funds available to free and communist nations alike; and an international police force to enforce the edicts of the New World Order.  

(Willy Brandt, former West German Chancellor and chairman of the Fifth Socialist International in the late 1980’s.)

This regionalization is in keeping with the Tri-Lateral Plan which calls for a gradual convergence of East and West, ultimately leading toward the goal of one world government.  National sovereignty is no longer a viable concept.

(Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to former US President Jimmy Carter.)

Jan Tinbergen wrote in the 1994 United Nations Development Report entitled ‘Global Governance for the 21st Century’:

Mankind’s problems can no longer be solved by national governments. What is needed is a World Government. This can best be achieved by strengthening the United Nations system. In some cases, this would mean changing the role of UN agencies from advice-giving to implementation.

The idea behind this is that the world is facing challenges which cannot be solved by individual governments alone – the economic crisis, the environment and the threat of mass destruction from nuclear weapons being the main ones.   Those advocating world government are often talking up the threat to human survival.  They say that if nothing is done to save us from these threats, then the world faces a calamitous future which could result in the human race being wiped out.  This applies especially to the issue of global warming.  Many would see a world government with power to enforce decisions on nations and individuals as the only way to deal with this crisis.  If we accept that this is the case, then losing some of our freedoms may be seen as a small price to pay.

The UN and organisations like the World Trade Organisation, International Criminal Court, UN peacekeeping force and numerous UN NGO’s and other agencies can be seen as the preliminary steps to the formation of a world government.  According to an article by George Russell of Fox News (September 17, 2010 FoxNews.com) the top leadership of the UN planned to move forward the UN agenda of ‘global governance’ at a meeting in Austria in September 2010:   

With as little public notice as possible, the United Nations Security Council plans to hold a summit meeting to significantly boost its role as a global military and police force, social development agency and international arbitrator, all rolled into one.

The aims of the summit were outlined in position papers which dealt with these issues:

  1. How to restore “climate change” as a top global priority;
  2. How to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of that climate agenda, and widen the discussion further to encompass the idea of “global public goods”;
  3. How to keep growing UN peacekeeping efforts into missions involved in the police, courts, legal systems and other aspects of strife torn countries;
  4. How to capitalize on the global tide of migrants from poor nations to rich ones, to encompass a new “international migration governance framework”;
  5. How to make “clever” use of new technologies to deepen direct ties with what the UN calls “civil society,” meaning novel ways to bypass its member nation states and deal directly with constituencies that support UN agendas.

As one underlying theme of the sessions, the top UN bosses seemed to be grappling often with how to cope with the issue of national sovereignty, which continued to thwart many of their most ambitious schemes, especially when it comes to many different kinds of ‘global governance.’  The UN would like to see a greater role for itself in ‘global governance.’  A paper for the first group session of the summit read:

The UN should be able to take the lead in setting the global agenda, engage effectively with other multinational and regional organisations as well as civil society and non-state stakeholders, and transform itself into a tool to help implement the globally agreed objectives.

The paper also considers the expansion of the role of UN peacekeepers into a police force operating on the ground in nations.

The UN chiefs also contemplated the further growth of the UN as the world’s policeman. As another paper notes, UN peacekeeping operations “will soon have almost 17,000 United Nations police officers serving on four continents”, little more than two years after establishing what one papers calls the institution’s “Standing Police Capacity.”  The peacekeepers are now also building a “standing justice and corrections element” to go with the semi-permanent police force, a permanent strike force to establish courts and prisons in nations where peacekeepers are stationed. (September 17, 2010 FoxNews.com).

Another issue of concern to the UN is the security of the world in the light of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. President Obama gave a speech in Prague in April 2009 about the need to remove the threat of nuclear weapons being used.  He noted that the threat of all-out war had gone down with the end of the Cold War but that the risk of a nuclear attack had gone up as more and more nations acquire nuclear weapons and the know-how to make a bomb.  He said that terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one.  Obama went on to speak of the need for all nations to come together to build a ‘stronger, global regime’ to stop the spread of nuclear weapons and to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.  He said, “Some countries will break the rules. That’s why we need a structure in place that ensures when any nation does, they will face consequences.”   

The economic issue, the environment, the spread of nuclear weapons are all issues which are international in nature and threaten the security of the whole world.  Pope Benedict XVI has called for a global authority that is able to deal with these issues.  His ‘Charity in Truth’ statement calls for a ‘true World Political Authority’ to manage the affairs of the world. At the same time, however, the Pope also warns that such an international order could ‘produce a dangerous universal power of a tyrannical nature’ and must be guarded against somehow. Pope Benedict says this new international order can be accomplished through ‘reform of the United Nations Organisation, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth.’  

If the ‘World Political Authority’ is to be given ‘real teeth’ then how are the people of the world going to be able to resist it if it becomes tyrannical?  In the end the Antichrist as head of a world political authority with real teeth would seem to be the most likely fit with the prophecies of the Bible.         

Tony Pearce

Tony Pearce

Add comment

Please Subscribe to get notified whenever there is a new post.