of the world are huge and they cannot be ignored: terrorism, war, starvation,
displacement, climate change, nuclear proliferation, trade inequality and
financial crisis. The old way hasn’t always worked. Perhaps Mr.
a point. Maybe the magic numbers work?” We have here quoted an international
economist who is responding to a new idea regarding global governance.
To what magic
numbers is he referring? Actually, he is wondering just what is the right number
of countries needed to solve the world’s problems. Is it the Group of 20 nations
(G-20), the G-8 or some other grouping? Or, in fact, could it be a group of 10…
the exact number of the last-day 10 kings that the Bible prophesies will give
their authority to the Antichrist? (Revelation 17:13).
To provide more
background, the above-quoted comment was in response to a provocative and
insightful article written by the influential
the well-known Editor-in-Chief of
Foreign Policy magazine and former executive director of the World Bank.
Interestingly, Mr. Naím recently
began advocating a new concept—global minilateralism. (We will explain this term
Though he may not realize
it, he strikes upon a very important eschatological issue. His recommendations
fit hand in glove with Bible prophecy, but not necessarily in the way popularly
thought. He is talking of a world that is moving to a post-globalism state. How
can this be? Isn’t globalism a prophetic development? Then just what is this
“minilateralism,” and why should we care? We will investigate.
World Now Moving to Post-Globalism
Globalism is certainly a
hot topic of late. Recent confirmations that the Group of 20 (G-20) is now the
prime policy body in the world is evidence to many observers that globalism is
indeed forging ahead. Whereas smaller groups such as the G-7 determined global
policy direction in the past, this power nexus has now moved to the G-20 forum,
which also includes such countries as Brazil and China. Quoting one of literally
hundreds of comments from international relations experts, “A striking outcome
of the global financial crisis has been the substitution of the G-7 for the G-20
as the key forum for international coordination.”1
Widely seen, this is a
clear step in the direction of globalism. Most certainly, the recent G-20
proceedings held in Pittsburgh,
produced many boastful statements about the new resolve and capabilities of this
august group. It seeks to solve problems it has defined from Global Warming to
global financial instabilities. Will it be successful? It is almost certain that
it will prove to be another ineffectual group, its great pronouncements nothing
more than theatre and pomp. At this point, there is virtually no consensus as to
why global imbalances and the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) occurred in the
first place. With such confusion, how could they agree on solutions?
Bible prophecy backs up
this opinion. In fact, globalism is not the final, exclusive power organization
of an endtime world. We can already today see evidence that this shift could
happen very soon. To explain why, let’s first review the concept of globalism.
Globalism: Prophetic but Overdone
Referencing some common
definitions: “Globalism is an ideology that emphasizes the current trend toward
international organizations and institutions.”2
Says the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it is “a national policy of treating the
whole world as a proper sphere for political influence.”
Many debate and write about
globalism’s implications for mankind—whether beneficial or disastrous.
Though the term
“globalism” is a new one (the word only coined as recently as the 1940s),
countless thousands of books and articles have been written on this topic.
Indeed, the world itself has become a political podium, the actions of most
individual nations postured for a global audience. Yes, the “global village” is
getting smaller by virtue of becoming more connected financially and
economically (this being globalization). There is also convergence of ideology
and culture, though not as advanced as global trade and financial systems. And,
of course, globalism is a topic that is a favorite of many conspiracy theorists.
To be clear,
the Bible clearly does prophesy that globalism will take place in the last days.
God pronounces his last-day judgments upon all the nations collectively, as they
are all engaged in rebelliousness, are pursuing similar ideologies and together
rise up against Israel. For example, “Come
near, you nations, and listen; pay attention, you peoples! Let the earth hear,
and all that is in it, the world, and all that comes out of it! The LORD is
angry with all nations; his wrath is upon all their armies. He will totally
destroy them, he will give them over to slaughter” (Isaiah 34:1-2).
prophecy we can deduce that the world would have forums such as the United
Nations and global media networks that would be representative of world opinion
and consensus. When Balaam prophesied, “For
from the top of the rocks I see him, and from the hills I behold him: lo, the
people shall dwell alone, and shall not be reckoned among the nations” (Numbers
23:9, KJV), this
the world—“the nations” collectively—was united in not “reckoning” Israel. As it
happens, that state of affairs exists today.
globalism in the sense already defined does occur and persist, the world in fact
does move to a post-globalism state. Here, we can rely on Biblical proof. The
“global parliament of man,” as Alfred Tennyson called it3,
will not rule the world in the end. Globalism is not the last state. Then what
is? Actually, there are yet two regimes that come after— minilateralism (Naím’s
word invention) and autocracy … the form
of government in which the political power is held by a single, self-appointed
Regimes Follow Modern Globalism
The last state
of world rule is represented by the 8th king mentioned in Revelation
17:11. He follows 7 previous world gentile ruler kings that are shown as heads
in John’s vision of the 7-headed beast that is ridden by the prostitute in
Revelation 17. This image depicts consecutive dominating nation states and their
founding kings. The 8th king is the Beast himself. But though he
belongs to the seven (verse 11), he also comes from among the last-day 10 kings.
He is the “little
one, which came up among them” (Daniel 7:8).
is the 10-king period of rulership that is next to appear, not yet this final 8th
king who will rule the world (this being the Antichrist). The 10 kings precede
the Antichrist, as Daniel makes clear, in no uncertain terms: “The
ten horns are ten kings who will come from this kingdom. After them another king
will arise, different from the earlier ones” (Daniel 7:24). In conclusion, the
10 kings collectively represent the 7th head, which follows the 6th
Roman head—but preceding the Antichrist, who then becomes the 8th
All of this
makes for a fascinating study. Unfortunately, we can only touch on a few of the
salient points here. The important point to recognize is that the next stage of
world rulership will be represented by a 10-nation coalition, though it will
only be in existence for a very short period (Revelation 17:12). It has yet to
appear. As close as it may be, it does not yet exist.
Globalism Be Superseded?
state of affairs where a coalition of 10 nations rules the world stands against
the implicit goal of globalism … the idea that all mankind and nations are
unified in determining the world’s fate. But why? Something additional to
globalism takes place.
Now, let us
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. The pattern is clear:
Since the early 1990s, the need for effective multicountry collaboration has
soared, but at the same time multilateral talks have inevitably failed;
deadlines have been missed; financial commitments and promises have not been
honored; execution has stalled; and international collective action has fallen
far short of what was offered and, more importantly, needed. 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 200
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.
Think of this as minilateralism’s magic number.4
Cutting to the
nub of Mr.
argument: Today’s multilateral “globalism” amounts to little more than “beating
the gums.” It is ineffective … there is no accountability … no power to enforce
change. He is saying that a small group of powerful nations—not the global,
toothless forum such as the United Nations with its 192 members—should therefore
dictate global agendas.
But why is this
important and necessary? Well, to Mr.
mind, because the world faces huge, disastrous problems that must be fixed.
These emergencies—present and potentially future—therefore provide the
imperative for a smaller group of nations, who together have dominant power, to
seize the global agenda.
This is an
earth-changing perspective. Yet, it fits the current and coming times. It is
very possible that the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) stands to be a major
catalyst to this new state of world rulership.
A World Set-up
It is a fact
that power in the world today is not equally distributed. Global power has many
forms. We can categorize them into two broad types—Hard Power and Soft Power.
Soft Power includes various forms of world influence. Here can be numbered
memberships on world transnational organizations such as the International
Monetary Fund or NATO (and a host of many others), or influence upon world
culture. Hard Power, by comparison, is more direct and can include such factors
as military might, the size of world trade in goods and services, a country’s
relative population size and so on.
obstructions stand in the way of the emergence of the 7th head of
world rule, this being the 10-king Global Power Coalition. The first is that one
nation today is still a superpower. This is the
For the most part, it can do as it wishes and need not comply with the rules set
by world multilateral organizations. Before a 10-nation coalition can rule the
world, it will require that the distribution of power in the world be relatively
leveled out among the leading nations. Whatever the allied group that will seize
world power, it must collectively be able to overcome any superpower. Otherwise,
it could not exist uncontested. This development is called “multipolarism” and
is already well underway. (Please see the 2-part series entitled “Endtime Shoe:
Fitting the World for Ten Toes”—MCM, January and February 2009—for a detailed
review of this development.)
structure that obstructs the emergence of a 10-nation Power Coalition is as Mr.
already described—the ineffectiveness of today’s globalism, which involves every
country, whether significant or a small nation-state on a pacific, tropical
path therefore, is both multipolarism and minilateralism. The former broadens
the power and neutralizes the lone superpowers; the latter centralizes global
power to a smaller group, thereby circumventing globalism’s organizational mire.
As Goldilocks observed, something in the middle is needed … it will be a beast
but not a “baby bear” nor a “papa bear,” but a “mama bear.”
The Power of
nations will it require to reach a position of global dominance? Not many …
certainly not 20. Why? Consider the distribution of various economic, financial
and other power measures in the world today. Of the many factors that we could
outline, reflect on the following:
The 10 largest
economies in the world represent 68% of world output.
world government debt, 10 nations account for 79%. Interestingly, the bigger
economies in the world are actually more indebted than the rest of the world.
That fits with prophecies that suggest the final ruler will be indebted (Habakkuk
with the 10 largest stock markets account for 75.4% of world value in US dollar
terms (end 2008).
The 153 members
of the World Trade Organization represent about 95% of world trade.
that are the top-10 global exporters of goods and services alone account for
The 10 most
populous nations in the world account for 66% of the world’s population.
No matter which
measure we may use, we will find that it only requires 10 or so nations to reach
a majority or balance of dominance. We see that the nations of the world are
already ideally aligned for the emergence of the prophesied multipolar,
minilateralist state shown as the 10-king Global Power Coalition.
Along Comes the
Global Financial Crisis
policymakers and financial economists are hopeful that the new initiatives set
by the Pittsburgh round of G-20 meetings will lead to
resolution of the Global Financial Crisis. I believe that such expectations will
be sorely disappointed. The G-20 has no means of enforcing the implementation of
its resolutions. The actions of individual countries will continue to be driven
by the interests of their own domestic political agenda. Self-interests will
inevitably rule and in some cases, stand directly counter to the stated goals of
is already the case and cannot be denied. Currently, the interests of various
major countries couldn’t be more opposite. For example, in some respects, the
interests of the United States and Europe are opposite to that of
China and India. These two
nations, accounting for approximately two-fifths of the world population, see it
as necessary to continue to expand trade. China and other Asian countries
deliberately keep their currencies low to ensure that their exports are
competitively priced. This in turn causes Americans to lose jobs and external
deficits to remain high. The U.S.
and other advanced members of the G-20 want China to encourage its citizens to
spend more on consumption and export less. In the meantime, North American
consumers love the cheap prices of imported Chinese products that they can buy
at Wal-Mart. How to resolve this issue? There are many more intractable problems
that will not be resolved by the G-20.
As it is,
(most likely also India and Japan) and some Middle Eastern countries such as
will not be part of the 10-nation coalition. This can be deduced from Bible
prophecy. They are neither nations comprised of Roman peoples or their
offshoots, or already were kingdoms in power at the time that John received the
prophecies of the book of Revelation. He prophesied at that time that “The
ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom”
(Revelation 17:12). As China already
existed then, it is not one of the countries that will be part of the 10-king
It is during the
reign of the 6th head on the beast—the first Roman-people-lineage
era—in which we are living today. Globalism has flourished to its late-date
state. Now, we are likely very near embarking into the 7th head era,
which is ruled by a 10-nation coalition.
It could very
well be that the Global Financial Crisis and its future fall-out will prove to
be the catalysts that will bring the world to a state of minilateralism. In the
meantime, such countries as China and other
emerging nations are fast accumulating economic power. Already, the economies of
the non-advanced members of the G-20 nations have surpassed that of the advanced
members. It is quite possible that the entire east-Asian orb of nations along
could be in opposition to the final 10-kings. This very development could be
seen to actually hasten the 10-king formation. In such a scenario, these 10
nations would need to ally themselves against any opposition before it is too
is not as cute or toothless as the prefix “mini” implies. The concept of
minilateralism for the time being is meant by Mr. Naím as a collaborative,
peaceful process. In the end, however, it is more likely to result in policies
of exclusion and oppression.
 Agnès Bénassy-Quéré & Olena
Havrylchyk, “G-20, Not G-7,” RGE Monitor, September 25, 2009.
 Wikipedia, Accessed Sept. 28,
 Alfred Tennyson, Locksley Hall,
 Moisés Naím, “Minilateralism,”
Foreign Policy, July/August 2009.
 CIA. Using available data from
years 2006 to 2008.
SUBSCRIBE TO WILFRED’S FREE NEWSLETTER
resources on “endtime economics” and to subscribe to the free
newsletter, Eternal Value Review, visit Wilfred’s website
contact him at:
About the Author: Wilfred J. Hahn
is a global economist/strategist. Formerly a top-ranked global analyst,
research director for a major Wall Street investment bank, and chairman
country’s largest global investment operation, his writings focus on the
endtime roles of money, economics and globalization. He has been quoted
around the world and his writings reproduced in numerous other
publications and languages. His 2002 book The Endtime Money Snare:
How to live free accurately anticipated and prepared its readers for
the Global Financial Crisis. His newest book, Global Financial
Preserving true riches in an age of deception and trouble,
looks further into the future.