“The problems 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. Naím has 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 Moisés Naím,
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
shortly.) 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, United States, 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 often 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).

From prophecy we can know 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 presumed
that the world—“the nations” collectively—
was united in not “reckoning”
Israel. As it happens, that state of affairs
exists today.

Yet, while globalism in the sense already
defined does occur and persist,
the world in fact does move to a postglobalism
state. Here, we can rely on
Biblical proof. The “global parliament
of man,” as Alfred Tennyson called it,³
will not rule the world in the end.
Globalism is not the last state. Then
what is? There are 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, selfappointed
ruler.

Two More Regimes Follow Modern
Globalism

The last state of world rule is represented
by the 8^th 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 8^th 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).

Therefore, it 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
preceede 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 7^th head, which
follows the 6th Roman head—but preceding
the Antichrist, who then becomes the
8^th beastly king.

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.

Why Might Globalism Be Superseded?

Obviously, a 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 allow Mr. Naím to speak:

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. Naím’s 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. Naím’s 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 for Domination

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
number 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.

Two 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
United States. 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.)

The second structure that obstructs the
emergence of a 10-nation Power Coalition
is as Mr. Naím already described—the ineffectiveness
of today’s globalism, which
involves every country, whether significant
or a small nation-state on a pacific, tropical
island.

The logical 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 Ten

How many 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.

• Concerning 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 2:6-8).

• The countries 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. The nations
that are the top-10
global exporters of goods
and services alone account
for 53%.⁵

• 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

World 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
the G-20.

Actually, this is already the case and
cannot be denied. Currently, the interests
of various major countries couldn’t be
more opposite in some respects. 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, China (most likely also India
and Japan) and some Middle Eastern
countries such as Iran 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 group.

Thoughts to Ponder

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 with
China 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
late.

Minilateralism 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.

ENDNOTES

1. Agnès Bénassy-Quéré & Olena Havrylchyk,“G-20,
Not G-7,” RGE Monitor, September 25, 2009.

2. Wikipedia, Accessed Sept. 28, 2009,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism

3. Alfred Tennyson, Locksley Hall, 1846.

4. Moisés Naím,“Minilateralism,” Foreign Policy,
July/August 2009.
5. CIA.Using available data from years 2006 to 2008.