MEMBER'S HOME

DTT HOME

How to Use the Members Only Section

DTT Analyses

Prophecy Lessons

Jiang-Yeltsin Joint Statement 

Jiang-Putin Beijing Declaration

DTT INFORMATION

Discerning the Times  

 

6 Heather Road

Bangor, ME 04401

 

Phone

(207) 945-9878

email

DTT@discerningtoday.org

Two geopolitical meetings in Europe in November and December have provided the playing field for a major geopolitical power struggle over who will control the creation of the long-awaited world government. In the battle between the Titans, what is called the US-British (Anglo-British) faction or axis won by a nose over the Socialist-European faction or axis. (See Historical Context in this month's issue of the Digest) Since the result of this titanic power play defines the form in which global governance takes, it now appears that while the world government will be fascist-socialist, it will not be as feudalistic as it could have been, and will be based on and controlled by the Western ideals of capitalism--just as implied in Revelation 17 and 18. 

The COP 6 meeting at The Hague

After nearly a year of sparring with the Anglo-British faction, the first major geopolitical power play by the Socialist European faction came at the UN Conference of the Parties for the Convention on Climate Change at the Hague the last two weeks in November. Known as COP 6, the meeting was supposed to be the conference during which the final language on CO₂ emission targets for the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated. The treaty had been rapidly approaching impasse, and it was essential that the new treaty be wrapped up at COP 6, lest the whole effort languish in stagnation. 

Expectations ran high as the meeting started. It quickly became evident, however, that something else was afoot. During a plenary speech French president Jacques Chirac unexpectedly announced that the process was the "first component of an authentic global governance," and that the meeting was "instituting a genuine instrument of global governance." For Chirac to boldly proclaim global governance is a reality was just not done. While everyone in attendance knew that the Kyoto Protocol was a part of global governance, the connection was always before kept in obscurity so that the American people would not catch on too quickly what was being planned. 

Chirac had just changed the ground rules.

No progress was made during the meeting. As panic began to dominate the delegates as the meeting drew to a close and negotiations deadlocked, the US, led by Frank Loy, and the EU, led by Britain's deputy prime minister John Prescott began marathon negotiations. The negotiations went through the last night of the conference. Henry Lamb, Chairman of Sovereignty International, a UN watchdog organization, describes the cliffhanging episode this way:

"John Prescott and Frank Loy...reached agreement on the major outstanding issues sometime after 3 a.m. "We physically shook hands," Loy said. "Are we in now in full agreement, is this a deal?" Loy said that Prescott, and representatives from two other European countries in the room said "yes."  The deal fell apart when Prescott could not sell it to the rest of the European Union. Jurgen Trittin, Germany's environmental minister led the resistance to Prescott's deal, and...with support from Dominique Voynet, France's environmental minister, who is also a Green Party member, ...it was rejected, causing a collapse in the negotiations that stunned veteran observers...." (Bold added for emphasis)

Germany and France demanded that the US be required to take the full hit of a 30 percent reduction in projected energy consumption by 2012. Such a requirement would have destroyed the US economy, making the EU the powerhouse of the world. The transparent power play stunned the participants, and the meeting degenerated into mass confusion as to why Germany and France would do such a thing. Everyone knew, including the Anglo-British and Socialist European factions, that the treaty was necessary to control the economies of the developed nations. Why would Germany and France destroy something they really wanted? 

While most attendees attributed the no vote by Germany and France to environmental extremism, it is highly likely the real reason went much deeper. It has every appearance of being a calculated risk on the part of the Socialist European faction to fire a warning shot across

While the Anglo-British and the socialist EU factions both want world government, the socialist EU axis wants to force the issue now and institute an all-powerful world government immediately with the EU superstate, not America, holding the power-strings. Until now the US-British axis have controlled the agenda because they have controlled the money supply of the world. Suddenly, power balance seemed to be shifting to the EU. The attempted power play by the Socialist Europeans reached a climax in December when the EU met in Nice, France, along the Mediterranean Sea, to rewrite the EU Charter, ostensibly to streamline the EU and permit up to 30 nations to join it.

The December EU Summit

Every indication suggested that Germany and France were using the December EU summit to create an EU superstate. Current EU president, French president Jacques Chirac attempted to control the meeting and impose language in the new EU treaty that would deny the individual states veto power over the EU and would grant autonomy over military actions by the emerging EU rapid response army.  

Had Chirac' s efforts been successful, it would have provided a "central regional government" model for other economic regions to pattern themselves, and would have likely plunged the emerging UN world government into a purely socialist, feudal structure. But it was not to be. 

Led by the poor leadership of Chirac, the summit degenerated for several days into free-for-all bickering as European states vied for power and position in the new treaty. The German-French alliance was seriously split as both nations squabbled like little children to gain power for themselves at the expense of the other. The negotiations were brought to near collapse by Belgian Prime Minister, Guy Verhofstadt as he led the charge by small states not to give the big five, Germany, France, Italy, Britain and Spain, overwhelming power by granting them more seats. The big five finally capitulated, but not by much.

What the new EU treaty does and does not do

Germany and France were also dealt a serious blow when the highly controversial Charter of Fundamental Rights was not accepted as part of the treaty. Instead, it will serve as a guideline for all "civil, political, economic and social rights of EU citizens." Germany and France had wanted the Charter to be included in the treaty so it would have served as an embryonic constitution defining how the states would administer cross-border law. Once the Charter is included, perhaps in 2004 when the treaty is opened up again for revision, the EU will be well on its way to becoming a superstate and a major player in the emerging world government.

While France and Germany failed to get what they needed to create an EU superstate and control the creation of the world government, most of their other objectives were reached. The key points of the new EU treaty reveal that while the individual nations maintained their veto power over issues dealing with social security and taxation, they lost their veto over a minimum of 30 other issues. The power of the president of the EU Commission, the executive branch of the EU, has also increased.

Britain (and therefore the Anglo-British faction) won the battle over the new rapid reaction force, described by critics as a nascent "Euro army". France wanted the force to be able to engage in missions under the European flag, but with troops from only willing EU members, even on occasions when there is no unanimous view over whether it should intervene. Instead, there must be unanimous consent by the entire EU for the army to be used, and the troops will still bear their national insignias. Most important, it would not supercede NATO, which many believe will soon undergo metamorphoses into the UN army.

What was perhaps the most important aspect of the treaty was the inclusion of a "demographic bar" which ensures that any group of states representing 38 per cent of the EU's population could block all EU laws. It gives the big five nations a permanent blocking power whenever three or more states agree (see table above). They now have unchallenged control over the EU, opening the way for a new era in which the major initiatives are decided by the national governments in Paris, London, Berlin, Rome, and Madrid, instead of originating from Brussels through the "Community process". It is the triumph of "inter-governmentalism", reflecting the vision that British prime minister Tony Blair set out in Warsaw last October. 

Especially notable in this new arrangement of power is that Germany and France, with 21.9 and 15.6 percent of the population respectively, have 36.5 percent between them. With the addition of any third European nation, they have over the 38 percent needed to control the EU agenda for the next four years. Britain, on the other hand has only 15.8 percent and little chance of forming controlling alliances. 

EU will have a tougher time controlling new UN Charter 

Although Germany and France may force a strong central regional government when the EU treaty is rewritten one last time in 2004, right now they do not control the EU exclusively. The seriousness of their geopolitical power plays may have been revealed in a report by the BBC on December 19 that the US declined to attend a meeting with European Union ministers in Oslo to conclude negotiations on global warming. The EU had asked the US for this meeting after it refused to accept US greenhouse gas targets following marathon negotiations at the conclusion of the Climate Change Conference at The Hague in late November. 

Clinton's refusal appears to signal that the US has no intention of submitting to the now fractured Socialist European faction. It is too early to be certain, but it could also be an in-your-face snub by the Anglo-British faction that it no longer sees the Socialist European faction as a threat to its global leadership. 

Nor does the Socialist European faction have a single voice in the United Nations. Although the EU will have more votes to determine the outcome of various UN issues, it will still have to go to each European state--and their people---to ratify the new UN Charter that should be unveiled sometime in 2001. This lack of unity will make it more difficult for the EU to control the content and structure of the new UN Charter as well as making its ratification more difficult. 

The Anglo-British faction has come out the winner in the current round of geopolitical powerplays. The next several months should indicate whether the Socialist EU faction has successfully pushed the Anglo-British faction into accelerating the time-table for creating global governance. In any event, when the new United Nations Charter is revealed it will likely be formed around capitalist concepts with some national sovereignty intact to protect those businesses. Not surprisingly, that is exactly what Revelation chapters 17 and 18 imply of the world government that will be in place during the end times. V mc