Revelation 17:1 speaks of the "judgment of the great harlot who sits on many waters." As we have seen, that harlot, "adorned with gold and precious stones" (verse 4) and "drunk with the blood of the saints" (verse 6) is Israel, particularly the Joseph tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh—Great Britain and the United States. Ten kings, the ten horns of the Beast (verse 12), come to "hate the harlot, make her desolate and naked, eat her flesh and burn her with fire" (verse 16). The church has long held that Germany, leading a confederation of European nations, will eventually destroy the Israelite nations, much as ancient Assyria conquered the northern Kingdom of Israel.

A sign of the ever-widening breach between Israelite nations and those that will eventually make up the Beast is the battle for the control of international institutions. In one corner is the Israelite-sponsored United Nations system of state sovereignty that has held sway, flawed as it is, in international relations for half a century now. Opposite is the EU's new interventionist (read, globalist) ethic supported by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

A fact not readily understood by many is that the United Nations is an organization "by the United States, of the United States, and for the United States." This is not to say that America has always had her way in the UN Security Council, and certainly not in the General Assembly. However, that historical turn of events—an unintended consequence, to be sure—does not alter the fact that the UN (like the League of Nations before it) is the stepchild of Israelite nations, particularly the Joseph tribes of Britain and America.

After World War II, Israel fashioned the United Nations to be the primary institution of international law. State sovereignty was to be the centerpiece of that law. Article 1.2 of the UN Charter establishes "the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples" as the foundation of international relations. In context, it is patently clear that peoples refers to "the citizenries of existing states." Self-determination of peoples refers to "the right of the members of these citizenries collectively to govern their own affairs free of foreign interference." John Rosenthal, in "A Lawless Global Court" (Policy Review, February/March 2004, p. 29), asserts, "The UN Charter represents a forceful reaffirmation of the sovereign prerogatives of states." Its founders envisioned an organization that supported national sovereignty while providing a forum where disputes between sovereign entities could be peacefully resolved.

The assault on the UN international system (and before that, on the system supported by the long-defunct League of Nations) has been led by Germany. Historically, both the League and the UN were established in the context of catastrophic European wars started by Germany. Both organizations, that is, were established to rein in rogue nations bent on upsetting the peaceful international order. German elites are, of course, correct in perceiving Germany "as being particularly disadvantaged" by both forums. Indeed, to this day Germany lacks veto power on the UN Security Council.

Germany's historical abhorrence for the old League and for today's UN lies in the perception that the League placed, and the UN places, too much emphasis on state sovereignty. Germany's strategy to overturn the League was obstinate refusal to cooperate, including, in the end, her unlawful rearmament and her aggression, precipitating World War II. Its strategy to overturn the UN system is more subtle: "If you can't fight them, appear to join them, so you can subvert from within." Germany has been quite successful in undermining the international system by using its own mechanisms. Rosenthal affirms, "The history of the [ICC], which began as a UN initiative, is indeed the clearest example of this pattern."

Supporters of the ICC give the impression that the court is a product of widespread consensus in the international community. As proof, they put forth the fact that 92 nations of the 192 states currently recognized by the United Nations have approved the court by ratifying the Rome Statute that establishes it. More impressive, however, are the facts behind those numbers:

• At the time of the Court's establishment, fifteen of those 92 nations were members of the EU. Germany was the prime mover of the Rome Conference, which spawned the Rome Statute. It did not fail to remind other EU states of Article 19 of the Treaty of European Union, which binds them to "coordinate their action in international organizations and at international conferences." So, the EU nations fell into line behind Germany.
• Eleven ratifying states were up for EU membership and caved under the Union's "informal pressure."
• Three ratifying states were virtually under EU control: Macedonia, Bosnia, and Serbia/Montenegro. Another, Albania, was negotiating for a favored position in the EU.

Of the 92 ratifying states, 29 were either current or prospective members of the EU, leaving 63 ratifiers, less than half of the remaining generally recognized nations. Some of these are among the world's smallest states, like the Vatican. Rosenthal wryly remarks, "Seven of the ratifiers taken together . . . have a population smaller than that of New York's smallest borough of Staten Island." Another group of ratifying nations represents heavily indebted nations, such as Bolivia and Mali, most of which receive large sums of European development aid?i.e., the EU bought them. Since then, only a dozen nations, most of them insignificant, have ratified the treaty.

Ergo, the ICC is not the product of broad international consensus, but as Rosenthal concludes, "a project of the European Union." He adds that the EU has successfully rallied "support among countries that, . . . due either to their small size or to their extreme poverty and large external debt, cannot seriously be regarded as independent players on the world stage."

Other numbers come to the fore when considering the nations that did not sign away their sovereignty to the monstrous German creation: In essence, any nation that matters! India (1 billion people), China (1.25 billion people), Indonesia (230 million people), Russia (150 million people) Japan (125 million people), the United States (275 million people). This totals over 3 billion people?half the world's population.

The International Criminal Court is not a globally-approved institution, with only the "unilateralist" United States standing outside. The numbers just do not add up that way. Next time, we will see how much the ICC departs from the judicial practices sovereign nations traditionally endorse.