On April 11, 2002, U.N. Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs Hans Corell proclaimed, “A page in the history of humankind is being turned!” And, my what a page it was!
Earlier that day, 10 nations deposited their instruments of ratification of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court, joining the 56 who had done so earlier. That catapulted the total number of ratifications well past the 60 needed to bring the statute into force. Mr. Corell encouraged the rest of the 139 nations which had signed, but not yet ratified, the treaty – such as the U.S., Russia, and Israel – to follow the example of their global neighbors. Having the necessary ratifications, the court will open July 1, 2002.
For globalists, I suppose congratulations are in order to those 66 nations that have empowered the United Nations – the Beast with 7 heads and 10 horns – to persecute world citizens, and particularly those of the Christian faith.
The United States has vehemently opposed the treaty, which was signed by President Clinton on December 31, 2000, during the last days of his presidency. The US has boycotted the meetings preparing for this court for almost a year, but has done little else to prevent its passage.
Billed in the media as “the first permanent war crimes tribunal,” the Rome Statute, established in Rome on July 17, 1998, is not limited to war crimes. The new world tribunal will try individuals for all crimes of international import, irrespective of borders. These crimes include genocide, and the loosely defined crimes of aggression, sexual slavery, enforced pregnancy and crimes against humanity.
One must first recognize that the Christian worldview no longer shapes culture or influences legal development. The terms used by this statute are not defined by the Bible, but by unrighteous, ungodly, anti-Christian world “representatives.”
For instance, the term “enforced pregnancy” is generally understood to mean deliberate rape of refugee women for the purpose of humiliating them with the children of their captors. However, the term was created by feminists in condemnation of any country that refused to legalize abortion.
Americans also incorrectly assume that the court’s proceedings will apply to wartime infractions exclusively. Consider the European Network of the International Planned Parenthood Federation’s June 24, 2000 charge against the Vatican. A special session of the UN did not achieve the desired result of universal abortion rights. Two weeks later, the IPPF-EN sent an open letter to Pope John Paul II, identifying Vatican influence in their defeat and claiming, “We are deeply concerned that you do not seem to recognize that the opinions and actions of the Holy See ... are seen by many as ... war ... that contributes to ... suffering and deaths.” This non-government organization deliberately invoked “war crimes” imagery in this letter, being fully cognizant of the International Criminal Court. Could pastors, and other Christian leaders, be held responsible by the ICC for millions of AIDS deaths because of rhetoric against “safe,” extra-marital sex or homosexuality?
According to the ICC draft statute, the definition of crimes would include “persecution against a group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural or religious (and possibly gender) grounds,” and “other inhumane acts causing serious injury to the body or to mental or physical health.”
Is it “inhumane” or a “serious injury to mental health” to speak out against sin? The Rome Statute conveniently leaves this point ambiguous.
It is also in error to assume that America’s veto power on the Security Council will protect us. Currently, there is a strong movement in the UN to end the US veto power and its permanent seat on the Security Council.
One may cite our present opposition to the ICC, and our resistance to the Statute’s ratification, as protection from its jurisdiction. However, the Clinton legacy continues to loom over us. On December 10, 1998, President Clinton signed executive order 13107 implementing UN treaties – even if unratified! That makes the new world court effective for American citizens on July 1st of this year.
Paul rebuked the Corinthian church for taking their Christian brothers and sisters to secular court. “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unjust, and not before the saints? Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? And if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Know ye not that we shall judge angels? How much more things that pertain to this life? If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you? No, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before the unbelievers. Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because ye go to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? Nay, ye do wrong, and defraud, and that your brethren.” (1 Cor. 6:1-8)
Paul knew that the unbelieving, secular court could not judge righteously, and that matters between believers should be mediated within the church, relying on the wisdom of God and Bible precedents.
This is a good general principle. Nations like the US and Israel cannot expect an international tribunal to equitably judge matters relating to them. In fact, no nation should subject itself to a set of laws written by people with no personal investment in the good of that nation.
Paul declared another righteous precept: “Why is my liberty judged of another man’s conscience?” (1 Cor. 10:29) The new court will open July 1, 2002. Prepare to be judged.
Dear Christian brother or sister, Wake up! Dear reader, if you have not committed your life to Jesus, do so now. Time is short and Satan, our adversary, is seeking to devour mankind. Our only hope – our only help – is Jesus Christ!