The following is from The Plain Truth magazine, March 1991

                       THE NEW WORLD ORDER

            It Could Backfire On Those Who Want It Most!

   Last August, Iraq did more than occupy Kuwait. It transgressed
international law and threatened the world's collective security.

   It was a first test of a new world order that has come into
being following the collapse of European communism and the end of
the Cold War. Whatever the eventual outcome of the Kuwait crisis,
progress may have been made toward a world regulated by
international consensus.

   This seems good news for democratic nations who need peace and
stability  to prosper. But it could lead to some nasty surprises.

   International law is, in general terms, the mutually agreed-on-
rules by which nations conduct affairs of State with each other. It
has been a rather hazy concept in international relations.

   it is widely accepted that a government can behave in almost any
way it pleases within its own borders. others may not like it, yet
nations generally accept that they do not have the right to
interfere in each others' internal affairs.

   But what if a national policy has negative repercussions beyond
a sovereign nation's territory? Are some actions "crimes against
humanity," to be intercepted and perhaps punished? If so, who
decides what is acceptable and what is not?

   The concept that such matters become legitimate concerns of
international law has seldom been put to the test.

   The League of Nations, formed after the First World War, was a
genuine attempt to provide a forum to resolve international
conflicts. But the League could not stop Imperial japan, Mussolini
or Hitler planning and waging aggressive campaigns that led to the
Second World War.

   When it was over, a number of the vanquished leaders were
convicted of "crimes against humanity" by war crimes tribunals a
first in the history of international law.

   International law remains, however, a vague ideal. As U.S. Judge
Robert Bork noted: "There can be no authentic rule of law among
nations until nations have a common political morality or are under
a common sovereignty."

WHEN MIGHT IS RIGHT

Without a commonly accepted code of behavior, military superpowers
are the key to enforcing international law. Without them, smaller
nations might be left muttering that something must be done, but
little can be.

   Superpowers tend to react only when their own interests are
threatened. International law becomes, DE FACTO, what the most
powerful nations agree is in their best interests.

   The unprecedented international reaction to the Kuwaiti affair
has put nations on notice that naked aggression will not be
tolerated in the developing new world order. That is good news. But
it raises some interesting questions.

   Is planning and waging aggression the only threat to collective
security that should bring the wrath of the world down on a nation?

NONMILITARY INTERNATIONAL ISSUES

When the Gulf crisis is resolved, other international issues need
facing.

   We have to find a way to live on a more and more crowded earth,
and our collective welfare is becoming ever more interdependent.
Scientists and other environmentalists warn that we must more
carefully manage our resources for humanity to survive.

   Surely rain forests are an international resource and their
destruction threatens the will being, and maybe the existence of
much of mankind. Could a future world consensus put more than just
moral pressure, sanctions for example, on Brazilians to stop
slashing and burning rain forest?

   What about atmospheric pollution? Or toxic waste disposal?
Managing the noxious by-products of advanced technology has become
expensive. Nations tend to be concerned only after they have their
industrial base.

   Developing countries argue that they must first be allowed to
follow the cheap and dirty path to industrial development before
pausing to clean up themess. So could should international law be
invoked to force newly industrializing countries, Thailand and
Mexico, for example, to sacrifice national progress for
international good?

   Then there is the question of economics. The prosperity or
poverty of billions hangs on the health of a few big league
currencies the dollar, yen, pound sterling, franc and deutsche
mark.

   Does such currency constitute a global resource? Since
mismanagement has international repercussions, should an economic
superpower like the U. S., which persists in financial
irresponsibility, be accountable under international law?

   If American's free-spending, debt-happy government and people
won't discipline themselves, could a world consensus impose trade
sanctions or other forms of discipline?

   Nations treat international agreements in a very cavalier
fashion if in their own best interests to do so. To work, the new
world order must have sufficient power to maintain control. The
Kuwaiti affair has shown that. The economic superpowers, like
Germany and Japan, who face serious consequences if anything
happens to Middle East oil, found themselves essentially powerless.
They needed America's military muscle.

   How long will the world be willing to live with this situation?
Though more and more nations are now wanting to embark on a course
of democratic free market economy, not everyone is comfortable with
the United States' experiment in democracy. Can the world afford
the American model of development to be repeated in one after the
other of the newly industrial countries?

   A world that must manage a growing population and dwindling
resources may decide it cannot afford Waster-style economic
profligacy after all. Jesus Christ once pointed out (Luke 22:25)
that many people prefer stern authoritarian systems of government
than the unpredictability of free market democracy.

   It might seem unlikely now, but a future generation, with its
back to the wall over population and environmental pressures, might
opt for stricter control, even at the expense of personal and
economic freedom. Conjecture?

  Perhaps, but the Bible has warned us to expect something like
this to happen. The Appoclypse or book of Revelation describes a
future world in the grip of a strong confederation of nations. They
have combined under a charismatic leader to form an economic,
political, military and religious superpower bloc.

   This superpower effectively controls the world. It decides who
controls the world. It decides who can trade, with what
commodities, and with whom.

   The curtain has not yet risen on such a world. But the script
has been written, the cast may be assembling. Listen carefully, and
you can hear ominous sounds backstage. When the time comes for this
prophesied stern superpower to impose its will upon the world,
those who now look for order and security in international law and
collective security may find themselves in trouble.

   Some of today's free-wheeling, free-market, freedom-conscious
and liberal nations might well be the victims of the new world
order. Others may welcome its rule. For a while, it may seem
mankind has at last found a common political (and economic and
religious) morality, and even a common sovereignty.

   The Bible, however, shows this new world order turns into a trap
one last desperate attempt of mankind to solve his problems without
the written revelation of God. But it will fail catastrophically,
with consequences so devastating only the intervention of God can
save humanity.

   At that critical point God will intervene, and save humanity
from itself. The Bible shows this is how our dream of a world ruled
fairly by international, spiritually based law will be realized. 

   That law, given to humans by their Creator at Mt. Sinai, is
summed up by Jesus, statement: "You shall love God with all your
heart" and "you shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew
22:37-39).

   That this will happen is the good news in a frightening and
uncertain future.