Once upon a time, earlier in the twentieth century, individualism was a doctrine that could be readily dismissed as archaic, idiosyncratic, and simply out of phase with the modern fashion. Even those who wanted to make a place for the individual were compelled to speak apologetically about the “new individualism” as a kind of hybrid of social welfare economy in contradistinction to the old individualism. Henry Steele Commager reminded us in 1950 that “the phenomenon of socialization was a logical expression of the American temperament in the new century. It reflected that decline of the importance of individualism and that growing awareness of social responsibility that could be noted similarly in law, education, business, and legislation.“

Its basic critical stand toward the trip has not changed. The Left now believes that the small degree of reciprocation by Begin is proof that the party was right.

The Left party believes that the euphoria that began with Sadat's trip is built on issues that are not solid. This state of mind is a bit similar to that during the January riots of 1977. In both cases it is an expression of deep dissatisfaction with the everyday life of the Egyptian people and the economic difficulties they're living with.

It is not without a certain reluctance that I address the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. While flattered and somewhat astonished that you would be interested in the musings of an old Greek whose life's span reaches back over two millennia, I am aware of some enormous difficulties and complexities (aporiae, I used to call them). The nature of modern weaponry, for example, and the extent of its destructive power far outstrip anything we could have imagined. Furthermore, the modern world contrasts so sharply with my times that I wonder if anything I said or could say would be retevant. The Greek city was small—deliberately so, in order to give citizens the opportunity to be involved in its decisions and acts. The most complex nation-state of today makes such participatory democracy almost impossible; hence, the wisdom of the former age shatters against the very size of the modern political entity.

Serious disturbances have flared in the Netherlands, a country once known for its tranquility. It is the South Moluccans again. What has happened is not simply a replay of the scenario that hit the front pages all over the world last year. At that time a group of South Moluccan terrorists brought a train to a standstill in a somewhat desolate area and took nearly all of its passengers hostage. For a brief period a school in the vicinity served as a subsidiary scene of terror. The schoolchildren were released within a week, but the train siege set a hijacking record. Negotiations proved fruitless, and after some twenty days the Dutch Government, believing there was no alternative left, had the marines storm the train. The surprise action claimed the lives of six terrorists and two hostages. The surviving hijackers have now been brought to justice, and the trial predictably produced a great deal of commotion in Holland, particularly among the Moluccan communities.

The victory of the separatist Parti Quebecois (P.Q.) on November 15, 1976, set off the liveliest public debate in Canadian history. For the first time since Confederation the unity of the country is seriously threatened.

After the election the Toronto Globe and Mail made a cool analysis of the situation and concluded that the P.Q. victory “leaves us with no excuse for failure to recognize that this country is in great danger.” Donald Creighton, dean of Canadian historians, stated bluntly that the country now faces’ ‘division and possible ruin.''

No one doubts that the dangers are well founded. The P.Q. was rowned in 1967 for the express purpose of establishing political sovereignty in Quebec. Rene Levesque, the dynamic and tough-minded leader of the party, has declared on numerous occasions that independence is “an absolute necessity.” His government has already issued guidelines for a referendum and set the fall of 1979 for the first vote.

A new “invisible man” has been born within our midst—the Southeast Asian refugee. Shunted from country to country, over 150,000 -of these “invisible people” cling to a precarious existence in scores of refugee camps that dot non- Communist Asia. They have a simple and solitary message for the international community: “Do not forget us!“

Some well-meaning people have said to me: “The black community suffers from record high unemployment. Why should blacks be concerned about Southeast Asian refugees? They'll only take jobs and housing that black people desperately need.” Such an attitude is understandable, but allow me to describe the enormity and urgency of the refugee problem.

A word of explanation. Amid some controversy, historians have generally presented King Richard All of England as a thoroughly evil man who clawed his way to power over the corpses of his many victims and who was killed finally in the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. These recently discovered memoirs reveal, however, that the crowned and ironclad man who died in that famous battle was really a loyal double on special assignment. Richard himself lived, not to fight another day, but to write his memoirs during his final years of secluded retirement in Cornwall, on the west coast.

The memoirs also make it perfectly clear that Richard was a man of exalted integrity, unimpeachable intentions, and sterling virtues, a hero whose reputation was irreparably blackened by malevolent and irresponsible chroniclers.

The brief but significant excerpts that follow are presented essentially unaltered, although the language has been modernized for easier reading and some of the gamier expletives have been deleted.

Every so often some “scholarly commentator” suggests that the United States should admit it made a mistake when it acted unilaterally to annex Puerto Rico in 1898. To remedy the damage, such writers argue, the United States should now take the initiative in preparing Puerto Rico to become an independent nation. To help atone for his eighty years of “colonial” intervention they would have Uncle Sam be both sympathetic and generous in helping the new republic get started: Plenty of transitional assistance would be provided, and there would be “continuing warm friendship” after the final break. Once Puerto Rico is turned loose, it is explained, its people would at least be “free,” the U.S. would have extricated itself honorably from an expensive international embarrassment, and we could all live happily ever after.

Revolution” belongs to that expanding list of English words whose multiple meanings make any precise usage elusive, if not impossible. The misuse and abuse of the term “revolution” in ordinary communication is enough of a problem, but the flexibility of the term in scholarly writings makes reasonable discourse across disciplinary lines a monumental task.

Humanists, social scientists, and natural scientists have contributed in various ways to the ambiguity of the word. Invite three theologians, let's say, to discuss “revolution in the modern world” and witness the use of the same grammatical substantive to describe ecclesiastical reform, or any given number of societal changes, or the violent overthrow of an established political regime. Under such circumstances communication is as difficult as it is for a trio of recent immigrants engaged in a conversation that includes the English word “rose,” each having reached the separate conclusion that the speaker is referring to a flower, or a color, or an action just performed.

Should we form an American coalition for human rights? If so's what would be its purpose, its structure, and its functions?

I would like to suggest a moral philosophy as a basis for such a coalition.

I believe we must oppose suppression of human rights anywhere, whatever the ideology of the oppressor. We must, in my view, oppose dictatorships of both the Right and the Left— unequivocally and without qualification.

In addition I would like to propose that such a coalition stress the importance of social and economic well-being for all peoples. We must, in my view, look to the development of human well-being that embodies the full range of human rights and aspirations. This means stretching the definition of human rights beyond civil and political to include all matters that affect human welfare.

Two years ago, with the death of General Franco, thirty-six years of dictatorship came to an end in Spain. The effective leadership of King Juan Carlos, the tactical skills of Prime Minister Adolfo Suarez, and the cooperation of most political and economic groups have since brought about peaceful transition to free elections and a functioning democratic government. Spaniards have had a sense of satisfaction with the dramatic political changes they have accomplished.

I return from Southeast Asia profoundly moved by the plight of the refugees with whom I helped members of the Citizens’ Commission on lndochinese Refugees communicate. As Americans, and as human beings, we must take positive actions to reflect our common humanity with the Vietnamese “boat people,” Cambodians, and Laotians and help nitigate their suffering. Members of the Citizens’ Commission, despite their divergent views on the war in Indochina, have concluded that U.S. Government policjrton opening America's doors to the refugees must reflect the urgency of the problem. I heartily concur.

Mr. Morarji Desai once complained of having been dismissed by the then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi as a peon. When he took the oath as India's oldest prime minister on March 24, 1977, it marked the end of monopoly rule of the Indian Congress party extending over a period of thirty years. Earlier, the people of India, by their active participation in a silent revolution of the ballot box, had thrown away the authoritarian and dictatorial rule of Mrs. Gandhi, replacing her party by the Janata party, an organization that brought together men with different ideological affiliations.

When I wrote in these pages two years ago that “1977 is shaping up as a year of possibly unprecedented political confrontation between Israel and the United States,” the Ford-Kissinger “reassessment” of American Middle East interests was. still alive, though crippled by what Kissinger termed “the prevailing domestic political situation.” The Brookings Report had emerged a few months earlier, detailing what was to become during the first months of Jimmy Carter's presidency his personal outline for a “comprehensive Middle East settlement.” And the Palestinian issue was just then affecting the American consciousness as one of self-determination and legitimate nationalist fervor.

It is the best of times. Per capita food production in 1977 was near record levels in both developed and developing countries. World production of grains in 1977 was 9 per cent over 1974 production. World production in 1978 is forecast by the U.S. Foreign Agricultural Service to be up 4 per cent over 1977, despite controls that reduced U.S. wheat production by 10 per cent. The foreign grain crop in 1978 is expected to establish a new record. The result is an anticipated 5 per cent boost in grain stocks carried into 1979. World grain stocks are expected to total 192 million metric tons by the beginning of crop year 1979 and constitute 14 per cent of utilization, compared to 11 per cent in 1975. Expected stocks will be near levels deemed adequate by U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization standards and more than adequate if based on an analysis by D. Gale Johnson of the University of Chicago and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

It is unquestionably a rare opportunity that has been given me to comment on developments the world has undergone in almost a century since I was observing it with some regularity. For the sake of perspective I might point out that less than half a century elapsed between the French Revolution and my own university matriculation. I then kept a pretty close watch on the world, particularly the European part of it, for nearly another half-century. And now, suddenly, I am asked to render judgment on what has happened in a period of like duration.

So, despite the extraordinary opportunity that has been vouchsafed me (and it is, of course, quite flattering as well), I cannot pretend to be altogether comfortable with it. To be sure, I was not unfamiliar with the deadlines of either newspapers or creditors, but I think Engels and I were well known to (if not always well loved by) our nineteenth-century associates for the care and thoroughness with which we approached any subject we had to write or speak about.