The Hill is as important as Foggy Bottom in the conduct of our international affairs. The impending battles in Congress over such important foreign relations questions as the new multilateral trade agreements, a strategic arms limitation treaty, the human rights covenants, and military and economic aid for Egypt and Israel demonstrate this.

Talking about "political Zionism" is somewhat like talking about the social gospel. Is there any other kind? Even those who subject the biblical message to a thoroughgoing process of spiritualization and/or individualization usually retain substantial elements of its corporate and social dimensions. Without them it would be difficult to maintain any semblance of the Church itself as a community that, in one form or another, takes shape in the world, in society.

There is a clear consensus in the foreign policy community that the United States should exert pressure on the South African regime to change its domestic racial policies. This is striking because it coexists with a feeling that, in the wake of Vietnam, the United States possesses neither the domestic political will nor the practical ability to determine events in other countries. Why then should South Africa be viewed as an exception? What is at stake for the United States in South Africa that would warrant an effort to affect the course of events there?

Most Americans concerned for South Africa tend to fault Afrikaans-speaking whites for apartheid and to look with hope toward the English-speakers. As a result, Afrikaners have tended to become isolated, easily written off as stubbornly intransigent in their racism. This habit of mind misrepresents the larger and more powerful group of whites who, given their Christian moralism, may be overlooked as a hidden resource for change. My experiences with a wide variety of South Africans provide reason to suggest a revisionist approach. Some historical background on the two white communities may help the reader to make sense of this suggestion.

GOMA: I think only about existing conditions, because under the existing circumstances thinking about a future ideal seems like thinking about a Utopian fantasy. I concentrate on thinking about improving the present condition of life in Rumania. If I were free to think about my ideal of government, it would be a "rotten bourgeois democracy." Make sure you put those last three words in quotation marks, because I am quoting the Rumanian Government's words.

For better or worse United States foreign policy is now identified with human rights, setting moral standards for other nations. Human rights guidelines have become a screen filtering Washington's relations with virtually all countries. Among the most controversial of these is South Korea, where we are accused on the one hand of condoning human rights violations in order to protect our regional security interests and on the other of undercutting our security interests by pressing human rights policies that weaken South Korea.

In recent years no country in Latin America has played a more important role in raising questions about the goals and instruments of U.S. foreign policy than Chile. The revelations of U.S. involvement in the overthrow of the Allende government opened the door to far-reaching criticisms of the activities of U.S. intelligence agencies and helped generate the Carter administration's human rights policy. Today this policy is facing one of its sternest tests in Chile.

Several years ago it was almost impossible to get the media to take the issue of anti-Catholicism seriously; today, anti-Catholicism has become a relatively popular topic in both the secular and religious press. Most of these articles cite the same sources and anecdotes. Andrew Kopkind wrote in New Times that there are only ten men in America running the new cold war, and it sometimes seems there are only four running the war on anti-Catholicism—James Hitchcock and Virgil Blum, S.J., of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, plus priest-sociologist-columnist Andrew Greeley and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Why have many economists missed the fact of persistent malnutrition, hunger, and famine in the People's Republic of China? The fault is certainly not in their expertise (remarkably sophisticated in application, given the dubious nature of the data available) but in their interpretive comments and conclusions, which often seem gratuitous, deriving neither from estimates of per capita grain consumption nor from any visible basis in fact.