We who have dared associate ourselves with the cause of “the least of these,” our brethren around the world, those of us who, by circumstance or choice, find ourselves in sympathy with the struggling aspirations of the poor, the moans and cries of the oppressed, the pain and suffering of the diseased, know that somehow we on this earth have got to learn to live together as brothers.

Many of us learned these lessons at the side of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. We saw how things happened to him. One of the reasons that 1 am able to be involved at the United Nations is because of the inspiration I drew from the association with Dr. King and the strength and understanding I saw him draw from ordinary people and the people who strengthened him to carry on.

Eliav: I'm supposed to be the numberone Israeli dove. I am the chairman of Sheli. I am one of the leaders of the Israeli realists', moderates who are preaching for the last ten years that Israel should go a different way, an entirely different way on its road to peace.

I am saying in essence two things. Israel should have declared—and this was said ten years ago—that in return for full-fledged peace Israel should return the territories, but for minor adjustments agreed on both sides, to all parties concerned. And, two, that Israel should recognize the rights of the Palestinians for self-determination. These are the two basic things we were saying for the last ten years.

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.

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.

A new international economic order, strategic arms limitations, the interminable problems of the Middle East—these and many other foreign problems swirl around the average American citizen in a dazzle of complexity. The language of concern in which these and other issues are debated falls on ears that heard the equally serious and sincere language leading to the massive and mistaken involvement in Vietnam. And serious academics publish revisionist histories that contend that the cold war that mobilized the nation's energies for two decades came more from American aggressiveness than from foreign threat. A new generation of Americans turns its main attention away from such faraway, difficult, and ambiguous problems to ones closer to home, such as energy, the environment, and the economy.

Last month I described eleven “successes” of Soviet foreign policy since the October, 1917. Revolution. Now it is time to turn to Soviet ““failures” and to the underlying factors that have shaped Soviet policy in the past and that should be weighed by Western policymakers in the years ahead. Partially by coincidence and partially with un eye to symmetry, I again come up with the number eleven.

These assessments of success and failure are based on my own research, stimulated and refined by a survey (both written and oral) that tapped the views of other Soviet specialists visiting the Kennan Institute, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The “balance sheet.“” of course, represents my own judgment. Readers will no doubt make their own distinctions, thus reducing or expanding the list; some may quarrel about whether a certain.event ought to be rated a failure or a “ success given Moscow's apparent objectives; but I think the following represents a fair account in accord with the facts as we know them.