One day last February Ian Smith, head of the Rhodesian Government, sat down with three black leaders and signed an agreement that is designed to bring a majority-ruled Zimbabwe into being by the end of this year. After signing, Smith extended his hands upward and shrugged his shoulders, as though to signal his resignation to the inevitable. The black leaders were jubilant. Much of the rest of the world expressed relief that one of the nastiest conflicts in a race-conscious universe was apparently on its way to peaceful resolution. Resignation, jubilation, relief—but these are not the only reactions to what has come to be called “the internal settlement.” In Africa and elsewhere, especially at the United Nations, the settlement has been condemned by many as a sellout to continued white racism. Because it is important to understand the objections to the settlement, we will begin there.

One day last February Ian Smith, head of the Rhodesian Government, sat down with three black leaders and signed an agreement that is designed to bring a majority-ruled Zimbabwe into being by the end of this year. After signing, Smith extended his hands upward and shrugged his shoulders, as though to signal his resignation to the inevitable. The black leaders were jubilant. Much of the rest of the world expressed relief that one of the nastiest conflicts in a race-conscious universe was apparently on its way to peaceful resolution. Resignation, jubilation, relief—but these are not the only reactions to what has come to be called “the internal settlement.” In Africa and elsewhere, especially at the United Nations, the settlement has been condemned by many as a sellout to continued white racism. Because it is important to understand the objections to the settlement, we will begin there.

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.

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.

For two and a half years I have been haunted by a story that I pieced together from scattered reports. The story was disputed and denied when I first published it in 1975. But I now have overwhelming evidence from the secret files of the State Department, Justice Department, and Central Intelligence Agency. This is the most important human rights story of the decade. It is a stark, cruel story of mass slaughter in Cambodia under the Communist dictator Pol Pot.

I want you to remember that name, Pol Pot. It belongs in the hall of infamy alongside the names of Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. The Communists took over Cambodia in April of 1975. Pol Pot wanted to build a new Communist society.

Australia is being forced to hard decisions about its future. More than 3,500 war refugees from Southeast Asia have sailed to northern Australia in the past two years. About 2,500 fled to Darwin harbor from East Timor after the invasion by Indonesia in 1976, and more than 1,000 Indochina refugees have trickled down to Australia's north coast in twenty-nine small boats.

The arrival of these people poses far more important questions than their relatively small numbers would suggest. Perhaps for the first time Australia is asking how it could become a multiracial society that includes significant numbers of Asian settlers. The “boat people,” as these refugees are called, have hammered home the fact that the Australian mainland is geographically closer to Indonesia than to the southern island state of Tasmania, though many Australians continue to think of their country as being in “Euro-merica.“

Writing about fascism can get one in trouble. "Fascist" is used to describe every nasty person—from Mussolini and his henchmen to ill-tempered policemen and professors who expect their students to complete assignments. No wonder that anyone using the term to analyze politics in the Third World is immediately suspected of being in the pay of the Israelis—or worse. (The present author can state categorically that he is in the pay of no government, Alas!) Nevertheless, many political scientists have concluded that fascism models are useful for coming to grips with the tumultuous politics of the underdeveloped world. This article explores some of the reasons for and implications of that conclusion

we are are here to pay tribute to Pedro Joaquin Chamorro—a colleague and friend. A great editor and a champion of truth, he was, above all, a great Liberator who has fallen in battle in the still unfinished War of Independence of Nicaragua. For truly, in all but three of the countries of Latin America, the unfinished Wars of Independence cruelly continue against military oppressors who are despoiling their peoples.

Yousef el Sebai, editor of Egypt's daily newspaper, Al-Ahram, and a confidant and supporter of Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat, was gunned down by radical Palestinian terrorists in the lobby of the Nicosia Hilton Hotel on February 18. The gunmen claimed Sebai was killed because “he published good things about Israel.” Their self-proclaimed mission was to murder Sebai “for the liberation of Palestine.”

Beatrice Waters lives in the corner flat on the top floor of a council house in the Islington district of London. She spent four years of her life making the arrangements to rent a flat in this particular block of council houses. Four long years of speaking with this or that authority and arguing with her husband over whether they had made the right decision. At fifty, Henry Waters doubted he could survive still another move. He couldn't even remember all the places in which he had lived, as if immigrating from the West Indies to England wasn't significant enough. “Don't you think,” he would ask Beatrice, “there comes a time that people just settle down, no matter how good or bad a deal they've made for themselves? How long do you keep changing homes just to prove you're really getting somewhere in the world?’

Christians have been trying to convert Jews for two thousand years. And for two thousand years Jews have been resisting with notable resiliency. Judaism has lost more Jews to apathy or assimilation than it ever has—or probably ever will—to the blandishments of Christian missionaries. Jews unwilling to affirm the beliefs or practice the rites of Judaism are rarely ripe candidates for the ardent Christian proselytizer. As a matter of fact, these approaches have most often revolted even the most cynical Jew. In modern times proselytism has become a kind of chronic nuisance, having two main effects, both of them negative. It produced a deep-seated anti-Christian attitude within the bosom of the Jewish body, and it facilitated a defensive withdrawal by Jews from the larger “gentile world.” Jews sometimes justify this inwardness with words like “peoplehood.” Non-Jews have as often labeled it “clannishness.”

Why has the American polity been largely unreceptive to the radical ideologies of both left and right that have aroused such enthusiasm elsewhere? Why, for example, have Communists and fascists not been able to attract a significant following or secure electoral support in the United States? There are, I believe, seven factors that together have formed a mosaic of resistance to sundry radicalisms. These factors might now be in a state of decline.

First and obviously, the British legacy has had considerable influence on the American approach to radicalism. Like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the United States inherited much of its culture from Britain. The language, political system, legal network, religious life, and literature built on the British experience. A high percentage of the populace traced its origin to the British Isles, while later immigrants ordinarily assimilated to the Anglo-Saxon value system. The members of the ruling elites have almost without exception been anglophiles.

There are two major triangular relationships in contemporary world politics: Washington-Moscow-Peking, and USA-European Economic Community (EEC)-Japan. The first, the two superpowers and the emerging superpower of China (PRC), is characterized by a lack of mutual trust, ideological affinity, or common interests in global security or economic matters. The USA-EEC-Japan relationship, on the other hand, is based on common trust, common security and economic interests, common ideological factors, and on cultural affinities between the U.S. and the EEC.

It is the great powers triangle of Washington- Moscow-Peking that has the greater importance and significance for global peace and for the avoidance of any nuclear war. Its impact is considerable in such parts of the Third Wbrld as the Middle East, East Asia, South and Southeast Asia, Southern Africa, and in many other regions.