That person should be the next President who is wilting to make a major issue of who owns what in our economic system. I am not saying that a candidate who is interested in explicitly and candidly analyzing our economic system stands a good chance of being nominated, let alone being elected President. I am simply saying that for me one of the major problems confronting this nation is the enormous disparity between the rich and the upper middle class on the one hand and, on the other, the working people and the poor, who make up the overwhelming majority of our people. I value this country's political institutions; they are not to be dismissed lightly. They are imperfect and have recently been subjected to severe stress. But they offer each of us a precious degree of freedom.

Something remarkable and of historic importance took place in New York during the first two weeks of September, 1975. At a Special Session of the United Nations the poor countries of the world, who have 70 per cent of its people and 30 per cent of its income, demanded that the rich, countries make some major changes in the international system. And the rich countries, including the United States, responded in new ways. Most reporters failed to notice how remarkable the events were, but the evidence is there.

On November 10 the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution defining Zionism as “a form of racism and racial discrimination.” The vote was 72-35 with 32 abstentions. A week earlier Abba Eban had written in the New York Times that “there is…no difference whatever between anti-Semitism and the denial of Israel's statehood. Classical anti-Semitism denies the equal rights of Jews as citizens within society. Anti-Zionism denies the equal rights of the Jewish people to its lawful sovereignty within the community of nations. The common principle in the two cases is discrimination.” Mr. Eban's words, coming as they did, not in the midst of a pro-Israel rally, but in a reflective column from a widely respected figure in the international community, a man who has not hesitated to criticize publicly aspects of his own government's policies toward the Arabs, must be accorded a special seriousness.

Over a hundred million people in the world call themselves Arabs. That is, to say the least, a potential force in world politics, quite apart from the question of oil. Yet many observers are inclined to doubt whether there is any reality underlying the common use of the term Arab, And it is indeed not easy to define what is meant by an Arab.

The Arabs are not a distinct ethnic group, since there are both white Arabs and black Arabs. Some of the black Sudanese Arabs claim descent in the male line from Arabs of Mohammed's time, and may well be correct in their claim. Nor is language a sufficient criterion of Arabness, since there are many Arabic-speaking Jews who are not normally called Arabs.

The shoeshine boy is a permanent, though far from motionless, part of the landscape of Latin America's city centers. Barefoot, in tattered clothing, and with dirty faces and hands, Latin America's shoeshine boys crowd parks and squares, prowl up and down city streets, and pass in and out of office buildings and stores in search of customers for their services. They are everywhere; even the most casual tourist finds it difficult to avoid them. Tagging after the obvious North American, they ask, in heavy Spanish accents, “Shoeshine, mister? Shoeshine, mister?”

In 1969. eight years after his armed usurpation. President Park Chung Hee of South Korea had his country's constitution amended so that he could seek a third term. Three years ago, in October, 1972. as he was serving his last term under the new rules. Park declared martial law, dissolved the National Assembly, and suspended the constitution. He did all this, as we were told then, in order to cope better with the “stark realities of a rapidly changing international situation.” Park was referring to East-West détente, which he viewed as a deadly threat to one of the twin pillars of his legitimacy; anticommunism and economic modernization.

Religion and the process of modernization have encountered each other with dramatic consequences in various parts of the world. Southeast Asia is now undergoing such an encounter, with consequences still to be determined. For Buddhism presents itself in this encounter in ways that are quite different from those of other religions.

Recent trends in international politics suggest the beginnings of a new relationship between the industrial nations of the world and the Third World countries. The traditional worldview of the affluent—in which developing nations were assigned a secondary or supporting role—has undergone a radical change as these states increasingly influence global events.