Feb. 7, 1983 [Y]
Newswalk Dinner

NEWSWEEK DINNER

NEWSWEEK, NEVER DISCOURAGED IN ITS DOOMED EFFORT TO TEACH ME A SENSE OF PROPORTION ABOUT MYSELF, HAS ASKED ME TO COVER FIFTY YEARS OF FOREIGN POLICY IN SEVEN MINUTES-- A DAUNTING TASK FOR ANYONE AND IMPOSSIBLE WHEN EIGHT OF THESE YEARS INCLUDE MY PRACTICE OF INFALLIBILITY IN THE SERVICE OF OUR COUNTRY. ON THE OTHER HAND, HOW COULD I REFUSE A JOURNAL THAT HAD ME ON ITS COVER IN A SUPERMAN SUIT?

TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM I HAD WHAT STRUCK ME AS A BRILLIANT IDEA--A REACTION NOT UNCOMMON WHEN I REGARD MYSELF OBJECTIVELY: WHY NOT TRACE THE CHANGING PERSPECTIVES OF AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY THROUGH THE UTTERANCES OF THE NINE PRESIDENTS WHO HAVE GUIDED OUR NATION SINCE 1933?

ALAS REALITY DEFEATED MY EXPECTATION OF IT. IN READING THE SPEECHES OF OUR PRESIDENTS I WAS MOVED NOT BY THEIR DISCONTINUITY BUT BY THE MASSIVE RECURRENCE OF ELEMENTAL THEMES. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT BEGAN HIS TERM BY CALLING

4

2

FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF ALL OFFENSIVE ARMS AND PRESIDENT REAGAN BEGAN HIS BY URGING A LARGE REDUCTION OF STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND THE TOTAL ELIMINATION OF OTHERS. ALL PRESIDENTS HAVE AFFIRMED THAT AMERICA HAS NO TERRITORIAL ASPIRATIONS. EACH HAS BEEN RELUCTANT TO STRESS PURELY AMERICAN SECURITY CONCERNS. ALL SPOKE OF PEACE AS A FINAL GOAL, A KIND OF TERMINAL CONDITION AFTER WHICH THE WORLD WOULD LIVE WITH THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF RECONCILIATION. ROOSEVELT SAID THAT PEACE DEPENDED ON "FRIENDLY HUMAN RELATIONS, ON ACQUAINTANCE, ON TOLERANCE, ON UNASSAILABLE SINCERITY".

EISENHOWER SPOKE OF MAN'S LONG PILGRIMAGE FROM DARKNESS TOWARD LIGHT--A DAY OF FREEDOM AND PEACE FOR ALL MANKIND.

PRESIDENT NIXON INVOKED THE PEACE THAT COMES "WITH HEALING IN ITS WINGS"; PRESIDENT CARTER PRAYED FOR A PEACE NOT BASED ON WEAPONS OF WAR BUT ON OUR MOST PRECIOUS VALUES. THEY DIFFERED--OFTEN VIOLENTLY--ON TACTICS. BUT THE BASIC THEME OF AN AMERICA ULTIMATELY ROOTED IN MORAL VALUES, OF A PEOPLE

3

WHOSE EXPERIENCE IS RELEVANT TO ALL MANKIND IS PERVASIVE.

AND YET WE CANNOT END OUR REFLECTIONS HERE--MUCH AS
THE DIRECTOR OF THIS PROGRAM MIGHT WISH IT. CONTINUITY
OF PHILOSOPHY HAS NOT ACHIEVED CONTINUITY OF POLICY. AGREEMENT
ON VALUES HAS NOT ENSURED AGREEMENT ON HOW TO IMPLEMENT
THEM. THE LAST THREE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGNS HAVE HAD A
BITTER CONTEST OVER FOREIGN POLICY AS THEIR CENTRAL CORE.
THE LAST TWO PRESIDENTS HAVE STARTED THEIR TERM ANNOUNCING
A FUNDAMENTAL REASSESSMENT OF WHAT HAD GONE BEFORE.

IN THE LIFE OF EVERY PERSON A POINT IS REACHED WHERE
THE LIMITLESS POSSIBILITIES OF YOUTH NARROW TO A FEW CHOICES.
THE QUESTION OBTRUDES ITSELF: "IS THIS ALL I SHALL EVER BE?"
THE ANSWER DETERMINES WHETHER THERE WILL BE A NEW SPIRIT
OF CREATIVITY, A RESIGNED STAGNATION OR PERHAPS SELF HATRED.
SINCE A DECADE THAT QUESTION HAS BECOME UNAVOIDABLE FOR
AMERICA AND THE ANSWER WE GIVE WILL DETERMINE THE COURSE
OF FREEDOM. WALTER LIPPMAN SUMMED UP THE ISSUE IN NEWSWEEK

[4]

4

IN 1966 WITH CHARACTERISTIC FORESIGHT: "THE CURRENT STRUGGLE IN AMERICA IS IN FACT WITHIN EVERY AMERICAN MIND. IT IS A STRUGGLE ABOUT YIELDING TO OR OVERCOMING THE STEREOTYPES OF YESTERDAY."

THE LOSS OF INNOCENCE ALWAYS INVOLVES A DIFFICULT JOURNEY AND STEREOTYPES BECOME SUCH BECAUSE THEY REFLECT DEEP CONVICTIONS. IN THE THIRTIES THE FREE PEOPLES CAME UP AGAINST PERHAPS THE INEXTRICABLE DILEMMA OF FOREIGN POLICY: WHEN THE SCOPE OF ACTION IS GREATEST THE KNOWLEDGE ON WHICH TO BASE SUCH ACTION IS AT A MINIMUM. WHEN THE KNOWLEDGE IS GREATEST THE SCOPE FOR CREATIVE ACTION HAS DISAPPEARED.

WE KNOW TODAY THAT HITLER'S REOCCUPATION OF THE RHINELAND IN 1936 WAS THE STRATEGIC WATERSHED AND ALSO THAT ONE FRENCH DIVISION COULD HAVE FORCED A RETREAT. BUT HAD THAT HAPPENED PHD THESESES WOULD STILL BE WRITTEN WHETHER HITLER WAS A MISUNDERSTOOD NATIONALIST OR A MANIAC BENT ON WORLD DOMINATION. FIVE YEARS LATER EVERYBODY KNEW THAT HITLER WAS A MANIAC BENT

[Y]

5

ON WORLD DOMINATION. THE QUEST FOR CERTAINTY COST TWENTY
MILLION LIVES.

STILL IN THE THIRTIES OTHER NATIONS HAD THE RESPONSIBILITY
FOR THE BALANCE OF POWER. RAYMOND MORLEY COULD WRITE PLAUSIBLY
IN NEWSWEEK THAT "WE MUST BE ON OUR GUARD AGAINST SENTIMENTAL
TALK ABOUT SAVING THE WORLD FOR DEMOCRACY. WE MUST SAVE
OURSELVES FOR DEMOCRACY." THE SECOND WORLD WAR ENDED THIS
COMFORTABLE ISOLATIONISM BUT NOT OUR RELUCTANCE TO RELATE
ABSOLUTE VALUES TO CONTINGENT CIRCUMSTANCE WHICH IS THE
ESSENCE OF FOREIGN POLICY FOR OTHER NATIONS. RARELY, IF
EVER, HAD THE MORAL ISSUES OF A WAR BEEN SO UNAMBIGUOUS
REINFORCING OUR CONVICTION THAT PEACE WAS SOME KIND OF NATURAL
AND PERMANENT CONDITION, THAT WARS RESULTED EXCLUSIVELY
FROM THE ABERRATION OF EVIL MEN. WE PROPOSED TO BASE THE
POST-WAR WORLD IN ROOSEVELT'S WORDS ON THE COOPERATION IN
WAGING PEACE OF THE FOUR NATIONS ALLIED IN WAR.

IT COULD NOT BE. OUR ENEMIES IN WAR WERE NOT THE SOLE

6

CAUSE OF INTERNATIONAL TENSIONS. THEIR COLLAPSE CRATED
A VACUUM INVITING A NEW BALANCE OF POWER AND IT CONFRONTED
US WITH A NEW TOTALITARIAN IDEOLOGY. ITS CHALLENGE TURNED
OUT TO BE NOT THE CROSSING OF RECOGNIZED FRONTIERS BY ORGANIZED
MILITARY UNITS--AT LEAST NOT IN EUROPE. RATHER IT CONSISTED
OF A SERIES OF AMBIGUITIES FOR WHICH OUR STEREOTYPES OF
WAR AND PEACE AS SUCCESSIVE PHASES OF POLICY WERE NO LONGER
ADEQUATE. WE STILL SPOKE OF SOME FINAL DIPLOMATIC SHOWDOWN
BASED ON POSITIONS OF STRENGTH, YET WE HAD DIFFICULTY DEFINING
EITHER THE CONTENT OF THAT STRENGTH OR THE AGENDA OF THE
NEGOTIATIONS.

AND ALL THE TIME WE HAD TO COPE WITH TWO OTHER REVOLUTIONS:
THE MARSHALL PLAN, POINT FOUR AND THE GREEK-TURKISH AID PROGRAM
APPLIED THE AMERICAN PREMISE THAT ECONOMIC PROGRESS WOULD
BRING ABOUT POLITICAL STABILITY. IT WORKED IN EUROPE AND
JAPAN WHERE POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS HAD EVOLVED FOR CENTURIES.
A GLOBAL NEW DEAL WAS LESS MEANINGFUL IN THE DEVELOPING
WORLD WHERE POLITICAL LEGITIMACY WAS THE PRINCIPAL ISSUE.

7

AND THEN THERE WAS THE REVOLUTIONARY NEW TECHNOLOGY.

IN GREEK MYTHOLOGY PROMETHEUS STOLE THE FIRE FROM THE GODS AND WAS PUNISHED FOR HIS PRESUMPTION BY BEING CHAINED TO A ROCK. OUR GENERATION HAS REPEATED THE PROMETHEAN FEAT; AND IT MUST NOW MASTER THE HORROR OF ITS PRESUMPTION.

THE SIXTIES BEGAN WITH THE CLARION CALL OF A NEW PRESIDENT IN THE UNIVERSALIST, OPTIMISTIC TRADITION THAT "WE SHALL PAY ANY PRICE, BEAR ANY BURDEN, MEET ANY HARDSHIP, SUPPORT ANY FRIEND, OPPOSE ANY FOE TO ASSURE THE SURVIVAL AND SUCCESS OF LIBERTY."

SOON AFTER REALITY IMPOSED ITS LIMITS. SINCE THEN-- THROUGHOUT THE SEVENTIES--WE SEARCHED FOR A DEFINITION OF OUR ROLE IN A WORLD OF MANY CENTERS OF POWER, OF INSTANTANEOUS COMMUNICATION, SHADOWED BY THE SPECTER OF NUCLEAR WAR, TORN BY SIMULTANEOUS REVOLUTIONS--A PERIOD WHICH POSTERITY MAY MARK AS ONE OF NEARLY RELIGIOUS TRANSFORMATION. AND OUR DISILLUSIONMENT WAS THE REVERSE OF OUR PREVIOUS UTOPIANISM.

8

WHERE WE EXAGGERATED OUR POSSIBILITIES AT THE BEGINNING
OF THE DECADE, WE EXAGGERATED OUR LIMITS AT THE END.

WHERE THE OLD ISOLATIONISM THOUGHT US TOO GOOD FOR
THE WORLD, THE NEW ISOLATIONISM URGES US TO WITHDRAW BECAUSE
WE ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

THAT IS NOT OUR CHOICE HOWEVER.

WE ARE NO LONGER INNOCENT BUT WE ARE MORE NEEDED THAN
EVER.

WE ARE NOT PERFECT BUT WITHOUT US THERE IS NOT HOPE
FOR FREE PEOPLES.

OUR IDEALS MAY HAVE BEEN TOO SIMPLE BUT THEY HAVE PRODUCED
AN ASPIRATION TO DECENCY AND HUMAN DIGNITY ALL THE MORE
NOBLE FOR NOT BEING FULFILLABLE IN A SINGLE LIFETIME.

OUR LEADERS ARE ENGAGED NOT IN A SPRINT BUT A MARATHON
RELAY RACE. THEY MUST PASS ON THE BATON; THEY CANNOT START
OVER AGAIN EVERY FOUR YEARS AS IF WE ALONE OF ALL THE PEOPLES
THAT HAVE EVER LIVED CAN REINVENT HISTORY AT QUADRIANNUAL
INTERVALS.

9

IMPERFECTION IS THE HUMAN CONDITION; GREAT GOALS CAN BE ACHIEVED ONLY IN STAGES; DEBUNKING IS A VIRTUE SO LONG AS WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT CYNICS HAVE NEVER BUILT CATHEDRALS.

NONE OF US HERE WILL LIVE TO SEE THE END OF OUR NATIONAL JOURNEY--IN ESSENCE BIPARTISAN--TO DISCIPLINE THE ATOM, TO DEFEND AND ENNOBLE FREEDOM; TO STRIVE FOR BOTH PEACE AND JUSTICE; TO GIVE HOPE TO THE DOWNTRODDEN. INDEED IT HAS NO END. BUT IN THE PROCESS WE WILL LIVE THE WORDS OF THE POET:

WE SHALL NOT CEASE FROM OUR EXPLORATION
AND THE END OF ALL OUR EXPLORING
WILL BE TO ARRIVE WHERE WE STARTED
AND KNOW THE PLACE FOR THE FIRST TIME.

February 1, 1983

NEWSWEEK 50th ANNIVERSARY
Lincoln Center

Monday, February 7, 1983

Dress: Black Tie

7:15
TO Stage door - corner Columbus + 62nd ent. en Columbus
@7:30 pm
Cocktails (in progress from 7:00)

NOTE: There will be simultaneous receptions and dinners in Avery Fisher Hall and NY State Theatre. They do not yet know to which one you will be assigned.

8:00 pm
Dinners in Avery Fisher Hall and NY State Theatre (1800 people in all)

at Mrs. Reagan's table
@9:15 pm
After the main course you will be escorted with the other speakers backstate at the NY State Theatre, where dessert and coffee will be served

10:00 pm
50th Anniversary Show -- should last about 1 hour

Mrs. Graham welcomes and introduces Oz Elliott, MC

Elliott introduces speakers, tentatively in
following order:

Pete Axphelm

Meg Greenfield

Jane Bryant Quinn

George Will

Jack Kroll introduces quartet of Hume Cronyn, Jessica Tandy, James Earl Jones and Lauren Bacall for a "reading" on journalism and the media -- quotes from Shakespeare, Thomas Jefferson, Oscar Wilde, etc.

Art Buchwald

Brooke Astor

HAK®

Vernon Jordan

"Mystery Guest" Henry Grunwald

© Mark Edmiston, © Pres.

⑨ Bill Broyles (last)

[Y]

To: HAK

From: SSM

Re: NEWSWEEK Dinner

As of today, this is all the information I can get. I am
afraid such things as seating may not be available until the
day of the dinner.

Mrs. Graham is handling the seating herself, and she hasn't done
it yet.

There will be <u>two</u> receptions and <u>two</u> dinners - separate but equal.
We don't even know yet which one is yours.

There will be no head table or dais -- just round tables of 10.

As you know, Mrs. Reagan and Pres. and Mrs. Carter will be there.

The speakers will be preceded by NEWSWEEK covers flashed on
a screen. We have been asked for your closing lines to use
as cues for the projectionists. If not possible, they will
wing it.

During the afternoon there will be rehearsal time on the stage
for those desiring it. They did not feel you would need it.

If you want it, you can have a little light makeup during the
backstage time -- up to you.

Show will be filmed for use at other Newsweek dinners that will
be held around the country for their advertisers, etc. It will
not be shown on TV.

Bill Broyles' office called to say that
Mr. Hewitt will be in New York next
week until Thursday and can be reached
at this number 988-0567. If we have
any problem with not reaching him, we
are to call Nina at Mr. Broyles' office.

[LC]

To the extent that it has adopted one, Newsweek's stance on foreign affairs
can best be described as pragmatic and non-ideological. In the tense years be-
fore the outbreak of the Second World War, for example, the magazine generally
seemed to favor restraint and caution on the part of the United States. Though
it is difficult to pinpoint where Newsweek came down on the isolationist-inter-
ventionist debate, the weekly columns written by Raymond Moley--then a Cont-
ributing Editor but formerly the editor in chief--during that time offer the
closest thing to an editorial voice. Commenting in October 1938 on the Munich
Pact of appeasement and the controversy it had stirred, Moley declared "On our
private responsibility we have every right to protest violently against the
inhuman barbarism of Hitler toward minority religions. We have every right to
combat anything that suggests the development of Nazism in this country. These
things are our legitimate concern. Political rearrangements or ideologies in
Europe are not."

Moley already had a clear appreciation of the limits of power. Right after
German Panzers clattered into Prague in 1939 and there was vast sympathy in
America for the embattled Czechs, he posed the following questions: "...we are
told that we must take action against Germany because of her fiendish brut-
alities toward religious, political and social minorities...But, however strongly
we may feel on this subject, a practical consideration enters. Will war against
a government because it is intolerant toward its own people help those the
government persecutes? Or will it result in an intensification of their per-
secution and an immediate destruction everywhere of human lives and other pre-

cious human values which will be irreplaceable. Will it, for instance, strengthen democratic government in the United States? Or will war bring upon us here a centralized control of life and speech and press and property so absolute that we lose here the very values for which we fight abroad?" And as the war clouds darkened in the week before the blitz of Poland in September 1939, Moley put it even more succinctly: "It is to be hoped that the Executive branch of the government will be on constant guard against actions, speeches and decisions likely to involve us in hostilities. We must be on our guard against sentimental talk about saving the world for democracy. We must save ourselves for democracy."

None of this is to suggest that Newsweek had any illusions about Hitler's ultimate intentions or winced at the steps that might eventually become necessary to stop him. When German and Italian bombers attacked British ships in Spanish ports during the Civil War and Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain lamely maintained that his government could do nothing without being drawn into the conflict, the magazine carried a story bearing the caustic headline: Cautious Britain; Inaction of Chamberlain Sets Queer Precedent. And when Czechoslovakia was crushed, the headline proclaimed: Nazi Caesar; Hitler's Coup Ends the Farce of Racial-Frontier Expansion.

The main reason for the magazine's caution on the issue of intervention-- and it was a point that Moley also stressed in his columns--was the simple realization that, whatever their sympathies, most Americans were not prepared to lay down their lives in a European war. In an earlier piece Moley had argued that "however much we execrate Hitler, (we) do not approve of (interjecting the United States into a European quarrel)...Dr. Gallup's most recent polls show that 95 percent of us are determined to keep out of war... Here is the clue to a genuine American policy--a realistic policy that would capture the allegiance of a large part of the American people." In the issue devoted

2

to the invasion of Poland and the declaration of war by Britain and France, there is a news story entitled America Stirred by New War but Set on Staying Neutral that contained these passages: "The man in the street wanted no fight, but Americans were fighting mad--and made no attempt to hide the fact...the President fully understands that the majority of Americans want to aid the democracies but do not want to send an army overseas."

Certainly one of the litmus tests of foreign policy attitudes in the late '40s and '50s was the rise of Mao and the triumph of Communism in China, and here again Newsweek took a pragmatic approach. Despite its obvious hostility toward Communism, the magazine was prepared to acknowledge that many ordinary Chinese might feel differently and so eschewed the conspiracy theories for Mao's success that were so much in vogue. It is illuminating to compare the respective accounts in Time and Newsweek of the Communist seizure of a Manchurian city called Mukden in 1948 that signaled the crumbling of Chiang Kai-shek's regime. Time's version, which focuses on a scene at the airport: "As Communist troops drew nearer and nearer, the panicky ticket holders began to riot. After Claire Chennault's Civil Air transport made its last flight out of Mukden, those who could set out in automobiles and mule carts to run the Communist gauntlet...."
(In reviewing the decisive events in China in 1948 Time pronounced: "Thanks partly to George Marshall's tactic of fighting Communism in Europe first, and partly the influence of fellow travellers and gulliberals on U.S. foreign policy, the U.S. had never made up its mind to save China from Communism.) Judging from Newsweek's story, most Chinese had no desire to be "saved": "When at last the Communists did enter Mukden, they came as an orderly army. They bivouacked efficiently and treated the population with respect. The inhabitants remembered that the retreating Nationalists had lost all semblance of discipline, looting and raping as they withdrew. The contrast won the Communists new friends in the

3

conquored city. The inhabitants, who had expected a bloodbath, found that they
not only kept their jobs but were treated better than before. Business went on
virtually unchanged."

But Newsweek, of course, was a product of its place and time, and during
the height of the Cold War there was a steady drumbeat of alarmist rhetoric. A
cover story on Khrushchev in 1955 was headlined Red Blueprint for Conquest;
the inside pages featured a series of photos of Khrushchev and other Soviet
leaders and beneath them the question "World conquest by century's end?"

The magazine also offered a bluntly favorable assessment of Kennedy's brinks-
manship during the Cuban missile crisis. Under the headline Showdown-Backdown,
Newsweek declared "...the United States offered a direct challenge to the Soviet
Union in an area where American strength is overwhelming and its interests vital.
To do this it chose a course of action which was firm but not impossibly pro-
vocative--an action formidable enough to gain its immediate objectives but not
so overwhelming as to humiliate the Soviets. The result was that the Russian
leaders sidestepped the challenge and--for the time being, at least--removed
the danger of war."

From the very start, however, Newsweek was a good deal more skeptical of
the country's policies in Vietnam. The hardheaded view of events in Indochina was
at least partly due to the expertise of our reporter there, a gifted Frenchman
named Francois Sully who had covered the fighting in that part of the world
for 22 years and unlike most of his colleagues spoke fluent Vietnamese. (Sully
died in a helicopter crash near the Cambodian border while on assignment in
1971.) As early as 1962, Newsweek ran a remarkably prescient story on the efforts
to quell the Communist insurgency. "Viet Cong guerrillas", the story began,
"had ambushed a Vietnamese Army unit along the road, killed thirteen of its
men, and then vanished into the jungle where a man can see no more than a

4

few feet in front of him. Now 1,500 South Vietnamese troops...were sweeping the area where the guerrillas were known to have been. From dawn till dusk, the government forces hunted. They found some recent footprints and a few abandoned campsites--but not a single guerrilla. This is the nature of South Vietnam's war--the enemy kills and runs."

That pessimistic outlook crystallized with the magazine's second so-called advocacy issue in March 1968. In a lead piece headlined More of the Same Won't Do, the editors observed "Even now, no one will officially admit the one grim truth that recent events have underlined: the war cannot be won by military means without tearing apart the whole fabric of national life and international relations." As a solution, Newsweek proposed a phased withdrawal of American troops over a period of several years--despite the full knowledge that such a move could pave the way for a Communist takeover in Saigon. But as the editors concluded, "when the risks of this course are compared with the mounting price which the U.S. will pay in domestic discord and international impotence if a settlement is not reached, chancing a Communist South Vietnam might well appear the lesser of two considerable evils."

The advocacy issue echoed many of the arguments against the war that Walter Lippmann had been making in the magazine since the earliest days of the American involvement. But Lippmann was concerned with much more than the unwinnability of the war from a military standpoint; he saw the whole Vietnam venture as a classic example of applying outmoded principles to modern problems and worried that Korea and Indochina might be only the first of a series of quagmires. In an especially eloquent column called Our Place in the World (June, 1966) he wrote: "It is altogether misleading to think that the world is essentially the same as it was in the nineteenth century, and that the only great change is that the United States now occupies the place of Britain. The truth is that the British place is gone, not because Britain is poorer and weaker than she was, but because the kind of world in which Britain played her role is gone. The world of Pitt, Palmerston, Disraeli, Gladstone and even Churchill no longer exists, and what the British did at the Khyber Pass provides no precedent, no model, no guidance for what President Johnson ought to be doing in Vietnam. The current struggle in America is in fact within every American mind. It is not between doves and hawks, between appeasers and heroes. It is a struggle about yielding to or overcoming the stereotypes of yesterday. This is what Americans are arguing about, not about whether we should do our duty, whether we should become

5

isolationists, whether we should turn our backs on the world and all its sins,
not about whether we shall scuttle and run, hide in the storm cellar and pull
down the hatch. The argument is about _which_ role we can and should play in the
world today, and not about whether we should play _any_ role."

The same sort of realism has informed the magazine's coverage of recent
issues as well. Prior to the North-South survival summit in Cancun in 1981,
Newsweek ran a cover story that sought to sweep aside much of the ideological
rhetoric that has burdened the various prescriptions for narrowing the gap
between rich and poor nations. The article maintained that the fates of the
industrialized and developing countries have become so intertwined that there
is no alternative but for the North to make concessions. The piece summed up:
"For 25 years the South has been consolidating its forces and insisting with
increasing vigor on a stronger voice in economic affairs. The North is still
a long way from giving up its economic lordship. But the pressure on the old
order is only growing stronger, and the North cannot expect to manage the world
unchallenged and unchanged forever."