I have a difficult assignment: to describe, analyze and evaluate the new student movement—and to do so from the vantage point of one who has one foot in the new generation and one foot in the old. The task is complicated by the nature of the movement itself, by its ideological and organizational looseness, by the fact that it is both mood and movement. And it must be said that most of what has been written about the “New Left” in the mass media and even in the better political journals has been dismally ignorant. Some of the writers on the Left have viewed the student movement with a mixture of awe and indulgence, while those on the Right assail it as the reincarnation of communism.

In his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, Pope Paul VI wrote that atheism “is the most serious problem of our time.” The reason is that an ideological atheism denies God and oppresses the Church, and that it is often identified with economic, social and political regimes, among which atheistic communism is the chief. Dialogue in such circumstances is admittedly very difficult, for any group which is persecuted seeks first and foremost its survival and the survival of values it thinks essential.

The Christian, however, cannot despair, for two reasons. First, he must seek out his enemy to do him good, to return benevolence for malevolence, to seek what binds and heals rather than what separates and destroys. The Christian knows that even when he must resist the injustices of his enemy there are bounds of morality beyond which he may not go; he knows he must never discontinue the sometimes discouraging attempt to seek peace and an atmosphere of trust and confidence.

A careful look at a map of the world will indicate the puzzling and perplexing situations in which the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy find themselves. (The term Eastern-Orthodoxy as used here includes the three basic branches of Eastern Christendom: (1) the Byzantine or Chalcedonian churches, the most numerous, (2) the “monophysite” or non-Chalcedonian churche's, and (3) the Eastern Catholic or Uniate churches, the least numerous.) In approximate terms the Eastern churches seem to be facing two contrasting contexts—communism and Islam. Whether it be communism or Islam, the Eastern churches are confronted with alien and competitive systems of thought which threaten their survival. How has the contemporary—and the historic stance —of Eastern Christians prepared them to face this threat, which finds support in the state?

If one believes in the universal brotherhood of man, the idea of a world polity—long available in history—is becoming today more desirable, more feasible and more urgent. But the question then arises: how can I help achieve justice with and among my international brothers, realizing that the nation-state presently and necessarily is the primary vehicle for international actions? How can religion and moral authority contribute to this objective?

People and organizations that strongly support the United Nations have, in recent weeks and months offered proposals and suggestions which cause concern. It has been suggested, for example, that the United Nations should involve itself in the Vietnam controversy with a peace-keeping force, that United States forces should be withdrawn as quickly as possible and be replaced by a United Nations force. Since the unilateral declaration of independence by Rhodesia, there have been suggestions in America and abroad that the United Nations should take action in that controversy. Suggestions of this sort bring to mind the old saw, “Oh, Lord, protect me from my friends, I can take care of my enemies myself.”

The U-2 affair which led to the aborted Summit Conference in 1960, the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, and C.I.A, support of the ill-fated Diem regime in Vietnam have all served to focus attention on the problems of management and control of one of the world's largest Intelligence empires. C.I.A. reportedly employs more people than the Department of State (although it denies any foreign policy-making role) and has an annual budget estimated at over $500,000,000. For the last three years it has been ensconced in a new $50 million building in Langley, Virginia, which has emblazoned over its glittering entrance, “The Truth Shall Make You Free.”

In this discussion of Wars of National Liberation I will be concerned more with ethical method than with setting forth policy implications and conclusions, I shall develop this method around six points of reference: (1) the phase of ethical reflection, (2) levels of analysis arid responsibility, (3) examination of assumptions, (4) analysis of wars o£ national liberation, (5) exploration of criteria of justice, and (6) suggestions for policy.

The Phases of Ethical Reflection, Etlucal reflection would seem to require three overlapping phases that are, hopefully, cumulative. There is first the examination of stance or perspective, the bringing of assumptions into the open, the questioning of stated goals in terms of their real intent. At the least, this means self-awareness and openness; at the most it becomes the road to repentance. The second phase is that of assessing the situation, exploring options and possible consequences. It is worth noting that our assumptions significantly influence our definition of the nature of the problem and color our judgment of risks. The constructive phase seeks to relate the criticized norms to the assessment of the situation, to draw out the implications as guides to policy decisions, to keep ends and means in some kind of harmony.