Robert A. Scalapino

Considers how the USA should (1) best encourage evolution towards democracy in Asia's socialist states, covering China after the Tienanmen Square demonstrations, North Korea's improving dialogue with South Korea, and Vietnam's withdrawal from Cambodia (2) resolve its trade policy differences with Japan, before issues become "thrust into the heat of the domestic political arena".

Three issues preoccupy Asia's leaders (1) economic strategy (2) political stability versus greater openness (3) regionalism. The accelerating socio-economic revolution presents challenges to both the Marxist and the democratic states. There is a requirement for increased public participation, greater local autonomy and more regional and international interaction. On balance the odds favouring a largely peaceful revolution are lengthening.

As the most eventful century in the history of mankind moves into its eighth decade, that one-half of the world which we call Asia displays the widest conceivable range of trends. Asian states run the gamut from high levels of economic growth and political tranquility to conditions of economic stagnation or retrogression, and perennial conflict. Even within a single state, a precise balance sheet may be complex and difficult to draw with certainty. The hallmarks of the Asian scene are fragility and fluidity.

Premier Khrushchev's trip to Egypt marks the second round in what promises to be a titanic struggle between Russia and China for African affections. The Soviet leader has behaved in predictable fashion. He has condemned Western imperialism and pledged further assistance to African independence movements, additional economic aid to emerging African states and support to the Arab world in its quarrel with Israel. Each of these positions represented a response to Chou En-lai's earlier bid for influence among 250,000,000 Africans. Moreover, when Khrushchev decried the creation of racial or ethnic divisions in the world and championed instead "true proletarian internationalism," he was directly challenging Peking's right to speak in the name of progress of Marxism.