Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118567706
label
[JGR/Carter Briefing Book for Presidential Debate] (7 of 17)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118567706
contentType
document
title
[JGR/Carter Briefing Book for Presidential Debate] (7 of 17)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
485
collections
Records of the Office of Counsel to the President (Reagan Administration)
John Roberts' Subject Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118567706
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1986-12-31
year
1986
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1982-01-01
year
1982
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
6bf1a499cf5c809f
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Roberts, John G.: Files
Folder Title: [JGR/Carter Briefing Book for
Presidential Debate] (7 of 17)
Box: 7
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
Foreign Policy Questions
Presidential Debate Briefing Papers:
Foreign Policv and National Security
Leadership
Tab 1
Military Balance
Tab 2
SALT
Tab 3
U.S. - -Soviet Relations
Tab 4
Western Alliance
Tab 5
Persian Gulf
Tab 6
Hostages
Tab 7
Middle East Peace Process
Tab 8
U.S. Policy Toward China
Tab 9
Central America
Tab 10
Human Rights
Tab 11
Future Goals
Tab 12
COPY
also Portugel
Rick Inderfurth
Eric Newsom
October 20, 1980
Leadership
Mr. President, a widespread and persistent complaint in
this country and abroad about foreign policy under your
Administration is that it lacks coherence, steadiness and
consistency. It is said that the various strands of
policy are unrelated to one another, and that you have
lurched indecisively from one approach to another, pushed
by events. Your critics say you have flip-flopped on the
withdrawal of U. S. troops from South Korea, the neutron
bomb, the Soviet brigade in Cliba, support for the Shah,
among others. They say you cannot lead this country and
the West in dealing with an aggressive Soviet Union, the
energy crisis, and a faltering global economy.
The Republican Platform charges "For three and one half
years the Carter Administration has given US a foreign
policy not of consistency and credibility, but of chacs,
confusion, and failure. It has produced an image of our
country as a vacillating and reactive nation, unable to
define its place in the world, the goals it seeks, or the
means to pursue them. " "No failure of the Administration
has been so catastrophic as its failure of leadership,"
concludes the GOP platform. Governor Reagan has said
that under your Administr ation America's economic, military
and strategic strength eroding.
Mr. President, ho YOU respond to the charge that you
have not provided excership, that we are no longer respected
or trusted, and you have not devised effective policies
to deal with the Perious problems that threaten' us?
A:
1. THEME
signing
I believe that leadership is:
Tackling real problems, unpopular problems;
Strengthening our defenses;
Keeping cool in crises and staying out of wars;
Standing up to our adversaries where we must, but
cooperating if we can;
Placing America on the side of change, on the side
of human rights and justice.
2
2. RECORD
We have tackled the real problems. In 1976:
There was no international energy policy. No
real cooperation in conservation. No American
energy program to work to free US from dependence
on foreign oil. NOW there is.
There was no peace in the Middle East. Now we
have the Camp David Accords and the Israel/Egypt
Peace Treaty.
We were still estranged from China. Normalitation
had bogged down. We broke through the logjam and
have a strong growing relationship with China.
Insurgency threat the Panama Canal. Today it
is operating smothly and effectively.
In Africa,
1
was seen as opposing racial
justice.
the closest possible
relations
AFFica
because of our commitment
to majority and racial justice.
The world economy was threatened by protectionism
but WE negotiated the multilateral trade agreement
and got it through Congress.
The threat of the spread of nuclear weapons was
ignored. Now we have made it high on the world
agenda and built new cooperative arrangements to
contain this threat.
The developing world in which most of mankind lives
was trapped in poverty and drifting towards increasing
violence. We have dramatically strengthened inter-
national banks and lending institutions to help
meet their crying economic needs.
Finally, there was the prospect of an unlimited arms
race. SALT I was running out. SALT II was bogged
down. We have strengthened the proposed SALT II
Agreement and we have signed it. Because I am
determined to tackle real problems, I am determined
to see SALT II ratified.
Strengthening Our Dafe S3S. When I came into office:
Real defense invostment had declined over the previous
eight years by 37%. I have increased it 10%.
Purchases for new aircraft (fighters and attack aircraft)
and for army equipment had declined by two-thirds. : have
increased them by 50%.
There was no answer to the Scviet threat to our fixed
ICEMs. Now we have the nobile MX.
There was no answer to Soviet air defenses. We were stuck
with the obsolete E-1. Now we have the cruise missile.
Our Navy had been cut in half and the shipyards were in
a mess with enorrious backlogs of naval vessels needing
overhaul. We cleaned up the mess in the shipyards. We
cut the backlog in half and we are now building more
than 90 new ships at a rate of 70% greater than during
the previous Republican Administration.
There was no NATO defense program. I negotiated a
commitment of our
to 3% real growth and we have
adopted a long-term
Effense program to strengthen NATO.
We had no Cared
to do anything quickly in the vital
area of the
ersian
Guldo
Now we have a Rapid Deployment
Force. We ha facili es in four areas in the region and
are strengthening oor base in Diego Garcia. We pre-
positioned equipts for 12,000 Marines and munitions
for 500 aircraft and additional combat brigades. We
have two carrier task forces on station at all times
to keep open the Strait of Hormuz and defend our friends
and our vital interests in the region. None of this
existed before.
Stavinc Out of Wars. The issue is what is done with this
military power:
It is easier to get into a war as we have all learned
than it is to get out of one.
In the last three and a half years we could have involved
ourselves directly in more than one-half dozen wars,
revolutions or conflicts -- Iraq/Iran, Lebanon, Nicaragua,
Angola, Somalia/Ethiopia and Cambodia. We did not do SO.
isis
At the same time, others have called in the last
several years for involvement in such places. In
particular, in Angola, Lebanon as well as in Indicrous
places like Equador. Leadership is knowing when to
exercise restraint.
Standing Up To Our Adversaries. And citen America must draw
the line:
It must not be afraid to say that the Persian Gulf is an
area of vital interest. It must not be afraid to lead a
boycott of Moscow as the site for the Olympics.
Leadership is having the political courage during the
Presidential campaign of invoking a grain enbargo even
if it is politically unpopular.
Human Richts and Change. Above all, leadership is placing
America in the forefront of history.
This means being on the side of change and not wishing
we could return to the 1950's.
This means support
uman rights and democracy and not
coddling dict
ignoring racial oppression in Africa
and the ness
an
rights throughout the world.
When I cams into office America was losing its place as
the beacon OI hope) and a force for human richts and basic
decency in the world. That has changed. We, must not
turn back the clock.
3.
REAGAN
All these major achievements were gained by careful
diplomacy and patient negotiation. None were won by
threats of military force or intervention, or by nostalgic
talk about American economic or military superiority.
Governor Reagan appears not to favor the step-by-step
approach of negotiation and diplomacy. His first answer
to foreign policy problems is to advocate some military.
response:
5
He has called for sending U. S. military forces
or issuing of ultimatums in crises involving Cuba,
Angola, Vietnam after the U. S. military withdrawal,
North Korea, Lebanon, Eduador, Rhodesia, Pakistan,
Cyprus, the Middle East and others.
-
I am not going to send American forces to fight
Ecuador over tuna. I will use military force only
when vital American interests are threatened by
military force.
Governor Reagan would junk the SALT II Treaty, which
took seven years and three Administrations to negotiate,
and would launch us on an uncontrolled arms race in the
hopes of frightening the Soviets into a new agreement.
I think this would destroy the arms control proces and
cause a nuclear arms race with incalculable results.
Governor Reagan belief Alaska has more oil reserves
than Saudi Arabia,
energy policy would be to
free the oil CORDER
from taxes and environmental
constraints and
hemo
DO find all the oil we need
at home. This
Reality is that we must
conserve ener
elop new sources, while continuing
to protect our vira Ment.
CONCLUDING REMARKS.
America is strong militarily, politically and economically,
and we are growing stronger. My record in all these areas
in foreign and national security policy is good.
I will continue to pursue policies such as advocacy of
human rights which identify the United States with justice,
democracy, and a decent life for all peoples, and which
help promote peaceful change.
I intend to continue my policy of combining measures to
strengthen our defense with efforts to negotiate fair and
verifiable limits and reductions in armaments.
In contrast, Governor Reacan's preoccupation with weapons,
military power and assertive behavior is likely to antagonize
or frighten our allies and friends, provoke a nuclear arms
race, destroy the SALT process, and involve the U. S. in
trouble all over the globe.
Military Balance
Q:
President Carter, your Administration has been accused of
allowing the military balance with the Soviet Union to
deteriorate to a position of U.S. inferiority and ushering
in a period of grave danger to U.S. interests around the
world. The Secretary of Defense has said that even with
the post-Afghanistan defense spending increases, it would
require 40 years to catch up to Soviet expenditures. The
Army Chief of Staff, General Meyer, recently stated that
we have "a hollow Army. "
How do you view the trends -- and the implications of these
trends -- in the military balance? Are we, as Governor
Reagan has charged, "second to one; namely, the Soviet Union"
in military strength today?
A:
1. THEME
We have turned around our defenses from a decade of
decline in spending
But
we are not going to embark on
a wasteful crash fooram or provoke a dangerous arms
race. Historicall
arms races have always ended in war.
2. RECORD
I reversed =
de
C
decline in spending on our defenses
from 1968 to 1976.
JUN
Defense spending declined by 37 percent. I have
increased it 10 percent. My program for the next
five years calls for appropriations of over one trillion
dollars for defense.
Purchases of combat aircraft and army equipment dropped
two-thirds in those eight years. I have already in-
creased such purchases by 50 percent.
Strategic forces are our deterrent to nuclear war. But
when I came into office:
There was no answer to the Soviet threat to our fixed
ICBM's. Now we have one -- the mobile M-X missile.
There was no answer to Soviet air defenses. The B-1
bomber was already growing obsolete. We had no
strategic cruise missile program, but now the first
strategic cruise missile will join the strategic air
force next year.
-2-
In Europe, there was no allied program to strengthen
our defenses.
I personally negotiated with allied leaders a
commitment to three percent real growth, and we
have developed a long-term NATO defense program.
There was a growing nuclear gap in Europe.
We are closing it with a US-led program to deploy
long-range missiles in Europe.
Our forces in Europe were not ready. They were under-
manned. They were threatened by overwhelming Soviet
tank superiority.
I increased our Army by 15 percent -- 26,000 men.
We have deployed in the last three and a half years
more than 50,000 anta-tank missiles. That is equal
to the entire Warsaw Pact tank threat against NATO.
And we are deploying more at a rate five times faster
than the Soviets are deploying tanks.
When I came into office our Navy had been cut in half
by the Republicans The shipyards were a mess with almost
$3 billion in issuted claims.
We cleared up the ness, and we are now building 70
percent more ships per year than the average under
the Republican Administration.
Finally, we had no capability to rapidly protect our
interests in the vital area of the Persian Gulf.
Now, we have a Rapid Deployment Force. It will begin
exercising next month.
We have facilities in four areas in the region and a
base at Diego Garcia that we are strengthening.
We have pre-positioned equipment for 12,000 Marines
and munitions for additional combat brigades and for
more than 5,000 tacair sorties.
We have two carrier task forces on station in the
region at all times with air and naval preponderance
to keep open the Straits of Hormuz where half of the
nations' oil must flow.
3
This is a good record. It is a record of steady,
determined and prudent strengthening of our defenses
together with our allies. It provides us with an
increasingly strong military posture consistent with
strengthening our economy.
3. REAGAN
Governor Reagan's charge that we are now second to
the Soviet Union in military strength reminds me
that in almost every national campaign a candidate
charges that the Soviets are ahead of us. After the
election, those charges are either forgotten or are
found to be false. If our nation were neglecting its
defenses, it would be the duty of all informed people
to sound the alarm. But false declarations of weak-
ness only intensify the dangers we face. They can
cause our friends to Coubt us and our enemies to
discount us.
While we want to build our security for the future,
the Republicans would have us invest more today on
even obsolete weapons. Governor Reagan has continued
to cite the BEL as a plane that should have been built.
The fact is it would be obsolete almost as fast as
we could deploy it
The Republicans wanted to revive
the ABM system which President Nixon discarded. They
want a new air defense system which is an anachronism
in the missile age. They even want to recommission
mothballed ships. This is a program of.obsolescence
that would waste billions of defense dollars and
simply let the Soviets catch up to us in advanced
technology.
Governor Reagan will not tell us how much his arms
race would cost. Conservative estimates suggest that
next year alone, it could equal the size of the FY 81
deficit.
If we embark on such a crash program, what will happen
to the economy? What will happen to the dollar? Our
economy and the strength of the dollar are also vital
elements of our nation's security.
Governor Reagan said he would tear up the SALT II
Treaty. The Department of Defense has estimated this
could cost the American people up to $100 billion in
additional defense spending with no increase in security.
That is approximately equal to Governor Reagan's pro-
posed defense increase.
4
A strategy of tearing UD arms limitations agreements
and then having to spend $100 billion to compensate
for these agreements is not only wasteful and foolish,
it is extremely dangerous. Unlike Governor Reagan,
I ão not believe in threatening an arms race. The
Governor should look at History and answer a basic
question. What arms race did not end in a war?
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
The question facing Americans is not whether we should
respond to these developments. All agree that we must.
The real question is whether we will continue with a
well-conceived and measured response tailored to the
actual threats we face, or whether we will run off
wildly in all directions at once, spending vastly
greater sums to no positive effect -- and provoke an
arms race in the bargain.
My Administration will preserve our national security.
we will improve our cepabilities as necessary to
maintain the milit balance that exists today between
the United States and the Soviet Union. We will con-
tinue to make steady and sustained increases in defense
spending to build the capabilities we need. We will
buy only the weapon systems that best serve our needs,
not every alamorous weapon svstem that comes along.
And, we will continue to seek arms control agreements --
like the SALT II Treaty -- to limit the growth in Soviet
military power, and to avoid spending resources un-
necessarily in an uncontrolled arms race.
All of America's Presidents in the post-war period
have agreed with John Kennedy's maxim. John Kennedy
said it well.
While maintaining our readiness for war, we
must exhaust every avenue for peace. Let us
always make clear our willingness to talk, if
talk will help, and our readiness to fight,
if fight we must. Our foremost aim is the
control of force, not the pursuit of force,
in a world made safe for mankind.
We have and are building further the strength to make
mankind safe.
SALT
Q:
President Carter, Governor Reagan calls the SALT II Treaty
flawed and says he would drop it and go directly into
SALT III negotiations. He says our allies do not really
support the Treaty and that it was dead in the Senate even
before Afghanistan caused you to shelve it. You continue
to assert that the SALT II Treaty is in the interests of
the United States and its allies. You say you will press
for its ratification in the new Senate.
Mr. President, why do you believe the SALT II Treaty is
still in U.S. interests? Do you still believe it can be
ratified with Soviet troops in Afghanistan? Even if you
are reelected, won't it be necessary to renegotiate parts
of the Treaty?
A:
1. THEME
Preventing nuclear war is the foremost responsibility
of the President of the United States.
An all-out nuclear arms race increases the risk of
nuclear war.
The Treaty is the security interests of the United
States and
llies, and I will seek its ratification
as soon as feasible after the election.
I intend then to press on in SALT III for deeper re-
ductions and greater qualitative constraints on new
weapons.
Tearing up SALT II will unleash an arms race that will
threaten our security and cost us billions. It will
divide us from our allies, all of whom support SALT II.
Governor Reagan's proposals to go on to SALT III with-
out SALT II is naive and empty. His professed support
for arms control contradicts a history of no discernable
support for the arms control efforts of previous Demo-
cratic and Republican Presidents.
2. RECORD
The SALT process, and the SALT II Treaty, which
Governor Reagan would abandon, are the products
of three Republican and Democratic Administrations
all of which were convinced that limiting Soviet
strategic arms strengthens U.S. security and reduces
the risk of nuclear war.
- 2 -
The benefits of this Treaty to the security
interests of the U.S. are clear:
- Under the Treaty, the United States will not
have to reduce any strategic systems, while
the Soviets will have to reduce 250 and it
Ron SALT I,
will prevent them from deploying 600 or 700
new ones.
Totalmete
- Under the Treaty, the United States will be
able to carry out all our planned strategic
modernization programs, including the Trident I
missile, the air-launched cruise missile, and
the M-X land-bassed missile.
- SALT II will permit us to spend more on our
highest priority needs for conventional force
improvements.
- Without SALT we would be divided from our allies,
all of whom support SALT and see it as a corner-
stone of their own security.
- If we abandor SALT, we will give the Soviet Union
an enormous propaganda advantage and undermine our
efforts to control the spread of nuclear weapons
to other nations of the world.
These are the benefits of the SALT Treaty. I want
the American people to understand clearly what the
consequences of a world without the SALT Treaty, a
world which Governor Reagan apparently wants, would
be like:
- Without SALT, the Soviets could deploy over 3,000
strategic bombers. and missiles, instead of the
2,250 they are allowed under the Treaty.
- Without SALT, the Soviets could deploy as many
warneads on their large missiles as they are
capable of carrying, fifteen or twenty or even
more on each missile instead of ten.
- Without SALT, the Soviets could target an addi-
tional three to six thousand more warheads on
American cities and military targets than they
would under the Treaty.
- Without SALT, defense planning by our military
leaders would be much more difficult. The M-X
program, a central element in our planned
strategic modernization, would be harder to
3 -
design and to build, and more costly, because
we could not know what the size of Soviet forces
would be and would have to predict the worst.
- Without SALT, our ability to monitor Soviet
forces -- and thus to evaluate Soviet
capabilities -- would be reduced, because
the Soviets would be freed from the SALT
constraints on deliberate concealment of
strategic forces.
- Without SALT, the likely increase in Soviet
strategic capabilities would require us to
spend even more on defense, prehaps on the
order of an additional $30 to $100 billion
over a 10 year period. This would compound
our already difficult budget choices. we
would of course spend what is necessary for
our security, but with SALT, it would be
less.
We did not negotia
th
Treaty to make friends
delegate
with the Soviet Union. Un we negotiated it because
we are adversar and int is in our security
interest to reliable effective and verifiable
limits on Sovien forces.
The Treaty helps reduce.
the risk of nuclear JUN war.
3.
REAGAN
Governor Reagan says he will withdraw the SALT
Treaty from the Senate and "immediately open
negotiations on a SALT III Treaty" for arms
reductions.
team up SALTII
playtimp and of
At the same time, Governor Reagan will launch
on an effort to outbuild the Soviets in an
arms control
attempt to frighten them into negotiations for
a new agreement.
Governor Reagan says our allies do not really
support the Treaty. He says it was dead in the
Senate before Afghanistan.
Nothing Governor Reagan has said betrays more clearly
his dangerous. misunderstanding of foreign affairs
than his statements on SALT.
- What would we do if the Russians tore up SALT
and threatened an arms race and asked for immediate
negotiations? Governor Reagan is naive if he thinks
the Soviets would react differently. Governor
Reagan's course means one thing: renewal of the
nuclear arms race, and collapse of the negotiating
process.
4
What would the Governor propose on SALT III? He
wants a buildup in strategic forces, but he also
wants reductions. He should tell the American
people what U.S. systems he is prepared to dis-
mantle if he is sincere about getting further
Soviet reductions.
The Governor is reported to have over 100
people working on the so-called October Surprise
Committee. Well, the surprise is that Governor
Reagan is in favor of arms control. He certainly
has never before favored any of the arms control
accomplishments of any Presidents -- Republican
or Democrat.
- The Governor's argument that the allies secretly
are against SALT is a dangerous misperception,
perhaps more dangero than his misunderstanding of
China. Throwing SALT II will divide us from our
allies and give the Soviets the propaganda windfall.
Our efforts to modernize theater nuclear forces in
Europe will be out increopardy. The Europeans will
seek to disassociate themselves from Governor
Reagan's arms face policy. The result will be a
divided alliance and a dangerous increase in Soviet
influence.
- Governor Reagan's assertion that SALT II was dead
before the Soviets invaded Afghanistan shows that
he has at least one thing in common with the Soviet
Union. They now also make that claim as a way of
justifying their invasion of Afghanistan.
4. CONCLUDING REMARKS
I believe that the Senate will ratify SALT II because
the Treaty is, in its simplest terms, in the interest
of our Nation's security. It forces the Soviets to
reduce, while we carry out essential strategic modern-
ization.
Governor Reagan and the Republican Party would
abandon SALT and the arms control process build
up by every President since Eisenhower. He
would sacrifice the important contributions the.
Treaty makes to U.S. security.
Governor Reagan would leave us in an uncontrolled
nuclear arms race. There is no way to predict
how long it would take to reconstruct the arms
control process. The risk of nuclear war would
increase.
U.S. Soviet Relations
Q: Mr. President, why has your Administration failed to
manage successfully the U.S.-Soviet relationship, the
key factor in international relations? How have we
reached this point of tension, deteriorating relations
and renewed military competition? What would you do in
a second Administration to put U.S.-Soviet relations
back on an even keel?
A: 1. THEME
That relations between the United States and the
Soviet Union are severely strained is undeniable.
And that this strain is largely created by Soviet
behavior is also undeniable.
A stable, balanced relationship with the Soviet
Union remains my goal
But, stable relations -- detente -- cannot be
divorced from deterrence. The Soviets must
understand that they shomot at the same time
threaten world peace and still enjoy the benefits
of cooperation with the U.S. Cooperation or
competition the choice is up to the Soviet
Union. The United States will respond to either.
But not all problems in this world are carried
by the U.S.S.R. Dealing with poverty, hunger,
political oppression, the spread of nuclear
weapons are also vital to our security and can-
not be ignored.
2. RECORD
The Soviet Union has used its increasing military
capabilities to seek to increase its influence in
the Third World. With extraordinary shortsighted-
ness, it has done SO in the belief that these
actions would not undermine detente with the
United States and the West.
This Soviet calculation was clearly wrong. Our
relations with the Soviet Union have reached the
lowest point in years, particularly accentuated
by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
- 2
This attempt to subjugate an independent, non-
aligned Islamic people is a violation of
international law and the United Nations
Charter, two fundamentals of international
order. Hence, it is also a dangerous threat
to world peace.
The firm actions the United States has taken in
recent months --- on grain sales, on technology,
on fishing rights, in exchanges and on the
Olympics -- are meant to demonstrate that
aggression bears a price.
Most Americans support the steps we have taken.
For they understand that we cannot express our
national resolve thout individual sacrifice --
from farmers, from businessmen, from athletes,
and others. Governor Reagan apparently does
not understand this. He has opposed many of
the steps have taken.
When we unde took these policies, we had no
illusions that they would bring about an
immediate record sideration of Soviet policy.
It will take time for the Soviet Union to
reassess its policy. When it does, we are
prepared to consider realistic arrangements to
restore a neutral, nonaligned Afghanistan.
With the withdrawal of Soviet troops, we would
end our sanctions.
We must recognize, however that not all of
our difficulties in the world today can be
blamed on the Soviet Union, as Governor Reagan
has suggested. The world is much more diverse,
interdependent, and unstable than in the past.
There is no question that the Soviets, when they
feel they can get away with it, will take every
opportunity to expand their influence at Western
expense. But we forget our world leadership role
when we blind ourselves to the realities of the
problems we face by fixing our attention too
rigidly on the Soviets.
The profound differences in what our two governments
believe about freedom and power and the inner lives
of human beings are likely to remain for the
indefinite future, and so are other elements of
competition between the United States and the Soviet
Union. That competition is real and deeply rooted
in the history and values of our respective societies.
- 3
But it is also true that since our two countries
can destroy the world, we share many important,
overlapping responsibilities. We will seek to
translate these into concrete understandings, if
the Soviet Union is prepared to exercise restraint.
If not, we shall be prepared for any challenge to
our interests.
3. REAGAN
Governor Reagan has a very simple view of U.S.-
Soviet relations: The Soviet Union is behind
all the unrest in the world; if they would
behave, there would be no "hot in the
world.
Does he believe they spots" are schinl Ehomeini
he
Governor Reagan has an equally simple answer
to Afghanistan: blockade Cuba, cut off all
communication with the Soviet Union, send
U.S. advisers 22TC military equipment to
Pakistan, and to the Afghan
insurgents.
But, when it came to action instead of words,
Governor opposed or temporized on many
of the specifi measures I took to bring home
we homein
to the Soviets the costs of aggression:
- He opposed the grain embargo, though he has
long advocated halting grain sales to the
Soviet Union as a moral issue. He wanted to
M
stop grain sales after the disclosure of the
Soviet brigade in Cuba.
- Governor Reagan at first suggested an Olympic
boycott, then he swung against it, then finally
said it was for the athletes to decide.
- He opposed draft registration, one of the most
convincing signals of our determination.
Governor Reagan believes the Cold War never
ended, SO he would see no loss in a return to
an arms race and to the end of detente.
Governor Reagan believes the Soviets are marching
with the tide of history. This is nonsense. Over
the past several years, the Soviet Union has lost
as much influence in the World as it has gained,
starting with the People's Republic of China
in the late 1950s. Indonesia, Egypt and Somalia
China
have all sent the Soviets packing. They are not
1
I've
going
anyola
Mriam
bigne
22
4
alone. The Soviet Union has fewer friends in
the Third World today than a decade ago. We
have moved America to the forefront of world
history not only because of our technology, but
also because our dedication to democracy,
human rights and human justice makes us a beacon
to the oppressed everywhere.
4.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The way to better relations is open if the
Soviets alter their conduct. That is clearly
the path we prefer. We seek no Cold War, no
indiscriminate confrontation. But we will
insist that Moscow respect the legitimate
interests of the United States and of other
nations.
The American people understand that our relation-
ship with the Soviet Union contains elements of
competition and confrontation as well as coopera-
tion. Our differences are profound. But it is
also true that our two countries share many
important interests, survival being the most
critical. We must, therefore, attempt to avoid
the excessive swings in our policies toward the
Soviet Union, and pursue a steady, firm course of
cooperation where it serves our interests, as in
the SALT Treaty, and be prepared for confrontation
in competition if this is necessary.
Ahead lies the uncertainty of the directions in
which a new generation of leadership will take
the Soviet Union, in the solution of its internal
problems, and the advancement of its interests
abroad. With steadfastness and patience, we can
affect the choices they will make, but if we give
way to fear and if we cut off all communications
as Governor Reagan urged after Afghanistan, we may
well see the next generation of Soviet leaders
fulfilling our worst nightmares.
Western Alliance
a:
President Carter, Republicans and other critics say there
has been a loss of European confidence in your personal
leadership and in the reliability of the United States.
Critics say your policies and leadership have been erratic,
with sudden flip flops. The neutron bomb is one example;
the stress on human rights in certain areas and not in
others another, and our arms sales policies a third.
Governor Reagan has said: "I think there is every indication
that some of our European friends are beginning to wonder if
they shouldn't look more toward -- or have a rapprochment with --
the Soviet Union, because they are not sure whether we are
dependable or not. "
When your Administration began, you said strengthening the
Atlantic Alliance would be one of your principal aims. Yet,
over the last four years the U.S. and the NATO allies seem
to be drifting apart on a whole range of important issues:
East-West relations, defense policies, energy problems, infla-
tion and economic stagnat on relations with the Third World,
the Middle East -- the could go on. Isn't it clear NATO
is in serious disartay Oak the Alliance remain unified and
A:
effective in the face JUN 27 1983 deep problems?
1.
THEME
The NATO Alliance is as strong today as it has been at
anytime in my memory. Under U.S. leadership, NATO has
developed a broad, coordinated and cohesive strategy for
strengthening the Alliance. The Atlantic Alliance,
together with our Alliances with Japan, Australia, and
New Zealand, is now and will remain the bedrock of
Western collective security.
2.
RECORD
When I took office, the Alliance was indeed troubled.
We faced serious security problems in Europe, with no
common plan for dealing with them.
A central objective of my Administration was to devise
an effective response to the Alliance disarray we
inherited from the previous Republican Administration.
At the 1978 NATO Summit, the NATO Allies agreed to
join with us in increasing real defense spending by
3% every year until 1986.
In 1978 we launched a Long Term Defense Program to
improve NATO's capabilities in ten key areas,
ranging from air defense to maritime posture. This
program is being vigorously implemented.
2
NATO has made a historic decision to modernize
theater nuclear forces with the deployment of long-
range Pershing and Ground-Launched Cruise Missiles
in Europe which can strike the Soviet Union.
But, our Allies car do more. The commitments they
made in 1978 are all the more important in light of
the security situation in Southwest Asia. NATO must
face the possibility that U.S. forces we previously
had hoped would be available for the defense of
Europe might have to be committed to a conflict or
crisis elsewhere, especially Southwest Asia.
We have recently discussed this situation with our
Allies and have agreed with them that we need to
accelerate implementation of critical Long-Term
Defense Program measures, and some -countries must.
make a renewed frort to achieve three percent real
growth in defens spending.
3.
REAGAN
E861
Unlike Governor Reagan, I do not accuse our allies
of drifting toward "neutralism" or a desire to
accommodate the Soviet Union. An Alliance which is
vigorously implementing a Long-Term Defense Program
to improve its collective military capabilities, which
is committed to increasing real defense spending by
3%, and which has decided to implement a major moderniza-
tion of theater nuclear forces, is not trying to appease
the Soviet Union. It is nonsense, and damaging to the
Alliance, to make such a charge.
Governor Reagan says he would consult with the allies
and show them we value the Alliance. Governor Reagan's
advisers must not have briefed him well on the record
of consultations with NATO over the last three and one
half years. I have met with allied leaders in five
summits. I have had innumerable bilateral discussions
with individual allied leaders on every issue con-
fronting the Alliance today. Secretaries Vance,
Muskie and Brown have met dozens of times bilaterally
and in NATO with their counterparts. The record will
show an unprecedented volume of correspondence and
exchange at the highest levels with our Allies on
major foreign policy issues, most of it quite sensitive.
In short, no U.S. Administration has consulted as
intensively with the Allies as has mine.
3
As an example of his forceful policies, Governor
Reagan says he would deploy the "neutron bomb" in
Europe. This betrays an insensitivity to European
political concerns that could cause serious strains
in the Alliance. Governor Reagan ignores one
essential fact: NATO is an Alliance of sovereign
states. We do not tell our Allies that we are going
to deploy a weapon their territory. We consult with
them, we examine the military requirements, we con-
sider the political implications, then we as an
Alliance decide.
4.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Over the past three and one-half years, NATO has
taken several major decisions to strengthen conven-
tional and nuclear forces, to increase real defense
spending, and re distribute security burdens in the
Alliance SO the can direct more effort at pro-
tecting our common interests in the Persian Gulf.
This has Been achieve under U.S. leadership. Without
a vigorous effort.by myself, my top foreign policy and
defense visorse and the concerted effort of my
Administration NATO could not have organized and begun
the difficult task of implementing this tremendous
effort. I am proud of what we have accomplished and
I am determined that we shall do even more to-
strengthen the Alliance.
NATO is a healthy, strong alliance of free, equal
and sovereign nations. From time to time, disagreements
among free allies over the proper responses to the
challenges we are facing is understandable. But, our
common goals -- mutual security and preservation of our
democratic way of life -- are deep and enduring. we
should work even harder at coordinating our actions in
Europe and wherever our interest are threatened. But
the Alliance is dynamic and vibrant; it is not in
disarray.
Persian Gulf
Q:
President Carter, your critics have charged that we
can't affect the course of the war between Iraq and Iran
because we haven't built a policy or a position there.
Hence we are neutral in the conflict. What have you
done about that region and, if the war should escalate
in the near future, does the United States have the
capability to protect our vital interests in the
region?
A:
1.
THEME
In recent years the Persian Gulf has become vital
to the United States and to many of our friends
and allies. Over the longer term, the world's
dependence on Persian Gulf oil is likely to
increase. The denial of these oil supplies --
to us or to others -- would threaten our security
and provoke an economic crisis greater than that
of the Great Depression 50 years ago. Loss of this
oil would create havos not only in the world economy,
but for the security of our alliances. The twin
threats to the flow of Bersian Gulf oil -- from
regional instabi such as the current conflict
between Iraq and Iran, and potentially from the
Soviet Union as Aresult of its invasion of
Afghanistan require that we assist our friends
in the region to enhance their security and that
we clearly state our intention to defend our
vital interests if threatened.
2.
RECORD
have always
I long ago recognized the growing importance
of the Persian Gulf, not just to other oil
importing nations, but also to us. That's one
reason I have pushed SO hard on an energy
policy -- which means that we are now importing
24% less oil now than when I was inaugurated.
That also means that worldwide oil stocks are
at an all-time high, SO that both Iraqi and
Iranian oil could come off the world market
without causing a real crisis.
We have also been building up our ability to
act in our own interests, and those of our
friends in the area, if that became neccssary.
We are creating a Rapid Deployment Force; we
have prepositioned military stocks; we have
two carrier battle groups in the region; we
are making more use of the Diego Garcia base;
and we have agreements giving us access to
military facilities in Oman, Kenya, and Somalia.
2
It was no accident, therefore, that we were
able to keep the Iran-Iraq war from spreading
to the oil areas of the Gulf a few weeks ago.
And it is no accident that we have the ability
to keep open the Strait of Hormuz -- through
which 60% of the world's exportable oil flows --
no matter what efforts are made to close it.
As for the war itself, we have strongly supported
international efforts, in the United Nations and
elsewhere, to end the fighting and to bring Iran
and Iraq to the negotiating table.
I have exchanged letters with President Brezhnev
about the situation. It is my belief that the
Soviets do not want war to break out in a
general way throughout the Persian Gulf. The
biggest threat to our security would be if the
Soviets should be tempted to move into Iran or
to move into an area where they can control the
Persian Gulf self or the access to it. This
would be a direct threat, not only to our own
security but the security of other western
nations who depend on oil supplies from that
region for economic well-being. President
Brezhnev is fally aware of our views.
We are also working to keep the conflict from
spreading beyond Iran and Iraq. To this end
we are helping our non-belligerent friends in
the area who are threatened by this conflict.
My decision to send advance warning-and-control
aircraft to Saudi Arabia underscores our
determination to strengthen the defenses of
such friends -- so that they can guard their
own independence and territorial integrity.
We are also urging all other nations - in the
region and beyond - to avoid involvement and
to work to limit and resolve the fighting.
It is in no one's interest to see the
hostilities widen.
Finally, we have pledged to do what is necessary
to protect free shipping in the Strait of Hormuz
from any interference. We have the ability to
meet this pledge.
3.
REAGAN
We are told that greater American military might
could have prevented the course of events in
Iran. Governor Reagan has said that there was
3
a time that the revolt against the Shah could
have been halted. He didn't say exactly how.
But the fact is that in the world as it is,
American military forces cannot provide a
satisfactory solution to the internal problems
of other nations If we tried to order the
affairs of other oations by force, we would
be endlessi at war all over the globe. And
how would WE then differ from the Soviet Union
and its actions Afghanistan or Ethiopia?
4.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Enhancing
security of the Persian Gulf
region and the Middle East will require a
sustained, long-term commitment. We are
prepared to make such a commitment. We
want to work with all of the countries in
the region to achieve it. The present
conflict between Iraq and Iran underscores
the vital importance of this task.
Iran: Hostages
Q:
Mr. President, fifty-two Americans remain captive in Iran.
The response of your Administration has been to try several
diplomatic initiatives, invoke economic sanctions against
Iran and attempt a military rescue mission. The latter, we
know, was a failure. Less clear has been the effect of the
diplomatic initiatives and economic sanctions. Now, of course,
we have the war between Iran and Iraq which has further
complicated the release of our hostages.
Now that you have had the perspective of time and thought,
please evaluate for us the effectiveness of the diplomatic
and economic measures you have taken, and the wisdom of the
rescue mission and why it collapsed. Finally, what do you
propose we do now to win the release of the hostages?
A:
1.
THEME
No single internation issue has caused me greater
personal concern as President than the continued, illegal
detention of our hostages DD Iran. Since the first day
the hostages were taken we have kept two goals in mind.
First, to preserve the honor and integrity of our Nation
and to protect interests. Second, to take no action
in this country that would endanger the lives of safety
of the hostages nor interfere with their earliest possible
release back to freedom.
2.
RECORD
International condemnation of Iran, the economic
sanctions which we have imposed, and now the war
with Iraq, have raised the costs to Iran of their
illegal actions and are bringing home to Iranians
the fact that the holding of the hostages is hurting
their country and bringing dishonor to their
revolution.
But divisions with Iran have prevented progress,
and this has been my greatest frustration as President.
I have no regret that we attempted to rescue our
hostages. Our rescue plan was well conceived and
had an excellent chance of success.
Our intelligence information is that the hostages
are alive and safe, and that the Iranian authorities
are not mistreating them.
2
I believe the Iraq-Iran war has not endangered the
hostages' lives. But, it has complicated our efforts
to gain their release.
There are rumors that we are prepared to trade the
hostages for spare parts for Iranian military equip-
ment. There is no such/prpposal, no such deal.
NO Presi bent would Do dishoror america.
I cannot, for obvious reasons, go into any details
about our continuing diplomatic efforts. However,
we have made it clear from the very beginning that
we were prepared to meet at any time or any place with
anyone authorized to speak with authority on behalf of
the Iranian government on this issue. The reluctance
has always been on the side of Iran, because of their
own internal politi cal considerations. This problem
can be solved and it will be solved. But I cannot
say when a solution will be reached.
I also understand the intense interest and
speculation on 7the nature of any agreement which
might lead to the release of the hostages. I have
consistently refused to comment on the Iranian
conditions or the possible U.S. response. This is
not an issue which is going to be solved by a public
exchange. It must be handled in diplomatic channels
out of the glare of publicity.
3.
REAGAN
Governor Reagan believes we should have issued an
ultimatum to Iran. He also wanted to "literally
quarantine" Iran.
4.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
We have pursued a policy of firmness and restraint.
We have not issued ultimata, as Governor Reagan has
said he would do. Nor have we attempted to "literally
quarantine" Iran as he has suggested. I believe such
actions would be reckless and would pose a serious
threat to the lives of the hostages.
6
I can't mislead you by saying that there are some
immediate prospects that the hostages will be
released. My hope and prayer is that they will be
and I believe that we have made as much effort as
possible to secure their safe return.
Middle East Peace Process
Q:
President Carter, there has been no progress in the
autonomy talks between Egypt and Israel. None is
expected until after the November election, if then.
Many believe that the autonomy issues are SO intractable
that the Camp David process is finished. The Europeans
have apparently reached this conclusion.
Would it not be fair to say that the Middle East peace
process is at a dead end? Would it not be better to start
on a new approach?
And, isn't it true that Israeli intransigence on West Bank
settlements and the status of Jerusalem are the real
roadblocks to peace in the Middle East. Shouldn't the
United States bring pressure to bear on Israel to change
its policy on these issues?
A:
1.
THEME
My Administration has sought to achieve peaceful
resolutions insputes in troubled areas of the
world -- in Africa, Latin America and the Middle
East. Regional conflicts pose the danger of wider
confrontà ions and draw the interest of the Soviet
Union to exploit di sorder. We can take satisfaction
that real progre in the pursuit of peace has been
made.
2.
RECORD
When I took office, peace in the Middle East
was only a prayer. There had been four wars
in 30 years between Israel and her neighbors.
Two years ago Prime Minister Begin and President
Sadat joined me at Camp David. Last year they
signed a peace treaty at the White House between
their two countries.
Today, Israel and Egypt are at peace. Ambassadors
have been exchanged; borders have been opened;
two-thirds of the Sinai has been returned to
Egypt.
I am very proud of this accomplishment. It was
achieved through patient negotiation and hard
work, by all parties. It was not achieved through
coercion Today or the pressure. toigest and nation is at place
with s rall!
2
In this regard, the United States has no
intention of pressuring Israel to make
concessions in the autonomy negotiations.
And there can be no peace in the Middle East
unless Israel is secure. I am committed to
that security:
- nearly half of all U.S. aid to Israel
since its creation as a sovereign state -
more than $10 billion - has been requested
during my Administration.
- just recently our two countries signed a
five-year agreement guaranteeing Israel
access to U.S. oil if it cannot obtain its
own supplies on the world market. You will
remember that Israel made a great sacrifice
in agreeing to cive up control of the Sinai
oil fields as part of the Camp David accords
and peace eaty
E:86t
Despite the accomol ishments of the Camp David
process, much remains to be done. Camp David
led to the peace treaty between Egypt and
Israel. It also established the framework for
a comprehensive peace among all parties in the
region. Progress has been made toward that-
goal.
Two weeks ago the chief Israeli and Egyptian
negotiators in the autonomy talks met in
Washington. Our special Mideast negotiator,
Sol Linowitz, reported that the two sides were
moving closer to agreement. The negotiators
will meet again on November 17. And I hope to
meet with Prime Minister Begin and President
Sadat shortly after that. We have come this
far; we don't intend to fail.
3.
REAGAN
Governor Reagan has said that the United States
should not try to impose a settlement on the
Middle East or dictate its will. I would simply
remind him that neither the Camp David accords
nor the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel
were imposed by the United States. Both were
achieved through patient and persistent
negotiation and hard work, not coercion.
I would also remind Governor Reagan that,
3
at the request of both Israel and Egypt, the
United States is currently involved as a full
partner in the autonomy negotiations. As
Camp David demonstrated, the United States
can contribute in a major way to the peace
process -- not by imposing its will -- but by
acting as a catalyst, and by helping the parties
overcome difficult issues.
I also find it somewhat surprising that Governor
Reagan would express such concern about the
United States imposing a settlement on the
Middle East when he has made just the opposite
recommendation for other disputes around the
world, including Lebanon, Cyprus, Ecuador and
Rhodesia, among others. In each-of these
instances he suggested that the United States
should use, or threaten to use, military force
to resolve the issute. Governor Reagan's
concern for imposing settlements appears to be
selective
best.
4.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
E861
The Camp David process has brought peace between
Israel and Boypt. This is an historic accomplishment
and one that all Americans can be proud of. - During
my next term, I hope to see all parties at peace
in the Middle East.
Camp David has not resolved all the problems in
the Middle East. But let me remind you of this.
It is the first time that the two issues of
Israeli security and Palestinian rights -- issues
at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict -- have
been at the top of the agenda together. And no
other approach has been suggested, by Governor
Reagan or anyone else, that can do that.
US Policv Toward China
Q:
United States policy toward the People's Republic of
China and toward Taiwan surfaced early as a major
foreign policy issue in this campaign.
President Carter, do you believe it would be possible
to upgrade our unofficial relationship with Taiwan without
doing damage to our relations with the PRC? More generally,
what do you see as the major benefits to date of your
decision to normalize relations with the PRC?
A:
1.
THEME
When I assumed office in 1977, I set two central
tasks - to improve America's political position
in the world and to improve our strategic condition.
Normalization of relations with China has made a
positive contribution to both these objectives.
2.
RECORD
I am very pleased with the progress we have made
in U.S.-China relations. When I took office in
1977, our relations were at a standstill. The
leaders of the People's Republic were unsure
of the eliasility at the United States and of
our determination to respond to Soviet activities
around the globa The deadlock in our relations
was broken in December, 1978, when I announced
that we would formally recognize the PRC.
Since that time, the benefits of normalization
have become clear. Trade, travel, cultural
exchange and, most of all, the security and
stability of the Pacific region is greater now
than at any time in this century. And, for the
first time in our history we have good relations
with both China and Japan.
3.
REAGAN
I am very concerned that Governor Reagan's ill-
advised and confused statements on Taiwan and
China may place these important accomplishments
in jeopardy. If the United States were to
adopt Governor Reagan's position on Taiwan,
I believe the damage to our important strategic
relationship with China would be severe. Perhaps
he does not understand that the resumption of an
official relationship with Taiwan would not only
be contrary to the January 1979 Joint Communique
we negotiated. and agreed to with China, but would
void all of the preliminary understandings
beginning with the Shanghai Communique President
Nixon agreed to in 1972.
2
Governor Reagan's concern about Taiwan also is
ill-informed. At the time of normalization,
I made it clear that we would continue practical
relations with the people of Taiwan, but without
an official relationship, and that we would do
nothing to jeopardize the well-being of the
people of Taiwan. We have fulfilled that commit-
ment. There has been no betrayal of Taiwan. In
fact, Taiwan has done exceedingly well since
derecognition. The clearest evidence of this is
that United States trade with Taiwan is at an
all-time high and that tension in the strait
between Taiwan and the People's Republic is at
an all-time low.
I hope that Governor Reagan now understands the
importance of our relationship with the People's
Republic of China. He didn't in 1978 when he
said "it is hard to see what is in it for us."
Beyond the questions of trade and cultural
exchanges, the fact is that our national security
is enhanced by OUY relationship with the PRC. What
Governor Reagan has not understood is that a strong,
peaceful and secure Cherra is in our national
interest. China confident in its ability to
defend its berder chances stability in the Far
East and contril to our security and that
of our allies.
4.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Over the next four years I hope to see our new
relationship with China grow. At the same time,
we have no intention of improving our relations
with China for tactical advantage against the
Soviet Union. We are developing our relations
with China on their own merits. We want good
relations with China and the Soviet Union, but
we will not slow down progress in U.S. -China
relations just because Soviet behavior makes it
impossible to move ahead with Moscow.
We will not sell arms to China. Neither we nor
the Chinese seek a military alliance relationship.
Nevertheless, we can and will assist China's drive
to improve its security by permitting appropriate
technology transfer, including the sale of dual use
technology and defensive military equipment.
In the absence of frontal assaults of our common
interests, the United States and China will remain --
as at present -- friends rather than allies.
Central America
Q:
President Carter, next to the Persian Gulf, perhaps the most
most volatile region of the world today is Central America.
No country seems immune from the revolutionary fervor sweeping
the region. The Republicans have sharply criticized your
policy there. They state you have stood by while Castro's
Cuba -- assisted by the Soviet Union --- arms, trains and
supports revolutionary forces throughout the region.
The Republicans further state that they do not support United
States assistance to any Marxist government in this hemisphere
and, specifically, oppose your aid program for the government
of Nicaragua.
On few foreign policy issues are the lines so tightly drawn
between your policies and those of the Republicans. How do
you account for this sharp policy difference? Do you believe
the Cubans and Soviets are responsible for the turmoil in
Central America? How best can the United States influence the
direction of the change sweeping through the region?
A:
1.
THEME
It is important for Americans to recognize that we live in
a changing world, a world of diversity and turmoil. Scores
of new nations have emerged since the Second World War.
The international landscape has been fundamentally altered.
We must seek positive relations around the world not because
we have a compulsion to be liked but because our interests
are at stake. We cannot return to the 1950's, a time of
unique American military and economic preparedness in this
hemisphere and the world. By attempting to understand and
identify with the world as it is, the United States is in
a much better position to channel this change in a con-
structive fashion and to resolve regional disputes. The
turmoil in Center America today is a test of America's
ability to deal constructively with global change.
2.
RECORD
Those who are most concerned about the potential for
radical revolution in Central America and growing
Cuban influence in the region should be the strongest
supporters of our efforts to help Nicaragua and
El Salvador. But, Governor Reagan is not.
2
We are encouraged that Nicaraguan moderates and
businessmen have chosen to stay in Nicaragua and
help work to make it a more democratic country. They
have asked for our help, and we will not abandon them.
They have asked for our economic assistance. We have
provided it, most recently in the form of a $75 million
economic package to Nicaragua.
In El Salvador, we have been encouraged by the changes
and reforms that the new government began implementing.
The government there is moderate, reformist and
interested in a productive relationship with the United
States. We are providing more than $70 million of
economic assistance.
3.
REAGAN
Governor Reagan seems to believe that Cuban
and the Soviet Union are behind all the problems in
Central America. In fact, Governor Reagan has said:
"The Soviet Union underlies all the unrest that is
going on. If they weren't engaged in the game of
dominoes, thete wouldn't be any hot spots in the
world." If the expects to forge a policy toward the
hemisphere based on that perception, he is in for a
surprise. The people of Latin America and the
Caribbean do not view the struggle between the East
and West as their principal problem; they care about
food and freedom, and, under my Administration, we have
formulated an approach which identifies with those two
aspirations.
I was pleased to hear that Governor Reagan intends
to initiate a program of "intensive economic develop-
ment with cooperating countries in the Caribbean."
He might be interested in knowing that he has proposed
a program that is already in existence. Since I took
office, the United States has more than doubled its
aid to the Caribbean and, working with the 30 nations
and 15 international institutions known as the
Caribbean Group. Multilateral assistance to the region
has increased by 400 percent between 1976 and 1980.
Governor Reagan has sharply criticized the presence
of the Soviet combat brigade in Cuba, and my handling
of this issue. After the discovery of the brigade,
I took- steps to insure that Soviet activities in
Cuba would in no way constitute a threat to the
United States or the region. I have increased
surveillance of Cuba, expanded military maneuvers
Human Rights
Q:
President Carter, your Administration has made espousal
of human rights a central theme of your foreign policy.
Some argue that you have persisted in advocating human
rights even when it has damaged other U.S. interests
and weakened regimes friendly to the United States.
The Republicans charge that you have pressed hardest
on our friends and little on Marxist regimes with the
worst human rights records, such as the Soviet Union,
Vietnam and Cuba.
You have contrasted your pursuit of human rights and
"morality" in foreign affairs with the supposed
indifference to these considerations by the previous
Administration. In view of the charge that your pursuit
of human rights has harmed U.S. interests in key areas
such as Iran, Central America and Africa, do you intend
to. continue to assert this as a global, universal U.S.
objective? Are you now ready to show more discrimination
and weigh other U.S. objectives as well, before attacking
a regime for alleged abuses?
A:
1.
THEME
In my Inaugural Address I emphasized our commitment
as a nation to human rights. Human rights is as
central to America' interests today as when our
nation was first born. We know from our own
national experience that the drive for human freedom
has tremendous force. Our human rights policy
identifies America with the basic aspirations of
our time.
2.
RECORD
I regard making human rights an essential
element of American foreign policy and an
item on the agenda of every major inter-
national organization a major accomplishment
of my Administration.
We have made it clear that the United States
believes that torture cannot be tolerated
under any circumstances, and that officially
sanctioned "disappearances" are abhorrent in
any society. We have insisted on the right
of free movement everywhere. And we have
worked hard to give aid to the world's
refugees, compelled to flee from oppression
and hardship.
2
I believe our words and actions have left
their mark on the world. Many governments
have released their political prisoners.
Others have lifted states of seige, curtailed
indiscriminate arrests, and reduced the use
of torture. We have seen several dictator-
ships, some of them in this hemisphere, change
into democracies. And, because of our leader-
ship, the defense of human rights now has its
rightful place on the world agenda.
3.
REAGAN
The Republican Party has stated that it will
return to the fundamental principle of treating
a friend as a friend, without apology. I- do not
believe that we should simply drop our human
rights concerns because a country is anti-
communist. Not when that country imprisons
and tortures its citizens.
Governor Reagan has said: "Isn't it time we
Verify
laid off South Africa for awhile?" Does he
really mean the we should no longer express
our strong opposition to the racist and
repugnant South Africa policy of apartheid?
He has. also referred to "a few innocents"
-
being caught is the crossfire of violence in
Argentina. Did he not know when he made this
statement that between 1976 and 1979 there were
at least 6,500 cases of unexplained disappearances
in that country?
Governor Reagan has also suggested that the
United States should stay away from the upcoming
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
in Madrid, that we should drop out of the
Helsinki process. To do so would be folly.
It would only please those who are most guilty
of violating the principles of Helsinki,
including human rights. I do not intend to
let the Soviet Union and other violators be
freed of their obligation to account for
their actions before world opinion. A
Republican administration signed the Helsinki
Accords in 1975. My Democratic Administration
is committed to carrying out those agreements.
3
4.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
My commitment to human rights is as deep and
important to me today as it was when I became
President. My own faith in the ultimate outcome
of this struggle is undimmed. The American
people can be proud of the role the United
States is playing in promoting Human rights
around the world.
Human rights is not just an expression of
our ideals. The tide in the world is running
toward human rights and it is in our national
security interests to support it. Our support
for human Fights also enables us to regain the
political high ground in the competition for
world hfluence. stands in vivid contrast
to the practices the Soviet Union.
One of the bes ways to express our commitment
to human righ is to quote from the words of
Archibald Ma 9eish, "There are those who will
say that the liberation of humanity, the freedom
of man and mind, is nothing but a dream. They
are right. It is. It's the American dream. "
Future Goals
Q:
What are your top foreign policy and national security
priorities for a second term?
A:
1.
THEME
I recognize that we live in an age of complexity, of
change, of political and social awakening of peoples
who demand a share of their own destiny. My foreign
policy goals have been designed to identify America
with global change, to promote the rule of law over the
use of force, to recapture a moral and political leader-
ship role for America, and to keep America strong both
through its alliances and its own defense efforts.
2.
RECORD
As with my first term
I will not back away from the
difficult and Proversial issues which confront our
Nation. I have No Intection of looking for easy
answers or quick Alxess Rather, I will continue to
seek solution that are meaningful and lasting and in
long-term interests of the United States.
First, we will con Inue, as we have over the past
four years, to build America's military strength and
strong defense and economic relations with our allies
and friends.
Second, we will continue to demonstrate to the Soviet
Union that a price will be paid for its refusal to
abide by the accepted norms of international conduct.
At the same time, we will make it clear to the Soviet
Union that we seek no return to the Cold War, no
indiscriminate confrontation. The choice is the
Soviet Union's, we will respond to either.
Third, we will remain deeply committed to the process
of mutual and verifiable arms control and the effort
to prevent the spread and further development of nuclear
weapons. I intend to push for the ratification of the
SALT II Treaty as soon as possible after the election.
Fourth, we will pursue an active diplomacy in the
world, working -- together with our friends and
allies -- to resolve regional conflicts and to promote
peace -- in the Middle East, and Persian Gulf, southern
Africa, Central America, the Eastern Mediterrancan.
2
Fifth, we will strive to resolve pressing inter-
national economic problems -- particularly energy
and inflation -- and continue to pursue our still
larger objective of global economic growth through
expanded trade and development assistance.
Finally, and underlying all that we do, we will
continue vigorously to support the process of
building democratic institutions and improving human
rights protection around the world.
3.
REAGAN
Unlike my opponent, I do not believe a lasting
world order is achievable by substituting the threat
intervention for diplomacy, by suggesting that we
quarantine those nations which challenge our interests,
or by seeking to regain an unachievable military
superiority at an unimaginable cost.
Unlike my opponent
do not believe we are a weak
and floundering Nation dismissed with contempt by
our enemies, abandoned our allies and sinking into
decline as a ma power Rather, I know, our resolve
is steady, military is powerful, our alliances
are strong
and gaining new friends among the
young nations of the world.
Unlike my opponent, I do not believe we can return to
an early day when American interests went unchallenged
in the world arena. The world of today is a world of
upheaval and unrest and will be for decades to come.
But, as a powerful and self-confident nation, we can
live with a good deal of turmoil in the world while
we protect our interests and be a friend to those
who seek a new life free from tyranny.
Unlike my opponent, I would not return us to the days
of the Cold War. I do not believe, as he does, that
the Soviet Union is responsible for all the unrest in
the world today. The world is much too diverse for
such a simple explanation. But I will continue to
insist, through our actions and our words, that the
Soviet Union respect the legitimate interest of
other nations.
Unlike my opponent, I would not accuse our allies of
leaning toward accommodation with the Soviet Union.
Leading an alliance of proud sovereign nations requires
3
tact, patience and understanding. We and our allies
share profound political, security and economic
interests, but we must never forget that ours is an
association of free peoples, and the United States
must lead, not dictate.
Unlike my opponent, I would not abandon the arms
control process, which has contributed to our Nation's
security and has taken so many years to construct.
That would be the consequence of his intention to
scrap the SALT II Treaty.
Unlike my opponent, I would not jeopardize our new
relationship with the People's Republic of China by
tampering with the form of our good relations with
the people of Taiwan. Our new relationship with China
is clearly in our national interest and contributes to
the peace and security of the Pacific region.
And, finally, unlike hy opponent, I would not jettison
human rights as fundamental objective of U.S. foreign
policy. I beli did the true interests of our Nation
are best served by honoring the ideals of our heritage.
4.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
I do not believ
the American people share Governor
Reagan's view the future, a world filled with fears
of change and unrest and damaging self-doubts about
our military capability and strength, in which foreign
policy is reduced to threats, bluster and reliance on
military power.
I have learned a good deal in my four years of office:
I know more now about the limits of power; I know better
how hard it is to put policies into effect; I under-
stand how frustrating it is to see one's policies
distorted and misdirected. I know that a leader cannot
achieve everything he wants, or knows is desirable.
But, my vision remains. It is based on reality, and
filled with faith and an unbending determination to
achieve a life of meaning and purpose for every
American in a Nation that is strong and secure. Above
all, I want us to be what the founders of our Nation
meant us to become -- a symbol of freedom, peace and
hope throughout the world.
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
Foreign Policy and National Security Issues
Purpose
This briefing book is designed to assist the President
in debates with Governor Reagan. on foreign policy and national
security issues. It may also be useful for more general campaign
purposes. Although the book contains a larce number of issues,
it is not intended to be an exhaustive compilation of questions
which might be asked. Rather, it seeks to identify the most
likely questions about the President's leadership qualities
and his record, based on a review of key speeches and statements
by Governor Reagan, his supporters, the Republican Party platform,
and critical press articles. Of the 69 questions contained in
this book, twenty-three key questions have been marked with an
asterisk in the table of contents.
Contents and Format
The succested responses are drawn from speeches, press
conferences and other policy statements by the President, the
Secretaries of State and Defense, the Assistant for National
Security Affairs, and other senior Administration officials
dealing with foreign policy and national security issues. The
responses are organized around basic themes of the Carter
Administration and are intended to provide the basis for answering
related questions. Some of the responses -- such as those relating
to the conflict between Iran and Iraq -- may need to be updated
depending on events.
A major focus of criticism will be that the President
is incapable of leadership, indecisive, erratic, preoccupied
with vague moralistic causes and unable to understand and
respond to challenges to American interests. His record will
be attacked as a series of unrelated, incoherent, reflexive
actions to specific crises, without any guiding vision or
strategy which ties individual policies or events together.
Two broad responses, the first two in the book under the
section entitled "Overview," have been prepared to provide a
comprehensive rebuttal to such criticism.
Overall, the suggested responses seek to:
--demonstrate that the President has a concrete
vision of a world order and a constancy of purpose in
striving toward it;
2
-- emphasize the President's realism and toughness
in dealing with our adversaries and in managing the complex
problems of the modern world;
--highlight the specific accomplishments of the Carter
Administration, and show how these relate to and support the
President's goal of a stable, just world order;
--contrast the President's vision and record, and, in
particular, the President's leadership qualities, with the
picture formed by Governor Reagan's comments about what he
would do on foreign policy and national security issues.
To support these contrasts between the President and
Governor Reagan, pertinent statements by Governor Reagan
are woven into the responses. In addition, where possible,
relevant quotes by Governor Reagan on the different issues
appear at the end of the responses.
Finally, and in addition to the questions and responses,
this book contains several short papers which are meant to
highlight the contrasts among the candidates and their
platforms and the themes which Governor Reagan and Representative
Anderson have stressed throughout their campaigns. Also,
contained in this section, which is the last in the book, is
a selection of the most notable quotes by GOV. Reagan on foreign
policy and national security issues.
September 29, 1980
PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE BRIEFING BOOK
Foreign Policy and National Security
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
Overview
*
Leadership
*
Future Goals
II.
Defense Policy
*
Military Superiority vs. Essential Equivalence
*
Military Balance
*
Defense Spending
*
Strategic Program Cancellations
*
M-X (including ABM)
*
New Strategic Bomber (including Stealth controversy)
Neutron Bomb
*
Nuclear Strategy
Defense Manpower
Defense Readiness
Military Draft
Rapid Deployment Force
Naval Strength
III.
Arms Control
Role in US Security
Administration Record
*
SALT Treaty
*
Soviet Compliance
TNF Negotiations
Sverdlvosk and the Biological Weapons Convention
Soviet Use of Chemical Weapons in Afghanistan
2
IV.
US-Soviet Relations
*
Response to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan
*
The End of Detente
Nature of the Soviet Union
Geopolitical Losses
Human Rights and the Soviet Union (including CSCE)
V.
Western Europe and NATO
*
US Leadership
Detente
Alliance Disunity
Defense Efforts
Coup in Turkey (also Greece & Cyprus)
Poland
VI.
Middle East and Persian Gulf
*
Iran: Hostages
*
Defense of Persian Gulf: Carter Doctrine
Allied Support in Persian Gulf
*
Future of the Peace Process
The PLO
US-Israeli Relations
VII.
South Asia
*
Afghanistan
Aid to Pakistan
Pakistan and India Nuclear Aims
VIII.
Asia and the Pacific
*
US Policy Toward China
Vietnam and Southeast Asia
Security and Human Rights in South Korea
9.
Japanese Defense Expenditures
3
IX.
Latin America
* Central America and the Caribbean
US Policy Toward Cuba
Impact of Human Rights Policy
Panama Canal Treaties
X. Africa
Majority Rule in Southern Africa
Soviet-Cuban Influence in Africa
Horn of Africa
XI.
Foreign Assistance and Security Assistance
XII.
Global Issues
Good Intentions/Few Accomplishments
*
Human Rights Policy
Non-Proliferation Policy
Arms Transfer Policy
XIII.
International Economic Policy
*
Persian Gulf Oil
North/South: Helping Poor Nations
Trade:
Disincentives
Access to Foreign Markets
Increasing Productivity
Export Promotion
* Japanese Autos
Decline of the Dollar
XIV. General
Intelligence Reform
Refugees
The United Nations
4
XV.
Candidate Positions & Platforms
Reagan Themes: Foreign Policy and National Security
Most Notable Reagan Quotes
Republican Platform Charges Against the Carter Administratio
Key Proposals in the 1980 Republican Platform
Anderson Themes: Foreign Policy and National Security
Key Proposals in the Anderson Platform, 1980
Key Foreign Policy and National Security Issues: Contrasts
Among the Candidates
September 25, 1980
Leadership
Q: A widespread and persistent complaint in this country
and abroad about US foreign policy under the Carter
Administration is that it lacks coherence and consistency.
The various strands of policy are unrelated to one another,
it is said, and the US lurches from one approach to
another. The Administration has flip-flopped on the
withdrawal of US troops from South Korea, the neutron
bomb, the Soviet brigade in Cuba and Iranian policy.
The Republican Platform has charged: "For three and one
half years the Carter Administration has given us a
foreign policy not of consistency and credibility, but
of chaos, confusion, and failure. It has produced an
image of our country as a vacillating and reactive nation,
unable to define its place in the world, the goals it
seeks, or the means to pursue them. " "No failure of the
Administration has been so catastrophic as its failure
of leadership," concludes the GOP Platform.
Mr. President, how do you respond to these charges?
Response:
When I took office almost four years ago, our Nation
was facing a series of problems around the world -- in
southern Afica, the Middle East, in our relations with
our NATO allies, and on such tough questions as nuclear
proliferation, SALT II negotiations, the Panama Canal
treaty, human rights, and world poverty. My Administration
has directly, openly and publicly addressed these and
other difficult and controversial issues, some of which
had been skirted or avoided in the past. A period of
debate, discussion, and probing was inevitable. My goal
has not been to reach quick or easy agreements, but to
find solutions that are meaningful, balanced, and lasting.
2
I have a vision of a more just, more secure and
more stable world from which I have not wavered, and to
which my Administration has directed all its efforts.
I believe an enduring world order means a world
capable of peaceful change -- not a "status quo" world --
because change is and will continue to be for the fore-
seeable future a constant in international affairs. I
have been striving for a strong, confident and progressive
America leading the non-communist world in devising
peaceful solutions to our many challenges. I want an
international order which recognizes the basic human rights
of each individual, and which understands and responds to
the deep strivings of all peoples for a decent life, for
food and education for their families, for democratic
government and for hope for a better future.
Unlike my opponent, Governor Reagan, I do not believe
a lasting world order is achievable by substituting the
threat of intervention for diplomacy, by suggesting that
we quarantine those nations which challenge our interests,
or by seeking to regain an unachievable military "superiority"
at unimaginable cost. I understand the need for a strong
and powerful military in the present unstable international
situation. And, let there be no mistake; if our vital
national interests are threatened, I will use force to
protect them. But, I will not order American troops into
combat whenever there is an international disturbance that
is not to our liking.
3
Unlike Governor Reagan, I would not abandon the
arms control process, which has taken so many years to
construct. That would be the consequence of his adament
opposition to the SALT II Treaty. I believe arms control,
like our military forces, can contribute to our security
and I will continue to pursue balanced, verifiable arms
limitations agreements.
I believe progress is being made towards the world
order I have described. Let me describe how I think my
Administration's policies have fit into this broader
vision:
America is at peace. For the first time in many
years, my Administration has seen no engagement of
American forces in combat. I am deeply proud of this
fact. We all know the provocations have been many and the
temptation to use force strong: we could have engaged
in hostilities against Iran. But, I have chosen the
course of patience and calmness. We attempted the
rescue mission, and I believe this attempt was necessary.
But, it was an attempt to free our fellow citizens; it
was not a military action.
America is strong and growing stronger. My
Administration has increased US real defense spending and
successfully encouraged our NATO allies to do the same;
we have launched the NATO Long-Term Defense Program, and
we have agreed with our allies to deploy new missiles in
Europe; we have developed the Rapid Deployment Force to
4
protect our vital interests wherever they may be
threatened. Contrary to the irresponsible charges
of the Republican Party, the United States has not
become militarily inferior, "second to one" as Governor
Reagan likes to quip. We are maintaining military
equivalence with the Soviet Union. The long-term trends
do show steady growth in Soviet military power, and we
must continue our efforts over the long haul to preserve
a stable balance. We will do SO.
As a complement to our defense program, I have signed
the SALT II Treaty to limit Soviet strategic forces while
allowing the US to continue all its essential strategic
modernization programs. The SALT Treaty, because it adds
to American security, while contributing to nuclear
stability, is one of the most important agreements of the
decade. I am determined to seek its ratification.
American is providing leadership in a time of challenge.
I have met in five summits, and innumerable bilateral
meetings with Western leaders to develop and coordinate
policies to deal with the enormous economic and energy
problems that confront the industrialized economies. The
United States has played a leading role in stimulating and
developing the North-South dialogue and in reaching agree-
ment in the Multilateral Trade Negotiations. We have led
the Western response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
I have stated that the United States will use all means
necessary, including the use of military force, to protect
5
our vital interests on the Persian Gulf. The West
looks to the United States to provide leadership, and
we are doing so.
America is broadening and deepening its relationships
with the Third World. One of my proudest achievements is
the normalization of relations with the People's Republic
of China, while preserving a firm relationship with the
people of Taiwan. Since
normalization, the benefits
of formal diplomatic relations with China have become
clear. Trade, travel and, most of all, the security and
stability of the Pacific region is greater now than at
any time in this century. And, for the first time, the
United States has good relations with both China and
Japan.
We also contributed to and supported the settlement of
the war in Rhodesia which led to the birth of the new
nation of Zimbabwe. As a result of our strong support
for majority rule in Africa, we are once again on good
terms with that continent.
America is once again in the forefront in the pursuit
of human rights. When I became President, I emphasized
our commitment as a nation to human rights as a fundamental
tenet of our foreign policy. We have sought to stand
6
behind basic principles of respect for the individual,
for fair trials, for political liberty, and for economic
and social justice. Our human rights policies have
given new credibility and new force to U.S. policies
in Africa, Latin America and Asia.
America is contributing to peace. America has given
leadership in the peaceful resolution of regional tensions.
I have mentioned our role in promoting the settlement in
Zimbabwe. In addition, my Administration has contributed
to peace in other ways.
-- In March 1979, Prime Minister Begin and President
Sadat signed the Israel-Egypt peace treaty at the
White House. Israel has finally gained peace with
its largest Arab neighbor. A framework for a
comprehensive peace has been established. Within
the framework agreed to by Israel and Egypt, the
United States is committed and determined, more
than ever, to help them in their negotiations.
I am determined to presevere in this long and
arduous road, because I believe a just and stable
peace for all the people of the Middle East lies
at the end of it.
-- In Latin America, in the Panama Canal Treaties,
we have recognized the deep feeling of the
7
Panamanian people, while retaining essential
security rights to the United States. I believe
those treaties have done more to strengthen U.S.
influence in Latin America than any other step
we could have taken. With the Panama Canal
Treaties, together with our firm advocacy of human
rights, we have forged a new, more enduring basis
for our relations with our fellow Americans in
the Southern Hemisphere.
My opponent seems to believe that the challenges facing
us today are simple -- and so are the answers. I think
Governor Reaganis looking backward to a simpler world
where America was the only super-power, and global inter-
dependence was a thing of the future.
The world is not like that now, if it ever was. The
challenges are incredibly complex: think of developing
and coordinating a global energy policy; think of forging
workable relationships with the emerging nations of Africa
and Asia; think of leading an Alliance of 15 proud,
sovereign nations with diverse interests and foreign
policies.
True leadership is not bulling one's way through these
problems, compelling others to accept solutions made-in-
America. That way leads to failure and animosity. I
8
believe leadership requires a willingness to tackle our
problems head-on, but with an understanding of the need
to compromise, to adjust to the possible, the attainable.
And, yes, leadership requires the courage to recognize
mistakes, and to change policies where necessary. That
is the kind of leadership I have tried to give.
I believe deeply, honestly, that my vision of a
better world is attainable. I have directed all my
energies towards attaining that goal, and I will continue
to do so.
September 29, 1980
Future Goals
Q.
What are your top foreign policy and national security
priorities for a second term?
How would these be different from Governor Reagan's?
Response
As with my first term, I will continue to address the
difficult and controversial issues which confront our nation.
In doing so I have no intention of looking for easy solutions
or quick fixes. Rather, I will continue to seek solutions
that are meaningful and lasting and in the long-term interests
of the United States.
To this end, I see six basic priorities for the future:
First, we will continue, as we have over the past
four years, to build America's military strength and strong
defense and economic relations with our allies and friends.
Second, we will continue to demonstrate to the Soviet
Union that a price will be paid for its refusal to abide by
the accepted norms of international conduct. At the same time,
we will make it clear to the Soviet Union that we seek no return
to the Cold War, no indiscriminate confrontation. The choice
is the Soviet Union's, we will respond to either.
Third, we will remain deeply committed to the process
of mutual and verifiable arms control and the effort to prevent
the spread and further development of nuclear weapons. I intend.
- 2 -
to push for the ratification of the SALT II Treaty at the
earliest opportunity. This agreement is in our national
interests. We are more secure with it than without it.
Fourth, we will pursue an active diplomacy in the
world, working -- together with our friends and allies -- to
resolve regional conflicts and to promote peace -- in the
Middle East, and Persian Gulf, southern Africa, Central
America, the Eastern Mediterranean.
Fifth, we will strive to resolve pressing international
economic problems -- particularly energy and inflation -- and
continue to pursue our still larger objective of global economic
growth through expanded trade and development assistance.
Finally, and underlying all that we do, we will
continue vigorously to support the process of building democratic
institutions and improving human rights protection around the world
The objectives I have outlined are in sharp contrast
to those that could be pursued by Governor Reagan:
Unlike my opponent, I do not believe a lasting world
order is achievable by substituting the threat of intervention for
diplomacy, by suggesting that we quarantine those nations which
challenge our interests, or by seeking to regain an unachievable
military superiority at an unimaginable cost.
Unlike my opponent, I do not believe we are a weak and
floundering nation, dismissed with contempt by our enemies,
- 3 -
abandoned by our allies and sinking into decline as a major
power. Rather, I know our resolve is steady, our military
is powerful, our alliances are strong and we are gaining new
friends among the young nations of the world.
Unlike my opponent, I do not believe we can return to
an early day when American interests went unchallenged in the
world arena. The world that exists today is a world of diversity,
of unequal wealth, and uneven resources. It is a world of
upheaval and unrest and will be for decades to come. But, as a
powerful and self-confident nation, we can live with a good deal
of turmoil in the world while we protect our interests and be
a friend to those who seek a new life free from tyranny.
Unlike my opponent, I would not return us to the davs
s
of the Cold War. I do not believe, as he does, that the Soviet
Union is responsible for all the unrest in the world today. The
world is much too diverse for such a simple explanation. But
I will continue to insist, through our actions and our words,
that the Soviet Union respect the legitimate interests of other
nations.
Unlike my opponent, I would not accuse our allies of
neutralism or accommodation with the Soviet Union. Leading an
alliance of proud sovereign nations requires tact, patience and
understanding. We and our allies share profound political,
security and economic interests, but we must never forget that
ours is an association of free peoples, and the United States
must lead, not dictate.
- 4 -
Unlike my opponent, I would not abandon the arms
control process, which has contributed to our nation's
security and has taken so many years to construct. That
would be the consequence of his rigid opposition to the SALT II
Treaty.
Unlike my opponent, I would not jeopardize our new
relationship with the People's Republic of China by tampering
with the form of our good relations with the people of Taiwan.
Our new relationship with China is clearly in our national
interest and contributes to the peace and security of the Pacific
region.
And, finally, unlike my opponent, I would not jettison
human rights as a fundamental objective of U.S. foreign policy.
I believe the true interests of our nation are best served by
honoring the ideals of our heritage.
I do not believe the American people share Governor
Reagan's view of the future, a world filled with fears of change
and unrest and damaging self-doubts about our military capabality
and strength. My vision is different. It is based on reality,
and filled with faith and an unbending determination to achieve
a life of meaning and purpose for every American in a nation
that is strong and secure. Above all, I want us to be what
the founders of our nation meant us to become -- a symbol of
freedom, peace and hope throughout the world.
September 18, 1980
Military Superiority vs. Essential Equivalence
Q:
After accusing your Administration of permitting the
Soviet Union to achieve military superiority, the
Republican Platform states "We will build toward a
sustained defense expenditure sufficient to close the
gap with the Soviets, and ultimately reach the position
of military superiority that the American people demand. "
Would you comment on this Republican defense objective
and contrast it with your own national security objectives?
Response
My Administration is dédicated to the maintenance
of a military force that is second to none. Unlike
Mr. Reagan, however, I do not advocate a policy of
American military superiority over the Soviet Union.
The truth is that military superiority for either
side is a military and economic impossibility -- if the
other is determined to prevent it. There can be no return
to the days of the American nuclear monopoly. There can
be no winner in an all-out arms race. It is wishful
thinking of the highest order to assume that the Soviets
would drop out of a nuclear arms race early, or that
they would shrink from imposing additional, even
unimaginable hardships on their civilian society, in
order to stay in the race.
As superficially
attractive as the goal of
across-the-board supremacy may be, common sense tells us
that:
-2 -
It would mean the end of arms control. By
definition, strategic superiority and arms
control are incompatible -- a race to
superiority is an attempt to achieve a real
military advantage, one which the losing party
would never accept in a formal arms control
agreement. We will not negotiate from a position
of inferiority, and neither will the Soviets.
It would mean an uncontrolled, open-ended, and
enormously expensive arms race. The sums
involved would be huge even in absolute terms,
let alone in the face of the Republican's proposed
30 percent tax cut.
It would mean that we would have to skimp on
conventional forces, where we need to improve,
and to concentrate on a race in strategic weapons.
$
It would channel the competition into the most
dangerous arena -- the one most likely to lead
to nuclear war, namely strategic arms.
Gov. Reagan's impulse for military superiority must
be seen for what it is: unrealistic, simplistic, dangerous.
In the real world, meeting our defense needs is not a matter
of taking everything we have and increasing it by 10 percent
or 20 percent or 40 percent. There is no magic formula.
There is no quick fix.
- 3 -
My Administration will preserve our national security.
We will improve our capabilities as necessary to maintain
the military balance that exists today between the United
States and the Soviet Union. We will continue to make
steady and sustained increases in defense spending to
build the capabilities we need. We will buy only the
weapon systems that best serve our needs, not every
glamorous weapon system that comes along. We will continue
to seek equitable and verifiable arms control agreements --
like the SALT II Treaty -- to limit the growth in Soviet
military power, and to avoid spending resources
unnecessarily in an uncontrolled strategic arms race.
Prudence -- not impulse -- is the hallmark of a strong
and a. sane national security policy. Military power
alone, no matter how great, cannot solve all of our
international problems. Nor can it make the world over
according to our design. I understand this reality;
Gov. Reagan does not.
Gov. Reagan on Military Superiority
In January, Reagan called for an immediate "military
buildup aimed at restoring our military superiority.
"
(Rutland-Herald, January 14, 1980) This same proposal was
later incorporated in the Republican platform.
While he called for an immediate buildup aimed at military
superiority, just four days earlier, Reagan outlined the dangers
of his impending stand.
"What I have said is that our defenses must be whatever
is necessary to ensure that the potential enemy will never
dare attack you. Now, if that is equivalence or if that is
superiority, you must have the degree to know that you are
safe. I could see if you really strive for an obvious
superiority then you may tempt the other side into being
afraid and you continue escalating on both sides
"
Boston Globe
January 13, 1980
Reagan's most recent speeches follow both lines of reasoning
calling for a military buildup to achieve nuclear superiority,
and, once achieved, negotiate an arms limitation treaty.
"
I've called for whatever it takes to be strong enough
that no other nation will dare violate the peace. Shouldn't
it be obvious to even the staunchest believer in unilateral
disarmament as the sure road to peace that peace was never
more certain than in the years following World War II when we
had a margin of safety in our military power which was SO
unmistakeable that others would not dare to challenge us?"
Veterans of Foreign Wars
August 18, 1980
Two days later he stated:
Since when has it been wrong for America to aim to be
first in military strength? How is American military superiority
"dangerous?"
American Legion
August 20, 1980