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
1554430
label
Second Debate: Press Release Transcript
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1554430
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Second Debate: Press Release Transcript
citationUrl
collections
White House Special Files Unit Files
Ford - Carter Debates Files
subjects
Campaign debates
Presidential campaign, 1976
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1554430
coverageEndDate
day
6
logicalDate
1976-10-06
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
day
6
logicalDate
1976-10-06
month
10
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5f96a0f17e2ce6a9
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "Second Debate: Press Release
Transcript" of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential
Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 2 of the White House Special Files Unit Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
OCTOBER 6, 1976
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
(San Francisco, California)
THE WHITE HOUSE
DEBATE BETWEEN
GERALD R. FORD
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
AND
JAMES E. CARTER
THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE OF
THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY
PALACE OF FINE ARTS THEATRE
6:30 P.M. PDT
THE MODERATOR: Good evening.
I am Pauline Frederick of NPR, Moderator of the
second of the historic debates of the 1976 campaign between
Gerald R. Ford of Michigan, Republican candidate for
President, and Jimmy Carter of Georgia, Democratic
candidate for President.
Thank you, President Ford and thank you,
Governor Carter, for being with us tonight.
This debate takes place before an audience in
the Palace of Fine Arts Theatre in San Francisco. An
estimated 100 million Americans are watching on television
as well. San Francisco was the site of the signing of
the United Nations Charter 31 years ago. Thus, it is an
appropriate place to hold this debate, the subject of which
is foreign and defense issues.
The questioners tonight are Max Frankel, Associate
Editor of the New York Times; Henry L. Trewhitt, Diplomatic
Correspondent of the Baltimore Sun; and Richard Valeriani,
Diplomatic Correspondent of NBC News.
The ground rules tonight are basically the same
as they were for the first debate two weeks ago. The
questions will be alternated between candidates. By the
toss of a coin, Governor Carter will take the first question.
Each question sequence will be as follows: The
question will be asked and the candidate will have up to
three minutes to answer. His opponent will have up to two
minutes to respond. And prior to the response the questioner
may ask a follow-up question to clarify the candidate's
answer, when necessary, with up to two minutes to reply.
Each candidate will have three minutes for a closing state-
ment at the end.
President Ford and Governor Carter do not have notes
or prepared remarks with them this evening, but they may
take notes during the debate and refer to them.
MORE
Page 2
Mr. Frankel, you have the first question for
Governor Carter.
MR. FRANKEL: Governor, since the Democrats
last ran our foreign policy, including many of the men who
are advising you, the country has been relieved of the
Vietnam agony and the military draft, we have started arms
control negotiations with the Russians, we have opened
relations with China, we have arranged the disengagement
in the Middle East, we have regained influence with the
Arabs without deserting Israel, now maybe we have even begun
the process of peaceful change in Africa.
Now you have objected in this campaign to the
style with which much of this was done, and you have mentioned
some other things that you think ought to have been done.
But do you really have a quarrel with this Republican
record? Would you not have done any of those things?
MR. CARTER: I think the Republican Administration
has been almost all style and spectacular, and not substance.
We have got a chance tonight to talk about, first of all,
leadership, the character of our country, and a vision
of the future. In every one of these instances, the
Ford Administration has failed, and I hope tonight that I
and Mr. Ford will have a chance to discuss the reason for
those failures.
Our country is not strong any more. We are not
respected any more. We can only be strong overseas if we
are strong at home. And when I become President, I will
not only be strong in those areas but also in defense.
Our defense capability is second to none. We
have lost in our foreign policy the character of the American
people. We have ignored or excluded the American people
in Congress from participation in the shaping of our
foreign policy. It has been one of exclusion and secrecy.
In addition to that, we have had a chance to become
now, contrary to our longstanding beliefs and principles,
the arms merchant of the whole world. We have tried to buy
success from our enemies and, at the same time, we have
excluded from the process the normal friendship of our
allies.
In addition to that, we have become fearful to
compete with the Soviet Union on an equal basis. We talk
about detente. The Soviet Union knows what they want in
detente and they have been getting it. We have not known
what we wanted and we have been outtraded in almost every
instance.
MORE
Page 3
The other point I want to make is about our
defense. We have got to be a Nation blessed with the
defense capability that is efficient, tough, capable,
well-organized, narrowly focused fighting capability.
The ability to fight if necessary is the best way to avoid
the chance for or the requirement to fight.
The last point I want to make is this: Mr. Ford,
Mr. Kissinger have continued on with the policies and
failures of Richard Nixon. Even the Republican platform
has criticized the lack of leadership in Mr. Ford, and
they have criticized the foreign policy of this Administration.
This is one instance where I agree with the Republican
platform.
I might say this in closing, and that is, that
as far as foreign policy goes Mr. Kissinger has been the
President of this country. Mr. Ford has shown an absence
of leadership and absence of a grasp of what this country
is and what it ought to be. That has to be changed,
and that is one of the major issues in the campaign of
1976.
MORE
Page 4
MR. FRANKEL: President Ford?
THE MODERATOR: President Ford, would you like to
respond?
THE PRESIDENT: Governor Carter again is talking
in broad generalities. Let me take just one question
that he raises -- the military strength and capability of
of the United States. Governor Carter in November of 1975
indicated that he wanted to cut the defense budget by
$15 billion. A few months later he said he wanted to
cut the defense budget by $8 billion or $9 billion. More
recently he talks about cutting the defense budget by
$5 billion to $7 billion. There is no way you can be
strong militarily and have those kinds of reductions in
our military appropriations.
Now let me just tell you a little story. About
late October of 1975, I asked the then Secretary of Defense,
Mr. Schlesinger, to tell me what had to be done if we were
going to reduce the defense budget by $3 billion to $5 billion.
A few days later Mr. Schlesinger said if we cut the defense
budget by $3 billion to $5 billion we will have to cut mili-
tary personnel by 250,000, civilian personnel by 100,000,
jobs in America by 100,000. We would have to stretch out
our aircraft procurement. We would have to reduce our naval
construction program. We would have to reduce the research
and development for the Army, the Navy, the Air Force and
Marines by 8 percent. We would have to close 20 military
bases in the United States immediately.
Let me tell you that straight from the shoulder,
I don't negotiate with Mr. Brezhnev from weakness, and the
kind of a defense program that Mr. Carterwants will mean a
weaker defense and a poorer negotiating position.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Trewhitt, a question for
President Ford.
MR. TREWHITT: Mr. President, my question really is
the other side of the coin from Mr. Frankel's. For a
generation the United States has had a foreign policy based
on containment of communism. Yet we have lost the first war
in Vietnam, lost a shoving match in Angola, the Communists
threaten to come to power by peaceful means in Italy, and
relations generally have cooled with the Soviet Union in
the last few months. Let me ask you, first, what do you
do about such cases as Italy, and secondly, does this general
drift mean we are moving back to something like the old Cold
War relationship with the Soviet Union?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't believe we should move to
a Cold War relationship. I believe it is in the best
interests of the United States and the world as a whole
that the United States negotiate rather than go back to
the Cold War relationship with the Soviet Union.
MORE
Page 5
I don't look at the picture as bleakly as you
have indicated in your question, Mr. Trewhitt. I believe
that the United States has had many successes in recent years
and recent months as far as the Communist movement is con-
cerned. We have been successful in Portugal where a year
ago it looked like there was a very great possibility that
the Communists would take over in Portugal. It didn't
happen. We have a democracy in Portugal today.
A few months ago, or I should say maybe two years
ago, the Soviet Union looked like they had continued strength
in the Middle East. Today, according to Prime Minister
Rabin, the Soviet Union is weaker in the Middle East
than they have been in many, many years. The facts are the
Soviet Union relationship with Egypt is at a low level.
The Soviet Union relationship with Syria is at a very low
point. The United States today, according to Prime Minister
Rabin of Israel, is at a peak in its influence and power in
the Middle East.
But let's turn for a minute to the Southern
African operations that are now going on. The United States
of America took the initiative in Southern Africa. We wanted
to end the bloodshed in Southern Africa. We wanted to
have the right of self determination in Southern Africa.
We wanted to have majority rule with the full protection of
the rights of the minority. We wanted to preserve human
dignity in Southern Africa. We have taken the initiative and
in Southern Africa today the United States is trusted by
the black frontline nations and black Africa. The United
States is trusted by the other elements in Southern Africa.
The United States' foreign policy under this
Administration has been one of progress and success and
I believe that instead of talking about Soviet progress we
can talk about American successes, and may I make an observa-
tion. Part of the question you asked, Mr. Trewhitt, I
don't believe that it is in the best interests of the United
States and the NATO nations to have a Communist government
in NATO.
Mr. Carter has indicated he would look with
sympathy to a Communist government in NATO. I think that
would destroy the integrity and the strength of NATO, and
I am totally opposed to it.
MORE
Page 6
MR. CARTER: Mr. Ford unfortunately made a
statement that is not true. I never advocated a
Communist Government for Italy. That would be ridiculous
for anyone to do who wanted to be President of this
country.
I think this is an instance for deliberate
distortion, and this has occurred also in the question
about defense. As a matter of fact, I have never
advocated any cuts of $15 billion in a defense budget.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Ford has made a little football
of the defense budget.
About a year ago he cut the Pentagon budget
$6.8 billion. After he fired James Schlesinger the
political heat got so great he added back about $3
billion. When Ronald Reagan won the Texas primary
election, Mr. Ford added back another $1.5 billion.
Immediately before the Kansas City Convention he added
back another $1.8 billion in the defense budget, and his
own Office of Management and Budget testified that he
had a $3 billion cut insurance added to the defense budget
under the pressure from the Pentagon.
Obviously this is another indication of trying
to use the defense budget for political purposes, which
he is trying to do tonight.
Now, we went into South Africa late, after
Great Britain, Rhodesia. The black nations had been
trying to solve this problem for many, many years.
We did not go in until right before the election,
similar to what was taking place in 1972 when Mr. Kissinger
announced peace is at hand just before the election at
that time.
We have weakened our position in NATO because
the other countries in Europe supported the democratic
forces in Portugal long before we did. We stuck to the
Portugal dictatorships much longer than other democracies
did in this world.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Valeriani, a question for
Governor Carter.
MR. VALERIANI: Governor Carter, much of what
the United States does abroad is done in the name of
national interest. What is your concept of the national
interest? What should the role of the United States in
the world be? In that connection, considering your
limited experience in foreign affairs and the fact that
you take some pride in being a Washington outsider,
don't you think it would be appropriate for you to tell
the American voters before the election the people you
would like to have in key positions, such as Secretary of
State, Secretary of Defense, National Security Affairs
Advisor at the White House?
MORE
Page 7
MR. CARTER: I am not going to name my Cabinet
before I get elected. I have a little ways to go before
I start doing that, but I have an adequate background,
I believe. I am a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy,
the first military graduate since Eisenhower. I have
served as Governor of Georgia and have traveled
extensively in foreign countries, in South America,
Central America, Europe, the Middle East and Japan.
I have traveled the last 21 months among the
people of this country. I have talked to them and I
have listened, and I have seen at first hand in a very
vivid way the deep hurt that has come to this
country in the aftermath of Vietnam and Cambodia and Chile
and Pakistan and Angola and Watergate, CIA revelations.
What we were formerly so proud of -- the strength
of our country, its moral integrity, the representation
in foreign affairs, of what our people are, what our
Constitution stands for -- has been gone.
In the secrecy that has surrounded our foreign
policy in the last few years, the American people and
Congress have been excluded. I believe I know what
this country ought to be. I have been one who has loved
my nation, as many Americans do, and I believe there is
no limit placed on what we can be in the future, if we
can harness our tremendous resources -- militarily,
economically, the stature of our people, the meaning of
our Constitution -- in the future.
Every time we have made a serious mistake in
foreign affairs, it has been because the American people
have been excluded from the process. If we can just
tap the intelligence and ability, the sound common sense
and the good judgment of the American people, we can
once again have a foreign policy to make us proud instead
of ashamed.
I am not going to exclude the American people
from this process in the future, as Mr. Ford and
Kissinger have done. This is what it takes to have a
sound foreign policy -- strong at home, strong defense,
permanent commitments, not betray the principles of our
country, and involve the American people and the Congress
in the shaping of our foreign policy.
Every time Mr. Ford speaks--fro a position of
secrecy, in negotiattions and secret treaties that have
been pursued and achieved, and supporting dictatorships,
in ignoring human rights -- we are weak and the rest of
the world knows it.
MORE
Page 8
So, these are the ways that we can restore
the strengths of our country. They don't require long
experience in foreign policy. Nobody has that except a
President who served a long time or a Secretary of
State, but my background, my experience, my knowledge
of the people of this country, my commitment to the
principles that don't change -- those are the best basis
to correct the horrible mistakes of this Administration
and restore our own country to a position of leadership
in the world.
MORE
Page 9
MR. VALERIANI: How specifically, Governor, are
you going to bring the American people into the decision-
making process of foreign policy? What does that mean?
MR. CARTER: First, I would quit conducting
the decision-making process in secret, as has been a
characteristic of Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Ford. In many
cases, we have made agreements, like in Vietnam, that
have been revealed later on to our embarrassment.
Recently, Ian Smith, the President of Rhodesia,
announced that he had unequivocal commitments from
Mr. Kissinger that he could not reveal. The American
people don't know what those commitments are. We have
seen in the past a destruction of elected governments
like in Chile and the strong support of military
dictatorship there.
These kinds of things have hurt us very much.
I would restore the concept of the fireside chat which was
an integral part of the Administration of Franklin Roosevelt.
And I would also restore the involvement of Congress. When
Harry Truman was President, he was not afraid to have a strong
Secretary of Defense Dean Acheson, George Marshall
were strong Secretaries of State, excuse me -- but he made
sure that there was a bipartisan support. The Members
of Congress, Arthur Vandenberg, Walter George, were part
of the process, and before our Nation made a secret
agreement and before we made a bluffing statement, we
were sure that we had the backing not only of the President
and the Secretary of State but also the Congress and the
people.
This is a responsibility of the President, and
I think it is very damaging to our country for Mr. Ford
to have turned over this responsibility to the Secretary
of State.
THE MODERATOR: President Ford, do you have a
response?
THE PRESIDENT: Governor Carter contradicts
himself. He complains about secrecy and yet he is quoted
as saying that in the attempt to find a solution in the
Middle East that he would hold unpublicized meetings with
the Soviet Union, I presume for the purpose of imposing
a settlement on Israel and the Arab nations.
But let me talk just a minute about what we have
done to avoid secrecy in the Ford Administration. After
the United States took the initiative in working with
Israel and Egypt and achieving the Sinai II Agreement --
and I am proud to say that not a single Egyptian or
Israeli has lost his life since the signing of the Sinai
Agreement -- but at the time that I submitted the Sinai
Agreement to the Congress of the United States, I submitted
every single document that was applicable to the Sinai
II Agreement.
MORE
Page 10
It was the most complete documentation by any
President of any agreement signed by a President on behalf
of the United States.
Now as far as meeting with the Congress is
concerned, during the 24 months that I have been the
President of the United States, I have averaged better
than one meeting a month with responsible groups or
committees of the Congress, both House and Senate.
The Secretary of State has appeared in the
several years that he has been the Secretary before 80
different committee hearings in the House and in the
Senate. The Secretary of State has made better than 50
speeches all over the United States explaining American
foreign policy. I have made, myself, at least 10 speeches
in various parts of the country where I have discussed
with the American people defense and foreign policy.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Frankel, a question for
President Ford.
MR. FRANKEL: Mr. President, I would like to explore
a little more deeply our relationship with the Russians.
They used to brag back in Khrushchev days, because of
their greater patience and because of our greed for business
deals, that they would sooner or later get the better of
us.
Is it possible that despite some setbacks in
the Middle East they have proved their point? Our allies
in France and Italy are now flirting with Communism;
we have recognized a permanent Communist regime in East
Germany. We virtually signed in Helsinki an agreement
that the Russians have dominance in Eastern Europe. We
bailed out Soviet agriculture with our huge grain sales.
We have given them large loans, access to our best
technology, and if the Senate had not interfered with the
Jackson Amendment maybe you would have given them even
larger loans.
Is that what you call a two-way street of traffic
in Europe?
THE PRESIDENT: I believe we have negotiated
with the Soviet Union since I have been President from a
position of strength. And let me cite several examples.
Shortly after I became President in December of
1974, I met with General Secretary Brezhnev in Vladivostok
and we agreed to a mutual cap on the ballistic missile
launchers at a ceiling of 2,400, which means that t... Soviet
Union, if that becomes a permanent agreement, will have
to make a reduction in their launchers that they now have
or plan to have.
I negotiated at Vladivostok with Mr. Brezhnev
a limitation on the MIRVing of their ballistic missiles
at a figure of 1,320, which is the first time that any
President has achieved a cap either on launchers or on MIRVs.
MORE
Page 11
It seems to me we can go from there to the
grain sales. The grain sales have been a benefit to
American agriculture. We have achieved a 5-3/4-year sale
of a minimum of 6 million metric tons, which means that
they have already bought about 4 million metric tons this
year and are bound to buy another 2 million metric tons to
take the grain and corn and wheat that the American farmers
have produced in order to have full production, and these
grain sales to the Soviet Union have helped us tremendously
in meeting the cost of the additional oil and the oil that
we have bought from overseas.
If we turn to Helsinki, I am glad you raised it,
Mr. Frankel -- in the case of Helsinki, 35 nations signed
an agreement, including the Secretary of State for the
Vatican. I can't under any circumstances believe that
His Holy Highness The Pope would agree by signing that
agreement that the 35 nations have turned over to the
Warsaw Pact nations the domination of Eastern Europe. It
just is not true. And if Mr. Carter alleges that His Holiness,
by signing that, has done it, he is totally inaccurate.
Now, what has been accomplished by the Helsinki
agreement? Number one, we have an agreement where they
notify us and we notify them of any military maneuvers that
are to be undertaken. They have done it in both cases
where they have done SO. There is no Soviet domination of
Eastern Europe, and there never will be under the Ford
Administration.
MORE
Page 12
MR. FRANKEL: Did I understand you to say,
sir, that the Russians are not using Eastern Europe as
their own sphere of influence and occupying most of the
countries there and making sure with their troops that
it is a Communist zone whereas on our side of the line
the Italians and French are still flirting with
possible Communism?
THE PRESIDENT: I don't believe, Mr. Frankel,
that the Yugoslavians consider themselves dominated by
the Soviet Union. I don't believe the Rumanians
consider themselves dominated by the Soviet Union. I
don't believe that the Poles consider themselves
dominated by the Soviet Union.
Each of those countries is independent,
autonomous. It has its own territorial integrity
and the United States does not concede that those
countries are under the domination of the Soviet Union.
As a matter of fact, I visited Poland, Yugoslavia and
Rumania to make certain that the people of those
countries understand that the President of the United
States and the people of the United States are dedicated
to their independence, their autonomy and their freedom.
THE MODERATOR: Governor Carter, may we have
your response?
MR. CARTER: Well, in the first place, I am
not criticizing His Holiness, The Pope. I was talking
about Mr. Ford.
The fact is that secrecy has surrounded the
decisions made by the Ford Administration. In the case
of the Helsinki agreement, it may have been a good
agreement at the beginning, but we have failed to enforce
the so-called Basket 3 part, which insures the right of
people to migrate, to join their families, to be free
to speak out.
The Soviet Union is still jamming Radio Free
Europe. Radio Free Europe is being jammed. We have also
seen a very serious problem with the so-called Sonnenfeldt
document, which apparently Mr. Ford has just endorsed,
which said that there is an organic linkage between
the Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union,
and I would like to see Mr. Ford convince the Polish-
Americans and the Czech-Americans and Hungarian-Americans
in this country that those countries don't live under the
donimation and supervision of the Soviet Union behind
the Iron Curtin.
MORE
Page 13
We have also seen Mr. Ford exclude himself from
access to the public. He hasn't had a tough, cross-
examination type press conference in over 30 days.
One press conference he had without sound.
He has always shown a weakness in yielding to
pressure. The Soviet Union, for instance, put pressure
on Mr. Ford, and he refused to see a symbol of human
freedom recognized around the world -- Alexander
Solzhenitsyn.
The Arabs have put pressure on Mr. Ford --
and he yielded -- and he has permitted a boycott by the
Arab countries of American businesses in trade with
Israel who have American Jews owning or taking part
in the management of American companies. His own
Secretary of Commerce had to be subpoenaed by the
Congress to reveal the names of the businesses subject
to this boycott. They didn't volunteer the information.
He had to be subpoenaed.
The last thing I would like to say is this:
This grain deal with the Soviet Union in 1972 was
terrible, and Mr. Ford made up for it with three embargoes,
one against our own ally in Japan. That is not the way
to run our foreign policy, including international trade.
MORE
Page 14
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Trewhitt, a question for
Governor Carter.
MR. TREWHITT: I would like to pick up on that
point, actually, and on your appeal for a greater measure
of American idealism in foreign affairs. Foreign affairs
come home to the American public pretty much in such issues
as oil embargoes and grain sales, that sort of thing. Would
you be willing to risk an oil embargo in order to promote
human rights in Iran, Saudi Arabia, withhold arms from
Saudi Arabia for the same purpose? As a matter of fact
I think you have perhaps answered this final part, but
would you withhold grain from the Soviet Union in order to
promote civil rights in the Soviet Union?
MR. CARTER: I would never single out food as
a trade embargo item. If I ever decided to impose an
embargo because of a crisis in international relationships,
it would include all shipments of all equipment. For instance,
if the Arab countries ever again declare an embargo against
our nation on oil, I would consider that not a military but
an economic declaration of war and I would respond instantly
and in kind. I would not ship that Arab country anything.
No weapons, no spare parts for weapons, no oil-drilling rigs,
no oil pipe, no nothing. I would not single out just food.
Another thing I would like to say is this. In our
international trade, as I said in my opening statement, we
have become the arms merchant of the world. When this
Republican Administration came into office, we were shipping
about $1 billion worth of arms overseas, now $10 billion to
$12 billion worth of arms overseas to countries that quite
often use these weapons to fight each other. The shift in
emphasis has been very disturbing to me, speaking about the
Middle East. Under the last Democratic Administration,
60 percent of all weapons that went into the Middle East
were for Israel. Nowadays--75 percent were for Israel before
now 60 percent goesto the Arab countries and this does not
include Iran. If you include Iran our present shipment of
weapons to the Middle East, only 20 percent go to Israel.
This is a deviation from idealism, it's a deviation from a
commitment to our major ally in the Middle East, its a,
yielding to economic pressure on the part of the Arabs on
the oil issue, and it is also a tremendous indication that
under the Ford Administration we have not addressed the
energy policy adequately. We still have no comprehensive
energy policy in this country, and it is an overall sign of
weakness. When we are weak at home economically -- high
unemployment, high inflation, a confused government, a waste-
ful defense establishment -- this encourages the kind of
pressure that has been put on us successfully. It would have
been inconceivable 10 or 15 years ago for us to be brought to
our knees with an Arab oil embargo. But it was done three
MORE
Page 15
years ago and they are still putting pressure on us from
the Arab countries to our discredit around the world.
These are the weaknesses that I see and I believe
it is not just a matter of idealism. It is a matter of
being tough. It is a matter of being strong. It is a
matter of being consistent. Our priorities ought to be
first of all to meet our own military needs, secondly to meet
the needs our allies and friends, and only then should we
ship military equipment to foreign countries. As a matter
of fact, Iran is going to get 80 F-14's before we even meet
our own Air Force orders for F-14's, and the shipment of
Spruance Class Destroyers to Iran are much more highly
sophisticated than the Spruance Class Destroyers that are
presently being delivered to our own Navy. This is ridicu-
lous and it ought to be changed.
MR. TREWHITT: Governor, let me pursue that, if I
may. If I understand you correctly you would in fact, to use
my examples, withhold arms from Iran and Saudi Arabia even if
the risk was an oil embargo and if they should be securing
those arms from somewhere else, and then if the embargo
came you would respond in kind. Do I have it correctly?
MR. CARTER: If -- Iran is not an Arab country, as
you know. It's a Moslem country. But if Saudi Arabia should
declare an oil embargo against us, then I would consider
that an economic declaration of war, and I would make sure
that the Saudis understood this ahead of time so there would
be no doubt in their mind. I think under those circumstances
they would refrain from pushing us to our knees as they did
in 1973 with the previous oil embargo.
MORE
Page 16
THE MODERATOR: President Ford?
THE PRESIDENT: Governor Carte? apparently
doesn't realize that since I have been President we
have sold to the Israelis over $4 billion in military
hardware. We have made available to the Israelis over
45 percent of the total economic and military aid since
the establishment of Israel 27 years ago. So, the
Ford Administration has done a good job in helping our
good ally Israel, and we are dedicated to the survival
and security of Israel.
I believe that Governor Carter doesn't realize
the need and necessity for arms sales to Iran. He
indicates he would not make those.
Iran is bordered very extensively by the
Soviet Union. Iran has Iraq as.one of its neighbors.
The Soviet Union and the Communist-dominated Government
of Iraq are neighbors of Iran, and Iran is an ally of the
United States.
It is my strong feeling that we ought to sell
arms to Iran for its own national security and as an ally --
a strong ally -- of the United States.
The history of our relationship with Iran goes
back to the days of President Truman, when he decided that
it was vitally necessary for our own security as well as
that of Iran that we should help that country, and Iran
has been a good ally.
In 1973, when there was an oil embargo, Iran
did not participate. Iran continued to sell oil to the
United States. I believe that it is in our interest
and in the interest of Israel and Iran and Saudi Arabia
for the United States to sell arms to those countries. It
is for their security as well as ours.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Valeriani, a question
for President Ford.
MR. VALERIANI: Mr. President, the policy of
your Administration is to normalize relations with mainland
China. That means establishing at some point full
diplomatic relations and obviously doing something about
the mutual defense treaty with Taiwan. If you are
elected, will you move to establish full diplomatic
relations with Peking and will you abrogate the defense
treaty with Taiwan and, as a correlary, would you
provide mainland China with military equipment if the
Chinese were to ask for it?
MORE
Page 17
THE PRESIDENT: Our relationship with the
People's Republic of China is based upon the Shanghai
Communique of 1972. That communique calls fo ' the
normalization of relations between the United States
and the People's Republic. It doesn't set a time
schedule. It doesn't make a determination as to
how that relationship should be achieved in relationship
to our current diplomatic recognition and obligations
to the Taiwanese Government.
The Shanghai Communique does say that the
differences between the People's Republic on the one
hand and Taiwan on the other shall be settled by
peaceful means.
The net result is this Administration -- and
during my time as the President for the next four
years -- we will continue to move for normalization of
relations in the traditional sense, and we will insist
that the disputes between Taiwan and the People's
Republic be settled peacefully, as was agreed in the
Shanghai Communique of 1972.
The Ford Administration will not let down, will
not eliminate or forget our obligation to the people of
Taiwan. We feel that there must be a continued obligation
to the people, the some 19 or 20 million people in
Taiwan, and as we move during the next four years, those
will be the policies of this Administration.
MR. VALERIANI: Sir, the military equipment
for the mainland Chinese?
THE PRESIDENT: There is no policy of this
Government to give to the People's Republic or to sell to
the People's Republic of China military equipment. I
do not believe that we, the United States, should
sell, give or otherwise transfer military hardware to
the People's Republic of China or any other Communist
nation, such as the Soviet Union and the like.
THE MODERATOR: Governor Carter?
MR. CARTER: I would like to go back just one
moment to the previous question, where Mr. Ford, I
think, confused the issue by trying to say that we are
shipping Israel 40 percent of our aid. As a matter of
fact, during this current year we are shipping Iran -- or
have contracted to ship to Iran -- about $7.5 billion
worth of arms and also to Saudi Arabia about $7.5 billion
worth of arms.
MORE
Page 18
In 1975 we almost brought Israe. to their
knees after the Yom Kippur war by the so-called
reassessment of our relationship to Israel. We, in
effect, tried to make Israel the scapegoat For the
problems in the Middle East. This weakened our relation-
ship with Israel a great deal and put a cloid on the
total commitment that our people feel toward the Israelis.
There ought to be a clear, unequivocal commitment
without change to Israel.
In the Far East I think we need to ontinue
to be strong, and I would certainly pursue the normali-
zation of relationships with the People's Republic of
China. We opened up a great opportunity in 19:2, which
has pretty well been frittered away under Mr. Ford,
that ought to be a constant inclination toward .riendship,
but I would never let that friendship with the People's
Republic of China stand in the way of the preservation
of the independence and freedom of the people on Taiwan.
MORE
Page 19
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Frankel, a question for
Governor Carter.
MR. FRANKEL: Governor, we always seem, in our
elections, and maybe in-between, too, to argue about who
can be tougher in the world. Give or take a few billion
dollars, give or take one weapons system, our leading
politicians, and I think you two gentlemen, seem to settle
roughly on the same strategy in the world at roughly the
same Pentagon budget cost.
How bad do things have to get in our own economy,
or how much backwardness and hunger would it take in the
world to persuade you that our national security and our
survival required very drastic cutbacks in arms spending
and dramatic new efforts in other directions?
MR. CARTER: Well, always in the past we have had
an ability to have a strong defense and also to have a
strong domestic economy, and also to be strong in our
reputation and influence within the community of nations.
These characteristics of our country have been endangered under
Mr. Ford. We are no: longer respected.
In a showdown vote in the United Nations or
in any other international council, we are lucky to get
20 percent of the other nations to vote with us. Our
allies feel we have neglected them. The so-called Nixon
shocks against Japan have weakened our relationships there.
Under this Administration we have also had an
inclination to keep separate the European countries, thinking
that if they are separate, that we can dominate them, and
proceed with our secret long-range-type diplomatic efforts.
I would also like to point out that we in this
country have let our economy go down the drain -- the worst
inflation since the Great Depression, the highest unemployment
of any developed nation of the world. We have a higher
unemployment rate in this country than Great Britain, than
West Germany. Our unemployment rate is twice as high as it
is in Italy, three or four times as high as it is in Japan.
And that terrible circumstance in this country is exported
overseas.
We comprise about 30 percent of the world's
economic trade power influence. And when we are weak at
home, weaker than all our allies, that weakness weakens
the whole free world. So, strong economy is very important.
Another thing we need to do is to re-establish
the good relationships that we ought to have between the
United States and our natural allies in France -- they have
felt neglected -- and using that base of strength and using
the idealism, the honesty, the predictability, the commitment,
the integrity, of our own country, that is where our strength
lies, and that would permit us to deal with the developing
nations in a position of strength.
MORE
Page 20
Under this Administration we have had a continuation
of a so-called "balance of power politics" where everything
is looked on as a struggle between us on the one side and
the Soviet Union on the other. Our allies, the smaller
countries, get trampled in the rush.
What we need is to try to seek individualized
bilateral relationships with countries regardless of their
size and to establish world order politics, which means
we want to preserve peace through strength. We also want
to revert back to the stature of and the respect that our
country had in previous Administrations.
Now, I can't say when this can come, but I can
guarantee it will not come if Gerald Ford is reelected
and this present policy is continued. It will come if
I am elected.
MR. FRANKEL: If I hear you right, you are
saying guns and butter both, but President Johnson also
had trouble keeping up both Vietnam and his domestic
programs.
I was really asking, when do the needs of the
cities and our own needs and those of other backward and even
more needy countries and societies around the world take
precedence over some of our military spending? Ever?
MR. CARTER: Let me say very quickly, under
President Johnson, in spite of the massive investment in
the Vietnam War, he turned over a balanced budget to
Mr. Nixon. The unemployment rate was less than 4 percent.
The inflation rate under Kennedy and Johnson was about 2
percent -- one-third what it is under this Administration.
So we did have at that time with good management the ability
to do both.
I don't think anybody can say Johnson and Kennedy
neglected the poor and destitute people in this country or
around the world. But I can say this: The number one
responsibility of any President, above all else, is to
guarantee the security of our Nation, an ability to be
free of the threat of attack or blackmail, and to carry
out our obligations to our allies and friends, and to carry
out a legitimate foreign policy, and they must go hand-in-hand.
But the security of this Nation has to come first.
THE MODERATOR: President Ford.
THE PRESIDENT: Let me say very categorically,
you cannot maintain the security and the strength of the
United States with the kinds of defense budget cuts that
Governor Carter has indicated. In 1975, he wanted to cut
the budget $15 billion. He is now down to a figure of
$5 billion to $7 billion. Reductions of that kind will
not permit the United States to be strong enough to deter
aggression and maintain the peace.
MORE
Page 21
Governor Carter apparently does not know the
facts. As soon as I became President, I initiated
meetings with the NATO heads of State and met with them in
Brussels to discuss how we could improve the defense
relationship in Western Europe.
In November of 1975, I met with the leaders
of the five industrial nations in France for the purpose
of seeing what we could do, acting together, to meet
the problems of the coming recession.
In Puerto Rico this year, I met with six of
the leading industrial nations' heads of State to meet
the problem of inflation so we would be able to solve
it before it got out of hand.
I have met with the heads of Government,
bilaterally as well as multi-laterally. Our relations
with Japan have never been better. I was the first United
States President to visit Japan. And we had the Emperor
of Japan here this past year. And the net result is
Japan and the United States are working more closely
together now than at any time in the history of our relation-
ship. You can go around the world -- let me take Israel,
for example. Just recently, President Rabin said that our
relations were never better.
MORE
Page 22
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Trewhitt, your question for
President Ford.
MR. TREWHITT: Mr. President, you referred
earlier to your meeting with Mr. Brezhnev in Vladivostok
in 1974. You agreed on that time to try to achieve another
strategic arms limitation, SALT agreement, within the
year. Nothing happened in 1975 or not very much publicly,
at least, and those talks are still dragging, and things
got quieter as the current season approached. Is there a
bit of politics involved there, perhaps OI both sides or
perhaps more important, are interim weapons development, and
I am thinking of such things as the cruise missile and the
Soviet SS-20 intermediate range rocket, making SALT
irrelevant, bypassing the SALT negotiations?
THE PRESIDENT: First, we have to understand
that SALT I expires October 3, 1977. Mr. Brezhnev and I met
in Vladivostok in December of 1974 for the purpose of trying
to take the initial steps so we could have a SALT II agree-
ment that would go to 1985. As I indicated earlier, we did
agree on a 2,400 limitation on launchers of ballistic missiles.
That would mean a cutback in the Soviet program. It would not
interfere with our own program. At the same time we put a
limitation of 1,320 on MIRVs.
Our technicians have been working since that time
in Geneva trying to put into technical language an agreement
that can be verified by both parties. In the meantime, there
has developed the problem of the Soviet Backfire, their
high performance aircraft, which they say is not a long-range
aircraft and which some of our people say is an interconti-
nental aircraft.
In the interim there has been the development on
our part primarily, of the cruise missiles: cruise missiles that
could be launched from land-based mobile installations, cruise
missiles that could be lauched from high performance aircraft
like the B-52's or the B-1's, which I hope we proceed with.
cruise missiles which could be launched from either surface
or submarine naval vessels.
Those gray area weapons systems are creating
some problems in the agreement for a SALT II negotiation.
But I can say that I am dedicated to proceeding and
I met just last week with the Foreign Minister of the Soviet
Union and he indicated to me that the Soviet Union was
interested in narrowing the differences and making a realistic
and a sound compromise.
I hope and trust in the best interests of both
countries and in the best interests of all peoples throughout
this globe that the Soviet Union and the United States can
make a mutually beneficial agreement because, if we do not
and ALT I expires on October 3, 1977, you will unleash
again an all out nuclear arms race with the potential of
a nuclear holocaust of unbelievable dimensions.
MORE
Page 23
So it is the obligation of the President to do
just that and I intend to do so.
MR. TREWHITT: Mr. President, let me follow that
up. I'll submit then the cruise missile adds a whole new
dimension to the arms competition, and then cite a state-
ment by your office to the Arms Control Association a few
days ago in which you said that the cruise missile might
eventually be included in a comprehensive arms limitation
agreement but that in the meantime it was an essential part
of the American strategic arsenal. May I assume from that
that you are intending to exclude the cruise missile from
the next SALT agreement or is it still negotiable in that
context?
THE PRESIDENT: I believe that the cruise missiles
which we are now developing in research and development across
the spectrum from air, from the sea, or from the land can
be included within a SALT II agreement. They are a new
weapons system that has a great potential, both conventional
and nuclear arms. At the same time we have to make certain
that the Soviet Union's Backfire, which they claim is not
an intercontinental aircraft and which some of our people
contend is, must also be included if we are to get the kind
of an agreement which is in the best interests of both
countries.
And I really believe that it is far better for us
and for the Soviet Union and more importantly for the people
around the world that these two super powers find an answer
for a SALT II agreement before October 3, 1977.
I think good will on both parts, hard bargaining
by both parties, and a reasonable compromise will be in the
best interests of all parties.
THE MODERATOR: Governor Carter?
MR. CARTER: Well, Mr. Ford acts like he is running
for President for the first time. He has been in office two
years and there has been absolutely no progress made toward
a new SALT agreement.
He has learned the date of the expiration of SALT I
apparently.
MORE
Page 24
We have seen in this world a development of a
tremendous threat to us. As a nuclear engineer myself,
I know the limitations and capabilities of atomic power.
I also know that as far as the human beings on this earth
are concerned, that the non-proliferation of atomic weapons
is number one. Only in the last few days with the election
approaching has Mr. Ford taken any interest in a non-
proliferation movement.
I advocated last May in a speech at the United
Nations that we move immediately as a nation to declare a
complete moratorium on the testing of all nuclear devices,
both weapons and peaceful devices, that we not ship any more
atomic fuel to a country that refuses to comply with strict
controls over the waste which can be reprocessed into
explosives.
I have also advocated that we stop the sale by
Germany and France of reprocessing plants to Pakistan and
Brazil.
Mr. Ford hasn't moved on this. We also need to
have provided an adequate supply of enriched uranium. Mr.
Ford again, under pressure from the atomic energy lobby,
has insisted that this reprocessing or rather reenrichment
be done by private industry and not by the existing govern-
ment plants.
This kind of confusion and absence of leadership
has let us drift now for two years with the constantly
increasing threat of atomic weapons throughout the world.
We now have five nations that have atomic bombs that we
know about. If we continue under Mr. Ford's policy, by
1985 or '90 we will have 20 nations that have the capability
of exploding atomic weapons. This has got to be stopped.
That is one of the major challenges and major undertakings
that I will assume as the next President.
MORE
Page 25
THE MODERATOR: A question for Governor Carter.
MR. VALERIANI: Governor Carter, earlier tonight
you said America is not strong anymore, America is not
respected anymore, and I feel I must ask you, do you really
believe that the United States is not the strongest country
in the world? Do you really believe that the United States
is not the most respected country in the world, or is that
just campaign rhetoric?
MR. CARTER: No, that is not just campaign
rhetoric. I think militarily we are as strong as any
nation on earth. I think we have to stay that way and
continue to increase our capabilities to meet any potential
threat; but as far as strength derived from commitment to
principles; as far as strength derived from the unity within
our country; as far as strength derived from the people, the
Congress, the Secretary of State, the President, sharing in
the evolution and carryings out of foreign policy as far
as strength derived from the respect of our own allies and
friends, there is assurance that we will be staunch in our
commitment, that we will not deviate and we will give them
adequate attention.
As far as strength derived from doing what is
right, carying for the poor, providing food, becoming the
breadbasket of the world instead of the arms merchant of the
world, in those respects we are not strong. Also, we will
never be strong again overseas unless we are strong at home.
With our economy in such terrible disarray, and getting worse
by the month -- we have got 500,000 more Americans unemployed
today than we had three months ago; we have got two and a
half million more Americans out of work now than we had when
Mr. Ford took office -- this kind of deterioration in our
economic strength is bound to weaken us around the world.
We not only have problems at home, but we export
those problems overseas. So far as the respect of our own
people toward our own Government, as far as participation in
the shaping of concepts and commitments, as far as a trust
of our country among the nations of the world, as far as
dependence of our country in meeting the needs and obligations
we have expressed to our allies, as far as the respect of
our country, even among our potential adversaries, we are
weak.
Potentially, we are strong. Under this Admini-
stration that strength has not been realized.
MORE
Page 26
THE MODERATOR: President Ford?
THE PRESIDENT: Governor Carter brags about
the unemployment during Democratic Administrations
and condemns the unemployment at the present time. I
must remind him that we are at peace and during the period
that he brags about unemployment being low, the United
States was at war.
Let me correct one other comment that Governor
Carter has made. I have recommended to the Congress that
we develop the uranium enrichment plant at Portsmouth,
Ohio, which is a publicly-owned U.S. Government facility,
and have indicated that the private program which would
follow on in Alabama is one that may or may not be
constructed, but I am committed to the one at Portsmouth,
Ohio.
The Governor also talks about morality in
foreign policy. The foreign policy of the United
States meets the highest standards of morality. What is
more moral than peace, and the United States is at
peace today. What is more moral in foreign policy than
for the Administration to take the lead in the World
Food Conference in Rome in 1974, when the United States
committed six million metric tons of food, over 60 percent
of the food committed for the disadvantaged and under-
developed nations of the world?
The Ford Administration wants to eradicate
hunger and disease in our underdeveloped countries
throughout the world. What is more moral than for the
United States under the Ford Administration to take
the lead in Southern Africa, in the Middle East? Those
are initiatives in foreign policy which are of the
highest moral standards, and that is indicative of
the foreign policy of this country.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Frankel, a question for
President Ford.
MR. FRANKEL: Mr. President, can we stick
with morality? For a lot of people it seems to cover a
bunch of sins.
Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger used to tell us
that instead of morality we had to worry in the world
about living with and letting live all kinds of Govern-
ments that we really didn't like -- North and South
Korean dictators, Chilean facists, Chinese Communists,
Iranian emperors and so on.
They said the only way to get by in a wicked
world was to treat others on the basis of how they
treated us and not how they treated their own people.
MORE
Page 27
But more recently we seem to have taken a
different tack. We seem to have decided that it
is part of our business to tell the Rhodesians, for
instance, that the way they are treating their own
black people is wrong and they have to change their
Government. We put pressure on them. We were rather
liberal in our views to the Italians as to how to O
vote.
Is this a new Ford foreign policy in the
making? Can we expect that you are now going to turn
to South Africa and force them to change their
Government, to intervene in several ways to end the
bloodshed, as you called it, say in Chile or Chilean
prisons and to throw our weight around for the values
that we hold dear in the world?
THE PRESIDENT: I believe that our foreign
policy must express the highest standards of morality
and the initiatives we took in Southern Africa are
the best examples of what this Administration is doing
and will continue to do in the next four years.
If the United States had not moved when we did
in Southern Africa, there is no doubt there would have
been an acceleration of bloodshed in that tragic
part of the world.
If we had not taken our initiative, it is very,
very possible that the Government of Rhodesia would have
been overrun and that the Soviet Union and the Cubans
would have dominated Southern Africa.
So, the United States, seeking to preserve
the principle of self-determination, to eliminate the
possibility of bloodshed, to protect the rights of the
minority as we insisted upon the rights of the majority
I believe followed the good conscience of the American
people in foreign policy, and I believe that we have
used our skill.
Secretary of State Kissinger has done a superb
job in working with the black African nations, the so-
called front-line nations. He has done a superb job
in getting the Prime Minister of South Africa, Mr.
Vorster, to agree that the time had come for a solution
to the problem of Rhodesia.
Secretary Kissinger, in his meeting with Prime
Minister Smith of Rhodesia, was able to convince him
that it was in the best interests of whites, as well as
blacks, in Rhodesia to find an answer for a transitional
Government and then a majority Government.
MORE
Page 28
This is a perfect example of the kind of
leadership that the United States, under this Adminis-
tration, has taken, and I can assure you that this
Administration will follow that high moral principle
in our future efforts in foreign policy, including our
efforts in the Middle East, where it is vitally
important because the Middle East is the crossroads of
the world.
There have been more disputes, and it is an
area where there is more volatility than any other
place in the world, but because the Arab nations and
the Israelis trust the United States, we were able to
take thelead in the Sinai II agreement.
I can assure you that the United States will
have the leadership role in moving toward a comprehensive
settlement of the Middle Eastern problems --I hope and
trust as soon as possible--and we will do it with the
highest moral principles.
MR. FRANKEL: Mr. President, just to clarify
one point, there are lots of majorities in the world that
feel they are being pushed around by minority Govern-
ments. Are:you saying now they can expect to look to us
for not just good cheer but throwing our weight on
their side in South Africa, or on Taiwan, or in Chile,
to help change their Governments as in Rhodesia?
THE PRESIDENT: I would hope that as we move to
one area of the world from another -- and the United
States must not spread itself too thinly; that was one of
the problems that helped to create the circumstances in
Vietnam -- but as we as a nation find that we are asked
by the various parties, either one nation against another
or individuals within a nation, that the United States
will take the leadership and try to resolve the
difficulties.
Let me take South Korea as an example. I
have personally told President Park that the United
States does not condone the kind of repressive measures
that he has taken in that country. But, I think in
all fairness and equity we have to recognize the problem
that South Korea has.
On the north they have North Korea with
500,000 well-trained, well-equipped troops. They are
supported by the People's Republic of China. They are
supported by the Soviet Union. South Korea faces a
very delicate situation.
MORE
Page 29
Now, the United States in this case this
Administration, has recommended a year ago -- and we
have reiterated it again this year -- that the United
States, South Korea, North Korea and the People's
Republic of China sit down at a conference table to
resolve the problems of the Korean peninsula. This is
a leadership role that the United States, under this
Administration, is carrying out.
If we do it -- and I think the opportunities and
the possibilities are getting better -- we will have
solved many of the internal domestic problems that exist
in South Korea at the present time.
THE MODERATOR: Governor Carter?
MR. CARTER: I know that Mr. Ford didn't
comment on the prisoners in Chile. This is a typical
example maybe of many others, where this Administration
overthrew an elected Government and helped to establish
a military dictatorship. This has not been an ancient
history story.
Last year, under Mr. Ford, of all the food for
peace that went to South America, 85 percent went to the
military dictatorship in Chile.
Another point I want to make is this: He says
we have to move from one area of the world to another.
That is one of the problems with this Administration's
so-called shuttle diplomacy. While the Secretary is
in one country, there are almost 150 others that are
wondering what We are going to do next, what will be the
next secret agreement.
We don't have a comprehensive, understandable
policy that deals with world problems or even regional
problems.
Another thing that concerns me is what Mr.
Ford said about unemployment, insinuating that under
Johnson and Kennedy that unemployment could only be held
down when this country is at war. Karl Marx said that the
free enterprise system in a democracy can only continue
to exist when they are at war or preparing for war. Karl
Marx was the grandfather of Communism. I don't agree with
that statement. I hope Mr. Ford doesn't, either.
He has put pressure on the Congress, and I don't
believe Mr. Ford would even deny this, to hold up on non-
proliferation legislation until the Congress agreed for
an $8 billion program for private industry to start
producing enriched uranium.
MORE
Page 30
The last thing I want to make is this: He
talks about peace and I am thankful for peace. We were
peaceful when Mr. Ford went into office, but he and
Mr. Kissinger and others tried to start a new Vietnam in
Angola, and it was only the outcry of the American people
and the Congress when this secret deal was discovered that
prevented our renewed involvement that this conflagration
which was taking place there.
MORE
Page 31
THE MODERATOR: Gentlemen, I am sorry to say
we do not have time enough for two complete sequences of
questions. We now have only 12 minutes left. Therefore,
I would like to ask for shorter questions and shorter
answers. And we also will drop the follow-up question.
Each candidate may still respond, of course, to the other's
answer.
Mr. Trewhitt, a question for Governor Carter.
MR. TREWHITT: Governor Carter, before this event
the most communication I received concerned Panama. Would
you, as President, be prepared to sign a treaty which at
a fixed date yielded administrative and economic control
of the Canal Zone and shared defense which, as I understand
it, is the position the United States took in 1974?
MR. CARTER: Well, here again, the Panamanian
question is one that has been confused by Mr. Ford. He
had directed his diplomatic representative to yield to
the Panamanians full sovereignty over the Panama Canal Zone
at the end of a certain period of time.
When Mr. Reagan raised this question in Florida,
Mr. Ford not only disavowed his instructions but he also
even dropped parenthetically the use of the word "detente".
I would never give up complete control or practical
control of the Panama Canal Zone, but I would continue to
negotiate with the Panamanians. When the original treaty
was signed back in the early 1900s when Theodore Roosevelt
was President, Panama retained sovereignty over the Panama
Canal Zone. We retained control as though we had sovereignty.
Now, I would be willing to go ahead with
negotiations. I believe we could share more fully
responsibilities for the Panama Canal Zone with Panama.
I would be willing to continue to raise the payment for
shipment of goods through the Panama Canal Zone. I might
even be willing to reduce to some degree our military
emplacements in the Panama Canal Zone, but I would not
relinquish practical control of the Panama Canal Zone any
time in the foreseeable future.
THE MODERATOR: President Ford.
THE PRESIDENT: The United States must and will
maintain complete access to the Panama Canal. The United
States must maintain a defense capability of the Panama
Canal and the United States will maintain our national
security interests in the Panama Canal.
The negotiations for the Panama Canal started
under President Johnson and have continued up to the
present time. I believe those negotiations should
continue.
MORE
Page 32
But there are certain guidelines that must be
followed, and I have just defined them. Let me take
just a minute to comment on something that Governor
Carter said.
On non-proliferation, in May of 1975, I called
for a Conference of Nuclear Suppliers. That conference
has met six times. In May of this year Governor Carter
took the first initiative, approximately 12 months after
I had taken my initiative a year ago.
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Valeriani, a question for
President Ford.
MR. VALERIANI: Mr. President, the Government
Accounting Office has just put out a report suggesting
that you shot from the hip in the MAYAGUEZ rescue mission
and that you ignored diplomatic messages saying that a
peaceful solution was in prospect. Why didn't you do it
more diplomatically at the time?
And a related question: Did the White House
try to prevent the release of that report?
THE PRESIDENT: The White House did not prevent
the release of that report. On July 12, of this year,
we gave full permission for the release of that report.
I was very disappointed in the fact that the GAO released
that report because I think it interjected political
partisan politics at the present time.
But let me comment on the report. Somebody
who sits in Washington, D. C., 18 months after the MAYAGUEZ
incident can be a very good grandstand quarterback.
And let me make another observation: This morning
I got a call from the skipper of the MAYAGUEZ. He was
furious because he told me that it was the action of me,
President Ford, that saved the lives of the crew of the
MAYAGUEZ. And I can assure you that if we had not taken
the strong and forceful action that we did, we would have
been criticized very, very severely for sitting back and
not moving.
Captain Miller is thankful, the crew is thankful.
We did the right thing. It seems to me that those who sit
in Washington 18 months after the incident are not the
best judges of the decision-making process that had to
be made by the National Security Council and by myself at
the time the incident was developing in the Pacific.
Let me assure you that we made every possible
overture to the People's Republic of China and, through
them to the Cambodian Government, we made diplomatic protest
to the Cambodian Government through the United Nations.
Every possible diplomatic means was utilized, but
at the same time I had a responsibility, and so did the
National Security Council, to meet the problem at hand,
and we handled it responsibly and I think Captain Miller's
testimony to that effect is the best evidence.
MORE
Page 33
THE MODERATOR: Governor Carter.
MR. CARTER: Well, I am reluctant to comment
on the recent report. I haven't read it. I think the
American people have only one requirement -- that the
facts about MAYAGUEZ be given to them accurately and
completely.
Mr. Ford has been there for 18 months. He had the
facts that were released today immediately after the
MAYAGUEZ incident. I understand that the report today
is accurate. Mr. Ford has said, I believe, that it was
accurate and that the White House made no attempt to
block the issuing of that report. I don't know if that
is exactly accurate or not.
I understand that both the Department of State
and the Defense Department have approved the accuracy of
today's report, or yesterday's report, and also the
National Security Agency. I don't know what was right
or what was wrong or what was done.
The only thing I believe is that whatever the
knowledge was that Mr. Ford had should have been given to
the American people 18 months ago, immediately after the
MAYAGUEZ incident occurred.
This is what the American people want. When
something happens that endangers our security, or when
something happens that threatens our stature in the world,
or when American people are endangered by the actions of
a foreign country, just 40 sailors on the MAYAGUEZ, we
obviously have to move aggressively and quickly to rescue
them.
But then, after the immediate action is taken,
I believe the President has an obligation to tell the
American people the truth and not wait until 18 months
later for the report to be issued.
MORE
Page 34
THE MODERATOR: Gentlemen, at this time we
have time for only two very short questions. Mr. Frankel,
a question for Governor Carter.
MR. FRANKEL: Governor Carter, if the price
of gaining influence among the Arabs is closing our
eyes a little bit to their boycott against Israel, how
would you handle that?
MR. CARTER: I believe that the boycott of
American businesses by the Arab countries because those
businesses trade with Israel or because they have American
Jews who are owners or directors in a company, is an
absolute disgrace. This is the first time I remember
in the history of our country when we have let a foreign
country circumvent or change our Bill of Rights. I will
do everything I can as President to stop the boycott of
American businesses by the Arab countries.
It is not a matter of diplomacy or trade with
me. It is a matter of morality and I don't believe that
the Arab countries will pursue it. When we have a strong
President who will protect the integrity of our country,
the commitment of our Constitution and Bill of Rights,
and protect people in this country who happen to be
Jews -- it may later be Catholics, it may later be
Bap Dists -- who are threatened by some foreign country,
but we should stand staunch, and I think it is a disgrace
that so far Mr. Ford's Administration has blocked the
passage of legislation that would have revealed by law
every instance of the boycott and it would have prevented
the boycott from continuing.
THE MODERATOR: President Ford?
THE PRESIDENT: Again, Governor Carter is
inaccurate. The Arab boycott action was first taken in
1952 and in November of 1975 I was the first President to
order the Executive Branch to take action, affirmative
action through the Department of Commerce and other
Cabinet Departments, to make certain that no American
businessman or business organization should discriminate
against Jews because of an Arab boycott.
And I might add that my Administration -- and I
am very proud of it -- is the first Administration that
has taken an antitrust action against companies in this
country that have allegedly cooperated with the Arab
boycott. Just on Monday of this week I signed a tax
bill that included an amendment that would prevent com-
panies in the United States from taking a tax deduction
if they have in any way whatsoever cooperated with the
Arab boycott.
MORE
Page 35
And last week when we were trying to get the
Export Administration Act through the Congress--the
legislation--my Administration went to Capitol Hill and
tried to convince the House and the Senate that we should
have an amendment on that legislation which would take
strong and effective action against those who participate
or could operate with the Arab boycott.
One other point. Because the Congress failed
to act I am going to announce tomorrow that the Department
of Commerce will disclose those companies that have par-
ticipated in the Arab boycott. This is something that
we can do. The Congress failed to do it and we intend
to do it.
MORE
Page 36
THE MODERATOR: Mr. Trewhitt, a very brief
question for President Ford.
MR. TREWHITT: Mr. President, if you get the
accounting of missing in action you want from North
Vietnam--or Vietnam, I am sorry -- would you then
be prepared to reopen negotiations for restoration of
relations with that country?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me restate our policy.
As long as Vietnam, North Vietnam, does not give us a
full and complete accounting of our missing in action,
I will never go along with the admission of Vietnam to
the United Nations. If they do give us a bona fide,
complete accounting of the 800 MIAs, then I believe that
the United States should begin negotiations for the
admission of Vietnam to the United Nations, but not
until they have given us the full accounting of our
MIAs.
THE MODERATOR: Governor Carter?
MR. CARTER: One of the most embarrassing
failures of the Ford Administration, and one that
touches specifically on human rights, is his refusal
to appoint a Presidential commission to go to Vietnam,
to go to Laos, to go to Cambodia, and try to trade
for the release of information about those who are missing
in action in those wars. This is what the families of
MIAs want.
So far, Mr. Ford has not done it. We have had
several fragmentary efforts by Members of the Congress
and by private citizens. Several months ago the Vietnam
Government said we are ready to sit down and negotiate
for release of information on MIAs.
So far, Mr. Ford has not responded.
I would also never normalize relationships
with Vietnam, nor permit them to join the United
Nations until they have taken this action. But, that
is not enough. We need to have an active and aggressive
action on the part of the President, the leader of
this country, to seek out every possible way to get
that information which has kept the MIA families in
despair and doubt, and Mr. Ford has just not done it.
MORE
Page 37
THE MODERATOR: Thank you, Governor Carter.
That completes the questioning for this evening.
Each candidate now has up to three minutes for a closing
statement. It was determined by the toss of a coin that
Governor Carter would take the first question, and he now
goes first with his closing remarks.
Governor Carter.
MR. CARTER: The purpose of this debate and the
outcome of the election will determine three basic things --
leadership, upholding the principles of our country, and
proper priorities and commitments for the future.
This election will also determine what kind of
world we leave our children. Will it be a nightmare world,
threatened with the proliferation of atomic bombs, not
just in five major countries, but dozens of smaller countries
that have been permitted to develop atomic weapons because
of a failure of our top leadership to stop proliferation?
Will we have a world of hunger and hatred and will we be
living in an armed camp, stripped of our friendship and
allies, hiding behind a tight defense that has been
drawn in around us because we are fearful of the outside
world? Will we have a Government of secrecy that excludes
the American people from participation in making basic
decisions and therefore covers up mistakes and makes it
possible for our Government, our Government, to depart from
the principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, or
will we have a world of peace with the threat of atomic
weapons eliminated, with full trade, with our people
at work, inflation controlled, openness in Government, our
people proud once again, Congress, citizens, President,
Secretary of State, working in harmony and unity toward
a common future, a world where people have enough to eat
and a world where we care about those who don't?
Can we become a breadbasket of the world,
instead of the arms merchant of the world? I believe
we can and we ought to.
Now we have been hurt in recent years in this
country, in the aftermath of Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile,
Pakistan, Angola, Watergate, CIA. We have been hurt.
Our people feel that we have lost something precious. That
is not necessary.
I want to see our Nation returned to a posture
and image and a standard to make us proud once again.
I remember the world of NATO and the world of
Point Four and the world of the Marshall Plan and a world of a
Peace Corps. Why can't we have that once again?
MORE
Page 38
We ought to be a beacon for nations who search
for peace, and who search for freedom, who search for
individual liberty, who search for basic human rights.
We haven't been lately. We can be again.
We will never have that world leadership until
we are strong at home and we can have that strength if
we return to the basic principles. It ought to not be
a strength of bombast and threats. It ought to be a quiet
strength based on the integrity of our people, the vision
of the Constitution, and an innate strong will and purpose
that God has given us in the greatest Nation on earth.
THE PRESIDENT: As we have seen tonight,
foreign policy and defense policy are difficult and
complex issues. We can debate methods. We can debate
one decision or another, but there are two things which
cannot be debated -- experience and results.
In the last two years, I have made policy
decisions involving long-range difficulties in policies
and made day-to-day judgments, not only as President
of the United States but as the leader of the free world.
What is the result of that leadership? America
is strong, America is free, America is respected. Not
a single young American today is fighting or dying on any
foreign battlefield. America is at peace with freedom.
Thank you, and good night.
THE MODERATOR: Thank you, President Ford.
Thank you, Governor Carter. I also want to thank our
questioners and the audience here this evening.
The third and final debate between President
Ford and Governor Carter will take place on October 22
at 9:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on the Campus of the
College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia.
The subject matter will cover all issues.
These debates are sponsored by the League of
Women Voters Education Fund to help voters become better
informed on the issues and to generate greater voter
turnout in the November election.
Now from the Palace of Fine Arts Theatre in
San Francisco, good. night.
END
(AT 8:00 P.M. PDT)