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
1672863
label
Second Debate, 10/6/76: Key Questions
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1672863
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Second Debate, 10/6/76: Key Questions
citationUrl
collections
Michael Raoul-Duval Papers
Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter Debates Files
subjects
International relations
Presidential campaign, 1976
Debates and debating
National security
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1672863
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-10-31
month
10
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-10-01
month
10
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
28c8c031e9668f1a
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 27, folder "Second Debate, 10/6/76: Key
Questions" of the Michael Raoul-Duval Papers 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. Michael Raoul-Duval 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United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives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.
To MikeDuval
NSC input
Questions for President Ford
FORD i GERALD LIBRARY
1. Isn't your foreign policy on dead center, stalled: relations
with the Soviets are deteriorating, China normalization is frozen,
there is no movement on the Middle East; the world economy is still
shaky.
2. You promi sed a SALT agreement in 1975 in the Vladivostok
communique, but two years have passed. Isn't it true that Kissinger
could not agree with Schlesinger, on SALT, and now he can't agree
with Rumsfeld?
3. If talks resume with China on normalization will you stick by
the Republican platform and work for the independence and freedom of
people of Taiwan.
4. Would you consider selling arms to communist China?
5. The Chinese received Nixon and Schlesinger; doesn't that
indicate that they are snubbing you, and warning that you have to make
concessions, and should be tougher on the Soviets.
6. There is talk of an oil price rise in December, and even threats
of an oil embargo. What have you done to head off a price rise?
What would you do if there was a new embargo. Would you use troops
to seize the oil fields?
7. Carter says he won't use troops in internal conflicts but you
supported Vietnam as a Congressman and you initiated covert program
in Angola. Would you intervene in Africa or Latin America if there
was a communist subversion or outside intervention.
8. You say your policies are in the open, yet for six months you
sponsored a clandestine secret war in Angola. What guarantee is there
that you would not do so again, if the stakes were important?
9. You say that your policies meet tests of morality, peace and so
forth, but then why was it necessary for the Republican National
Convention to introduce a special plank on morality, including exhortations
against secret agreements?
- 2 -
AFRICA
10. Africa: you took office in 1974, and did nothing special about
southern Africa, until after the introduction of Cuban troops into Angola. Isn't
the only reason for your change the fact that you are concerned about the
Soviets, not majority rule or racial justice?
11. There has been a great deal of controversy about Alexander
Solzhenitsyn. You would not see him, and a State Department official
called him a "fascist", while the Republican party called him a beacon
of courage. What is your view on his political philosophy and why did
you refuse to see him?
12. The large sales of arms to Iran a re justified on grounds of friendship
and mutual security, but isn't it true that the net result will be pressure for
higher oil prices, since the Shah is running out of cash?
13. Why has your Administration worked against new legislation com-
batting the Arab boycott of Israel and American firms that do business there?
14. The major points that you cite as success can be traced to Nixon
and Kissinger: China, Soviet detente, SALT, Middle East disengagement.
Isn't your policy a simple continuation of Nixon's?
15. You have consistently supported the regime in Chile. It
appears that the US had a hand in an assassination attempt in 1970,
and in overthrowing Allende. Now we have a terrorist killing of the
former Foreign Minister. Have you inv estigated this record? Will you?
DEFENSE
1. Carter says he can save $5 billion, and you said in a recent
statement that the Congress could save $12 billion if they took your
recommendations for economy. How can you criticize the Carter
position, when you are saying that there is considerable fat?
2. On every major weapons program there is a great rise in costs,
way beyond original estimates, in some cases 100 percent. Doesn't
this prove the case that determined leadership could save on defense?
3. Throughout the primaries you debated with Reagan that we were
not number two. But Secretary Rumsfeld has always hedged on this,
and recently said that the Soviets were accelerating their missile
programs. How would you prove the case that we are still number one?
- 3 -
4. Several Congressmen accuse you of political skullduggery in
proposing a last minute billion dollar increase in naval shipbuilding
which has already been turned down
1. Regardless of Henry Kissinger's merit, is it wise to be captive
to only one viewpoint?
2. Kissinger is being sued for the wiretaps he put on his own people.
Is that mentality consistent with your viewpoint?
3. Aren't the Russians getting a better deal out of detente than we are?
4. Where do you want the country to be in four years? What new
directions do you expect to take?
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
2nd Debate
,Clep Card
FOR the
Prosident
MORALITY CAMERICAN VALUES)
WE HEAR A LOT OF TALK ABOUT MORALITY, I BELIEVE:
-- PUSHING BACK THE SPECTER OF NUCLEAR WAR, AS WE HAVE DONE
IN SALT, IS A MORAL POLICY;
-- MEDIATING CONFLICT, AS WE HAVE DONE IN THE MIDDLE EAST,
IS A MORAL POLICY,
-- AVERTING RACE WAR AND PROMOTING RECONCILIATION, AS WE HAVE
DONE IN AFRICA, IS A MORAL POLICY,
-- ORGANIZING WORLD COOPERATION TO PROMOTE FOOD PRODUCTION
AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS IN POORER COUNTRIES, IS A MORAL POLICY,
-- INSURING THE SOLIDARITY OF OUR ALLIANCES, FOR THE SURVIVAL
OF DEMOCRACY, IS A MORAL POLICY,
-- STANDING LOYALLY BY ALLIES WHO SEEK TO DEFEND THEMSELVES
AGAINST AGGRESSION IS A MORAL POLICY.
-- AND, FINALLY, KEEPING THE PEACE -- SAVING LIVES -- IS VERY
MORAL.
I THINK EVERY AMERICAN CAN BE PROUD OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY HAS DONE --
FOR PEACE, FOR FREEDOM, FOR PROGRESS, FOR JUSTICE, I AM SICK AND
TIRED OF HEARING OUR COUNTRY DENOUNCED AS IMMORAL BY PEOPLE WHO
CLEARLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.
FORD LIBRARY
FOREIGN POLICY GOALS
1. My OVERRIDING GOAL IS THAT FOUR YEARS FROM NOW, AS I
PREPARE TO LEAVE PUBLIC OFFICE, AMERICA WILL STILL BE AT PEACE AND
AMERICA WILL STILL HAVE THE STRENGTH AND THE WILL TO KEEP THE PEACE.
2. I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT WE WILL SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZE OUR
HOPES FOR PEACE:
-- IF WE BEGIN DISMANTLING OUR MILITARY FORCES;
-- IF WE BEGIN PRECIPITOUS WITHDRAWALS FROM KEY AREAS SUCH
AS KOREA AND EUROPE; AND,
-- IF WE SEW DOUBT AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS THROUGH FUZZY OR
CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOUT OUR INTENTIONS. THE WORLD IS
STILL TOO DANGEROUS AND HOSTILE TO PLACE OUR FUTURE IN THE HANDS
OF THOSE WHO MIGHT WAVER OR BLINK WHEN WE'RE EYEBALL-TO-EYEBALL
WITH THE RUSSIANS.
(OVER)
3. THROUGH STEADY, SKILLFUL DIPLOMACY AND THROUGH CONTINUED
MILITARY STRENGTH, THE U.S. HAS GREAT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE NEXT
FOUR YEARS:
-- WE CAN REACH SOUND AGREEMENTS TO REDUCE THE ARMS RACE;
-- WE CAN RESOLVE THE TENSIONS THAT STILL EXIST IN THE
MIDDLE EAST AND AFRICA;
-- WE CAN PROVIDE CONTINUED LEADERSHIP TO SOLVE THE WORLD'S
ECONOMIC TROUBLES; AND,
-- WE CAN CONTINUE AT THE FOREFRONT OF EFFORTS TO PROVIDE
ENOUGH FOOD, ENOUGH ENERGY AND ENOUGH SECURITY FOR THE POORER
NATIONS TO MEET THEIR PEOPLE'S NEEDS.
(MORE)
FOREIGN POLICY GOALS, CONT'D
IF WE MOVE STEADILY TOWARD THESE GOALS, WE WILL GREATLY
ENHANCE THE PROSPECTS FOR PEACE THROUGH NOT ONLY THE END OF THE
DECADE BUT THROUGH THE END OF THE CENTURY AND BEYOND.
FORD RECORD
I TOOK OFFICE IN A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS AT HOME. THE WORLD
WAS WATCHING TO SEE IF WE COULD RECOVER OUR SELF-CONFIDENCE AND
REMAIN THE WORLD'S LEADER. WE HAVE DONE IT.
-- FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE EISENHOWER, AN AMERICAN PRESIDENT
CAN SEEK ELECTION AND SAY WE ARE AT PEACE.
-- WE HAVE REVERSED THE DANGEROUS TREND OF SHRINKING DEFENSE
BUDGETS,
-- OUR ECONOMY HAS LED THE WORLD OUT OF ECONOMIC RECESSION.
-- WE HAVE STRENGTHENED OUR ALLIANCES -- IN MY NATO AND
ECONOMIC SUMMIT MEETINGS,
-- WE ACHIEVED A BREAKTHROUGH IN STRATEGIC ARMS LIMITS AT MY
MEETINGS WITH GENERAL SECRETARY BREZHNEV IN VLADIVOSTOK.
-- I VISITED CHINA AND CONFIRMED THE DURABILITY OF OUR NEW
RELATIONSHIP,
-- WE REACHED A MILESTONE SINAI AGREEMENT IN THE MIDDLE EAST.
-- WE HAVE UNDERTAKEN A CRUCIAL ROLE OF MEDIATION IN SOUTHERN
AFRICA TO END CRISIS AND RACIAL WAR.
-- WE HAVE BEGUN A NEW RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES,
-- AT THE UN WE HAVE SPOKEN OUT FORCEFULLY FOR FAIRNESS AND
JUSTICE IN THAT ORGANIZATION.
WHO RUNS FOREIGN POLICY: KISSINGER OR FORD
THIS IS A SUBJECT THAT HAS ATTRACTED FAR MORE HEAT THAN LIGHT,
LET ME TRY TO SHED SOME LIGHT ON IT,
DR. KISSINGER HAPPENS TO BE A SUPERB INTERNATIONAL NEGOTIATOR --
THE BEST IN THE WORLD, SO FAR AS I CAN TELL. AND IT HAS BEEN IN
THAT ROLE THAT HE HAS NEGOTIATED THE TERMS OF MANY, MANY INTERNA-
TIONAL AGREEMENTS -- FROM THE SALT AGREEMENT IN THE LAST ADMINIS-
TRATION TO THE SINAI ACCORD AND THE AFRICAN AGREEMENT IN THIS
ADMINISTRATION. IN THIS ROLE, HE HAS MADE AN OUTSTANDING
CONTRIBUTION TO AMERICA AND TO THE CAUSE OF PEACE. WE SHOULD
ALL BE GRATEFUL TO HIM.
BUT I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU WHERE THE FINAL RESPONSIBILITY
RESTS FOR DECISIONS SHAPING THE OVERALL DIRECTION AND THRUST OF
AMERICAN FOREIGN POLICY, THAT RESPONSIBILITY RESTS IN THE OVAL OFFICE;
IT HAS BEEN THERE IN THE PAST AND IT REMAINS THERE TODAY, IT IS THE
PRESIDENT -- AND ONLY THE PRESIDENT -- WHO CAN DECIDE WHERE TO SEND
OUR TROOPS, WHO CAN DECIDE HOW MANY MISSILES AND BOMBERS AND SHIPS WE
NEED TO PROTECT OUR SECURITY, AND WHO CAN DECIDE WHETHER THE MOMENT
OF TRUTH HAS ARRIVED IN THE NUCLEAR AGE, THAT IS NEVER AN EASY
REAPONSIBILITY, BUT IT IS ONE THAT I WELCOME,
IF ELECTED, MR. CARTER WILL BE THE FIRST PRESIDENT IN THIS CENTURY
WITH VIRTUALLY NO FOREIGN AND DEFENSE POLICY EXPERIENCE. THEREFORE,
I BELIEVE HE SHOULD TELL THE PEOPLE -- IN THIS DEBATE -- WHO HIS
SECRETARY OF STATE AND SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WILL BE. THE PEOPLE
HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHO WILL BE RUNNING THE COUNTRY'S FOREIGN AND
DEFENSE POLICIES,
CONTINUATION OF NIXON-HAK FOREIGN POLICY
ISSUE: IMPACT OF GRF UPON FOREIGN POLICY INHERITED FROM RN-HAK,
1. IN EARLY DAYS OF MY ADMINISTRATION, I MADE A CONSCIOUS
EFFORT TO CARRY FORWARD THE GREAT FOREIGN POLICY TRADITIONS OF THE
POST-WAR ERA:
-- IT WAS URGENT THAT OUR FRIENDS AND ALLIES UNDERSTOOD
THAT AMERICA WOULD REMAIN THE STRONGEST PEACEMAKER IN THE WORLD.
WE HAVE ENDED THEIR FEARS, (FOR EXAMPLE, I CALLED NATO AMBAS-
SADORS IN FOR A MEETING THE DAY I TOOK OFFICE TO REASSURE THEM
THAT AMERICA WOULD BE STEADFAST IN ITS COMMITMENTS.)
-- IT WAS EQUALLY URGENT THAT OUR ADVERSARIES UNDERSTAND
THAT U.S. FOREIGN POLICY WAS NOT GOING TO BREAK DOWN IN THE
MIDST OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, IT WAS A TIME OF GREAT
TESTING FOR US, EVERY NEW PRESIDENT IS ALWAYS TESTED BY THE
SOVIETS; JFK WAS TESTED BY KHRUSCHEV IN VIENNA AND IF MR. CARTER
IS ELECTED, HE WILL BE SEVERELY TESTED. I FELT THAT IN THOSE
EARLY DAYS IT WAS VITAL TO STAND FIRM WITH THE SOVIETS; WE DID
THAT, AND I AM NOW BEYOND TESTING INTO A PERIOD OF MUTUAL
RESPECT AND PROGRESS.
2. So CONTINUITY WAS IMPORTANT IN EARLY DAYS, BUT SINCE THAT
TIME, WE HAVE MOVED VIGOROUSLY ON SEVERAL FRONTS WHERE NEW PROGRESS
AND NEW INITIATIVES SEEMED POSSIBLE, AND WE'VE MADE STRIKING
BREAKTHROUGHS:
(MORE)
CONTINUATION OF NIXON-HAK FOREIGN POLICY, CONT'D
-- NEW ACCORDS IN THE MIDDLE EAST;
-- NEW AGREEMENTS IN SOUTHERN AFRICA;
-- COORDINATED ATTACK ON WORLDWIDE RECESSION LED BY
U.S.;
-- NEW U. S. PROPOSALS TO MEET FUTURE FOOD NEEDS, ASSIST
DEVELOPING NATIONS,
EACH OF THESE REPRESENTS A FORD ADMINISTRATION INITIATIVE
AND A FORD ADMINISTRATION BREAKTHROUGH, EACH HAS FURTHERED THE
CAUSE OF PEACE.
REBUTTAL ON SECRECY CHARGE
CARTER CHARGE: FOREIGN POLICY UNDER HAK HAS BEEN CONDUCTED UNDER
A CLOAK OF SECRECY, LEADING TO MISTAKES IN VIETNAM, CAMBODIA,
ANGOLA, CIA, ETC,
1. GOVERNOR CARTER HAS MADE A HABIT DURING THIS CAMPAIGN OF
RUNNING AGINST MANY OF THE GHOSTS OF THE PAST, ALONG WITH MANY
OF THE SINS OF THE PAST. I WOULD REMIND HIM THAT THIS RACE IS ONLY
BETWEEN THE TWO OF US -- AND WHAT THE VOTERS MUST DECIDE IS WHICH
OF US WILL DO A BETTER JOB OF KEEPING AMERICA STRONG AND AT PEACE,
THIS IS THE OVERRIDING ISSUE THAT WE OUGHT TO ADDRESS TONIGHT.
2. As TO THIS RED HERRING ABOUT SECRECY, LET ME SAY THAT MY
RECORD ON FOREIGN POLICY IS THERE FOR ALL TO SEE:
-- THERE ARE NO SECRET DEALS,
--, WE HAVE HELD AN UNPRECEDENTED NUMBER OF MEETINGS WITH
THE CONGRESS TO KEEP THEM INFORMED.
-- WE HAVE BEEN AS CANDID AND OPEN AS POSSIBLE. FOR
EXAMPLE, AFTER THE SINAI AGREEMENT WAS REACHED, WE TURNED OVER
THE DOCUMENTS FROM THOSE NEGOTIATIONS TO THE FOREIGN POLICY
COMMITTEES OF THE CONGRESS.
(MORE)
REBUTTAL ON SECRECY CHARGE, CONT'D
3. I WILL SAY THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHEN DIPLOMACY CANNOT
BE CONDUCTED FULLY IN THE OPEN. FOR EXAMPLE, NEGOTIATIONS WITH
OUR ALLIES OR OUR ADVERSARIES ON ARMS REDUCTIONS, INVOLVE WEAPONS
SYSTEMS THAT DEFEND OUR VERY SECURITY, MR. CARTER MAY BELIEVE
THAT SUCH NEGOTIATIONS CAN BE CONDUCTED IN THE OPEN, BUT I DON'T
AND AS LONG AS I AM PRESIDENT, SENSITIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THE
MILITARY SECURITY OF THIS COUNTRY WILL REMAIN CLASSIFIED,
4. MR. CARTER COMPLAINS ABOUT SECRET DIPLOMACY ON THE
ONE HAND AND THEN, ON THE OTHER HAND, PROPOSES "UNPUBLICIZED"
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE SOVIETS ON THE MIDDLE EAST. HE CAN'T HAVE
IT BOTH WAYS,
RELATIONS WITH ALLIES
RELATIONS WITH OUR ALLIES HAVE NEVER BEEN BETTER. WHEN I
CAME INTO OFFICE, I FOUND THAT OUR ALLIES IN EUROPE AND ASIA FELT
THEY HAD BEEN NEGLECTED OVER A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS, OR MORE, AND
THEY QUESTIONED WHETHER WE HAD LOST OUR WILL, OUR STEADFASTNESS
OF PURPOSE, ALL THAT HAS CHANGED:
-- I HAVE MET SEVERAL TIMES WITH ALL OUR ALLIED LEADERS, THEY
NOW HAVE CONFIDENCE IN OUR POLICY.
-- THE ECONOMIC SUMMITS (RAMBOUILLET, NOVEMBER 1975; PUERTO
RICO, JUNE 1976) WERE A MILESTONE. COOPERATION NOW EXTENDS
BEYOND DEFENSE TO COOPERATION ON ECONOMIC AND ENERGY POLICY.
-- WE HAVE BEEFED UP NATO DEFENSES,
-- OUR COOPERATION WITH FRANCE IS CLOSER THAN BEFORE.
-- SPAIN AND PORTUGAL, ONCE THOUGHT TO BE ON THE BRINK OF
CHAOS, ARE MOVING STEADILY TOWARD DEMOCRACY.
-- WE HAVE A COMMON POSITION IN THE EAST-WEST TALKS ON TROOP
CUTS.
-- I WAS THE FIRST AMERICAN PRESIDENT TO VISIT JAPAN.
-- My BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT WE STAND BY ALL ALLIES -- ISRAEL,
KOREA, IRAN, AS WELL AS OUR NATO ALLIES AND JAPAN -- BECAUSE
IF WE FAIL TO STAND FIRM IN ANY SINGLE PLACE, WE UNDERMINE
THE CONFIDENCE OF OUR ALLIES AND ONLY HEARTEN OUR ADVER-
SARIES,
REBUTTAL ON ALLIES
CARTER CHARGES: RELATIONS WITH ALLIES IN DISREPAIR.
MR. CARTER SEEMS TO BE TALKING MORE ABOUT CONDITIONS THAT
EXISTED IN THE PAST THAN THE CONDITIONS OF TODAY, IF HE WILL
TALK WITH ALLIED LEADERS -- AS I HAVE -- HE WILL FIND THAT WE
ENJOY CLOSE RELATIONS, AS SHOWN IN THE ECONOMIC SUMMITS, THE
TROOP-CUT NEGOTIATIONS, AND NEW AREAS OF COOPERATION ON ECONOMIC
ISSUES AND ENERGY ISSUES,
OUR ALLIES NO LONGER FEEL NEGLECTED; THEY NO LONGER QUESTION
THE CONSTANCY OF AMERICAN PURPOSE,
MR. CARTER SAYS HE IS FOR OUR ALLIES, YET HE TAKES POSITIONS
THAT WOULD INVITE A MAJOR CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE WITH ALL OUR ALLIES:
-- HE WANTS TO RETHINK OUR WHOLE NATO ALLIANCE, AND TALKS
ABOUT U.S. TROOP CUTS;
-- HE WOULD CHANGE NATO's AGREED NUCLEAR STRATEGY, SHIFTING
TO A DANGEROUS "MASSIVE RETALIATION" STRATEGY INSTEAD OF
THE AGREED POLICY "FLEXIBLE RESPONSE."
-- HE WOULD WITHDRAW OUR TROOPS FROM SOUTH KOREA, WHICH WOULD
RISK JAPAN'S SECURITY,
ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN VERY UNSETTLING TO OUR ALLIES.
KOREA
-- KOREA IS A FLASH POINT FOR POSSIBLE CONFLICT IN ASIA.
-- NORTH KOREA IS HEAVILY ARMED (500,000), DANGEROUS AND
AGGRESSIVE AS WE HAVE JUST RECENTLY SEEN IN CRISIS.
-- THEREFORE, IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT AMERICA BE FIRM AND LEAVE
NO DOUBT OF ITS OBLIGATIONS,
-- THIS IS ONLY WAY TO DETER A NEW WAR IN ASIA, WE PROVED
THIS IN AUGUST, WHEN WE STOOD FIRM.
-- OUR TROOPS (42,000) ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF THIS
POLICY,
-- PROPOSAL BY CARTER TO REDUCE OR PULL OUT ARE DANGEROUS,
BECAUSE THEY TEMPT ATTACKS -- CREATE CRISIS OF CONFIDENCE, NOT
ONLY IN KOREA BUT IN JAPAN AND ELSEWHERE.
(OVER)
-- MANY OF US RECALL WHEN WE TOLD THE WORLD IN 1950 THAT
KOREA WAS OUTSIDE THE PERIMETER OF U.S. DEFENSES, SHORTLY
THEREAFTER, THE NORTH KOREANS ATTACKED, AND WE WERE AT WAR.
WE DON'T WANT A REPETITION OF 1950.
-- WE HAVE PROPOSED A NEW CONFERENCE WITH BOTH KOREAS, THE
UNITED STATES AND CHINA. THIS IS THE WAY TO EASE TENSIONS, No
UNILATERAL WITHDRAWALS,
LIBRARY GERALD ? FORD
REBUTTAL ON KOREA
-- WE MUST REMEMBER THAT KOREA IS SURROUNDED BY HOSTILE
POWERS - NORTH KOREA, THE SOVIET UNION AND CHINA. IT FACES
SUBVERSION AND HALF A MILLION MEN ON ITS BORDERS.
-- THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN KOREA DOES NOT MEET OUR
STANDARDS, AND I HAVE MADE IT CLEAR TO PRESIDENT PARK THAT I
NEITHER APPROVE NOR CONDONE SOME PRACTICES THERE. BUT I ALSO
THINK WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THAT
COUNTRY EXISTS,
-- WE SHOULD NOT WITHDRAW OUR TROOPS, CUT OFF OUR MILITARY
AID, OR BLACKMAIL KOREAN GOVERNMENT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT LIVE UP
TO OUR STANDARDS,
-- KOREA IN HOSTILE HANDS WOULD THREATEN JAPAN. ASIANS
WILL LOSE FAITH IN OUR RELIABILITY IF WE FAIL TO LIVE UP TO
COMMITMENTS IN KOREA.
-- CARTER'S WITHDRAWAL PLEDGES WILL UNDERMINE THE STABILITY
ON THE PENINSULA AND SECURITY THROUGHOUT ASIA.
-- TROOP REDUCTIONS ANYWHERE SHOULD BE RESULTS OF MUTUAL
NEGOTIATIONS, IT IS A SIGN OF INEXPERIENCE FOR MR. CARTER TO
SUGGEST UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL BECAUSE THIS OBVIOUSLY WEAKENS OUR
ABILITY TO NEGOTIATE MUTUAL REDUCTIONS.
U.S. AND THE MIDDLE EAST
1. THE MIDDLE EAST IS A FOCAL POINT OF OUR FOREIGN POLICY
FOR THREE MAJOR REASONS:
-- STRATEGICALLY, IT IS AT A CROSSROADS OF THE WORLD;
-- ECONOMICALLY, IT SITS ATOP THE LARGEST KNOWN SUPPLY
OF PETROLEUM IN THE WORLD;
-- AND, MORALLY, WE ARE COMMITTED TO THE SURVIVAL AND
SECURITY OF ISRAEL.
2. FOUR TIMES IN THE PAST QUARTER CENTURY, THE ARABS AND
ISRAELIS HAVE GONE TO WAR, A MAJOR PREOCCUPATION OF MY ADMINIS-
TRATION HAS BEEN TO REDUCE THE TENSIONS AND ACHIEVE A JUST AND
LASTING PEACE. OUR APPROACH -- STEP-BY-STEP DIPLOMACY -- HAS
PAID OFF:
-- EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI DISENGAGEMENT AGREEMENT OF JANUARY, 1974;
-- SYRIA-ISRAELI AGREEMENT OF MAY, 1974;
-- EGYPTIAN-ISRAELI SINAI AGREEMENT OF SEPTEMBER, 1975.
NOT ONLY HAS THIS KEPT THE PEACE, BUT SOVIET INFLUENCE IN
MOST OF THE AREA -- AS RABIN HAS SAID -- IS AT ITS LOWEST EBB
IN 20 YEARS, THE UNITED STATES TODAY IS THE ONLY NATION THAT
ENJOYS THE TRUST OF BOTH SIDES.
(MORE)
U.S. AND THE MIDDLE EAST, CONT'D
3. CLEARLY, THE FORWARD MOMENTUM MUST CONTINUE. WE ARE
FLEXIBLE ABOUT THE MEANS TO ACHIEVE THE ULTIMATE GOAL, BUT WE
ARE UNBENDING IN OUR DESIRE TO MOVE FORWARD.
4. WE WILL PROCEED, OF COURSE, IN CONSULTATION WITH ISRAEL.
WE ARE A STEADFAST FRIEND. FORTY PERCENT OF ALL U.S. POSTWAR AID
TO ISRAEL HAS COME IN THE TWO YEARS OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.
5. ISRAEL'S CURRENT PROPOSAL -- SUBSTANTIAL TERRITORIAL
CONCESSIONS IN RETURN FOR AN END TO THE STATE OF WAR -- IS ONE
THAT SHOULD CERTAINLY BE DISCUSSED,
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
REBUTTAL TO CARTER ON MIDDLE EAST
I WELCOME MR. CARTER'S EVIDENT DESIRE TO ACHIEVE A LASTING
PEACE IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND HIS COMMITMENT TO THE SECURITY OF
ISRAEL. LITTLE OF WHAT HE SAYS IS INCONSISTENT WITH CURRENT
ADMINISTRATION POLICY, EXCEPT ON THESE POINTS:
-- FIRST, HE SEEMS WILLING TO DICTATE TO ISRAEL THEIR FINAL
BORDERS WITH THE ARAB STATES, FOR EXAMPLE, HE HAS SAID ISRAEL
SHOULD WITHDRAW TO THE 1967 BORDERS BUT KEEP THE GOLAN HEIGHTS
AND CONTROL OVER JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN HOLY PLACES IN JERUSALEM.
WE BELIEVE THAT TERMS SHOULD NOT BE DICTATED BY THE U.S. OR
ANY OTHER OUTSIDER BUT SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE PARTIES
THEMSELVES,
-- SECOND, HE APPARENTLY WANTS TO INVITE THE SOVIETS INTO
EVERY NEGOTIATION AND HAS EVEN TALKED ABOUT A SECRETLY NEGOTIATED
U.S.-SOVIET PLAN FOR DICTATING A FINAL SOLUTION FOR THE MIDDLE
EAST. ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE SOVIET RECORD IN THE MIDDLE
EAST MUST BE TROUBLED BY MR. CARTER'S SUGGESTIONS; I KNOW
THAT I AM, AND I DO NOT ACCEPT THEM.
THE COUNTRIES OF THE MIDDLE EAST ARE CLOSER TO A JUST AND
LASTING PEACE THAN AT ANY TIME IN SEVERAL YEARS; THAT IS DUE IN
PART TO THEIR OWN WISDOM AND IN PART TO THE VERY CONSTRUCTIVE POLI-
CIES OF THE UNITED STATES. I INTEND TO MAINTAIN THOSE POLICIES
AND PRESS FORWARD IN THE SEARCH FOR AN END TO TENSIONS AND
HOSTILITY,
TERRORISM
-- THERE IS ONLY ONE POLICY THAT WORKS SUCCESSFULLY AGAINST
TERRORISM: TO BE TOUGH AND AGGRESSIVE. Two COUNTRIES HAVE ADOPTED
THAT APPROACH -- ISRAEL AND THE UNITED STATES -- AND IN BOTH WE
HAVE ACHIEVED NOTABLE SUCCESS. IN THE U.S., THERE HAS BEEN ONLY
ONE CASE OF SKYJACKING IN THE PAST TWO YEARS, AND IT FAILED. TOUGH,
AGGRESSIVE POLICIES ARE THE BEST APPROACH HERE AND ELSEWHERE,
-- THE UN IS IN A UNIQUE POSITION AND SHOULD TACKLE THE PROBLEM
OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM HEAD ON,
-- WE INTRODUCED A DRAFT CONVENTION TO THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY
TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF TERRORIST VIOLENCE,
-- LAST SUMMER AFTER THE DRAMATICALLY SUCCESSFUL ISRAELI RAID
AT ENTEBEE, THE U.S. AND GREAT BRITAIN INTRODUCED A RESOLUTION
IN THE SECURITY COUNCIL CALLING UPON ALL COUNTRIES TO TAKE EVERY
NECESSARY MEASURE TO PREVENT AND PUNISH TERRORIST ACTS,
-- WE WILL WORK WITH OUR ALLIES AND FRIENDS TO:
EXCHANGE INTELLIGENCE
TEACH TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF PREVENTING TERRORISM
-- SECRETARY KISSINGER AT THE UN LAST WEEK EMPHASIZED OUR DETER-
MINATION TO PROCEED UNILATERALLY IF MULTINATIONAL ACTION IS NOT
FORTHCOMING.
(MORE)
TERRORISM, CONT'D
UNILATERAL
-- I HAVE ORDERED MAXIMUM SECURITY AT US AIRPORTS. THIS LED TO
A MARKED REDUCTION IN HIJACKING ATTEMPTS IN US,
-- (THE HIJACKING OF THE TWA PLANE DID NOT IN FACT CARRY WEAPONS
ONTO THE AIRCRAFT AND THIS CERTAINLY WAS A MAJOR FACTOR IN THE
SUCCESSFUL CONCLUSIONS OF THAT HIJACKING.)
-- I HAVE ESTABLISHED A SPECIAL TASK FORCE COMBINING FBI, FAA,
STATE, DEFENSE AND OTHERS TO DEAL WITH:
CRISES MANAGEMENT, AND
PROMOTING FIRM CONTROLS INTERNATIONALLY.
-- I HAVE INCREASED THE SECURITY OF OUR MISSIONS OVERSEAS,
ENVIRONMENT
THE UNITED STATES IS LOOKED UPON BY THE NATIONS OF THE
WORLD AS THE LEADER IN DEVELOPING INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS TO
CLEAN UP THE WORLD'S ENVIRONMENT.
My ADMINISTRATION HAS TAKEN THE LEAD IN MANY INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, SUCH AS RECENT ONES
WITH MEXICO AND JAPAN, AGREEMENTS WITH CANADA TO WORK FOR
REDUCTION OF POLLUTION IN THE GREAT LAKES, INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS
TO SAVE WHALES BY DRASTICALLY REDUCING WHALE QUOTAS,
WE HAVE TAKEN A STRONG STAND IN FAVOR OF POLLUTION CONTROL
IN THE WORLD'S OCEANS,
ENVIRONMENTAL REBUTTAL
PRESIDENT MAY BE CRITICIZED FOR SUPPORTING SST WHILE A CONGRESSMAN;
ALSO, ADMINISTRATION LET IN THE CONCORDE.
REPLY: SST AND CONCORDE DO NOT IN THEMSELVES HARM THE OZONE
LAYER. CONCORDES ARE so FEW THEIR ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WILL BE
MINISCULE,
ALSO MAY BE CRITICIZED FOR FAILING TO PROMOTE BAN ON FLUOROCARBONS.
REPLY: ADMINISTRATION WILL ACT WHEN DATA HAS BEEN THOROUGHLY
EVALUATED. NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE PANEL HAS RECOMMENDED TWO-
YEAR DELAY WHILE FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS ARE CARRIED OUT. CURRENT
FINDINGS INDICATE NEED FOR PROTECTION,
FOOD POLICY
WORLD FOOD PRODUCTION IS RAPIDLY RISING, SINCE 1967 FOOD
PRODUCTION HAS BEEN GOING UP FASTER THAN POPULATION. BUT THERE IS
STILL ENORMOUS UNMET NEED. FIRST WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE WAS HELD
AT MY INITIATIVE IN FALL OF 1974. OUR POLICY IS TWOFOLD:
1. A LONG-RANGE POLICY TO GIVE THE POORER COUNTRIES THE
TECHNOLOGICAL KNOW-HOW TO FEED THEMSELVES,
2. AN IMMEDIATE POLICY TO HELP MEET PRESSING FOOD SHORTAGES
IN SOME COUNTRIES. LONG-RANGE, WE ARE HELPING DEVELOP AGRI-
CULTURAL TECHNOLOGY THROUGH OUR FOREIGN AID PROGRAM. ALSO, WE
ARE PRESSING FOR AN INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM OF GRAIN RESERVES,
WE ALSO HAVE PROPOSED AN INTERNATIONAL FUND FOR AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT. CHIEF BOTTLENECK IS GETTING PARTICIPATION FROM
OPEC COUNTRIES,
(OVER)
To MEET IMMEDIATE NEEDS, WE ARE NOW PROVIDING SUBSTANTIAL
FOOD AID, IN FISCAL 1976, WE GAVE SIX MILLION TONS OF FOOD WORTH
ONE AND ONE HALF BILLION TO NATIONS WITH SERIOUS FOOD PROBLEMS,
POPULATION CONTROL
WE ARE WINNING THE WORLDWIDE FIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE POPULATION
GROWTH, IN THE LAST TEN YEARS, THE U.S. HAS SPENT CLOSE TO ONE
BILLION DOLLARS TO COMBAT THIS PROBLEM. THIS HELP HAS BEEN
EFFECTIVE, THE BIRTH RATE HAS FALLEN IN EAST ASIA AND CENTRAL
AMERICA, INDIA IS NOW MAKING PROGRESS, IN AFRICA, PROGRESS IS
JUST BEGINNING.
IN TEN MORE YEARS, AT OUR PRESENT RATE OF EFFORT, THE PROBLEM
SHOULD BE, TO A GREAT EXTENT, UNDER CONTROL. WE HAVE GIVEN ABOUT
60 PERCENT OF THE AID FROM DEVELOPED COUNTRIES IN THIS FIELD.
(SINCE 1973 WE HAVE GIVEN NO AID FOR ABORTION, OUR AID GOES
FOR BIRTH CONTROL AND EDUCATION.)
THE WORLD POPULATION PROBLEM IS A HUMANITARIAN PROBLEM.
-- WILL THERE BE ENOUGH FOOD?
-- WILL ALL CHILDREN OF THE WORLD HAVE PROPER MEDICAL CARE?
-- WILL THEY IN FACT SURVIVE THEIR CHILDHOOD?
No NATION HAS SHOWN AS MUCH COMPASSION IN DEALING WITH THESE
PROBLEMS. No NATION HAS DONE AS MUCH TO SOLVE THEM.
EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD BE PROUD OF OUR EFFORTS.
REBUTTAL ON POPULATION CONTROL
OUR AID HAS BEEN GENEROUS -- ABOUT 60 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
GIVEN BY DEVELOPED NATIONS.
THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION BETWEEN OUR AID GIVEN TO FAMILY
PLANNING ABROAD AND THE PRESIDENT'S POSITION ON ABORTION -- U.S.
FUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN USED TO SUPPORT ABORTION SINCE 1973.
MORALITY CAMERICAN VALUES)
WE HEAR A LOT OF TALK ABOUT MORALITY, I BELIEVE:
-- PUSHING BACK THE SPECTER OF NUCLEAR WAR, AS WE HAVE DONE
IN SALT, IS A MORAL POLICY;
-- MEDIATING CONFLICT, AS WE HAVE DONE IN THE MIDDLE EAST,
IS A MORAL POLICY,
-- AVERTING RACE WAR AND PROMOTING RECONCILIATION, AS WE HAVE
DONE IN AFRICA, IS A MORAL POLICY.
-- ORGANIZING WORLD COOPERATION TO PROMOTE FOOD PRODUCTION
AND ECONOMIC PROGRESS IN POORER COUNTRIES, IS A MORAL POLICY,
-- INSURING THE SOLIDARITY OF OUR ALLIANCES, FOR THE SURVIVAL
OF DEMOCRACY, IS A MORAL POLICY,
-- STANDING LOYALLY BY ALLIES WHO SEEK TO DEFEND THEMSELVES
AGAINST AGGRESSION IS A MORAL POLICY.
-- AND, FINALLY, KEEPING THE PEACE -- SAVING LIVES -- IS VERY
MORAL,
I THINK EVERY AMERICAN CAN BE PROUD OF WHAT THIS COUNTRY HAS DONE --
FOR PEACE, FOR FREEDOM, FOR PROGRESS, FOR JUSTICE, I AM SICK AND
TIRED OF HEARING OUR COUNTRY DENOUNCED AS IMMORAL BY PEOPLE WHO
CLEARLY DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT,
NUCLEAR WAR REBUTTAL
MR. CARTER HAS SAID THAT IF WE USE EVEN A SINGLE NUCLEAR
WEAPON WHEN ATTACKED IN EUROPE THAT THERE WOULD BE AN IMMEDIATE
ESCALATION INTO AN ALL-OUT NUCLEAR WAR.
THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS VIEW. IT IS A MAJOR CHALLENGE
TO THE MILITARY STRATEGY OF THE ATLANTIC ALLIANCE WHICH HAS BEEN
CAREFULLY WORKED OUT BY THE PAST THREE ADMINISTRATIONS. MR.
CARTER'S POSITION AMOUNTS TO A VIRTUAL GUARANTEE TO THE SOVIETS
THAT THEY COULD LAUNCH AN ATTACK IN EUROPE AND THAT THE ONLY
CHOICE FOR THE UNITED STATES MIGHT BE DEFEAT OR MASSIVE
RETALIATION,
I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THIS VIEWPOINT. OUR TACTICAL
NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN EUROPE ARE CRITICAL TO DETERRING AGGRESSION,
SECOND, THEY GIVE THE ALLIANCE THE CAPABILITY TO MEET ATTACK AT
WHATEVER LEVEL THEY ARE LAUNCHED.
I WILL NOT CREATE A CRISIS IN THE WESTERN ALLIANCE BY SUGGESTING
WE WOULD WITHHOLD OUR NUCLEAR DETERRENT UNLESS THE UNITED STATES
ITSELF WAS ATTACKED.
GERALD RRFORD LIBRARY
B-1
1. FOR SEVERAL YEARS, ONE OF CLEAREST AMERICAN ADVANTAGES OVER
THE SOVIETS HAS BEEN THE SUPERIORITY OF OUR MANNED BOMBING FORCE,
VITAL THAT WE MAINTAIN THAT SUPERIORITY BECAUSE BOMBERS CARRY ALMOST
HALF OF OUR NUCLEAR MEGATTONAGE; BOMBERS CAN ALSO BE SENT ON MIS-
SIONS AND THEN BE RECALLED.
2. BUT THE KEY TO OUR BOMBING FORCE, THE B-52, HAS BECOME OLD
AND BECAUSE OF ADVANCING SOVIET TECHNOLOGY, CAN NO LONGER SAFELY
PENETRATE SOVIET AIR DEFENSES, WE NEED A REPLACEMENT.
3. Two FORMER PRESIDENT, SIX SECRETARIES OF DEFENSE AND THE PAST
FIVE CONGRESSES HAVE ALL CONCLUDED THAT THE B-1 IS THE BEST REPLACE-
MENT BECAUSE IT CAN PENETRATE SOVIET AIR DEFENSES,
4. MR. CARTER AND I TOTALLY DISAGREE ABOUT THE B-1. I AM FOR
IT AND WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH PRODUCTION. MR. CARTER CAN'T MAKE
UP HIS MIND. THE B-1 IS A GOOD AIRCRAFT, AND AFTER IT SUCCESSFULLY
COMPLETES ITS CURRENT TESTING, THE U.S. SHOULD BUILD A B-1 FLEET.
5. LET'S ALSO REALIZE THAT IN ADDITION TO AMERICANS WATCHING US
TONIGHT, FOREIGN LEADERS ARE ALSO CAREFULLY OBSERVING US. I'M
TROUBLED BY WHAT THE KREMLIN MUST THINK WHEN IT HEARS A SERIOUS
CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY TALKING ABOUT FORFEITING ONE OF ITS
MOST IMPORTANT ADVANTAGES WE HAVE AGAINST THEM.
6. As A GENERAL RULE, I DON'T THINK THAT A U.S. PILOT SHOULD BE
SENT UP IN AN AIRCRAFT THAT IS OLDER THAN HE IS.
$5 - 7 BILLION CUT IN THE DEFENSE BUDGET
1. MOST OF MR. CARTER'S REMARKS ON DEFENSE FOCUS ON BUDGET CUTS,
HE SAYS, "WE CAN CUT BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM OUR DEFENSE
BUDGET AND AT THE SAME TIME INCREASE OUR ABILITY TO DEFEND
OURSELVES,"
MR. CARTER HAS USED AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT FIGURES FOR
THE AMOUNT THE DEFENSE BUDGETS CAN BE CUT:
-- $12-15 BILLION IN MARCH 1976;
-- $7-8 BILLION IN JANUARY 1976;
-- $5-7 BILLION MOST RECENTLY.
2. WE HAVE NO "FAT" LEFT TO CUT, LAST JANUARY, I DIRECTED A
SERIES OF MEASURES TO IMPROVE EFFICIENCY WHICH WILL SAVE $2.3
BILLION THIS YEAR AND UP TO $40 BILLION OVER THE NEXT FIFTEEN
YEARS,
IMPLEMENTED EFFICIENCIES IN FEDERAL PAY SYSTEMS TO
ASSURE THAT FEDERAL PAY DOES NOT EXCEED PAY IN THE
PRIVATE SECTOR,
ISSUED TIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON DEFENSE TRAVEL COSTS,
REDUCED THE NUMBER OF SENIOR OFFICIALS BY 4-5%.
REDUCED THE SIZE OF MANAGEMENT HEADQUARTERS.
EXPANDED THE NUMBER OF ACTIVITIES PERFORMED ON CONTRACTS
BY THE PRIVATE SECTOR RATHER THAN BY FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.
(MORE)
3, SOME RESTRAINT MEASURES REQUIRED APPROVAL BY THE CONGRESS.
THESE INCLUDED:
BASIC CHANGES IN COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT OF MILITARY
PERSONNEL.
REVISIONS TO THE FEDERAL BLUE COLLAR PAY SYSTEM.
THE SALE OF ITEMS FROM THE NATIONAL STOCKPILE WHICH ARE
EXCESS TO OUR NEEDS.
THESE AND OTHER RESTRAINTS WOULD SAVE THE TAXPAYERS $1 BILLION
THIS YEAR ALONE, AND MORE THAN $80 BILLION OVER THE NEXT FIFTEEN-
YEAR PERIOD. BUT CONGRESS VOTED TO ALLOW US TO INSTITUTE LESS
THAN HALF THE SAVINGS WE PROPOSED,
4. BUT MR. CARTER WANTS A $7 BILLION CUT IN THE PRESENT BUDGET,
THIS MEANS HE WILL CUT INTO THE MUSCLE, MR. CARTER HAS YET TO
SPECIFY WHERE HE WOULD MAKE HIS $5-7 BILLION CUTS. HE SHOULD
BE CRITICIZING THE DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS FOR NOT PASSING THE
MEASURES WHICH I HAVE ALREADY PROPOSED,
IT'S ONE THING TO PROMISE TO REORGANIZE GOVERNMENT BUT REFUSE
TO SAY HOW, AND IT MAY JUST BE CAMPAIGN RHETORIC TO PROMISE
TAX REFORM AND NOT SAY HOW. BUT IT CAN BE TRULY IRRESPONSIBLE
FOR AN INEXPERIENCED CANDIDATE TO PROMISE TO CUT $5-7 BILLION
FROM THE DEFENSE BUDGET AND NOT SAY HOW.
ARAB BOYCOTT/DISCRIMINATION
I HAVE TAKEN THE STRONGEST ACTION AGAINST THE BOYCOTT AND
DISCRIMINATION OF ANY PRESIDENT SINCE ISRAEL WAS FOUNDED,
-- NEARLY A YEAR AGO I DIRECTED THE COMMERCE DEPARTMENT AND
ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES TO PROHIBIT COMPLIANCE WITH DISCRIMINA-
TORY PRACTICES IN FOREIGN TRADE,
-- THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS LAUNCHED THE FIRST ANTI-TRUST SUIT
IN A MAJOR BOYCOTT CASE,
-- I SIGNED THE TAX BILL, WHICH HAD SEVERE PENALTIES AGAINST
U.S. FIRMS THAT PARTICIPATE IN THE BOYCOTT OR DISCRIMINATION.
BUT BEYOND THIS WE HAVE SEEN IN CONGRESS MEASURES THAT ARE
SO ONE-SIDED THAT THEY WILL UNDERMINE OUR MEDIATING ROLE IN THE
MIDDLE EAST AND PRACTICALLY INVITE THE SOVIETS TO REESTABLISH
THEMSELVES' IN THE ARAB WORLD.
IT'S AN EFFECTIVE BID FOR VOTES BUT IT'S NOT IN THE NATIONAL
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OR IN THE INTEREST OF PEACE IN THE
MIDDLE EAST.
A POLITICIAN CAN TELL YOU WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR; A PRESIDENT
HAS TO TELL YOU THE FACTS.
ANSWER TO EVERY CARTER ATTACK
1. WE ARE AT PEACE -- THE ULTIMATE TEST OF OUR FOREIGN AND
DEFENSE POLICIES,
2. MR. CARTER, IF ELECTED, WOULD GO INTO OFFICE AS THE MOST
INEXPERIENCED PRESIDENT IN FOREIGN AND DEFENSE AFFAIRS
SINCE THE LATE 1800's.
CARTER FLIP FLOPS ON DEFENSE SPENDING
March, 1975: Supports $15 billion cut
Carter said he thinks the Ford defense budget could be
reduced by about 15 billion without sacrificing national
security.
Los Angeles Times
March 20, 1975
November, 1975: Talks of $7-8 billion cut
"I would not agree that we need a cut in the major
expenditures for our defense below a figure such
as $7 or 8 billion."
Presentation to National Democratic
Issues Conference, Louisville, Ky.
November 23, 1975
June, 1976: Supports cuts of $5 to $7 billion
"Without endangering the defense of our nation or our
commitments to our allies, we can reduce present defense
expenditures by about $5 to $7 billion annually."
Carter Recommendations to
the Democratic Platform
June, 1976
Quoted by Common Cause,
"How They Stand", August 24, 1876
October 3, 1976
D. G.
LESS DEVELOPED: NEGLECT
PROBLEM:
2 BILLION OF WORLD"S POOR LIVE IN OVER 100
COUNTRIES
THEY NEED AID; CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT; AND MARKETS
FOR THEIR PRODUCTS FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH.
US AID:
WE LARGEST SINGLE DONOR: 3 BILLION IN AID AND
ASSISTANCE; MOST HUMANITARIAN IN FOOD AND
MEDICAL CARE; $1 BILLION TO THIRD WORLD
POPULATION
US TAKEN LEAD: TO HELP LESS DEVELOPED, SUPPORT
LOANS FROM INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTIONAL; $375
MILLION US CONTRIBUTION THIS YEAR
CONGRESS CUTS: TOTAL EFFORT ECONOMIC, ASSISTANCE, MILITARY IS
$5 BILLION, CONGRESS CUT BY OVER $680 MILLION.
BURDEN:
CAN't GO HIGHER: AMERICAN PEOPLE ALREADY BEAR
HEAVY BURDEN
REBUTTAL
GIVE MORE:
WE ALREADY LARGEST SINGLE DONOR OF AID; WE GIVE
3 1/3 OF WORLD TOTAL: $5 BILLION IN ALL TYPES OF
AID THIS YEAR: $3 BILLION IN ECONOMIC AND
SUPPORT ASSISTANCE.
$700 MILLION TO INTERNATIONAL FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
REQUEST FOR $1 BILLION, CONGRESS CUT BY $300
MILLION.
CARTER
WANTS ABOUT $4 BILLION INCREASE. WHERE DOES
PROPOSALS:
INCREASE COME, WHEN CONGRESS CUT OVERALL
ASSISTANCE BY $680 MILLION.
KEY IS LONG TERM SOLUTION. CAN'T SIMPLY GO ON
GIVING MONEY WITHOUT LONG TERM PROGRAMS. HE
WANTS COMMODITY AGREEMENTS: THEY HIKE PRICES
AND DISTORT MARKET, WE TREAT CASE-BY-CASE.
US INITIATIVES: IN UN AND IN INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES, US TAKEN
LEAD IN PROPOSING NEW PROGRAMS. BEGAN WITH
WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE (Nov 74), UNGA SPECIAL
SESSION LAST YEAR.
ARMS SALES
WHO GETS:
BULK OF OUR ARMS SALES ARE TO CLOSE FRIENDS AND
ALLIES.
ISRAEL RECEIVED OVER $4. 2 BILLION IN MILITARY
ASSISTANCE LAST TWO YEARS.
ACTUAL SALES IN FY 76: $2.1 3 BILLION, ABOUT 1/3 FOR
ISRAEL
CASH SALES:
IN 1950s USED TO GRANT AID, NOW WE SELL AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE FOR CASH: BECAUSE OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE
RECOVERED THEIR ECONOMIC POSITION
COST OF
COST OF MODERN FIGHTER UP SEVERAL TIMES: CAN'T
EQUIPMENT:
COMPARE WITH EARLY YEARS.
WHAT IS SOLD:
ONLY 40 PERCENT (1975-76) FOR WEAPONS AND AMMUNI-
TION.
IRAN EXAMPLE: MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO IRAN STARTED BY TRUMAN;
JOHNSON SOLD MOST MODERN FIGHTER (F-4) IN 1966.
IRAN CLOSE FRIEND, DID NOT JOIN OIL EMBARGO AGAINST
US OR ISRAEL: NOW WANTS REPLACE FIGHTERS: WANTS
BEST: PAYS FOR IT. HOW CAN WE BE FRIEND AND DENY
COUNTRY DEFENSE, WHEN BORDERED BY SOVIET UNION
AND IRAQ, WHICH SOVIETS SUPPLY.
REBUTTAL
SELLING BOTH
WE SELL ARMS TO ISRAEL FOR SELF DEFENSE; OVER
SIDES:
$4.2 BILLION, IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE LAST TWO YEARS:
ONLY MIDDLE EAST COUNTRY THAT GETS US ARMS
SAUDI ARABIA, SMALL PROGRAM FOR SELF DEFENSE
FIGHTER PLANES; NOT AFFECT BALANCE.
CLEARLY IN OUR INTEREST TO STRENGTHEN MODERATE
GOVERNMENTS THAT WILL HELP IN PEACE SETTLEMENT:
ALTERNATIVE IS LET SOVIET DOMINATE WITH ARMS TO
ALL ARABS.
ARMS RACE:
OVER HALF IS FOR CONSTRUCTION, TRAINING, SUPPLIES,
MERCHANTS
AND so FORTH.
OF DEATH
AID TO DICTATORS: CAN'T BLACKMAIL COUNTRIES BY DENYING SELF
DEFENSE: CONGRESS ATTACK ON SOUTH KOREA, WHEN
THAT COUNTRY FACING 500,000 ON BORDER; US DENIAL OI
AID WILL UNDERMINE PEACE, OR FORCE COUNTRIES TO
TURN ELSEWHERE -- OR GO NUCLEAR. CAN't STOP ARMS
S ALES UNLESS ALL COUNTRIES AGREE (CARTER SAYS
HE'LL DO IT UNILATERALLY IF OTHERS DON't AGREE).
TERRORISM
-- The UN is in a unique position and should tackle the
problem of international terrorism head on.
-- The most pressing need is to deny sanctuary to hijackers
and other terrorists.
United States
--
introduced a draft convention to the UN General
Assembly
,
to prevent the spread of terrorist violence.
-- Last summer after the dramatically successful Israeli raid,
the US and the UK introduced a resolution in the Security Council calling
upon all countries to take every necessary measure to prevent and
punish terrorist acts.
-- If forced to, we will work with our Allies and friends to:
Exchange intelligence
Teach technical aspects of preventing terrorism
Exchange visits by US experts.
The West German Government, with our encouragement, has
put forward a draft international agreement to ban the taking of hostages.
We are supporting this effort.
-- Secretary Kissinger at the UN last week emphasized our
determination to proceed unilaterally if multinational action is not forthcoming.
- 2 -
Unilateral
- - I have ordered maximum security at US airports. This
led to a marked reduction in hijacking attempts in US.
-- (The hijacking of the TWA plane did not in fact carry weapons
onto the aircraft and this certainly was a major factor in the successful
conclusion of that hijacking.)
- - I have established a special Task Force combining FBI,
FAA, State, Defense and others to deal with:
crises management, and
promoting firm controls internationally.
-- I have increased the security of our missions overseas.
WHO'S IN CHARGE OF FOREIGN POLICY
The best combination is a strong President and a strong
Secretary of State. This is how it was with General Marshall and
Dean Acheson under President Truman.
Henry Kissinger is one of the greatest Secretaries of State
we have ever had, and I'm proud he is on my team.
Let's take the African policy: The Secretary and I spent two
meetings on strategy before he left. He sent me one or two reports
every day, and I saw him immediately after he returned.
In the last analysis, the President is accountable. That's how
it should be -- whether a President negotiates or participates directly
(as I did at Vladivostok, or the Economic Summits, or in my 125 meetings
with foreign leaders) or whether a President makes the basic decisions
and asks the Secretary of State to carry it out (as in the successful
Middle East and African negotiations).
Some Democratic Presidents who thought they could be "their
own Secretary of State" have gotten us into some of the worst disasters.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
October 1, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MIKE DUVAL
FROM:
DAVE GERGEN
Here are the flip card materials which we discussed.
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
FOREIGN POLICY GOALS
1. My overriding goal is that four years from now, as I
prepare to leave public office, America will still be at
peace and America will still have the strength and the will
to keep the peace.
2. I can assure you that we will seriously jeopardize our
hopes for peace:
-- If we begin dismantling our military forces;
-- If we begin precipitous withdrawals from key areas
such as Korea and Europe; and,
-- If we sew doubt and misunderstandings through fuzzy
or contradictory statements about our intentions. The world is
still too dangerous and hostile to place our future in the hands
of those who might waver or blink when we're eyeball-to-eyeball
with the Russians.
3. Through steady, skillful diplomacy and through continued
military strength, the U.S. has great opportunities in the next
four years:
-- We can reach sound agreements to reduce the arms race;
-- We can resolve the tensions that still exist in the
Middle East and Africa;
-- We can provide continued leadership to solve the world's
economic troubles; and,
- 2 -
-- We can continue at the forefront of efforts to provide
enough food, enough energy and enough security for the poorer
nations to meet their people's needs.
If we move steadily toward those goals, we will greatly enhance
the prospects for peace through not only the end of the decade
but through the end of the century and beyond.
WHO RUNS FOREIGN POLICY: KISSINGER OR FORD
This is a subject that has attracted far more heat than light.
Let me try to shed some light on it.
Dr. Kissinger happens to be a superb international negotiator ---
the best in the world, so far as I can tell. And it has been
in that role that he has negotiated the terms of many, many
international agreements - from the SALT agreement in the
last Administration to the Sinai accord and the African agree-
ment in this Administration. In this role, he has made an
outstanding contribution to America and to the cause of peace.
We should all be grateful to him.
But I don't need to tell you where the final responsibility
rests for decisions shaping the overall direction and thrust
of American foreign policy. That responsibility rests in the
Oval Office; it has been there in the past and it remains
there today. It is the President -- and only the President -
who can decide where to send our troops, who can decide how
many missiles and bombers and ships we need to protect our
security, and who can decide whether the moment of truth has
arrived in the nuclear age. That is never an easy responsibility,
but it is one that I welcome.
CONTINUATION OF NIXON-HAK FOREIGN POLICY
Issue: Impact of GRF upon foreign policy inherited from RN-HAK.
1. In early days of my Administration, I made a conscious effort
to carry forward the great foreign policy traditions of the post-
war era:
-- It was urgent that our friends and allies understood that
America would remain the strongest peacemaker in the world. We
have ended their fears. (For example, I called NATO ambassadors
in for a meeting the day I took office to reassure them that
America would be steadfast in its commitments.)
-- It was equally urgent that our adversaries understand
that U.S. foreign policy was not going to break down in the midst
of a constitutional crisis. It was a time of great testing for
us. Every new President is always tested by the Soviets; JFK
was tested by Khruschev in Vienna and if Mr. Carter is elected, he
will be severely tested. I felt that in those early days it was
vital to stand firm with the Soviets; we did that, and I am now
beyond testing into a period of mutual respect and progress.
2. So continuity was important in early days, but since that time
we have moved vigorously on several fronts where new progress and
new initiatives seemed possible. And we've made striking break-
throughs:
-- New accords in the Middle East;
-- New agreements in Southern Africa;
FORD & LIBRARY 078870
- 2 -
-- Coordinated attack on worldwide recession led by
U.S.;
-- New U.S. proposals to meet future food needs, assist
developing nations.
Each of these represents a Ford Administration initiative and
a Ford Administration breakthrough. Each has furthered the cause
of peace.
U.S. AND THE MIDDLE EAST
1. The Middle East is a focal point of our foreign
policy for three major reasons:
-- Strategically, it is at a crossroads of the
world;
-- Economically, it sits atop the largest known
supply of petroleum in the world;
-- And morally, we are committed to the survival
and security of Israel.
2. Four times in the past quarter century, the Arabs
and Israelis have gone to war. A major preoccupation of
my Administration has been to reduce the tensions and
achieve a just and lasting peace. Our approach -- step-
by-step diplomacy -- has paid off:
-- Egyptian-Israeli disengagement agreement of
January, 1974;
-- Syria-Israeli agreement of May, 1974;
-- Egyptian-Israeli Sinai agreement of September, 1975.
Not only has this kept the peace, but Soviet influence in
most of the area -- as Rabin has said -- is at its lowest
ebb in 20 years.
3. Clearly, the forward momentum must continue. We are
flexible about the means to achieve the ultimate goal, but
we are unbending in our desire to move forward.
- 2 -
4. We will proceed, of course, in consultation with
Israel. We are a steadfast friend. Forty percent of
all U.S. postwar aid to Israel has come in the two years
of this Administration.
5. Israel's current proposal - substantial territorial
concessions in return for an end to the state of war -- is
one that should certainly be discussed.
REBUTTAL TO CARTER ON MIDDLE EAST
1. I welcome Mr. Carter's evident desire to achieve a lasting
peace in the Middle East and his commitment to the security of
Israel. Little of what he says is inconsistent with current
Administration policy, except on these points:
-- First he seems willing to dictate to Israel their
final borders with the Arab states. For example, he has
said Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders but keep the
Golan Heights and control over Jewish and Christian holy places
in Jerusalem. We believe that terms should not be dictated by
the U.S. or any other outsider but should be determined by the
parties themselves.
-- Second, he apparently wants to invite the Soviets into
every negotiation and has even talked about a secretly negotiated
U.S. -Soviet plan for dictating a final solution for the Middle
East. Anyone familiar with the Soviet record in the Middle East
must be troubled by Mr. Carter's suggestions; I know that I am,
and I do not accept them.
The countries of the Middle East are closer to a just and lasting
peace then at any time in several years; that is due in part to
their own wisdom and in part to the very constructive policies of
the United States. I intend to maintain those policies and press
forward in the search for an end to tensions and hostility.
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
RELATIONS WITH ALLIES
Relations with our allies have never been better. We have repound
undone the damage done by the years of neglect un
-- I have met with all our allied leaders. They have confidence
in our policy.
-- The Economic Summits (Rambouillet, November 1975;
Puerto Rico, June 1976) were milestone Cooperation
now extends beyond defense to cooperation on economic
and energy policy.
-- We have beefed up NATO defenses.
-- Our cooperation with France is closer than before.
-- Spain and Portugal are moving steadily toward democracy.
-- We have a common position in the East-West talks on troop
cuts.
-- I was the first American President to visit Japan.
-- My basic principle that we stand by all allies -- Israel,
Korea, Iran, as well as our NATO allies and Japan --
because if we fail to stand firm in one place, we undermine
the confidence of our allies and only hearten our adversaries.
AK
REBUTTAL ON MORALITY
We hear a lot of talk about morality. I believe:
-- Pushing back the specter of nuclear war, as we have
done in SALT, is a moral policy;
-- Mediating conflict, as we have done in the Middle East
is a moral policy.
-- Averting race war and promoting reconciliation, as we
have done in Africa, is a moral policy.
-- Organizing world cooperation to promote food production
and economic progress in poorer countries is a moral policy.
-- Insuring the solidarity of our alliances, for the survival
of democracy, is a moral policy.
-- Standing loyally by allies who seek to defend themselves
against aggression is a moral policy.
I think every American can be proud of what this country has
done -- for peace, for freedom, for progress, for justice. I am sick
and tired of hearing our country denounced as immoral by people who
clearly don't know what they' re talking about.
FORD is 01RALD LIBRARY
REBUTTAL ON SECRECY
My record in foreign policy is there for all to see.
After the Sinai Agreement, every single document was turned
over to the foreign affairs committees of the Congress. There was fuller
disclosure of that negotiation to the Congress than ever before.
There have been more White House meetings with Congressmen,
more speeches and testimony by a Secretary of State, than at any time in
the recent past.
Diplomacy can't be conducted without confidentiality during
negotiations and Mr. Carter knows it. Who would negotiate on the
delicate question of arms control, or the Middle East in the glare of TV
cameras?
After all, the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was not held
in public and its proceedings weren't published for 30 years. Because
that's the only way you can have free and candid discussion and negotiation.
Bud
2
DEFENSE ECONOMIES
Q:
You have criticized the Congress for failing to enact measures
to save $4 billion in defense spending. At the same time you
criticized Governor Carter for suggesting that there is $5 billion
"fat" in the defense budget. How can you have it both ways?
A:
The economies I proposed to the Congress would result
from improved efficiency in management and isfair equitable savings
from changes
in pay bschedules scales. In no case did I propose a cut that affected any
weapons system or the battle strenth of our forces
Governor Carter's proposals include withdrawals of forces
from overseas which are critical to deterrence and the firmness
of our relations with allies. He also proposes scrapping the
B-1 and leaving us with a 30-year old bomber. These are cuts
in muscle, not fat.
Reichley
MORALITY IN FOREIGN POLICY
The first responsibility of any American President is
to promote the security and wellbeing of the people of the
United States. This does not, of course, mean that the
President should be callous or ruthless in his conduct
of foreign policy. Among nations, as among individuals,
good manners and a decent respect for the rights of others
generally lead to a more productive result.
It does, however, mean that we must at times deal with
and work with governments whose internal policies we do
not wholly approve -- or even of which we strongly
disapprove. Our collaboration with the Soviet Union in
World War II is an example of this. In more recent years,
we have given economic or military support to some
dictatorial regimes, simply because their strategic
objectives coincided with ours. When issues affecting world
peace are at stake, we must at times overcome our scruples
in accepting partners who are not exactly proponents
of Jeffersonian democracy.
All this being said, we must never resign ourselves to the
view that moral values have no place in the conduct of
foreign policy -- the view held by some of the foreign
policy experts who Jimmy Carter says have influenced
his thinking.
The United States, before it was a place or even a people,
was an idea -- the idea that men and women can live together
in a free society in which the welfare of each is the concern
of all, as expressed in our Declaration of Independence and
Constitution. We have very imperfectly embodied this idea
in our institutions and practices, but we have never given
it up, and we have never ceased trying to bring it closer to
practical reality.
If we were to give up our hold on the American idea, we would
lose our identity as a nation. We do not trace our existence
to an ancestral past, like Britain or France, or to a theory
of history, like the Soviet Union or the Peoples Republic
of China, but to a belief about the kind of society that
best serves the needs and aspirations of human beings. If
we were to abandon that belief, we would be nothing but a
collection of warring interests, regions, and classes.
-2-
The American idea has implications for foreign policy as
well as for domestic goals. For the first century-and-a-
half or so of our history, we thought of ourselves as chiefly
a model of democracy for other nations to copy, if they
chose -- a "city on the hill." This is still to a great
extent our proper role. We have neither the means nor the
desire nor the right to impose our forms of society or
government on other peoples or other nations.
As our military and economic power have grown, however,
our international responsibilities have similarly
increased. We cannot pretend that our impact on other
nations of the world is morally neutral. The way we
dispose our military strength deeply affects the social
futures of peoples all over the world. The outreach of the
dynamic American economy is a powerful force for change in
most parts of the globe. What the United States does
matters in the world -- is bound to matter. An individual
must take responsibility for the consequences of his
acts. So must a nation.
Advancement of the general cause of human rights and human
freedom is part -- not all, but part -- of the foreign
policy objectives of the United States. Wherever men and
women are tortured or unjustly imprisoned by brutal
dictatorships, we are in trouble. Wherever governments
or ruling oligarchies exploit the labor of their peoples,
our national interest suffers. Wherever nations without
provocation attack or threaten their neighbors, our welfare
too is at stake. Wherever assassination and terrorism become
accepted means of political action, we are endangered.
It is for this reason, as well as because of our direct
strategic interests, that we use our influence, wherever we
can, to promote social and economic justice, to end torture
and terrorism, to produce peaceful settlement of
differences among nations.
Our alliances and ties with Canada, the democracies of Western
Europe, Israel, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand are based
in part on common strategic interests, in part on ethnic bonds
with some of these peoples -- but also in large part on
common dedication to the ideals of a free society.
-3-
We should not delude ourselves into imagining that economic
self-interest does not play a large part in motivating our
conduct in world affairs. Of course it does - - no
American government that neglected our own economic needs
could or should survive for an instant. Nor should we
allow other nations to fall into the delusion that their
own long-run economic progress depends on anything other than
increases in their own productivity.
But we do, as members of the human race, accept
responsibility to maintain respect for the legitimate
rights of individuals and nations, and to do what we can --
which often will be frustratingly little -- to better the
general human lot.
FORD is GERALD LIBRARY
Reichley
DEFINITION OF NATIONAL INTEREST
America's national interest, simply expressed, is that
which promotes the peace and wellbeing of the people
of the United States. Because of our far-reaching
economic and military involvements in many parts of the
globe, our national interest is affected by political or
social changes within or among nations far beyond our
boundaries. Some would argue that we should abandon these
distant economic and military involvements, so that our
national interest would be limited to protection against
direct threats to the physical security of the United
States. Of course, we can become over-extended --
perhaps were in the 1960s. But if the United States were
to become isolated in the world, we almost surely would
suffer severe internal social, economic, and political
dislocations. Besides, our national interest is tied up
with our general identification with the cause of human
freedom and human rights. We have an interest in promoting
the rights and welfare of others, where we can, because
that is part of our idea of ourselves as a nation.
In general, our national interest is limited by two
considerations: our national interest does not lie beyond
where we can be effective; and possible benefits must always
be measured against costs. For example, some element of our
national interest is affected by the possibility of war
between Kenya and Uganda. But not enough to justify any
large commitment of our national prestige, or to run the
risk of adverse reactions from the parties directly
involved or from other African states. Prevention of a
race war in southern Africa, in contrast, is of sufficient
importance to our national interest to justify a major
diplomatic effort.
LIBRARY GERALD = FORM
AFRICA
$
This past year, events in Africa threatened to get out of control.
Because we failed to stop Soviet-Cuban intervention in Angola, the trend
toward radicalism and violence was sharply accelerated. Guerrilla war
was underway.
Because we alone had the trust of both sides, we were asked by
many African leaders to use our good offices to help promote peaceful
solutions while there was still time. That 's why I sent Secretary Kissinger
to Africa in April and in September.
Our initiative was warmly welcomed by Africans of all races. We
worked closely with Britain which has an historical responsibility for Rhodesia.
Our success last month is only the beginning of a process. But
Britain has now called for the negotiation to begin, and we believe it
will succeed.
Protecion
townt must
REBUTTAL ON AFRICA
Africans want their future determined by Africans, free of
outside interference.
We succeeded in this mediation effort because we had the trust
of both sides.
The Democrats' policy of weakness -- such as failing to meet
our responsibility in Angola -- only accelerated the trends of radicalism
and violence in southern Africa. It gave a green light to foreign intervention.