Cameros Lectures

Transcription

From the Louis Alexander Palestra

at the University of Rochester.

WXXI Presents On Campus with Jimmy Carter.

Good evening.

It is a pleasure to welcome the many members

of the University and the Rochester communities.

Who have gathered on a historic occasion

to hear the second annual lecture on the theme

Striving for a Just Society.

It is a rare honor for the university

to be host to a man who recently led the nation,

and was central

to the thoughts and hopes of most of the world.

These lectures are given in honor of Maurice

Cameros and his family, warm

and generous friends of the University.

We count as our graduates

not only Maurice and his wife Alice,

but also their daughter Judith

and their daughter in law, Nancy.

Maurice has for many years held a high place

in the community's esteem

as a businessman of integrity

and a tireless worker for the benefit of all its people.

We were most pleased two years ago

when Maurice and his son Alan came to us with the idea\

for the lectures and the resources

for making them a reality.

Three of our most distinguished faculty members

serve as a committee to carry out

the intentions of the lectures.

Lewis White Beck, Burbank Professor Emeritus of Moral

and Intellectual Philosophy. Richard F. Fenno

Jr, William Kenan Professor of Political Science

and distinguished professor of Arts and Science.

And Walter Y. Oi,

Elmer B. Milliman Professor of Economics.

It was their inspiration that selected

our guest of honor this evening, and we are grateful

with the Cameros family and all of you in the audience.

I look forward with anticipation

to this evening's lecture, which is to be delivered

by the 39th president of the United States.

President Carter.

Thank you very much.

President Sproull To the Cameros family

and to the audience who've come here tonight to hear

the second in a series of lectures

entitled, as President Sproull

said, Striving for a Just Society.

After being given this general topic.

I had the responsibility of deciding

what my specific subject should be.

I read the speech of Leo

Cherne, delivered here about a year ago.

It was a very incisive, very scholarly

and very productive and I think useful speech.

I decided this evening

to to make a relatively brief speech

and then to spend as much time as I could answering

your questions about issues that are important to you.

But the brevity of my

opening remarks is not any reflection

on the importance of the subject.

I'm going to talk about human rights in a way

that I hope will be understandable

and to some degree inspirational to you.

It's the kind of subject

that people would like to avoid.

They don't like to be responsible for.

The violations of human rights,

nor for the avoidance of responsibility.

I try to think of a story

to illustrate this inclination,

natural human inclination,

not to be responsible for problems.

The only one I can think of on the way up here

this afternoon was

the drunk who was arrested

and brought before the judge because he was intoxicated

and because he set the bed on fire

and the drunk stood before the judge.

As a judge, I plead guilty to being drunk,

but the bed was on fire when I got it.

I think this is a kind of approach

that a lot of us take.

And tonight I'm going to put it in personal

and also national terms.

The basic issue of human rights,

which I think is one of the more important.

Today on Earth,

I'm going to ask you to put yourself into

into the personal aspect of being our country.

But I'm going to cast it

originally in terms of a small village,

and I'd like for you to imagine

that you are quite wealthy

and the most influential citizen

in this hometown village.

Most of your good friends share the fine life

that you and your life and your family live.

Have you known that in nearby houses,

many small children are ragged and sick?

Few of them attend school

and some in your own village are starving to death.

You know that innocent people are forced to work

almost as slaves,

and some of them are locked for years and dark rooms

are closets

forbidden to make contact with the outside world.

In one area, a prominent bully

visits various homes at night,

professing to the public

that he's just just dealing with troublemakers.

But he forces parents

and the children to go away with him in the darkness,

and they are never again seen alive.

Later, many of their bodies are found floating

on the surface of a nearby river.

Certain kinds of people in your village

are not permitted to vote,

or to meet with others, even to discuss public affairs,

and they cannot own

property without fear of its being confiscated.

One outspoken critic of some of the abuses,

a kind of local folk hero,

has recently returned to his neighborhood.

But he was killed

as he stepped out of his automobile.

Now, these are not just rumors,

but they are known by you to be facts.

Your own life is based on a belief

in basic human freedoms,

and you know that each household in your neighborhood

has signed a written agreement.

To conform to the high principles

which have guided your life.

Those who suffer know you

to be a person of high moral character, strong and able.

If you wish

to expose their plight

and to help them.

However, some of the more prominent malefactors

are very

important customers in your local store,

which is very prosperous

and you are somewhat reluctant to endanger your own

family's income by alienating these powerful people.

And you gain a little extra advantage over

some of your competitors because

you have women and minority employees and don't pay them

standard wages.

In this simplistic example,

which I won't pursue any further, are illustrations

and charges

that face the United States within the world community,

under the overall heading of human rights.

The prevailing circumstances in the world are,

if anything, much more troubling than what I've described to you.

And no matter how reluctant we are to confront them,

the questions and circumstances will not go away.

But as a candidate and then as president of our country,

I knew many of these facts.

I also knew that some of my own predecessors

in the White House, like Harry Truman,

had brought our nation to the forefront in the world

community in trying to enhance human liberty.

He spoke consistently, and often, of his commitment,

so there could be no doubt

in the minds of anyone on earth

about the policy of the United States.

He believed that the search for peace

also meant a search for justice and human dignity.

Listen to a few of his words, and I'm quoting

Harry Truman.

"The attainment of worldwide respect

for essential human rights is synonymous

with the attainment of world peace.

The people of the world want a peaceful world,

a prosperous world, and a free world.

And where the basic rights of man

everywhere are observed and respected.

There will be such a world."

He added, "On us as a nation rests

the responsibility of taking a position of leadership

in the struggle for human rights.

We cannot turn aside from the task

if we wish to remain true to the vision

of our forefathers

and the ideals that have made our history what it is."

unquote.

That was about 30 years before I became president.

Beginning with my own inaugural address, I made clear

that these same principles would guide our nation.

While I served in the White House.

A substantial portion of my brief speech

on Inauguration Day was devoted to the subject

of human rights and among other things,

I said, because we are free.

We can never be indifferent

to the fate of freedom elsewhere.

We put put the subject of human rights in the forefront

of the world's consciousness, and we kept it there.

But it was not as easy as it might seem.

What kinds of rights

need to be protected?

Expressed in legalistic terms

This is a very complicated question.

However, in our hypothetical village, the starving

children need to be fed, housed, and clothed.

So the right to fill vital economic needs

comes to mind.

In addition, civil

and political rights must also be preserved.

Freedom of thought.

Speech. Assembly.

Travel. And participation in one's own government,

and finally, the rights of personal integrity.

Freedom from arbitrary arrest, imprisonment, torture

or summary execution by your own government

are the most obvious ones of all.

For those who are concerned

about protecting human rights,

it's possible to identify a multitude of actual abuses

to publicize their existence and strive to protect

the individual human beings who are suffering.

But it's much easier

to ignore specific cases,

to dwell on statistical trends

instead of the actual suffering of people,

and to hide behind legalisms

and the, and the rationalizations

that are always available in a prosperous

and protected world like ours.

Tragically, this easier course is a habitual one,

followed by most nations.

And there are many reasons for this.

Some are guilty of abuses themselves, and

they don't want to bring up the subject of human rights.

Others are so small or weak that they know themselves

that their voices simply will not be heard.

There are those whose economic or political ties

are so bound up with repression, repressive regimes

that they might endanger these ties if they are

abusive or corrective or critical

of the oppressors.

In some of the large and powerful countries committed

to freedom for their own citizens, commercial interests

are completely dominant and will brook no interference

with profitable foreign alliances.

No matter how onerous

the policies might be of a trading partner,

it's highly unlikely that any

of these countries

will be in the forefront of a human rights movement.

A few highly blessed

like ours consider themselves to be somehow superior

in the eyes of God,

and especially deserving of the blessings that we have,

and are therefore immune to the suffering of others.

This leaves a relatively hopeless prospect

for the tens of thousands

of innocent citizens

who have disappeared in the night in Argentina.

The noted scientist or authors

who are accused of being mentally incompetent

and isolated in slave labor in Siberia.

The leader of an opposition political party

imprisoned for decades in Paraguay,

or the homeless refugees in Southeast Asia

or Northern Africa, all the Middle East.

When you come right down to facts,

there is only one country on earth

which has the strength, the moral commitment,

the influence, and the economic independence

to condemn abuse and to help suffering people.

The United States of America,

when we fail or refused to speak,

there is a deafening silence.

Silence.

Silence from the civilized world

is what oppressive regimes most want to hear.

Silence from the civilized world is for the tortured

and the persecuted.

Always fear silence from the civilized world.

Encouraged Adolf Hitler

to proceed with his plans to exterminate the Jews,

and 6 million of them perished.

The same silence greeted Josef Stalin,

who in his own country had 10 million

people executed to remove political opponents.

A man named Jacobo Timmerman, a newspaper editor

who finally escaped the reign of terror

that had gripped the Argentine, described

what silence meant to him as a political prisoner.

And I quote Jacobo Timmerman, "What there was from

the start was a great silence

which appears, and every civilized country

that passively accepts the inevitability

of violence and fear, that silence

which can transform any nation

into an accomplice."

He goes on to say, "The Holocaust will be understood

not so much because of a number of its victims.

As for the magnitude of the silence in which it existed.

And what obsesses me most is the present repetition

of that silence."

Mr. President, I did not remain silent in the face of oppression.

Our commitment to human rights became one of the basic

tenets of American foreign policy.

Every American ambassador was instructed

to provide information about the unwarranted abuse

of citizens and, when appropriate, to intercede

with their host government in order to redress

grievances through political statements,

international agreements, economic and political action.

And on occasion, of my own personal involvement.

The issue of human rights

was kept in the forefront of the world's consciousness.

I wanted to be

certain that every night when every leader on earth

went to bed, they asked themselves a question what?

To my own people

and the people of other nations,

think about my human rights policy.

We reminded them all that their signing

of the United Nations Charter, the Helsinki Agreement

and other similar international agreements

automatically put on the table for negotiation.

Their abusers and their country of their own individual

and innocent citizens.

We were certainly not always successful,

but we never abandoned our efforts for this

kind of human rights policy is completely compatible

with the character of our nation and the principles

which we have so long indulged and enjoyed and cherished

uniquely among nations.

The United States of America was born because

our forefathers claimed our own human rights to justice,

equality of opportunity, life, liberty

and the pursuit of happiness.

These were not ephemeral beliefs vanishing with the passage of time.

In fact, they became stronger and stronger

as our people struggled

in such difficult times with the abolition of slavery.

Suffrage granted to women and the end of discrimination

because of age or sex or race or religion.

We never considered the privileges of freedom

to be exclusively ours.

Nor did we ever believe that the price of liberty

would be cheap on the battlefields in France.

In the depths of the Pacific waters

and the jungles of Asia, rest the bodies of our fathers

and our brothers and our sons, who were willing

to make the ultimate sacrifice so that others

might be free.

Our country is unique

not only in the circumstances of its birth.

Think for a moment

what is it that holds us together as Americans?

Most other nations are united

by a common racial

or ethnic ancestry of our shared creed

or religion, or by ancient attachments

to a certain parcel of land on the face of the earth.

Some are held together by the oppressive forces

of a tyrannical government.

In contrast, we come from every country and every corner

of the earth, sharing many religions and creeds.

We are of every race, every color,

every ethnic and cultural background.

We are proud of this diversity,

but we realize that it gives us a special strength

and valuable ties to our relatives

in almost all other countries.

But of course, we are not held together by diversity.

What unites us, what makes us

Americans, is a common belief

in human freedom.

Here lies the sense of our national community.

Uniquely, ours is a nation founded on the idea

of human rights.

From our own history,

we know how powerful that idea can be.

Even in times of peace,

human rights can cut like a razor.

For many, it's an issue. Best left alone.

No oppressor wants to be challenged by a cry for justice

from one of his prison cells.

Even the most absolute despots

know that they can be overthrown.

When a chorus of such voices is heard

beyond the prison walls.

Even to a relatively enlightened regime,

the revelation of so-called moderate repression

can be highly embarrassing.

It's a mistake to underestimate the forces of freedom.

But on the contrary, we should never underestimate

the power that may be marshaled

to crush those who demand the basic

right of human existence.

In spite of the halting and unpredictable

nature of progress toward justice and democratic values,

I'm convinced that there is an inexorable

historical trend toward the enhancement of human rights.

More than 100 new nations

have been formed in less than half my lifetime.

And the chains of colonialism

have been broken by patriots

who sought the same freedoms

that we found in this country more than 2 years ago.

That yearning has not been assuaged

among those who have not yet found such freedom.

We know that the path to liberty is not smooth or easy,

as in Nicaragua, for instance.

Right wing oppressors are sometimes overthrown to be

replaced by equally repressive regimes of the left.

As in Poland, struggles for freedom

or temporarily aborted by increased military domination.

As in Afghanistan, freedom fighters give their lives

to repel the bloody repression of a powerful neighbor.

As in Iran, a bloodbath in the streets

can replace the hopes of a beleaguered people

for peace and stability.

Even within the great democracies like ours.

The full rights of the poor, minorities and women

are not yet fully honored by either law or custom.

Discouraging, yes.

But the struggle for human rights

will go on forming the cutting edge

of social progress.

It's only natural for the United States

to be in the forefront of this progress.

In the past, our country has sometimes been criticized

or even ridiculed for being overly idealistic.

There are those among us who advise be realistic

with our enormous military,

economic, and political power.

Our national goals can be accomplished simply

by putting pressure

on those who disagree with us, our allies,

and our potential adversaries.

This is a shortsighted and counterproductive policy.

Although our country is indeed

blessed with enormous power,

it's better not to use it

at the expense of others

unless necessary,

to protect our national security itself.

We have other strengths that can be exerted

much more properly and much more effectively.

Our historic commitment to peace,

the control of

nuclear weapons, environmental quality,

economic progress,

high moral standards,

human freedoms or American characteristics

which have been almost universally respected.

If we advocate these cherished American ideals,

we can expect to reap great benefits for ourselves.

Our country has always been strongest

and most effective

when morality and a commitment to freedom and democracy

have been most clearly emphasized in our foreign policy.

By responding to the aspiration of people

around the world

and identifying with leaders who are trying to improve

the condition of their own people,

we use a strong weapon in our peaceful struggle

against alien ideologies.

Our influence is expanded as ties of common

understanding and friendship are strengthened.

The image of the United States is cleansed

and clarified. Our people are inspired

toward more

noble commitments and bound together

with a spirit of common purpose.

Knowing that our nation's goals are right and decent

in the process, we provide vivid proof of the advantages

of our own system of democratic government.

The great democracies are not free

because they are strong and prosperous.

They are strong and prosperous

because they are free.

As I've said

before, America did not invent human rights.

Human rights invented America.

We need to promote the concepts of democracy boldly

and openly, with pride and thankfulness

that we are able to use our blessings of freedom with others.

We should never be timid

in exposing religious persecution or torture,

unwarranted imprisonment, summary executions,

or other serious deprivations of human rights.

It's contrary

to the American character for us to be silent

when others are suffering.

And we should never underestimate

the value of our strong voice and our peaceful actions.

What kind of actions demonstrate to the world

the attitude of our own leaders?

First of all, a clear and consistent advocacy

of human rights in our public statements.

A repetitive reference to human rights violators.

The allocation of resources

to alleviate human suffering.

Support of non-governmental organizations

like Amnesty International.

And close cooperation with the United Nations and the

Organization of American States and other organizations.

To try to alleviate suffering

and to promote human dignity and freedom.

The injection of human rights issues into our dealings

with foreign countries.

The use of our embassies as a point of contact

for information and influence, the quality

and the known philosophy of executives

appointed to high positions in our own government.

The identity and character of foreign leaders

who are welcomed in the white House

and who are visited by our own leaders themselves.

These are all clear symbols of our nation's attitude

toward human rights.

In recent months,

these policy decisions, decisions, and signals

have been confused at best

and at times downright embarrassing.

An early rash of official visits to and from countries

like Chile, Argentina, the Philippines and South Africa

have been matched with drastic cuts

in economic and humanitarian aid

and huge increases in the sale of military weapons.

The Senate had to reject

the nominee for Assistant Secretary of State

for Human Rights, who had advocated,

and I quote, that the United States

should remove from statute books all clauses

that establish a human rights standard or condition.

This would

have rescinded all the statutes on American law books

built upon the Bill of rights.

Subsequent to this rejection,

there's been a lot of silence.

The substitution of international terrorism

instead of human rights as a focus for our attention.

Exaggerated claims of progress in countries

where oppression is still rampant like El Salvador,

and an absence of references to human rights,

is an elemental part of our foreign policy.

There's a sense that habitual and extensive

acts of terrorism perpetrated by government

against its own citizens are somehow more

acceptable than acts of terrorism by individuals.

To me, as a highly interested observer,

these messages from Washington are quite disturbing.

Without a clear American policy

of promoting human rights,

the hopes of millions of the world's oppressed

peoples are sure to be damaged.

Except for the United States,

there is no no other potential source

among nations for the brightest torch of freedom.

If we do not champion human rights,

the churches for World Peace and Stability also suffer

because subversive action,

even within our allied nations, is generated

where suppression is condoned

within a democratic society like ours.

Even drastic social changes can often be accommodated

without violence

and without bloodshed, and without a threat

to the integrity of the existing government.

Countries that respect human rights comprise

stronger alliances

and better friendships, and a more dependable leaders

whom we support, and countries

like El Salvador or the Philippines or South Korea

who do not meet our standards of freedom,

need to know that we will condemn their repression

and applaud their progress toward democracy.

The Israelis must understand that,

along with their security,

we also endorse the legitimate rights

of the Palestinian people.

The prospects for peace will improve, and furthermore,

our strength and influence will be increased

as we espouse the ideals which fill the hearts

and minds of so many deprived but ambitious people.

Let me close by saying that I

remember, with some bitterness and embarrassment,

that in the early days of the Civil Rights movement,

many Southerners thought that the laws

and customs of past generations would prevail

and the problem would eventually go away.

We were wrong.

It did not go away.

Many other Americans, perhaps in New York,

thought that this was just a regional issue

which would not affect the rest of the nation.

They were wrong.

It affects us all.

Now, it's very important

that we not make the same mistake on a global scale.

The problem of human rights will not go away.

Nor can it be isolated in a few nations or regions

of the world and not affect us if we just ignore it.

Our attitude towards civil rights in our own country,

our human rights in Chile, Argentina, Cuba,

the Soviet Union,

or in the councils of the United Nations

will determine the effectiveness of our voice in Poland,

Namibia, Afghanistan or in Central America.

Each situation is completely different,

but they are all tied together.

The principles are the same.

Freedom and democracy hang in the balance

when human rights are at stake.

Our powerful voice should never be stilled or uncertain.

When human rights

are involved.

Silence

is a friend of oppression.

Silence is the enemy

of human freedom.

Our nation believes in human freedom.

Our nation should be unequivocal

and forceful at all times

in the protection

and enhancement of human rights on earth.

Thank you very much.

The first.

President Carter has graciously agreed

to answer questions.

There is a microphone over here on the floor

at that aisle.

And a microphone over here.

May I ask you, nay, plead with you

to make your question short, crisp and incisive

and move to the microphones in advance

of when you, would like to make your question.

I think we'll move faster if I recede into the woodwork

at this point, and President Carter

will field his own questions.

Yes. Good evening, Mr. Carter. In deference to the recent changes

at the Department of Interior.

Could you comment on the way you handled,

reclamation of lands due to strip mining and logging?

As to the way the Reagan administration's handling,

handling, reclamation of lands

to the strip, mining and logging. Thank you.

I think it's accurate to say

that under Cecil Andrus,

who was, Secretary of Interior,

whose policies are basically set by me,

that those policies were almost diametrically opposite

to those espoused by Secretary James Watt

and directed from the white House itself.

We passed, as you know, a comprehensive strip mining law

and began to implement it throughout the last, months

of a couple of years of my administration.

As soon as, the administration changed, then

all of the forces of the strip

mining law were discharged or transferred to other jobs.

They are precious metal resources of our country,

like coal were sold by us on a matter of need

in relatively small quantities at the time,

and where there was an intense competition

in the bidding and the prices were quite reasonable.

more recently, as you know, all of the federal courts

and Congress have tried to block this action.

Secretary Watt has put on the auction block

enormous quantities of coal that at any particular time.

And the bids therefore have been extremely low,

almost give away prices.

So, as I can, in almost every element of caring for,

national park areas, the acquisition of new areas,

the protection of wilderness areas, the proper restraint

on mineral exploitation, the sale of public lands.

our policies were almost diametrically opposite

to those of, Secretary Watt and President Reagan.

I was delighted, to see Secretary Watt resign.

And my hope is

I don't necessarily say my expectation is.

But my hope is that the basic policies might change.

And the Interior Department of President Reagan's

policies will still prevail.

But, Judge Clark might bring, a new approach.

And also, with an impending election in 1984

and with the obvious unpopularity

of the Reagan, what policies up till now,

they might be modified during the next 12 months or so?

I certainly hope so,

yes. you've spoken tonight a lot about freedom,

and I always considered that freedom entailed

more than just following an American example.

any government in its formation

has a right to choose what it considers to be

human rights, has a right to choose

exactly what course its society will take.

Now, adherence to an American definition of human rights

hardly fits the ideal of freedom, wouldn't you say?

Well, I try to outline some of the things that,

in my judgment, apparently violation of human rights.

Obviously,

the arrest of people in the middle of the night,

they are summary execution by their own government

on absence of trial, long imprisonment of people

just for political beliefs, a prohibition against,

against freedom of speech or assembly.

These kinds of things are specifically prohibited

in English language, by those, for instance,

who are members of the United Nations.

The United Nations Charter prohibits

these kinds of tortures,

murder by government, and deprivation of the

right of people to move around and to participate.

They're also prohibited.

And other international agreements

like the Helsinki Accords,

where the reunification of families

and so forth was guaranteed by the Soviet

Union, in effect, and also the other 30

or so signatories, in exchange for which the West,

recognized the post-World War Two boundaries

as being prevailing.

So it's not, accurate to say that if a regime

like Argentina or Chile or El Salvador decides to murder

 or 30,0 of its own citizens,

they have a right to do so.

They are violating international law

and agreements with themselves, have signed.

Yes. Mr. President, my question pertains

more to the Iranian hostage crisis, if I may. Okay.

I think everybody in the room realizes why. Of course.

Negotiation is tried at first to resolve a crisis

such as that. But I was wondering.

I've heard a lot of different theories

as to how come a military option was left for so long.

And I was wondering if I could hear it from you.

Just what the reasoning was that such a long

time was wasted when things were obviously bogged down and not working

negotiating. Okay. Thank you.

I think.

I think I think this is an appropriate time

to say that I spent the first 18 months of my life

after I left the white House,

writing an excellent book called keeping Faith.

And, and the book has just been issued

this month in paperback form.

So it's relatively inexpensive.

And I describe the answer to this question

in some definitive terms.

So I would urge all of you who are eager for the.

For for a very entertaining and exciting book

and a good history book

to help me out a little.

Well, when, when the hostages were taken,

I think it's good to refresh our minds on the circumstances,

and I won't be-

I won't belabor the answer to this question.

We had had, at the beginning of the revolution,

about 40,000 Americans in Iran.

We had working in our embassy there, by far the largest embassy

of the United States on Earth.

When the revolution began to take place.

As you may remember, there were literally hundreds

or even thousands of people being killed

on the streets of Iran

and for months, in a highly secret way.

It was my responsibility

to get those 40,000 Americans out.

Quite often, Pan-Am and all other American airlines

were not operating.

And through surreptitious means,

we had to get our people to some airport somewhere

and get them out of the country. We did it.

There was never an American

who lost his life in that revolution.

Then finally, we withdrew

our people from the embassy down

to a skeleton crew from  to 72, I believe.

And we have greatly strengthened

the embassies defense capabilities.

It's not possible anywhere

to defend an embassy against large mobs

unless the host government.

Is there to help,

you know, where on earth is this possible?

And this is the first example in modern recorded history

when a government

hosting diplomat participated

in abusive action or kidnaping against visiting

diplomats in an embassy. It was unprecedented.

When the hostages were finally taken.

My belief

is that the that the militants or terrorist or kidnapers

did at first intend to release them fairly early,

but because of political circumstances there,

which I won't go into detail to describe it,

they were supported by a government spokesman,

including Khomeini himself.

Khomeini's son even went there.

And so they kept our hostages.

I received all kind of advice

and I considered it very carefully.

The advice range

all the way from dropping an atomic bomb on Tehran.

To getting on my

knees and apologizing to Khomeini

and returning the Shah to Iran to be executed.

Obviously, those two things were out of the question.

If we had dropped an atomic bomb, we would have killed

a seven and two Americans and many innocent people. So?

So I had to decide.

What our priorities were.

I didn't take me long to make the decision.

First of all, it was my responsibility as president

to protect the integrity of our country

and its own interest.

And secondly, and associated with the first,

to protect the lives of those hostages

and hopefully to bring them back to this country, safe

and free.

Well, we succeeded in both those task and

but the unfortunate part was

it took us a lot longer than anyone anticipated.

We made numerous attempts,

some of on the very edge of success

in dealing with the leaders of Iran,

including that president and the foreign minister,

to get those hostages released.

But it never was quite possible.

And of course, I didn't get released until

almost the exact instant

I think about 30 minutes after I was out of office.

But the last few days

we negotiated for them for their release successfully.

So I think what I did was a proper thing.

I wish they could have gotten out earlier, in my

judgment, in November when the election took place.

This was the most serious political burden

that I had to bear.

The fact that innocent Americans in Iran had been held

there for a year, a year exactly this amount of time

and the impotence of our nation

and the importance of the incumbent president

contributed to their continued incarceration.

But eventually, I thank God

to say that every hostage came home safe and to freedom,

and we never involved and never violated the principles

or ideals or best interests of our country.

So our ultimate goals were reached

at least a year after

I hoped that we would be successful.

I think this is

one of the interesting parts of the book.

And if you know, if you check it out at the library,

you might be interested in seeing yes.

Could you please give us a brief description

of the Carter Library, and how you think it best

could lead to a better understanding

of universal human rights? Yes.

When I left office,

I had to decide what to do with the rest of my life.

I'm one of the younger former presidents in history.

Not the very youngest, but one of the youngest.

And I've decided to spend my remaining years

in an academic environment.

Emory University.

I teach that have been doing

so now for more than a year,

and we are developing a center

which will consist of four parts.

And I'll be quite brief.

The first is a is a presidential library to house the record

of my administration from George Washington on down

till the day I left office.

The American law prescribed that all that that the

correspondence, the documents, the records, mementos,

the files that came in or out of the president's office

of the white House belonged personally to the president

and George Washington

and then John Adams and Abraham Lincoln and others

carried the documents home in wagons and buggies.

Many of them were lost with foreign.

And rain and moisture and rodents and so forth.

I carried  tractor trailer loads of documents

back to Georgia and and they are now being,

worked over by 1 or  archivist and they'll be stored

in the library there in the heart of Atlanta.

In addition, we'll have a teaching center or museum,

and about a million visitors a year will come there

to learn about our country, how it was formed,

or how our population was put together.

The crises we face, the decisions that were made from

the unique perspective of the presidents who've served.

The first started on 39 presidents.

We have some very exciting audio visual techniques

to teach the history in an exciting,

hopefully inspirational way.

That part of of the Senate will be owned

and operated by the federal government, and

is being financed by a private contribution

from within my home state of Georgia.

Across a small lake will develop a center,

which will be a branch of Emory University,

just like its law school or its medical college.

And that's where my office will be.

That's where I'll work, as I say, on major issues

that affect our nation and the world.

We'll finish our center in its totality in 198,

but prior to that time,

we will conclude most of the work

on three of illustrative issues.

The first one is this year, when Gerald Ford

and I will work

as cochairmen on a complete assessment

of the of the Middle East question

as much as a human beings can do.

We will assess the root causes of the continued conflict

in the Middle East

and some of the things that might be done.

And we'll bring to Emory campus next month.

A representatives of the government

of Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia,

along with scholars

who are experts on the Middle East and will present

as best we can to the world and to the American public.

Some of the facts and also options

and recommendations for the future.

The second project they will undertake most of next year

concerns health care.

The centers for Disease Control is there at Emory,

and it's the only worldwide

health organization in existence.

As you know, right now,

they have about 4 professionals and CDC, the leader

there will come to our center and will work with me

to to answer the question, why do we fall so far

short in delivering health care to people of our nation

and the world compared to what we know how to do?

And how can we deliver this health care

at a much lower cost and a much broader basis to people

who don't presently get it?

And the third major undertaking that we will complete

prior to the center's completion

deals with our nuclear arms control.

We're combining our efforts with UCLA,

who have a very advanced Russian studies department,

and we'll spend about 7% of our time

trying to

understand, as best we can, the Soviet approach

toward nuclear arms control.

What are their ambitions? What are their limits?

What are their hopes for their genuine concerns

about us and about other nuclear powers

like France, Great Britain and China?

We'll spend about 1% of our time

recapitulating the various attitudes in this country

toward nuclear arms control,

and the final 10% of our time trying to correlate the

two and decide how we can make progress in the future.

On this generic and longstanding question.

So, Middle East peace.

World health care.

Nuclear arms control.

Later the international economy

plus matters concerning education.

Food supplies.

The global  reports implementation will be issues

that are addressed that I will address

as a former president of Emory. And finally,

we anticipate the founding there

for the first time that I know about on Earth

of a center for the resolution of crises or disputes,

where people or nations that have a difference

between them, which they cannot otherwise resolve,

will come to us.

And I will contact the other party

if they are amenable to negotiation.

Help them choose someone as a mediator or an arbitrator

or a negotiator, and then let them come to our center

in seclusion, sometimes in total secrecy,

and spend a few days or a few weeks trying to prevent

either a major confrontation in court or litigation,

or even a border dispute that might lead to bloodshed.

So those are the four things that I'll be working on.

The library, the teaching center or museum, the study

of major issues, and the crisis or dispute resolution.

I think it's a very ambitious program.

As you can see, it's one that will keep me occupied.

And I think if our plans go well,

that I will be able to do as much

with my life as if I had been reelected

for another four years in the white House.

I hope so, and I think the world needs a place of this kind.

And I'm very delighted that you would ask me this question.

Mr. Carter, you spoke in your speech of the need

for the U.S. to speak out

and act as a leader in the human rights movement.

You also said that we should act as a leader

and not use incredible economic and military power

that America possesses.

I'd like to ask when these types of persuasion fail,

as they often do, such as Poland, Afghanistan, El Salvador.

To advocate using powerful means like embargoes

or military threats to help achieve justice

for all or universal human rights.

If so, to what extent do you advocate their use?

Well, there are several ways

you have to approach human rights violations.

There are times when, in the public

forum of world opinion, you can bring enough

pressure from other nations

to bear to modify the policies of an abusive regime.

There are other times when,

we are dealing with our allies and friends.

like for instance, the Philippines or, South Korea

that basically have strong military ties with us,

and we have obligations there

to their security when they fall short of our own

standards of human rights.

then it's better for us to persuade them through

private means not to assassinate,

or execute some political prisoner being held,

but to let them make the decision for their own public.

Without the apparent pressure

from our own country, for instance, when, Mr.

Aquino was being held in the Philippines, I sent Walter

Mondale there to negotiate or to talk to Marcos.

One of the major items on his agenda was to let, Aquino

leave the Philippines and come back to our country

for freedom and also for medical treatment.

And this was a successful effort.

We didn't do it publicly. Had we demanded it?

It would have been impossible for Marcos to comply.

The same thing happened in Korea

after President Chun took place

following the execution of President Park.

They had a man named Kim

DeJong imprisoned in, South Korea.

He was condemned to death.

And I sent not only representatives

from the State Department, but also our representatives

from our Joint Chiefs of Staff to convince

President Chun that if Kim De Jong, whose only crime

was political opposition to Chun's regime,

if he was executed, that this would severely damage

the relationship between our two countries

and it our ability to defend South Korea

in case of a military attack would be lessened,

and it would be a permanent reflection on his regime.

Perhaps because of this,

covert pressure, quite unpublicized pressure.

Kim Jung was released.

His execution was state, and he came to our country.

So there's a wide gamut of actions

that needs to be taken.

In the case of Jacobus Timmerman, whom

I described to you when he was imprisoned, Pat Darian,

a former

Alabamian who is, who was our assistant secretary

for human rights, went to Argentina

to intercede with the military junta in Argentina

and to try to convince them to release

these literally tens of thousands of people

who were being held in prison

just because they had used their freedom of speech.

And Jacobus Timmerman would tell you today,

you said it many times publicly.

That was that was our in a session in Argentina,

which induced his release

from a prison and perhaps saved his life on one occasion in Indonesia.

They are later they are released 10,000 prisoners in the same day,

and said it was because of pressure

from the United States.

The same thing in Paraguay

for 800 were released on the same day from prison.

So there were different ways

to approach the human rights, concept.

And we had to use some flexibility

in dealing with those abuses.

But you couldn't always use of pressure

or our power on the abuses because,

they could not face their own people if it appeared

that they were succumbing to pressure from our nation.

The other point I'd like to make

is that when we do have a potential conflict

in a region of the world like Central America now,

I'd like the Middle East now and before,

the best approach is to encourage negotiation

and not to send military troops there on a temporary,

which often becomes a permanent basis.

There is always an option, but you have to swallow some of your,

rigid pride by negotiating with with people that

we consider to be unsavory or maybe even trustworthy.

But the people that have to negotiate

are the ones in contention with each other.

And I think it's a serious mistake for us

to have 40 troops or 0 troops now in Honduras on a

relatively permanent basis, in a potentially explosive

circumstance over which we have no control,

and where we would be involved in combat immediately

if Honduras and Nicaragua went to war.

And with, human rights abuses,

taking place in that region as well.

I wouldn't give any military aid to El Salvador

until I had a commitment to land reform,

free elections and so forth.

And I think that was a kind of a quiet, persuasion

on an economic way that was effective.

So it's a complicated thing.

And I probably over answered your question,

but I did present some, concepts that

remain in my mind

to the, to the approach to human rights.

Yes. Mr. Carter, thank.

Tonight you've spoken extensively on the,

use of diplomatic means and,

open confrontation of the denial of human rights.

I'd like to approach it from another view.

during your administration, one of the points you urged

was you wanted to reduce covert action.

i.e., CIA and other intelligence organizations

in both domestic and abroad situations.

 And, in that light, I'd like to know.

And the increasing

and, you know, administration,

there's been increasing amount of this action,

culminating in the recent, CIA planned attack on the,

oil wells in Central America.

I'd like to know how a nation whose ideology

called background should prohibit, SS type situations,

you know, Nazi ism,

the spy business could could possibly

the benefits could possibly override,

the use of such such tactics.

Well, it's accurate, as has been reported in

some of the major news magazines,

that there's been a rapid escalation

of the use of, of the CIA

in covert, actions, not only in the Middle East,

but in many other parts of the world.

I think Newsweek recently had a cover story about it.

There are sometimes,

when a nation I think should properly use covert actions

of that kind, but they should be very narrowly defined

and very specific in nature.

I'll give you one example of

when I think it is appropriate.

And I'm not revealing any secrets

because they've been revealed before.

But after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

At a time when, Pakistan was rocky

and the revolution was taking place in Iran,

December of 1979,

I was faced with a, responsibility

of ensuring, if I could, that the Soviets did not consolidate their

hold on Afghanistan, did not subjugate the freedom

fighters completely, and secondly,

could not thereafter use Afghanistan

as a launching point

toward the Persian Gulf, perhaps through Iran.

We did whatever we could, economically.

We imposed a, a grain embargo.

We joined  other nations to not go into the Olympics.

We aroused public opinion against the Soviet Union

on a worldwide basis.

They were condemned in the

in the United Nations and so forth.

But we also provided

some assistance or permitted them

to get some assistance

among the freedom fighters in Afghanistan.

And it was it could not have been done publicly,

but it was done quietly and without publicity.

We did it through other nations,

but it was done effectively.

And in the end, as a result of that and other factors,

the Soviets have never been able

to suppress the freedom of the Afghanistan people.

So there is a case, I believe,

when they realization of our own kinds of ideals

against aggression, against oppression,

against the deprivation of human rights,

against a taking over of another country

could be served by covert action.

But that's a rare occasion

and I think should not be abused.

As you well know, the operation now and around

Nicaragua is consist

of of multiple tens of millions of dollars

and has not been covert at all.

It's been a highly publicized operation by the CIA.

I think this, damages

the prospects for ultimate, realization of our goals

in Central America,

because it shows our country as one willing to intercede

in the internal affairs of another country.

We've never expended any of this

enormous amount of money

for its, professed goal of intercepting arms

shipments from Nicaragua to El Salvador.

I think actually, the goal there is to overthrow

the existing government of Nicaragua,

contrary to the public statements that have been made

and in my judgment,

we should put troops there on a temporary

which often becomes a permanent basis.

There is always an option,

but you have to swallow some of your,

rigid pride by negotiating with with people that

we consider to be unsavory or maybe even trustworthy.

But the people that have to negotiate

are the ones in contention with each other.

And I think it's a serious mistake for us

to have 40 troops or 0 troops now in Honduras on a

relatively permanent basis, in a potentially explosive

circumstance over which we have no control,

and where we would be involved in combat immediately

if Honduras and Nicaragua went to war.

And with, human rights abuses,

taking place in that region as well.

I wouldn't give any military aid to El Salvador

until I had a commitment to land reform,

free elections and so forth.

And I think that was a kind of a quiet, persuasion

on an economic way that was effective.

So it's a complicated thing.

And I probably over answered your question,

but I did present some, concepts that

remain in my mind

to the to the approach to human rights.

Yes. Mr. Carter,

Tonight you've spoken extensively on the,

use of diplomatic means and,

open confrontation of the denial of human rights.

I like to approach it from another view.

during your administration, one of the points you urged

was you wanted to reduce covert action.

CIA and other intelligence organizations

in both domestic and abroad situations.

And, in that light, I'd like to know.

And the increasing

and, you know, administration,

there's an increasing amount of this action,

culminating in the recent, CIA plant attack on the,

oil wells in Central America.

I'd like to know how a nation whose ideology

called background should prohibit, SS type situations,

you know, Nazi ism,

the spy business could could possibly

the benefits could possibly override,

the use of such such tactics.

Well, it's accurate, as has been reported in

some of the major news magazines,

that there's been a rapid escalation

of the use of, of the CIA

and covert, actions, not only in the Middle East

but in many other parts of the world.

I think Newsweek recently had a cover story about it.

They are sometimes,

when a nation I think should properly use covert actions

of that kind, but they should be very narrowly defined

and very specific in nature.

I'll give you one example of

when I think it is appropriate.

And I'm not revealing any secrets

because they've been revealed before.

But after the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.

At a time when Pakistan was rocky

and the revolution was taking place in Iran,

December of 1979,

I was faced with the, responsibility

of ensuring, if I could, that the service did not consolidate their

hold on Afghanistan, did not subjugate the freedom

fighters completely, and secondly,

could not thereafter use Afghanistan

as a launching point

toward the Persian Gulf, perhaps through Iran.

We did whatever we could economically.

We imposed a grain embargo.

We joined  other nations to not go into the Olympics.

We aroused public opinion against the Soviet Union

on a worldwide basis.

They were condemned in this in the United Nations

and so forth.

But we also provided

some assistance or permitted them

to get some assistance

among the freedom fighters in Afghanistan.

And it was it could not have been done publicly,

but it was done quietly and without publicity.

We did it through other nations,

but it was done effectively.

And in the end, as a result of that and other factors,

the Soviet have never been able

to suppress the freedom of the Afghanistan people.

So there is a case, I believe,

when the realization of our own kind of ideals

against aggression, against oppression,

against the deprivation of human rights,

against the taking over of another country,

could be served by covert action.

But that's a rare occasion

and I think should not be abused.

As you well know, the operation now and around

Nicaragua is consist

of of multiple tens of millions of dollars

and has not been covert at all.

It's been a highly publicized operation by the CIA.

I think this, damages

the prospects for ultimate, realization of our goals

in Central America,

because it shows our country as one willing to intercede

in the internal affairs of another country.

We've never expended any of this

enormous amount of money

for its, professed goal of intercepting arms

shipments from Nicaragua to El Salvador.

I think actually, the goal there is to overthrow

the existing government of Nicaragua,

contrary to the public statements that have been made

and in my judgment,

we should, terminate our military presence in Honduras.

As you know, our military forces went there

under the guise of a temporary routine military action.

And now it's been announced

they're going to stay all through next year.

So your question is a good one, but.

But I'd like to correct it in one way.

There are a few times when covert action is justified

in order to carry out, in my judgment,

the principles and morals and ideals of our own country.

Mr. Carter, I have two questions. One.

Why under your nuclear peripheral nations

policies, was commercial

nuke in their waste reprocessing plant shut down

when military reprocessing plants will remain to open?

The next question I have is,

do you think the policy set forth in in your talks

and treaties are being maintained today?

Are we regressing in our effort to stop the nuclear arms

race?

Well, first of all, when I was with,

President Brezhnev in Vienna in 1979, in June.

We concluded the, 6 or 7 year negotiations

on the Salt two treaty, which I think is a fine treaty

and one which should be ratified

by the US Senate and implemented completely.

But at that time, I proposed to Brezhnev,

first of all, that we have an instant and total freeze

on the development or deployment

of any additional nuclear weapons.

I also proposed to Brezhnev

that we implement all the terms of the Salt two treaty,

even prior to the time that the Senate

could get around to ratifying it.

And third, that we have annually a % reduction

even below the stringent limits prescribed

by the Salt to treaty.

In other words, every year for five years, a %

reduction to continue to lower them.

And then we immediately commence on a Salt three treaty

that would have included

additional reductions of a drastic nature

and would include, weapons with a limited range,

and might possibly

include the weapons, for France and Great Britain.

Brezhnev have refused all those, request.

But since that time, to answer your question

specifically,

the basic terms of the Salt to treaty

have been honored by the Soviets and by our government.

The reductions

they would have destroyed 10% of the Soviets.

existing nuclear weapons launchers have not been put into effect,

but neither have all the provisions

been put into effect by our country

on the nonproliferation effort.

We tried as best we could

to a cut down on, on the reprocessing of waste

because I consider it to be unnecessary.

we, however, did not think it was advisable.

not to continue to,

not to continue with the reprocessing of waste

that came out of our own, uranium and plutonium

production facilities in the military.

I think this was, the basic reason

was that the military and the Energy Department

consider it to be necessary to, to build up

and maintain stockpiles of those, of those waste

the process of them, and also that this processing was

completely controlled by the government and was not,

amenable to abuse,

or to the further development

or sale of materials to foreign countries.

Nonproliferation

was one issue, by the way,

on which we and the Soviets were in complete agreement,

and joined in a very enthusiastic fashion by countries

like Canada and Australia, other nations on Earth,

like France, Germany, Switzerland

as a supplier countries, Italy to some degree.

And the receiving countries like Iraq,

Pakistan, India,

Brazil and Argentina were quite eager to see

all the reprocessing plants continue in operation.

We shut down some of them in our country, all of the,

privately owned ones, not all of the military ones.

Okay. Mr. Mr. President,

I'm encouraged to hear you speaking out on civil rights

and human rights around the world.

And, your criticisms

of the current administration's policies in that regard.

I think in building a just society,

it's important that we address the question of economic

justice and economic freedom as well as political.

And I think there has been a political taboo

against, speaking to real economic issues.

Specifically, I'm talking about the monetary structure,

not the monetary policies of the existing structure,

but the monetary structure itself.

I think few people realize

that under the existing monetary system

that our money goes into circulation

by a process of borrowing.

That means that every dollar in circulation

had to be borrowed into circulation

by some one of our citizens,

and we pay interest on every dollar.

Okay.

Go ahead, get the question.

Okay.

The question is, in order to move toward a more

just society,

how can we change that system

to relieve Americans of that burden of debt?

I felt when I was president that it was possible

to balance a budget

and we reduce, federal deficits dramatically below

what I inherited from President Ford.

That was the highest peacetime deficit in history.

And all of my deficits were lower than that

and averaged,

I think, a little less than 2.% of our gross

national product when President Reagan came into office,

as you know, there was a tremendous escalation

in the federal deficit, and it now runs about $2

billion a year, which is about 6% of our GNP.

When I went out of office,

our country had accumulated since the time of George

Washington, a debt of about $1 trillion.

And now in a short space of only five years,

we will accumulate the second trillion dollars.

This does seriously damage

the economies not only of our nation and our

and our allies in the Western industrial world,

but particularly the developing countries.

There are about 2 or so nations

now that are actually in bankruptcy.

They don't have enough capability

to even pay the interest on their outstanding debt

and the prevailing very high real interest

rates in our country, 2 or 3 times higher

above the inflation rate than is ordinary.

The case is making that burdensome debt unbearable.

So the economic factors are a part of our human rights.

I think the best approach is for

if I'm not there anymore, but as you know,

but I think the best approach would be

to rescind some of the enormous tax reductions that were imposed

and to cut down on federal spending, including,

of course, to some degree, spending on the military

and to reduce that deficit substantially,

which would reduce the real interest rate

and help the economy of the world.

Let me just take one other question.

And then I think it would be time for us.

Mr. President, I was just wondering what effect

you think the Jesse Jackson candidacy

will have on the 1984 election.

Well, it's really not my role to advise Reverend Jackson.

And if I advise him,

I'm sure you wouldn't take my advice.

Although, I have to say, and honestly,

that he has been out of plains

to talk to me about it, and,

I don't know what Reverend Jackson is going to do,

but I would hope that if he should decide to run

that his, position on issues would be designed

to be attractive to a majority of the American people

looking toward November 1984, election

day, that he wouldn't run

just a narrowly defined, campaign with his,

with his platform being unacceptable, obviously

unacceptable to a majority of the American people.

Secondly, I don't believe that it's necessary

in order to have the rights of minorities

protected for Reverend Jackson to run.

I think several of the Democratic, announced candidates

have proven record

and would be completely, dependable in protecting

the rights of the poor and the minorities and third,

the worst damage that Reverend Jackson could do.

I'm not predicting that he would.

But this is what could be very damaging

is if he ran an unsuccessful campaign

and, went past the convention

and someone else got the nomination for him

then to run as an independent,

that would really hurt the Democratic nominee.

And almost guarantee the reelection of President Reagan

if he runs.

So that basically describes, my feeling on it.

Let me say in closing

that I, I've enjoyed your questions.

And I, I think they in general

are designed to understand what our nation is,

what it has been historically,

and maybe what it ought to be.

Because of the responsibilities on our nation's

shoulders and the power and influence that we enjoy,

we have a special role

to play in the world, in the world community.

I always felt that our nation was inherently so strong

politically, militarily,

and economically that we didn't have to prove it

by demonstrating our military strength.

Whenever there was a trouble spot on earth, and I felt

the best way to show our nation's inherent strength

was to let the world know

that we espoused and defended certain basic principles.

I won't go into detail because, it's getting late,

but I thought that that that our country

should always be known

without any doubt in anyone's mind

as espousing peace,

not just peace between ourselves

and our potential adversaries,

but in the forefront of a search for peace in troubled

areas of the world, trying to resolve differences

not with military force, but through negotiation,

as was the case, for instance, in the Middle East.

Secondly, I believe then and I believe now,

that our nation should be known by everyone on earth

as in the forefront of the search for controlling

nuclear weapons and reducing nuclear arsenals,

there should not be any doubt in anyone's

mind that all the incentives,

all the initiatives, all the pressure for cutting down

nuclear arsenals was from Washington.

And if there was a delay,

the fault lay in the Kremlin.

Last February, I was at Gerald Ford Library in Michigan,

and neither he nor I, nor

any of the news people assembled at a press conference

could remember a single nuclear demonstrator.

When Ford and I were president,

because there was a general presumption

that we were struggling eagerly

to limit nuclear weapons.

And the Soviets were the only obstacle.

I think that's important for our country.

The third thing is,

in my judgment, as expressed tonight,

we should be looked upon as a champion of human rights,

human rights and all that diversity,

recognizing that we could not have

an absolutely consistent policy

on that very complicated issue and forth.

I think our country should be known

by all people on earth

as espousing the quality of life, environmental quality,

dealing with the subjects that were so carefully

considered in the global  report.

And my guess is that in the future,

there will be an international commitment

because of genuine need

to environmental quality.

This is a kind.

Well, these are the kinds of, of national, unequivocal,

clear commitments

that ought to exemplify or characterize

a great nation like ours.

In some cases,

as you well know, we've lost that reputation.

But I think inherently in the breast of American people,

those commitments still exist

to peace, nuclear arms control, human rights,

environmental quality.

That's what I hope and believe.

We've got the greatest nation on earth.

We make mistakes sometimes,

but whether we like it or not, the rest of the world

looks to us for leadership and my hope

and my prayer it our nation will never forget

the subject that I discussed tonight.

Freedom, democracy,

the end of suffering for all those on earth,

led by the most powerful

and most influential and the most blessed

nation on earth, the United States of America.

Thank you very much.