Foreign Relations of the United States, 1977–1980, Volume I, Foundations of Foreign Policy

147. Address by President Carter¹

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 9, 1980

Chairman Yarnall and President Bodine,² Members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen:

[Omitted here are the President’s introductory remarks.]

For the past 6 months, all of our policies abroad have been conducted in the glare of two crises: the holding of American hostages in Iran and the brutal invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. In meeting these crises our tactics must change with changing circumstances. But our goals will not change and have not wavered.

We will not rest until our fellow Americans held captive in Iran—against every tenet of law and decency—are safe and home free.

Along with other nations who have condemned Soviet aggression, we will continue to impose economic and political costs on the Soviet Union until it withdraws its armed forces and restores the independence of Afghanistan.

These two crises underline the reality that our world is indeed a dangerous place, but what I want to emphasize today is that amid the crises of the moment, no matter how profoundly significant they are, the fundamentals of American foreign policy are being carried forward with consistency, with strength, and with determination.

The central reality that confronts America today is that of a complex world, a world that is turbulent because it is politically awakened in its entire breadth for the first time in its collective history.

Our world is one of conflicting hopes, ideologies, and powers. It’s a revolutionary world which requires confident, stable, and powerful American leadership—and that’s what it is getting and that’s what it will continue to get—to shift the trend of history away from the specter of fragmentation and toward the promise of genuinely global cooperation and peace. So, we must strive in our foreign policy to blend commitment to high ideals with a sober calculation of our own national interests.

Unchanging American ideals are relevant to this troubling area of foreign policy and to this troubled era in which we live. Our society has always stood for political freedom. We have always fought for social justice, and we have always recognized the necessity for pluralism. Those values of ours have a real meaning, not just in the past, 200 years ago or 20 years ago, but now, in a world that is no longer dominated by colonial empires and that demands a more equitable distribution of political and economic power.

But in this age of revolutionary change, the opportunities for violence and for conflict have also grown. American power must be strong enough to deal with that danger and to promote our ideals and to defend our national interests. That’s why the foreign policy which we’ve shaped over the last 3 years must be based simultaneously on the primacy of certain basic moral principles—principles founded on the enhancement of human rights—and on the preservation of an American military strength that is second to none. This fusion of principle and power is the only way to ensure global stability and peace while we accommodate to the inevitable and necessary reality of global change and progress.

The complexity of interrelated and sometimes disturbing events and circumstances requires that we in America increase the degree of public understanding of our foreign policy and public support for it. It is extremely complicated. It is rapidly changing in its tactical confrontations on a day-by-day basis, and the degree in a democracy with which Americans do understand these complex issues is a prerequisite for success. Foreign policy no longer has a single or a simple focus, such as defeating Nazi aggression or repelling a monolithic Stalinist threat. Instead, Americans must be mature enough to recognize that we need to be strong and we need to be accommodating at the same time. We need to protect our own interests vigorously while finding honorable ways to accommodate those new claimants to economic and political power which they have not had in the past.

There are two obvious preconditions for an effective American foreign policy: a strong national economy and a strong national defense. That’s why I placed the highest priority on the development of a national energy policy, which our country has never had. That’s why we must win the struggle against inflation—and I’ve been very pleased lately at the trend in interest rates and the good news we had this morning on the Producer Price Index.³ The Congress and I are moving resolutely toward this goal; in fact, every single American is involved. This common effort to deal with a worldwide economic challenge does require some sacrifice, and I’m determined that the sacrifice will be fairly shared.

The response of our democracy to economic challenges will determine whether we will be able to manage the challenge of other global responsibilities in the 1980’s and beyond. If we cannot meet these international economic problems successfully, then our ability to meet military and political and diplomatic challenges will be doubtful indeed. Although it will not be easy, the innate advantages of our Nation’s natural bounty which God has given us and the common commitment of a free people who comprise American society give us the assurance of success.

We must also be militarily strong. The fact is that for 15 years the Soviet Union has been expanding its military capabilities far out of proportion to its needs for defense—a 4- or 5-percent real growth above the inflation rate compounded annually for 15 years has caused us some concern. For much of this same period, our spending for defense had been going down. If these adverse trends had continued, we would have found ourselves facing a severe military imbalance, an imbalance all the more threatening because of mounting global turbulence. That’s why I have launched a broad modernization of our strategic and conventional forces and worked to strengthen our alliances. We and our allies have pledged ourselves to sustained, real annual increases in our defense spending.

Our task is to build together a truly cooperative global community, to compose a kind of global mosaic which embraces the wealth and diversity of the Earth’s peoples, cultures, and religions. This will not be an easy task. The philosophical basis of such a community must be respect for human rights as well as respect for the independence of nations.

In promoting that prospect for a future of peace, we will stay on the steady course to which we’ve been committed now for the last 3½ years. We pursue five major objectives; first, to enhance not only economic but also political solidarity among the industrialized democracies; second, to establish a genuinely cooperative relationship with the nations of the Third World; third, to persevere in our efforts for peace in the Middle East and in other troubled areas of the world; fourth, to defend our strategic interests, especially those which are now threatened in Southwest Asia; and fifth, to advance arms control, especially through agreed strategic arms limitations with the Soviet Union, and to maintain along with this a firm and a balanced relationship with the Soviets.

Our first objective, solidarity with our allies, is the touchstone of our foreign policy. Without such solidarity, the world economy and international politics may well degenerate into disorder. This is why we’ve led the North Atlantic Alliance in its program to upgrade its conventional forces. And last winter, in an historic decision, NATO agreed to strengthen its nuclear missiles in Europe in order to respond to a very disturbing Soviet missile buildup there.⁴

Next month the seven leading industrial democracies will hold a summit meeting in Venice.⁵ I look forward to being there with the other six leaders of our most important allies. It’s our collective intention not only to make the summit another milestone for global economic cooperation but also to advance our political and our strategic solidarity.

Second, we will persevere in our efforts to widen the scope of our cooperation with the newly awakened nations of the Third World. By the end of this century, 85 percent of the world’s population will be living in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. In the last several years, through the Panama Canal treaties, through our commitment to majority rule in Africa, and through normalization of relationships with China, we have vastly improved the relationship of the United States with these regions. We can be proud of our accomplishments in building strong new bridges to the developing world.

The United States respects the desire of the developing nations for genuine nonalignment, and we respect the nonaligned movement as the expression of that desire. Nations which value their own independence are already resisting efforts to subvert the nonaligned movement and make it a tool of Soviet foreign policy. Last year’s meeting in Havana was a notable example of Soviet failure, through their puppet Castro regime, to convince the other nonaligned countries to be subservient to the Soviets.⁶ The United States is eager to work with countries who pride themselves on their independence for the resolution of conflicts and for the promotion of greater global social justice.

Third, we’ll continue to work for peace in the Middle East. Such peace is essential to all parties concerned. Israel deserves peace, and Israel needs peace for its long-term survival. The Arab nations require peace in order to satisfy the legitimate rights of the Palestinians and to ensure that their own social development can move forward without disruption and without foreign intrusion. The West, including the United States, must have peace in the Middle East or run grave risks that the radicalization of that area will draw outsiders into its explosive conflicts.

The Camp David process has already led to the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab state. Of course, Egypt is the largest and the most important and the strongest Arab state. We are determined to reach a comprehensive settlement, and we will not be diverted from that goal.

Sol Linowitz, our negotiator, is just now returning from the Middle East.⁷ And I will be meeting with him this weekend to get a full report from him on progress made and to determine the steps that our country will take in the coming weeks to bring a successful conclusion to this very difficult effort.

As we continue our efforts in the Middle East, I take pride as well in the contributions that we have also made in other areas, such as the Panama Canal Treaty already mentioned and the achievement of peace and majority rule in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. These are major accomplishments, not only of benefit to the people directly involved but to our national interest as well. And it may very well be that in retrospect in years ahead, looking back on this administration and this time, that those particular efforts, making new friends among literally billions of people, as in China and Africa, this will be recognized as the most important achievement of our time.

And fourth, and very important: The West must defend its strategic interests wherever they are threatened. Since 1945 the United States has been committed to the defense of our hemisphere and of Western Europe, and then later of the Far East, notably Japan and Korea. These commitments for a common defense are very valuable to the people involved in those other areas, and of course they are extremely valuable to us as well.

In recent years it’s become increasingly evident that the well-being of those vital regions and our own country depend on the peace, stability, and independence of the Middle East and the Persian Gulf area. Yet both the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the pervasive and progressive political disintegration of Iran put the security of that region in grave jeopardy.

I want to reemphasize what I said in my State of the Union Address on January 23d, and I quote:

“Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”⁸

Peace is what we want. Peace is what we have maintained. Peace is a prerequisite to progress. Peace is a policy of our country. The maintenance of peace must be predicated on adequate American strength and a recognition of that strength, not only by our own people and our allies but by our potential adversaries as well.

We have been provoked in the last few months. Every action has been designed to take advantage not of our military force, which is formidable and unequaled, but on the benefits of the use of our alliances and on economic, political, and diplomatic efforts. The steps that we are taking on our own, and with the cooperation of others, involve complicated measures, considerable expense, and a careful balance between the collective security needs of the region involved and its political realities. These political realities, again, are difficult to understand, extremely complex, and in every instance rapidly changing. We are making good progress. We must, and we will, make more progress.

The necessity of common action in the Southwest Asian region is dictated not by any belligerence on the part of peace-loving nations, but by the clear strategic threat that stems from the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. A failure to respond convincingly to that contemptuous act of aggression would only invite its repetition.

Beyond the violence done to Afghanistan’s independence and its people, the Red Army troops consolidating their hold there are also taking positions from which Soviet imperialism could be extended more deeply and more dangerously in the politics of this vital area. Afghanistan had long been a buffer against outsiders seeking to dominate that region. Any quick examination of a map will convince you of the truth of that statement. That is the historic role to which Afghanistan must be restored.

Soviet success in their invasion of Afghanistan, even at the high cost in blood and the high cost in respectability which Moscow is now paying, could turn Afghanistan from a roadblock against aggression into a launching pad for future incursions. This would threaten Pakistan and Iran, but not just those nations alone. Soviet aggression in Afghanistan, unless checked, confronts all the world with the most serious, long-term strategic challenge since the cold war began. To underestimate the magnitude of that challenge would constitute an historic error, an error with probably historic consequences.

America’s position is clear. It is consistent, as well, with the interests and with the commitment of our allies, whose well-being, along with our own, is intimately tied to the security and the independence of this strategically vital region. We must therefore work together in meeting the challenge which we face in common.

Our goal is the withdrawal of Soviet occupying troops, the neutrality or non-alignment of Afghanistan as a nation, and the encouragement of the formation there of a government acceptable to the Afghan people. Those goals and commitments are clear, they are simple, they’re extremely important, and they are shared with almost every other people on Earth. Within this region itself the nations must also realize that our desires match theirs—to cooperate in the preservation of the region’s independence, stability, and peace.

Fifth, this administration has been and remains committed to arms control, especially to strategic arms limitations, and to maintain a firm and balanced relationship with the Soviet Union. Our resolve to pursue this goal remains as strong as ever.

Early this morning I had breakfast with the new Secretary of State, Ed Muskie, and with my other close foreign affairs and defense advisers.⁹ We expect later on this coming week that Ed Muskie will meet with the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union.¹⁰ They will be discussing these issues, again, in a clear, consistent, forceful, proper, balanced way. One statement that we will make very clearly is that arms control and strategic arms limitation is of crucial importance to the United States, to the people of the Soviet Union, and to all other people on Earth.

The SALT II agreement is a major accomplishment of my administration. It contributes directly to the security of the United States, and we intend to abide by the treaty’s terms as long as the Soviet Union, as observed by us, complies with those terms as well. Of course, we will seek its ratification at the earliest opportune time.

The time is also fast approaching when we must think beyond SALT II, to negotiating wider and more comprehensive arrangements dealing both with additional categories of strategic nuclear weapons and with weapons of less than intercontinental capability. If the decade of the 1980’s is not to become the decade of violence, we must make renewed efforts to stabilize the arms competition and to widen the scope of arms control arrangements. After close consultation with our allies and with the Soviet Union we intend to pursue these expanded efforts to control weapons of all kinds.

Détente with the Soviets remains our goal, but détente must be built on a firm foundation of deterrence. The Soviets must understand that they cannot recklessly threaten world peace. They cannot commit aggression, and they, in doing that, must realize that they cannot still enjoy the benefits of cooperation with the West, and specifically with us. They must understand that their invasion of Afghanistan has had a profound adverse effect on American public attitudes toward the Soviet Union.

We represent a strong but peaceful nation, and there can be no business as usual in the face of aggression. The Soviets will not succeed in their constant efforts to divide the Alliance in Europe or to lull us into a false belief that somehow Europe can be an island of détente while aggression is carried out elsewhere. But let me be equally clear that the way to improved relations is open if the Soviets alter their conduct. That is the path we prefer.

Together these five objectives that I have outlined are the compass points that guide America’s course in this world of change and challenge. They link our specific actions to each other, to the past, and to the future.

Our foreign policy is designed to be responsive to the revolutionary age in which we live. To be effective it must have the wise understanding and the wide support of the American people. That depends on public realization that foreign policy is not a matter of instant success. We must expect prolonged management of seemingly intractable situations and often contradictory realities. To play our historic role of protecting our interests and at the same time preserving the peace, the United States must be steady and constant. Our commitment to American ideals must be unchanging, and our power must be adequate and credible.

While we seek to attain our broad ultimate objectives, we must never lose sight of immediate human suffering. We’ve not forgotten and we will not forget the 53 Americans imprisoned in Iran. Our Nation places a great value on human life and on human freedom. We will continue to make every effort, using peaceful means if possible, and through collective action with our allies, to obtain the release of our countrymen. And we will remind the Iranian leaders that the integrity and the independence of their own country can only suffer from this policy of theirs that led to international isolation and also internal disintegration. We have no permanent quarrel with the Iranian people. We wish to fashion a relationship of dignity with them, once this illegal action has been put behind us.

Our Nation has continued to act responsibly and in good faith toward both the people and the leaders of Iran. Our rescue attempt was a mission of mercy, not a military attack. No Iranian was killed or harmed in any way. Its only aim was to rescue innocent victims of terrorist exploitation. I regret only that it did not succeed and that eight gallant young men died in the accident as the rescue team was leaving its desert rendezvous.

This morning I participated in a memorial service for those eight young men.¹¹ And before the service I met individually with every family involved. As I approached them I had some trepidation, but in every instance they reached their arms out for me, and we embraced each other, and I could tell that their concern was about me, not about them. And they made comments to me, “God bless you, Mr. President. We are praying for you, Mr. President. And we are proud of our son or our husband, who was willing to give his life for our country and for freedom.”

Our commitment to a world that represents human rights has been heard by all people, by free people and also by those who do not know the meaning of freedom. The eagerness of large numbers of Cubans, for instance, to flee their own country is eloquent testimony to the failure of the totalitarian Castro regime. We must ensure that the Cubans who arrive in the United States and the Haitians who arrive in the United States will be treated with all the humanity and the compassion which we’ve extended to other groups and which we extend to each other.

Every family, probably, in this room which came to our country came here as immigrants, sometimes as refugees, and we should not be callous to those who come in our present day and age under the same or even more difficult circumstances. In order to bring an end to the suffering and the death on the high seas and to permit us to best allocate scarce Federal resources, the process of bringing in these refugees must be orderly, and it must be in accordance with our laws.

We’re working vigorously, yesterday and today, with 16 nations and with international organizations, at a conference on refugees in Costa Rica, to develop alternatives that will permit safe and orderly evacuation of the Cubans who are seeking to leave.¹² For ourselves, we will give highest priority to family reunification, and we prefer, of course, prescreening in Cuba or in a third country, such as Costa Rica. Let me emphasize again that we treat those seeking asylum and those who are refugees from Cuba, from Haiti, and from other countries, equally, on a case-by-case basis as is required by American law.

And finally I’d like to say to you that America’s foreign policy must always reflect the kind of people we are. We are a strong people, we are a caring people. We care about human rights, we care about decent living standards, we care about the independence of nations, and we care about the rights of individual human beings. We have a sober, responsible recognition that American power is especially important in a turbulent world where others depend upon us for their safety and for their freedom. Our interests and our ideals serve each other. Our power must be used in the service of both—interest and ideals.

The course I have mapped to you today in this brief outline form is neither simple nor easy, but it’s a sound course, it’s a safe course, which we must pursue.

Our foreign policy deserves your understanding and your support, not only for our Nation’s own security but in order that people everywhere can be certain of America’s commitment to use its vast power with a clear, firm, steady purpose—to seek for all humankind what we have: a future of progress, of freedom, and of peace.

Thank you very much.

1. Source: Public Papers: Carter, 1980–81, Book I, pp. 873–880. The President spoke at 1:02 p.m. in the Grand Ballroom of the Fairmont Hotel before the World Affairs Council of Philadelphia.
2. Reference is to D. Robert Yarnall, Jr., Chairman of the Board of Directors and William Bodine, Jr., President.
3. On May 9, the Bureau of Labor Statistics issued its monthly Producers Price Index report, which indicated that prices paid by retailers rose only five-tenths of one percent during April. (Edward Cowan, “Producer Price Rise Cut to 0.5% in April; Cost of Food Drops,” The New York Times, May 10, 1980, pp. 1, 31)
4. See footnote 3, Document 131.
5. See footnote 5, Document 145.
6. The sixth conference of the Heads of State or Government of the Non-Aligned Countries took place in Havana September 3–9, 1979.
7. Linowitz reported on his trip in a May 10 memorandum to the President. It is published in Foreign Relations, 1977–1980, vol. IX, Arab-Israeli Dispute, August 1978–December 1980, Document 362.
8. See Document 138.
9. The President took part in a breakfast meeting that morning from 7:33 to 9:05 a.m. Attendees included Muskie, Brown, Christopher, Jordan, Donovan, Cutler, and Brzezinski. (Carter Library, Presidential Materials, President’s Daily Diary)
10. See footnote 7, Document 145.
11. The memorial service took place at Arlington National Cemetery. For the President’s eulogy, see Public Papers: Carter, 1980–81, Book I, pp. 864–865.
12. Costa Rican President Rodrigo Carazo Odio organized the conference. Attendees included representatives from the United States, Australia, Argentina, Costa Rica, Ecuador, the Dominican Republic, Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil, Italy, Peru, Venezuela, Colombia, the Netherlands, the Vatican, UNHCR, OAS, and the Inter-governmental Committee for European Migration. (“18 Nations Move to Assist Exodus,” The New York Times, May 10, 1980, p. 11)