I'd like to once again remind you if you have not already filled out the questionnaires that we gave to you both the blue form and I suppose now the yellow form, please do so and on your way out of the registration desk leave them with us for tabulation there after I was asked this morning about what form reports might take from this Minnesota foreign policy Forum I mentioned and I can read right now with more confidence that the state department willBut they have heard and what they are passing on to the secretary we will in turn if you have registered with us as I'm sure most of you have and left your address. We will send those out as a minimum response to this particular event. In addition. I hope you will all take time this evening to take a look at the channel to from 7 till 8. Our panelists our state department personnel department personnel and members from the panel will be on an hour-long discussion of growing out of this day's events. I'll be talking about what they have heard and what they think in that sense. They will be a bit different from the role of the state department people here today today. They have been listening this evening as I understand it on TV. They will be expressing their own views about the issues that we have discussed today.So that's another method of feedback that I called to your attention. And finally, there will be a small group of us will get together tomorrow morning and based partly upon your own responses that you've given us on the yellow form and our own reactions to the events today. We will be discussing how best we can continue to make use of and develop the kinds of dialogue that has started here today. I can't promise you what that will be. It may be large. It may be small. It may be nothing but it is our feeling that we don't want to let an event like this simply come and go and disappear into history if we can find a way of following on we will do so and we will be back in touch with those of you who are registered to let you know that as well. If you see some of the people on the platform busily still scribbling, please understand that their task is Herculean you and they have been talkin for four hours on and off during the day and the people who are the reporters the reporters from each group work works out session are expected to be able to summarize the sink Leanne in order that discussion in 5 minutes. Now if that's not an impossible task it certainly one that's going to test each one of them. We will turn to them in order here in just a moment. The Wii with the preceding will be that with a reporter from each group will give his or her views of the main points that they hope that the state department personnel will take back to Washington. Then the state department Representatives themselves. Will have an opportunity to say what they think they have heard. And then finally after each of the people on the stage have had a chance to give you that those views briefly. Then we will open it up to the floor for questions comments again briefly before we wind up at 4:30 in that context. You'll note that there are three microphones in the on the floor which you will be able to use at that point without stepping on the time and crew of the panelists any longer. Let me introduce to you. I hope some of the moderators of the days workshops are with us till this afternoon. They have not been introduced to you and they had carried a major responsibility do during the day for the soviet-american relations. The moderator was dr. Howard Square president of Carleton College Howard. I don't know whether you're here. In any case he did a fine job on the session on the third world Gladys Brooks was the moderator. She's Vice chairman board of directors of the world affairs Center. For the role of values and foreign policy Leonard LaShawn was the moderator. He's Executive Vice President, Minnesota AFL-CIO and for the session on food in foreign policy James hetland vice-president Urban Development Department of the First National Bank of Minneapolis was the moderator and there is Jim. inter Good afternoon. This is Bob Potter speaking from the Holiday Inn in Downtown Minneapolis or special Forum on foreign policy is on your way our live broadcast. This afternoon is made possible with funds provided by the Minneapolis Star. For a top foreign policy makers from the US state department have been in Minnesota in Minneapolis today listening to a broad cross-section of residence discussing their concerns on several key foreign policy issues. These issues have been discussed throughout the day and concurrent sessions representing lie this afternoon the concluding summary sessions. The format for the session is simple a rapper tour from each session is summarizing what the panelists of told the State Department officials and the officials will then give their response the purpose of all this is to give citizens a chance to get their input in on several key foreign policy issues. The person who has just begun now is Norman Newman who was the rapper tour for a session on soviet-american relations. Let's go to the podium. possession How's that there is a lack of clarity in American foreign-policy both in respect to the policy and in respect to the decision-making process. And many many questions however phrase and on whatever topic it seemed to me and pinched upon this issue of the clarity of our goals are directions our policy and how the process of making policy occurs. Another concern that it particularly occupied us this morning was the intention bility of date aunt. What is a time is it merely another label to succeeding that of coexistence and a variety of other terms? What has it achieved? Is it a label we want to stay with? Is it more important to have a policy or do we need a label? Do we need some kind of identification? How can it be to find? In my opinion to there was expressed a concern that the Soviet Union has had the initiative in foreign policy including in the year of date aunt and that we have been the power that reacts that in a sense to use sort of a sports language. The Soviets are on the offensive. We are on the defensive. We are not exactly passive, but we react rather than an issue. There was some frustration I think because we do not show more initiative. At various times during the day there was a debate over our military strength and the implications of our military strength including a discussion of what constitutes adequate military strength. Is it parody or is it being number one? We did not go into any debts and discussion of salt talks or any other specific technical issues. The concern on human rights was very deep throughout the day. It was reiterated often and it cut through any number of issues the interrelationship between human rights and other policies the interrelationship between human rights and trade and so on the interrelationship between human rights and Soviet domestic policy. All of these came up again and again and there was it a true depth a true human emotion that the pervaded this that concern. One or two times. We I sell Express the opinion that we need a more vigorous International competition with the Soviet Union in terms of ideas values discussion of alternative systems that perhaps there we have to let down the initiative. The role of Congress in foreign policy is probably appropriate for me to bring up when I discuss the decline of initiative in particular. The fact that Congress does not seem to be particularly vocal or present in foreign policy and that there was some confusion in the relationship among the governmental branches and governmental agencies in foreign policy. I perceived today and of course the topic was structured to make it more likely that I would receive this that most of the people have a tendency to see the world is bipolar. And here if I may interject an editorial comment, very most people today regarding the world is no longer bipolar that we are in a multipolar world, even though that word is an artificial construct and I think perhaps underlying this was the question of how much power does either the Soviet Union or the United States have I think we felt that there was a frustration that America does not have enough power probably if the Soviets were participants, they might have felt the same thing. There was a continuing concern about Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe and our response to that hegemony. The hegemony has going on now for approximately thirty years. And what is our reaction to it. We have never officially recognized that hegemony. We know that it exists and the debate I think was always present as to you know, really whether we are prepared to take any steps whether we just tacitly recognize Soviet hegemony. And you know, what do we do about it? There was also expressed very firmly the need the desire for more communication between the people and the state department a desire for more input into policy determination and more opportunities for feedback to policies that have been initiated related to this the question of what should be secret many people said, I really don't know about that because this is an area where the policy is not been fully revealed. What should be secret what can be secret what can be revealed. I think some questions also were raised about our own role in the lack of progress and soviet-american relations and some opinions were expressed as to what we might do to improve Soviet American relations, but also expressed with the feeling that perhaps we expect too much in soviet-american relations. We expect too much of a country. With whom we have Siri serious. It is a logical and economic differences and also are a great power rifle. I think these are some of the major points and perhaps if I've missed any then our representative from the state department can clarify That was Norma Noonan who is the chairman of the Department of political science at Augsburg College? The chairman of this entire session is Bruce McLaren the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis State Department officials will respond to this issue his jet Jack Matlock who is Minister in concert at the US Embassy in Moscow the other topics that will be covered this afternoon our relations with the third world food and foreign policy and the role of value and now here's mr. Matchlock. Professor Newlands summary was remarkable not only for its brevity but its comprehensiveness. Maybe I missed something but I can't really think of a major topic that came up which she didn't dilute to. So it's really left for me. I supposed to give as briefly as I can some of my personal reactions to these issues. First of all, I think the overwhelming impression. Which I derived from this session. Has been that we really do need perhaps we desperately need the better means of communication. I think more than anything else to me the breakdown somehow in communication between our foreign policy practitioners and and the American people came home to me. The criticisms the comments were surprised because we do try to follow the American opinion. We read many editorials. We follow the Press. We see a lot of people and therefore I think the the specific criticisms. It came up to. Come as a surprise to me often as I heard them that I only wish that we had been better able not merely to formulate policy, but to communicate policies different things because I think questions were raised where the policy really has been enunciated though clearly somehow we failed to come through. So I guess the the major thing I take back in a general sense is I need to look at our means of communication both with our public in general and also with Congress through which we can maintain contact with public can interact on the substantiv issues it appeared to me and perhaps I was overly optimistic in this regard that buy large most of the speakers seem to assume. That we should continue our efforts to improve relations with the Soviet Union to regularize into the degree possible. I think most of the debate and the suggestions really related to the area of how we go about doing this not really to the desirability of doing it. I think this this for me I think was was very encouraging Because unless there is a shared consensus that we can and should and must continue our efforts to improve relations with the Soviet Union so that we hopefully can live in a somewhat safer world then than any of the other things almost become immaterial. Has dr. Noonan mentioned we had no detailed discussion of such things as the salt negotiations or the arms control negotiations, which are extremely important to the relationship. However, I certainly shared her impression that there is widespread worry. Perhaps would not be too strong a word that somehow we are or may be falling behind and somehow our attempt to forge a more and more safe relation to the Soviet Union has led to letting down our own strength. So that I think I think that concern was quite clear. As dr. Newman mentioned there was considerable discussion of our attitude toward human rights in the Soviet Union and what impact this should have on our policies in other areas, and I think we discussed in some detail our various options here. I'm not sure there was a consensus in this area thinking back over it that were a variety of use. I think it seemed to me that there was a consensus that we should be concerned with human rights. I think there's no doubt about that. Now where the consensus seemed to break down was what does this mean? First of all, how do we Define them does are concerned if I just to the Soviet Union or across-the-board how much do we tie other things to this concern if they trade or for that matter other Agreements are desirable on their own account. Do we try to make better performance in human rights contingent or do we get what we can in the area where we can and not let it be stymied by a perhaps futile effort to do something inhuman rides will these were various issues which were raised they are very difficult issues. They were not resolved. I can believe in our discussion, but I think they do get close to the heart of some of our foreign policy dilemmas and I would submit that they are or should be the subject of continue to date so that we can get a better feel of how the American people really want us to move in this area cuz I say I think there is no No doubt that there is a great concern for human rights. It was great feeling that. This is a valid goal of American foreign policy the debate centers around what methods we use which will work and which we we should adopt. Finally, I would also just mention doctor Noonan's comment about the seemed Assumption of bipolarity. I think I'm some of the comments it seemed to me that there was an assumption that somehow many of the problems of the world could be worked out if we could only get the Russians to cooperate and it does seem to me that this if it ever was true is no longer true. I think if we expect our us Soviet relations in a bilateral sent to solve most of the major problems of the world, we are expecting too much of it. We're simply placing too great a burden, but I think the fact of the matter is that the Soviet Union and the United States not only have radically different societies. They also have differing National interest. And I think it's unreasonable to expect them to somehow abandoned the pursuit of their National interest. In other areas rather. We must find ways to cope with these I think increasingly within the areas concerned cuz the world is no longer bipolar their various power centers, they drew Barry and none may be quite as powerful as the United States or the Soviet Union individually, but the real decisions are often made elsewhere. Where are we in the Soviets are more a tangential or marginal Factor. Then we are the determining Factor. But in any case, I think our discussion was most informative for me most useful and I certainly will go back to terman to try to help to find ways that we can keep the Stylo going. Turning them from soviet-american relations to food and foreign policy. I'd like to call upon Bill Hugh who is Deputy vice president and Dean of The Institute of Agriculture at the University of Minnesota. Who was the reporter for that group Hill. Thank you Bruce. And I guess I join the others and saying to cover such an important subject in such a brief time is difficult, but we'll try first. I'd like to come in the the group because I think those who were the audience of the participants are their statements were well taken they made them succinctly are we didn't have any long speeches as you said you hoped we would not have Bruce and I think really what we dealt with were constructive challenges and to me that was important. We're also talking about the area that is far as our nation. It's the most important industry the most important industry certainly in Minnesota. We dealt with three basic questions. I'll quickly speak to those and then try to highlight some of the things that went on the three basic questions were one how should the International Community protect itself against severe Global shortfalls and food production. We split into two and went back to one and two couple times to was what relative weight should be assigned to the various uses of food. Aid a humanitarian be Market development development assistance and Dee political purposes in the third area what policy measures measures should the United States adopt to liberalize International agricultural trade in two sections under that? Hey what concession should we seek from other countries and then which countries and be what concession should we be prepared to offer in return and is necessary. They say we covered the broad areas. I think what it really boils down to is that until we settle some of our own domestic issues will probably have a considerable difficulty looking at an international scene. And the first question. I suspect that we did raise was do we in fact have a food policy for the United States. I think consensus would say no, I think whatever Walk of Life you're in all of us are consumers at one point or another. I think we would agree if we have not developed one for ourselves domestically then how can we really be so bold as to say what will help the rest of the world and so it was that challenge and actually a proposal was made from one member of our group and that we have copies of that and I'm sure there will be a tremendous discussion into the future of some of the issues. Of course that come out of this is the whole dialogue that constantly goes on. The food stamp program school lunch aid for the needy by things of this type even down to population. And in fact, we have not even come to the appropriate struggles and decisions on that in our own country. Hopefully, you can hear some of the tapes that have developed here because the the detail is there essentially we are dealing now with a system that was developed the basic agricultural law in this country was established in 1933 in an error. I certainly very different than what we know in the seventies and what most importantly will be working both domestically and internationally through the 80's 90's into the turn of the century. And these are some real problems when I go culture was strictly a way of life. It's now a combination way of life in Commercial Business and then perhaps most importantly psychology of surplus and that shifts then very quickly into the issue of Reserve vs. Surplus in a need for education. As one talks with Farmers across the state and really the the breadbasket of our nation we find great confusion on those two terms and many farmers say what we didn't manage a surplus they were right we didn't but in fact if we are to have food reserves grain reserves in particular then build into this planning mechanism in system will have to be a management scheme and cannot just be a domestic system. It has to look at the international I sensed without it coming out. There was this saying let's have a nice government butt in the butt part. I put in an editorially is it but will we get in trouble? We'd like to know you're there and I think this is you know, this is the way we have been brought up. Did I say too many of my agricultural friends are they say that the intervention of government in agriculture is racing it. Isn't that's the whole thing that built our system. The creation of USDA but it's been not in the same way that they saw the the quote management of surpluses that we spend considerable time on the matter of food is a tool of diplomacy, but I think many of us felt that whoever uses the word food is a weapon, you know, we got to hang them on the wall and kind of suggest that they change that word to food is power. But the real question will we use it appropriately have we used it appropriately and all of these years that we had so-called surpluses but I think that's the challenge that we as Americans have and certainly that the agricultural Community must face that one other Point again, but under lay most of our discussion was the tremendous interdependence, but we always want to put ourselves in segments that you know, I'm labor. I'm agriculture. I'm management. I'm a consumer. I'm at this time of that. We even got down to a somebody saying well I have to but maybe take a different position on a on what a church group takes. And I felt that he might have really felt strongly on that issue. The point is we are so interdependent not only in our own country and in our total society and economy, but we are across the world and the reference made to the Lifeboat theory of Garrett Hardin and if one reads that, you know, you won't even bother getting up in the morning again. I'm editorializing but we are tremendously interdependent and yet we have certain things going on in our society that makes it divisive are there is this tendency to accept labor against Agriculture and agriculture against labor when in fact at a point where all consumers and highly interdependent on one another and so this boils down to the tremendous need for Education since I represent an education institution that's in some ways as we're not completely doing our job and I think that to some degree is true, but we tend not to bring out in all of our facets of activity this tremendous in a relationship. I came out that we need to be more open and how decisions are made as it relates to food Aid who wear with all those decisions made and who made who finally decide with home when and at what point in time and with what Commodities we might trade I think this was alluded to in the first discussion. That was just a little bit of this behind-the-scenes back of the barn. So I approached let's bring it out in the open so that we can all know we're all realistic and know that it's some point in terms of negotiations. You can't lay it all out, but we really have to do a better job in communicating to the general public are the matter of planning now, you know in some circles planning causes difficulty, but certainly this is where we are in the total agricultural community and if we're to address the international setting we need more involvement in the planning effort Farmers have to be involved a business Community must be involved, but certainly the consumers have to be the government weather be the Congress are the executive branch has to be involved but let's have those is open discussions and let's do them jointly not individually because if we arrive at the individual to have our own perception and then who should be who should we be assisting some people would say that we've assisted the wrong groups over the years the major emphasis now and it's titled 12 Diamond prevention act essentially is to help the poorest of the poor, but I think we came away feeling or at least I did that the group was saying but let's make sure that there is opportunity for development and some stability in the government's that we're going to be working with The major emphasis came across to me on the need for self-help. No words. The less developed countries have to have the desire to help themselves. We can have handouts for just so long. We have not solved that problem right here at home. We came full circle on this. But again, we've not solved all our own domestic issues and we become our own experts on doing it at the international. I think I came away with the feeling that whatever we were going to do left a base of optimism, and certainly that has to be if we're to approach some of the problems of International Development their own domestic issues. Thank you. Blinq vice-president and Dean at the University of Minnesota Institute of Agriculture was Bruce McLaren who is director of The Office of food policy and programs at State Department gym. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. First of all, I'm pleased to say that after having sat through 3 + hours of discussion bill hugin. I did seem to attend the same meeting. I don't have any radical departures from mother summary that he's already a very expertly presented. Let me add a couple of things to it. However, perhaps my my perspective is a slightly different on a few points. First of all, I was very much impressed as as Bill outlined with the top priority given in our group at least to the necessity to establish a national policy before we try to venture off into establishing an International Food policy at the Cornerstone really has to be laid here at home and that has top priority and I think that's that's logically very sound there was also accompanying that a desire to try to reconcile the in Conflict between those who produce and sell a commodity in this case. So food or grain and those who buy and consume this commodity one always would like to have the highest possible price in the other the lowest possible price that's human nature. And it's really the basis of Economics the way that seemed to be suggested of getting at this was to investigate What mechanisms could be developed to induce better performance in the market to have a more stable Market but one that is still responsive to the basic forces of supply and demand That on the national side on the international side. I was was struck by two principals. It seemed to me to emerge one was a desire for an ethical foreign policy. And this came out in in various ways particularly in the Rev fair amount of time that we spent this afternoon on food. Aid its uses its abuses what we can realistically expect to achieve from it. What our obligations did in the International Community are and secondly a very deep. I thought an appreciation of the interdependence of the world in which we live today and how we have some responsibilities and not only are these moral responsibilities, but there's a good deal of self-interest that motivates us to cooperate with other countries. The kind of run through a checklist then of what I would deduce to be some of the the points of emergent consensus. A belief that the United States should respond to International Food emergencies to genuine famine or hunger situations that developed out of Scituate natural disasters. For example, secondly that food Aid has a role in the world at least until most of all of the rest of the world can achieve the point where it feeds itself either but it's had its own efforts by growing its own food or by having a reduction in other areas that I can trade for food, but the the American food at least should be designed in such a way to stress its developmental aspects to work toward a goal of self-sufficiency in other countries. A recognition that that food as as Bill said in this was articulated very clearly in the discussion food is to think of food as a political weapon is really impossible. It is it's unrealistic to attempt to use the US position as the world's principal producer and exporter of grain as a device to influence political policies or bring about political change in other countries that that is neither a desirable nor probably a practical approach but rather at the same time to recognize that the United States position as the world's principal food producer is an enviable one and one that adds to our stature into our responsibilities in the International Community. And finally the subject of grain reserves, which is always at least in my experience as a source of great discussion and sometimes contention. The screen seem to be focused on is one of the mechanisms that we could use to achieve a greater degree of Harmony both in our own domestic market and internationally if we can find and put into effect a formula that establishes a reserve of grain to be available to offset shortfalls in production, but at the same time to separate it from the market in a really convincing way so that it is not discouraging to production. All that having been said, I'd like to add a comment that was made by Jack Matlock before me and that is at this check list of of things that I believe I heard during the course of the discussion runs, very close. In fact to the outline of the of the policies that we have been following in the food area at least since their own food Conference of November 1974. End of the discussion however, led me to the conclusion that we have not communicated to the general public to those who are really interested in the in the subject in what the broad outlines of our policies are and certainly I'm convinced that the experiences we've had here today are a step toward a better understanding and toward better two-way communication and not in the old mode of of us trying to the cell policies, but rather to try to reach a consensus about them. Thank you very much. Turning them to the third world by Priscilla was the reporter in that group. She is associate Dean and continuing education and extension at the University of Minnesota Barber. Thank you Bruce. I believe it was President Kennedy who spoke about the desirability of making the world safe for diversity. He would have been greatly assured by what occurred in the discussion of the third world during this day. Are there seems to be no or at least no articulated this agreement with the rightness of Aid that is with the responsibility of the rich nations of the world to help the poor nations of the world improve their lot. There were however disagreements over the amount in terms of Aid and how resources should be allocated somewhere pragmatic in their approach insisting that The Coincidence of economic interest between developed and developing countries should be the determining factor in any Arrangements governing a trade and private investment other said, that was not enough Political considerations could not be ignored neither could the very difficult task of understanding and reconciling the perceptions of nations with very different past and presents others suggested that we had neglected moral values and dealing with third world countries that perhaps the realities of power and then two dominant in our approach to third world countries. There were those who thought our approach to parochial concerned with the here and now and the short run instead. So these spokesman said we should beware aware of the growing interdependencies, which is made of the planet a global village. It was incumbent on us therefore not to impose Economic Development plans on other nations, but to consult and advise more on the order of the World Bank operation. Perhaps the greatest degree of difference could be found in the discussion on the terms of 8, what kind of string should be attached? If any and what leverages I should be used while those arguing for conditional Aid did not necessarily invoke the arguments of being friendly with the United States or voting our way in the United Nations. They were concerned that somehow age should meet the objective for which it was intended that intention was not to build a four-lane highway from Capitol to a palace but to increase per capita incomes. That intention was not to make the powerful or the wealthy in four states more influential or richer but to infect the mainstream of the total Society. The purpose it was said is to enable the poor to escape the poverty trap another point which appeared to generate consensus was that we should not apply global politics the economic development. We should not allocate Aid on the basis of weather is state is pro-communist or anti-communist. Some suggested. However that Aid might be given or withheld on the basis of judging the ability of a nation's internal structure to utilize development Aid affect the determination of that ability was not it was admitted and easy thing to assess everyone who spoke seem weary of using food Aid as a leveraged believing that such a policy would be counterproductive and detrimental to the National interest of the United States. We regretted that we did not spend more on Aid some thought we had our priorities all wrong with more going for military aid and other defense purposes some worried that the sentiment expressed in this presidential campaign against spending dollars at home would surely make any position to increase spending abroad much more difficult to Advocate. We should someone said make sure that our policies were so structured that the poor in the United States would not be a zhask to pay the price of supporting the poor of other nations. Bilateral efforts are not the only source of support. Of course the World Bank group in the UN development program wearside. It is important ingredients in the egg mix the multinational corporations came in for their share of what some believe was appropriate criticism others felt the multinationals had not been giving credit where credit was due for the investment and training programs which had in some measure improve the overall economic performances of the countries in which they were located. Our final note was on motivation. Why are we in the egg business? Anyway, the mixture of responses suggested what has probably always been true. We give aid for a variety of reasons. We give a doubt of political considerations the attempt to influence the behavior of other states. We give Aid to provide support for our own economy and the business enterprises which make it move. We give a doubt of a self-interest which may be narrowly or broadly construed and which may or may not be conceived is advancing the well-being of other states. Finally we give Aid because it is right that is maybe the least evidence of motives. But in the long run, if you will permit me an editorial note, it may prove to be the most substantial in shaping specific policies, which will be in harmony with the needs of the poor Nations as they perceive those needs. The state department official who was sitting in on the third world discussion was Roy Atherton. He's assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of near Eastern and South Asian affairs. I was just going to observe with one of the only thing wrong with this room is if there's no clock on the wall and the rapper said about making the world safe for diversity. This was perhaps one of the most diverse discussions that I've ever taken part in and before I begin to try to Summarize and articulate the principal Impressions that I want to take back to Washington with me left me. Savory briefly what the fundamental question was if we were addressing there were times when it wasn't clear that anyone remember the fundamental question. But basically I'm very generally and largely speaking what we were talking about and then our session was the problem of how can the Gap be closed between the industrialized world the the world that we know and live in and the third world which after all makes up the overwhelming majority of the of the population of of this Earth. And how can the economic benefits of the earth be equitably distributed so that there will be a sense in the third world that it is getting a fair return for its contribution to the world economic system. I think there's no question. But but there was a consensus in our group that. We have a responsibility. We in the industrial world to help the try to close this Gap. I would say parenthetically that I'm encouraged and I will certainly report this when I go back I find no traces of that the country is going isolationist and I was perfectly encouraged many of the younger people in our group where is vehement as anyone could be in emphasizing the need on the importance of our remaining engaged in the world in this but maybe the principal issues that we're going to face over the next decade or so. There was General consensus. Also, I think that we that we could be and should be doing more as a nation. Then we are that we are not perhaps devoting a sufficient percentage of our own gross national product to closing the gap. When you come to the question of how we should do more then the differences began to appear rather sharply. It was I would say no real consensus. At least that I could I could be texting in that regard. One of you expressed was that we should accept basically the realities of the economic system of the world as it is today that the industrial World should not have guilt feelings because it got started first and has enjoyed more of the fruits of the resources of the world and its standard of living are higher that we have to take the system. Basically as it is and look for areas of mutual interest between the industrial and the developing world and build on that and start basically with where we are. There were opposing views to this rather strongly opposing views as a matter of fact, There were those who pointed out that the problems that separate us from the third world are not Justa conomic problems that they are also psychological and that we have to deal not only with the economics of the problem. But with the perceptions that people have of their of their place in the world do we have to understand the Perceptions in the developing countries and whether or not we feel responsible for the fact that they have a Minimum standards of living and we enjoy one of the highest in the world. We have to accept as a reality in begin with the fact that it is a perception that there has been exploitation in there has been Injustice Rob against the developing World by what we call the industrial and developed world. It was even suggested in the couple of the comments that perhaps at least in the subconscious right away our approach to the third world has implicit if not explicitly undertones of racist attitudes. I think this is a very very serious thought and I think it's one that we all need to reflect on in our own minds and hearts as we approach this problem. The question of how we can do more weather through trade by giving preferential treatment to the Imports of developing countries, even if someone spends to our own economy or by larger Aid programs or by channelling more of our private resources through multinational corporations into the developing world the question of how we allocate more resources again, Alyssa to the number of of conflicting views. One that came through very strongly and again, I would have to say particular from the younger generation represented but not entirely was that it isn't necessarily the case of adding to the burden of the individual American taxpayer. In order to do this. There was General recognition that this is not a saleable idea at this point in our own in our own history. Probably certainly not in this election year that there are other ways of doing it though that we ought to have a long hard look at how we allocate our resources and perhaps we should not put so much into military assistance to other countries and diverted from military assistance to Constructive and positive economic programs the perhaps we could look at our own tax system and see if there are ways to raise more resources without putting a burden on the most heavily burdened taxpayers. There was also great concern that we perhaps have lost sight of Our Own. Basic National values in making decisions about where we will provide assistance where we will put our resources and how we will put them in the Wii and the to forget the values that we build our own Nation upon that we should apply some of these criteria and looking at those countries that we will help in those that we won't help. Those that I think are they the overriding questions are raised in my mind and I sat at the end of our discussion while normally I enjoy coming out on these dialogues with the public in order to have a give-and-take and to be able to answer the question. Some of the questions asked today or the kind that I'm glad I don't have to answer on the spot because some of them are very searching very deep and they're going to require a lot of reflection. Only on their own merits but I think reflection about some of our basic premises with which we approach this relationship between ourselves and the world if I could just summarize a few of the collateral themes that came out more or less in the order that they occur to me. First of all, the question was raised. Why is the United States always a johnny-come-lately? Why is it that we seem to only Develop policies to deal with problems in the world when the problems are already overwhelming is why don't we look ahead and anticipate what is coming and devised longer-range policies in order to in order not to be caught off-guard and have to improvise in some cases. On the question of the role of multinational corporations since we had represented both. Multinational corporations and very clear critics of multinational corporations. This was a lively part of the discussion and I would have to say that I don't come away with a clear consensus is the weather multinational corporations are good or bad. I suppose the answer that most of the people would give the intrinsically that neither good nor bad. It depends how they are used how they adapt themselves in the country's really are one question was raised very thoughtful question is whether or not such corporations have a responsibility to abide by the laws of the country where they operate but also to measure what they do in those countries by certain moral and moral values of their own whether the laws that they are subjected to our laws and one of the system that they are offering operating within is a system that is equal to or consistent with the values of their home country. on the question of criteria that should be applied for our transfer resources to the developing world again this feeling I think that we should not make are a dependent upon the political postures of other countries with respect to specific issues and we should not for example say that if you don't vote for us in the United Nations on this question, we will reduce our Aid there was a very strong feeling the food should not be used as a political weapon, but there were many articulate arguments made for the need to be selective in the choice of the countries to which are resources go selected not only in terms of asking ourselves whether or not what is going there is in fact benefiting the mass of the people of those countries and not simply a vested delete which is using its relationship to last to stay in power. But also whether or not the system economic and political social system of the country is such that it can effectively use the egg that we provide. Does it have a recent development program? And otherwise this I think was at least a qualified answer to the quest to those who say that we should give Aid where it is most needed. I think that was the answer to that basically in our group was yes, but and that there are certain criteria that we ought to apply. to sum up then I think the overriding Impressions that I will carry back with me and Report our first of all that the United States does have a responsibility and the national interest in Relating to the developing world and finding ways to continue to assist in closing the Gap to transfer our resources to it, but considerable skepticism. In fact, I would have to say ranging from some skepticism to Total rejection of the ways in which we have been doing this so far a very serious doubt underlying most of the discussion about whether programs in the fact have accomplished what we said that they were going to accomplish what we set out to do. and this comes down to something that I was simply raises a question that leave hanging we often do we often Define the reasons for doing what we do as a nation for National policies by saying that they're developed in our enlightened self-interest several people today raise the question isn't that really begging the question because the very question of how you define yourself interested cell becomes a policy issue and I'm going to go back to the workshop on the role of values in development and implementation of foreign policy. The reporter in that session was Charles McLaughlin presser of political science at the University of Minnesota Charles. My panel don't was in material things in there for a certain air of unreality May provide what follows? I supposedly there in the world panel to may have attempted diversity. Shirley live full flowering of achievement in that field belongs to us. And therefore my crush on you that anything I'm a report. I'm sure would be disputed and so marry him by every member of the panel is being an unfair representation of what he saw. The panel did not attempt comprehensive definition of values. Which the United States all the Seeker try to protect. Mont rather we discussed several basic policy areas trying in the course of doing this to bring out the policy implications. During the morning session. The inquiry was how far are diplomacy and diplomatic relations are to be governed by the failures of other countries to protect rights. Human rights are human values at which team. There's a good deal of this wedding to disparities between professed American values such as individual Freedom Economic Opportunity protection of individual piece. And the policies that we have publicly perseid from considerations of security or he cannot make motivations in the light. Now that's a military aid to Turkey in spite of a distress. We feel over its policy and Cypress or military aid to various authoritarian regimes of their place in our defense strategy or because they oppose communism. Seems to subordinate human rights for security factors. Economic interest as we care / violation of the UN sanctions against Rhodesia as one example and a chromatid. We have participated in efforts in the United Nations to formulate human rights, but we have failed to ratify the human rights. Covenants several other human rights treaties what you've been drafted by that body. And we have failed Basin Park to initiative upon these standards now that they have been somewhat formulated. If you found that the United States and gave you some double standards to the point of hypocrisy. As in belaboring the Indians for failure to control population while are 6% of the world population. Why are preaching peace and distributing arms as a principal purveyor to dozens of Nations throughout the world? But most of the panel felt that a better description would be confusion of purpose. Another Americans generally do believe firmly and certain fundamental values. They are really frustrated by an inability to communicate adequately other wishes to foreign policy makers with respect to those values. one segment of the discussion consequently turned upon the foreign policy process the panel sees this as depending heavily upon executive policy initiatives executive management, obviously. What subject at least the limiting Congressional and sometimes popular reactions? Many panelists apparently would like further communication with both the Congress and the state department. And I feel there is indeed much information made available but not in the kind of capsulized form which points the issues and invites the responses. Some pointed to the Vietnam war is an obvious instance of failure to give the people critical facts and discuss the issues openly. There's a good deal on a feeling that while many conflicts of interests or values must inevitably continue and must resent perplexing dilemmas to us. Then we have some reason to feel disappointment and will offend you to make human rights and values and where central concern foreign policy. And to develop positive programs with your part of a long-range and deliberate or a policy designed to advance those values. In the afternoon, we don't more particularly alarm sales population control pollution multinational corporations intelligence operations. There was substantial difference of opinion between the views of those who feel that the immediate threats have to be countered. So that we cannot withhold arms to Liberal groups are countries when Russia is providing them to come in this group. Against that was put the feeling of many that there is a long-range danger proliferation of conflicts my sale of weapons on the present scale. No simple answer to that emerged. In the view of many, however, the foreign policy must increasingly be a positive one of influence and persuasion founded on the basic ideals. Anita kannamma karriem some felt that the multinationals were irresponsible others felt but there was really no evidence that they constitute a threat to the currency of the states in which they operate from public controls. Overpopulation and pollution like War we're seeing his problems that transcends National boundaries and which would benefit from stronger international action. When you going to let her election the United States could take raised shark differences. You seem to feel like you cannot make sanctions or withholding of arms or food. I might be appropriately used against the pending States. Others replied but we are not now in a position to do this because of the increasing economic interdependence. I looked further more worried. It would not be consistent with our moral position to do it since in these areas. We are not exactly Beyond reproach ourselves. a better route to fear the most in collaborating types of efforts from International agencies and then the long-range emphasis on positive foreign policy initiatives to solve these problems by persuasion by influence by example Meanwhile, it oversimplifies to say that we should not deal with authoritarian regimes. My number for haps 120 of the 150 countries. If I leave out of account the various shades of authoritarianism. They might indeed to take such an action and some case of gross denial of all freedoms, but that is not actually the kind of a case, which is presented. Are we rather are dealing with authoritarian regimes which preserve some areas of Freedom as for example in the economic structure? And have to consider what our policy with respect to them maybe. In relation to policy with respect to still more authoritarian regimes, which do not have whiter areas of Liberty. We can better approach the problem in the opinion of most of the panel my trying and our relations to emphasize positive values positive programs. Which we may hope to have some eventual influence. Throughout the afternoon for chicken or lay we have been very sharp with a representative of the state department. But I think by the end of the meeting and we will all have the grace probably to concede that our own conclusions and I on you than them if they are so far from complete and Crystal Clear. Glad we are hardly in a position to be severe with the representatives of the state department who have the same highly for flexing problems with which to deal and then we're going to try to do the same conflicting sense Richardson. And finally, then that scapegoat ready at hand are Ambassador. John Rinehart who is assistant secretary for public affairs and was the one listening in on the role of aliens, John. Thank you, Bruce. I think I should first point out that this scapegoat and others with him today. We're carefully put on the topmost floor of this building in a place called the satellite room in order to discuss morality and values in foreign policy. But it would seem to me from the reports and the other three groups that that may well have been representatives from these groups upstairs. Because some of the phrases some of the conclusions so that they have reported this afternoon. We're a part of our meeting. The lack of communication or poor communication is a phrase that occurred frequently all day with us. Human rights and human dignity we heard more than once. All of which goes to demonstrate it seems to me that even where specificity was not required as in a discussion of morality and values stay all morality and values are a part of the general foreign policy process as demonstrated from the three reports that you have heard. This McLaughlin doesn't leave much to be set. Indeed for a moment or two. I was not quite sure that I was in the same room for more filter the through to him other than to me on a vacation. But it seemed to me that today's group. Basically with two general problems the problem first of defining values. They dealt with this and a general way first and then more specifically. They thought that in general values have been defined for Americans in the Bill of Rights in the Declaration of Independence. in the Golden Rule in the decalogue and it seemed to me that the group was saying that these values are good enough for us and these are American values. These are the values that should be a part of American foreign policy. more specifically human dignity human rights here and abroad should be a value or cherish the by the makers of foreign policy. The search for in the preservation of Peace once found is a high-value. Population control came up more than once as that, which we should be searching far in the foreign policy process. And Environmental Protection on the simple ground that if human life is not the preserved there will be no values to cherish. No foreign policy to pursue. I thought I heard that from this group a basic assumption. That all peoples fundamentally hold these values are at least long for them regardless of governments which control their destinies. It was then the incorporation of these values in American foreign policy that the group was critical. One person said we keep two sets of books and Washington or one for domestic use and the other far foreign consumption. Hence Farm policy. The group suggested is Guided by expediency. It is episodic. It is ad hoc. It is reactive rather than creative. It was charged. And buttressing discharge many members of the group decided specifics are general policies as they are understood by the group at least toward South Africa or Southern Africa in general. Our seeming willingness on occasions to tolerate the Arab boycott. Our seeming tolerance of Idi Amin. our reluctance to make recognition of Human Rights As a basis of our foreign assistance programs. Are temporary importation of Rhodesian Chrome? Our actions and inactions. It was charged in the Turkish Greek Cyprus problem. One person suggesting that this problem is simply a moral issue. She says And repeated assertions that our shipment of arms abroad. Is not in harmony with the values that we hold. Further charged in this session as apparently in others that there is a lack of openness in the making of foreign policy. Too much of it done secretively. It was suggested. The people the people it was charged do not know a foreign policy except in a time of crisis. Vietnam again being cited as the primary example that even the people's Representatives did not understand. We're not in on other formulation of this policy. Some discussion of what was called here. And in other sections enlightened self-interest as a controlling factor in the formulation of foreign policy. Self-interest it was said can and should be equated with human interest and interest in human rights and interests in human dignity. There were few attempts really to Define self interest Beyond simply asserting that values and interests are the same. There was a recognition that there are large blocks of Nations that are not Democratic as we Define the term. That is democratic in accordance with our own conception of the process of democracy. It was implied. occasionally I started that we should not attempt to impose our Democratic Values, but that they should in some ways shine forth by example at home and abroad On the other hand there where those in the meeting who felt that far certain issues. atomic energy population and environment we should directly intervene here to other nations Affairs in an effort to ensure the survival of the human race. Was considerable discussion especially this morning of the nature of the foreign policy process that was General recognition of the president's constitutional roles to formulate and of the congress's role to advise and consent to foreign policy. Still there was a belief that a relatively small number of people two or three it was charged once or twice. Are actually responsible for American foreign policy. Special interest it was asserted indeed special Elite individuals are and have been in control of foreign policy. Toward the end of the afternoon indeed at a time when the moderator was about to break up the meeting. We move to a discussion. a more specific discussion of the processes of farming foreign policy And it was pointed out that seldom does the formulator of foreign policy have a set of clear-cut choices. By the very nature of his work. He is dealing in ambiguities. And one of the real problems is to align values or morality. With the ambiguous choices continually confronting the president or the secretary. Those of us who are responsible for assisting. the president and the secretary are most grateful to the world affairs Center into the Upper Midwest Council of far this day beneficial discussion, and we look forward to the questions are from the starting now. Thank you. Reinhardt was included in your summation of the foot policy shoes, and now there will be questions and comments from the floor here is Bruce mccorry source of comments throughout the day and asked whether there are any points that have not been covered that you would like to underline by way of a statement a brief statement or any questions that you would like to address the panelist and a final word that you would like to send home to her. Send to Washington. I would only ask that you keep any statement. I asked in the back of the room first place and if you do move to a microphone But I short my stoop too much anyway, so let me see if I can raise it. My name is Doug Johnson from the third world Institute. I guess what I like to indicate. First of all I said when I originally received the brochure and the list of 50 participants of the of the program am I here I bow okay. I guess I'd like to express I was rather angry because the list of participants seem to avoid a very large and significant blocks of of Citizen input into this program. Most notably especially when we were dealing with third world issues as as 1/4 of the topic they seem to be lacking and all but perhaps 2/3 will representatives are minority Representatives on to the panel but more significantly because I represent a special interest group the third world Institute. It seemed to me that that the makeup of the of the panel avoided any participation by the numerous organizations that citizens themselves as have To advise themselves and to end to do research and then inform the state department about citizen objectives and questions on foreign policy issues. Okay, and that I was angry but I'd like to indicate that that I think especially what do to the organization of it that of course, I wasn't privy to and the fairness of the moderators. I was very very pleased by the responses that we were able to get out and alternative used in order to talk with the state department. The only thing I'd like to say is that I hope the state department does not go away assuming that minnesotans are only peripherally interested in international relations and international issues and that and that interest is only able to come out through big large public relations Gathering such as this one but in fact minnesotans are so interested in it, but they've they've set up probably close to 20 organizations dealing with foreign policy issues. There's a list Are those available on the black back of the sheet that lists only 14 or 15 of those? I think what's extremely important to note is that citizens all around the country are setting up organizations like these and if the state department is truly interested in citizen input. We hope that some contact regular contact will be made with these groups as well as multi-national corporations and other more establishment organizations, and now that the the paranoia era of the Nixon Administration is gone. I like to indicate that I would be more than willing to give each state department member a list of these organizations that they could put in their file. Thank you very much, and I hope you'll do so Yes, please underline a point that was made about the concern of the different to of people in the different groups that that the foreign policy makers were not Consulting with the people enough. I think the attitude of this body was it here. We are there several hundred people here. Most of us are college-educated well-traveled well-read and our government will keep some of the dumbest things secret from us and I mean some really dumb things like I even family history of individual families and so forth and then it will also turn around and it consults from a from a little Elite from this it from this list of for what I just saw that you people here who represent the state department people from the east coast states went to a select few of Kyle colleges and so forth. I think he would people here are saying is we are intelligent to we are well educated if we are intelligent enough to a What you people are too like the people that hire any foreign policy advisors and we are intelligent enough to be listen to when we've got our Graves and we expect you people to consult us once in a while. The other thing I would like to raise is I had noticed it of the State Department officials here. Like I said that they were from the East Coast they were over the age of 40 there is not one woman. There is only one minority representative as far as racial minorities and I cannot help but wonder if this is a representative of the of the major advisors to do that Henry Kissinger does consult and if that is the case then how do you know what this very small group are and all the interests of the United States being well represented. I would hope that in the future when advisers are needed to be hired at that. They would consult some people under the age of forty. I'm out of work. I'm available. I and a few women a few ghetto Oriental Americans Chicanos are in some people like this. I think that these people have a stake in what goes on in the world and I think they ought to be heard to thank you. Thank you very much. Jessie Staton, please. My name is William hunting. I'm the director of the Newman Center at the University of Minnesota attended the discussions in the value section. I was a little upset I guess with the fact that nobody on the panel at least overtly. I was labeled as having any background in either social ethics or value Theory and I thought that was reflected in the initial comments of both reporters who felt a little felt the necessity to say something about in a joking way about values being very femoral hard to get ahold of And there's there's a substantial body of a value Theory. I think it would have been helpful to the discussions and I hope that the state department of Avail itself of them. One of the points that I think is relatively a consensus point. In terms of value discussion and value theory is that the questionnaires are about the lowest level of discourse on ethical reasoning because they tend to couch first of all over simplify the problem and then suggest very strongly that there's a yes or no answer in Perris basic first area of absolutism. It's sort of person that want yes or no, right and wrong black and white kinds of answers and in Kohlberg's fourth stage of ethical development people are in a similar position. Also the manner in which the meeting was discussed by upset purpose limiting things to 2 minutes or stream the brief statements really militates against in the structural way of dealing with ethical value questions at all. So I guess I would just reiterate that the out hope the state department Avail itself of the considered opinion and consensus achieved by groups of people put thousands of hours into discussing some of these issues and not be content with a value sampling either through a questionnaire technique or to a very very limited kind of discussion. It's available at this kind of conference. Thank you. Yes. My name is Charles Lutz. I work for the world hunger program of the American Lutheran Church. I want to ask a question of someone on the panel of State Department Representatives concerning a policy which was announced at least through the Press. Four or five months ago and I don't know really what to call a popularly. It's been called the sap policy as I understand that the policy was announcing to the world that the United States would further in the future would take into account the behavior of Nations who are potential recipients of development assistance their behavior in terms of you and votes and other International fora activity of those Nations, and we would in effect decide our assistance to them on the basis of how they treat issues which are important to us in those in those settings. I have had communication with I think it's a mr. Baker of the state department about that and to my knowledge from that communication from him. It has not been withdrawn and yet I heard here this afternoon that that is no that is not a part of our policy to use a kind of carrot and stick or punishment reward system for extending International assistance. I wonder if somebody could speak to that question. I'm looking in the direction of Ambassador Reinhart. I don't know whether you'd be prepared or you could you are you looking for somebody else discussion today? the question that you raised the fundamental answer to it is that there is no such regulation. You are referring for 5 months ago to a and he informed the story that appeared in the Press based on presumed leaks based on discussions that are going on in the department about our general relations with the third. We're all in in the United Nations. Everyone who has followed the actions of the United Nations in the last year 18 months know that before last September, at least we were certainly headed toward real confrontation. Any policy that we and I said it there or elsewhere was generally challenged unblocked by the third world. The discussions to which you refer then we're ain't that dealing with these nations separately and collectively which were bent. It seemed on confrontation speech before they Special Assembly of the United Nations last September and we seem to be well on the road toward formulating policies that will satisfy both sides. What would you say word? It was stated by the question of the the point was made here that it was not the parking policy to affect use food as a Means of punishing a rewarding for political positions what I was in my summary of that referred to my summary what I was trying to convey was it there was virtually unanimous opinion in the group that I participated in the I'm attempting to take back this week with me to watch them. I was not stating that this either is or is not a US policy in this matter of fact, I have been another group swear. I've been asked very critical questions. Why don't we cut off food to such a country? And what we have to do in in Washington obviously is to try to arrive at what we think is the best consensus policy in the situation. As a matter of fact, I don't know of a single case so far. We're in fact we have Terminated or reduced food Aid programs do any country because of differences over policy issues. I will ask my black brother he who deals with food cuz I think I can say categorically that that's quite correct Roy that has not been a Criterion which we've applied in our allocations of food a la mierda one footnote to that and that is to say that we respond first of all the first priority I think in our food at allocations are to respond to the real nutritional emergencies caused by natural disasters or variety of other circumstances beyond that are food. Aid goes to two people who are hungry two Nations who have balance of payments problems. It's an economic tool and one of the main ones in our developmental Arsenal, but when you reach the the consecutive outer rings of this process you coming across an increasingly wide range of choice and to some degree the sort of situation, which the question are referred to how someone voted for example on the resolution that was introduced into the UN in the last session about charging that implicitly at least at the United States was a colonial power in Puerto Rico. I think the popular expression of the Puerto Ricans themselves has denied this on successive occasions. You don't necessarily go out of your way to give the countries that demonstrates that kind of attitude internationally and makes those charges about your your policies. You don't necessarily go out of your way to give them a higher priority. And I think that is a illegitimate entry into our Ledger of determining how we allocate our food Aid. Also if I'm a Bruce to take one moment to respond to the point raised by the the young lady who spoke previously who perceived all of us is over 40 and from Eastern universities. I only account for 25% of the participants, but I'm not over 40 and mind you Eastern University is University of Nebraska, so Thank you. I saw Eric understand and then I'll come back this way. Anderson I was the participant in the u.s. Soviet panel have a practical or let's go to the constructive footnote on today's happenings. And I'm raising a question and retreating the input to Citizens as far as US foreign policy is concerned too likely. I see you're ready complicated and recording equipment stand for the benefit of the audience is in Minnesota and thank you for service is I guess if K okay o u m radio on others but it's my understanding that the actual panel discussions have not been recorded for purposes of an evaluation by the state department policymakers. And so consequently, I can only talk about my own panel and not about others and it certainly isn't your fault does a professional rapper tour. I scored on my yellow sheet at 6 in the range of 1 to 10 of what this form accomplished because I think they don't you reflected approximately and accuracy factor of 6 at best. Of what was discussed? And things are still fresh in my memory. Can you now think when they distinguished policymakers was State Department return to Washington and I are about to draft the the final input for the benefit of the secretary. That more material will be lost to what I'm saying in essence and future foreign policy forums. Would it be more advisable to really get a clear-cut consent if there is any to record? The panel discussions for the benefit of the officers from state department and then you German can listen later on in a group or whatever your references and then formulate what you really thank you. Thank you very much one question here. And then are you with a question? I think that will probably have to be the end but unfairly now the question is where in the nature of an announcement that are good friends at ksg-nr broadcasting this session of the proceedings alive and Our intention at KU om. And the reason why I'm saying this is because I thought some of the other people here might have some of the feelings that I have that I need to digest what's going on to have an opportunity may be to hear the panels that I was not on and what we're going to do on kuo Master broadcast. He's on for Tuesday evenings in June allowing 1/3 hour for phone ends from the general population. And I might add that I'm sure we and kiss you and would be very happy to furnish any of these tapes to the state department if they were interested. Neither rather a word of appreciation. I do not represent one of 20 pressure groups for a specific point nor am I a member of the IRA retired experts on social effects or Essex? If anything, I belong to that horrible world of the corporation's. I've been working 1441 for many years, but my Prime definition maybe is that I've been interested in what's been going on in the world for something over 30 years, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here in hear about it and can maybe express my opinion. Thank you. Thank you. Straight briefly. I just have a short question Andrew Meyer from the Republic of South Africa. I'd like to know whether the secretary's recent statement that supports a black majority rule and Artesia is applicable also to the Republic of South Africa. Thank you. Last year that that answers a question with the secretary is statement of the day before yesterday. I believe in Lusaka has to speak for itself. The statement is been widely reprinted and I know of no way of going Beyond it. I'm sorry, but I really think I'm going to have to draw our proceedings to a close. I appreciate it very much. Let me just say a word if I'm a enclosing word first that it seemed to me that the issues although we divided up the world of foreign policy today into four categories so that we could discuss them somewhat rationally, hopefully nevertheless. There were at least as many indications of the links between these issues as there were the ability to separate them into pieces and one hardly even needs to mention the fact that values run throughout underlie. Each of these areas is quite true. Obviously that we do not consistently apply those values throughout and that we criticize ourselves and each other they are for but the idea that we have values that we can I think articulate and apply is nevertheless. He a theme that came through There are also it seemed to me one of the themes of the whole discussion was diversity diversity in two different senses. Going too far from the links between issues there were diversity of views on any particular issue no matter how specific you made it in most of the groups when which I had a chance to listen, there were at least two people you could find who could say quite diametrically opposed things not universally but for most of the issues so diversity on particular issues and also it seemed to me great diversity in the emphasis that each of us would have on a particular issue in terms of our own priorities and it seems to be out of this both linkage and diversity comes of difficulty in formulating the answers, which is after all the the name of the game for our Department of State to come up with a logical consistent policy at to anticipate problems rather than to react to them and yet as invite bassador Reinhart said in closing that it seemed that there are we live in a world of ambiguities, not of answers. 2 questions and I think that has gentleman from the corporation said I to coming away from this discussion and its diversity Express sympathy and good wishes to those who came to us today from the Department of State and Washington to listen to us a word of thanks. Just enclosing to all of you to the panelists in particular who assisted us we had some comments about the non representativeness of the panelist on the other hand. I think if you look at the list of those represented it did from my point of view represent a rather broad cross-section obviously not all interest represented and then finally to the members from the Department of State each of them taking important time out to do a very important thing. We can criticize the fact that there has not been enough discussion dialogue and yet here we are today engaging in just that with people who are formulators at a high policy. Of foreign policy in the Department of State and I want to thank them and closing for coming out and talking with us. Thank you very much. Bruce McClure is a president of a 9th District Federal Reserve Bank in the moderator of the session has concluded the final session of a Minnesota foreign policy form a summary of the proceedings which went on earlier in the day and I Minneapolis was one of five cities where programs like this were held the purpose of them has to go top State Department Plan. There's an in-depth exposure to public opinion on issues, which the state department is still from getting policy on before issues that we're under discussion today work soviet-american relations relations with the third world the role of food and foreign policy and values which shape foreign policy. The State Department officials who came to hear people on these topics or Jack Matlock who is Minister and counselor at the US Embassy in Moscow Alfred African Junior assistant Secretary of State and the Bureau of near Eastern and South Asian Affairs Ambassador, John Rinehart assistant Secretary of State for public affairs and James plaque who is the director of the office of food policy and programs in the Bureau of Economic and Business affairs. There were about 350 people according to a headcount which I heard 350 people registered for this conference. Most of them came from the Twin Cities area. But Iowa Southeastern Minnesota Central Minnesota in the northeastern part of Minnesota were also represented. You heard criticism of the makeup of some of the panel's panelist who initially gave their opinions on these subjects to the foreign policy experts and the sessions that went on earlier in the day of third world one which receive criticism had to a representative from the association of st. Paul communities the Minnesota AFL-CIO Minneapolis, Urban Coalition the Blake schools the Archdiocese in urban Affairs commission someone from the Honeywell Corporation, the manager of their Latin American Branch the Citizens League the league of Minnesota municipalities common, cause and someone from the international operations at 3 a.m. So you can judge for yourself the blizzard here that channel is criticism. this foreign policy Forum was co-sponsored by the Upper Midwest Council and the world affairs Center at the University of Minnesota session was chaired by Bruce mclaury and technical director for our broadcast this afternoon was David felon broadcast was made possible with funds provided by the Minneapolis Star. This is Bob Potter speaking your tune to listener-supported radio in Minnesota.