Transcripts

text | pdf |

---

[THEME MUSIC] BOB POTTER: A Public Affairs presentation of Minnesota Public Radio.

[THEME MUSIC]

Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, live from Macalester College in Saint Paul, Minnesota Public Radio presents a lecture by Walter F. Mondale, Former Vice President of the United States. These special broadcasts of the Mondale lectures are made possible in part with a grant from [INAUDIBLE] Incorporated. I'm Bob Potter, speaking from the Macalester College gymnasium, where just a moment ago, this program began with a procession led by the Macalester Pipe Band.

Tonight, Mr. Mondale is delivering the second of three lectures in Twin City area colleges. His topic tonight, foreign policy. The first lecture one week ago today at the University of Minnesota, was on the institution of the vice presidency. And the last lecture, next Monday evening at the College of Saint Thomas will be on the topic of domestic policy.

The Macalester gymnasium is set up tonight to accommodate approximately 1,600 to 1,800 people. The doors opened shortly after 7 o'clock, and a steady stream of people have been entering ever since. Macalester pipe band is playing, and the procession is coming in.

They are included in the procession approximately 40 foreign students who are enrolled here at Macalester College, 41 students, to be precise, each one representing a different foreign country. Members of the convocation group are taking their place at the podium. It is no coincidence at all that Walter Mondale speaks on foreign policy here at Macalester. And now, the invocation will be given by Russell Wigfield, the chaplain at Macalester.

RUSSELL WIGFIELD: The assembly will please rise. Oh, Lord, our God, in whom we live and move and have our being, we pause in these opening moments to remember you in thanksgiving and praise as creator and sustainer of life. We bring before you this evening our particular concerns with the life of the nations in our world, and for the lives of the people of the nations.

We long for orderliness among the unruly powers, and yet we forget our own disorderliness and our own abuse of power. We seek to alleviate injustice in the world, and yet we forget our own manner of injustice in the world and in our own lives.

Remove hate and prejudice from us and all people, that we may be reconciled with those whom we fear, those whom we resent, those whom we threaten. Give vision to those who govern people and nations. That governing may not mean terrorism, and that vision may not be blocked by blinding self-interest.

Bring strength to those who seek to make real the dream of the prophet of old, that nations may beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Amen. You may be seated.

BOB POTTER: The invocation delivered by Russell Wigfield, the chaplain here at Macalester College. Now, words of greeting by Richard Schall, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees.

RICHARD LANGLEY SCHALL: President Davis, Chaplain Wigfield, fellow trustees, faculty, students, and friends. As Chairman of the Macalester Board of Trustees, it is my pleasure to welcome all of you here tonight. These convocations are a regular part of academic life here at Macalester, and we have had many distinguished guests at them in the past, but we have had none more distinguished than our special guest tonight, the honorable Walter F. Mondale.

Fritz, I mean no disrespect to your new law practice and many other activities when I say that we are delighted that you could visit us now while you're between jobs, so to speak. Another great Minnesota--

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Also in our audience are the Macalester parents for international relations, men and women who extend hospitality to students from abroad in order to give them opportunities to share the experiences of American Family life. The best thing about all these programs is that no matter how much effort the sponsors and participants put into them, their rewards, what they get out of them, are always greater.

Dr. Yahya Armajani, our next speaker, was one of the principal architects of these programs, and I'm happy he could be here this evening. I was a student of his and know that over the years, he has been a major contributor to international understanding. I'm sure that he and Fritz Mondale will continue this tradition tonight. Thank you.

[APPLAUSE]

BOB POTTER: That was Richard Schall, the Chairman of the Board of Trustees here at Macalester College. Now, we're going to hear from Yahya Armajani.

YAHYA ARMAJANI: Since I have been introduced, I don't need to tell you who I am. The other day at Old Main, a friend saw me and said, what in the world are you doing here in the middle of February in Minnesota? I said, I don't know. I was reminded of the person of the cruise ship in the Caribbean, and a young lady was having meditation on the rail of the ship, and she proudly went to sleep and fell down.

And immediately, a man jumped into the water and held her up until they threw the line and saved her. And then when he came up, they were all surprised that he was a septuagenarian. And that evening, they had a party for him and the captain's dinner, and they asked for speech, speech. And the old man got up and looked around. He said, what I want to know is who pushed me.

[LAUGHTER]

Now, whoever pushed me to come here, I'm grateful to him or to her and to all of them because I always get the chance. Do not miss a chance to come to Minnesota and to Macalester, especially in the evening like this, when I see so many foreign students here, where I was in their place some time ago. And to have to explain for a little bit the Macalester involvement in international relations.

The fact that these international students are here, the fact that 41 different nationalities are presented here just did not happen. It has a history. Now, it is a great risk to ask a historian to tell about the history of our involvement. And I don't think there will be much time left for Vice President Mondale.

But I'll be very brief, and I think that the person that Macalester should be thankful to for this spirit is Dr. Charles J. Turck, the President of--

[APPLAUSE]

--the President of Macalester for 19 years. He was dedicated to internationalism. And wherever he went, he spoke about it, and all his hiring a faculty and many of the programs that we had, we are indebted to his encouragement. We had started a small building as an international house for the first time. We had student abroad, work abroad, we had student trips abroad.

We had a World Press Institute that has been mentioned. We were one of the first small college to join University of Minnesota in Spain. And there was a time in that more than half of our student body had had an experience abroad. Now, it is no question that if the whole program has been like that, it would have been an academic gimmickry, for we felt that we needed very solid academic discipline to back this up.

And again, there, Dr. Turck was a help and the late J. Huntley Dupre, who was equally dedicated to this proposition. And so we had many programs and the forerunner and the kingpin, as I want to say, of all our academic international program was the area study program, which was first conceived by J. Huntley Dupre. And one of the greatest organizers of this and a great help in this is the late Theodore Mitau.

[APPLAUSE]

I think if anyone writes the history of Macalester College, a whole chapter should be dedicated to Ted Mitau, for he was an institution in himself, and he influenced generations of students in this college. I heard some years ago when we were here at Macalester, a certain Senator Walter Mondale, here in the Fieldhouse, who said that he was indebted to Ted Mitau. And he coined the word that he was Mitauised while he was at Macalester.

Now, this area study program, we had many firsts. It was interdisciplinary. Now, to some of you students, interdisciplinary now doesn't mean very much because most of your courses are interdisciplinary. But in those days, many heads of departments wouldn't talk to each other.

And we had interdisciplinary programs. It was intercollegiate. The colleges did not have anything to do. Saint Thomas, Saint Catherine, Hamlin, and Macalester. It was interfaith. It was the first educational enterprise between Roman Catholics and Protestants.

And we organized this. And it was run by a committee of four people. And I had the great honor of being the chairman of this committee for 20 long years. And in all those 20 years, the Hill Family Foundation, in an unprecedented way, supported this program so that--

[APPLAUSE]

So this four-college cooperative enterprise was not only a classroom activity for students, but we were on the TV, and many foundations came to study our plan and our program in order to start it in other places. So that there was a time, because of these activities, we could not have been successful in our area study program if it were not for the hiring policies of the president and dean of the college.

There was a time that the departments of history, philosophy, political science, sociology, economics, geography, and some of the sciences, in each of them there were professors who had either lived or studied abroad. And they helped us a great deal and helped the whole atmosphere.

So you can see how glad I am to be back here. And I was very glad to see that the United Nations' flag is still flying. May it ever fly at Macalester. And some of you--

[APPLAUSE]

And I'd like you to know that we flew this flag in the time, the height of McCarthy era. I mean, Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin. And we were greatly criticized for it, so that it gives me a great pleasure to come here and see that this program of ours have increased.

We have one of our students here as a professor, Professor Jerry Fisher, who took not only one area of study, but three of them. And now, he's heading a program of East Asia, which by all counts is the largest East Asia program of any college this size or even double this size in the country.

Last May, the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church passed a resolution that it was time that churches should talk peace. That the colleges related to the Presbyterian Church should offer courses on peace. And I was glad to see that our own Dorothy Dodge, Professor of Political Science, was on the task force appointed by the General Assembly to study this and bring the report.

And just yesterday, she told me that they are planning to have such courses, which adds a new dimension to our international program at Macalester College, so that--

[APPLAUSE]

--so that I hope that this knowledge of the different nations will mature into understanding. And understanding will generate love. And love will bring us peace. Thank you.

[APPLAUSE]

BOB POTTER: Yahya Armajani, History Professor of Emeritus at Macalester College, talking about some of the programs that got Macalester so involved in international activities. Dr. Armajani now retired, living in California, but he came out here this evening to be at this appearance for Walter Mondale. Now, here's John Davis, the President of Macalester.

JOHN B. DAVIS: That is remind students that at 9:30 tomorrow in the warehouse chapel, the vice president--

BOB POTTER: John Davis became president of Macalester college in 1975. Prior to that, he was superintendent of schools in the City of Minneapolis. Dr. John Davis will be introducing our speaker this evening. Macalester College, of course, has a strong Scottish tradition, hence the bagpipes. And now, here is Dr. Davis.

JOHN B. DAVIS: Rich in history and tradition. We are in the forefront of scholarship and academic achievement, led by a noteworthy and very, very worthy faculty. Our students and our graduates bring honors and distinctions to themselves and the college. Rhodes scholars, Fulbright scholars, Phi Beta Kappas, Truman Fellows, writers, poets, dancers, yes, athletes and debaters. Actors as well.

And those in the world who give service in the high tradition of good ideal to the professions, to commerce, and business. Here at Macalester, a humane academic community, teaching and learning are central activities. Our campus, Christian in spirit, Presbyterian by founding, but non-sectarian in terms of students, faculty, and staff, is heterogeneous, with its members coming from the far corners of the globe.

We are dedicated to the intellectual growth within our community, and we cherish the values of compassion, understanding, judgment, and action. Macalester is, by design, small, permitting, frequent, formal as well as casual encounters, one with the other.

We recognize our obligation to be sensitive and responsive to significant changes in knowledge and technology and in society. We discern the important issues of our time and contemplate them against the backdrop of the liberal arts, to which we are unequivocally committed, and from which we learn the great lessons of history.

Ours is an undergraduate liberal arts community favored as a very few to be located in a great Metropolitan setting, with all of its rich resources affording us learning centers beyond the confines of the campus. We believe in pluralism of the type that permits each to hold her or his own beliefs, but simultaneously developing the tolerances for others, which may grow to understanding and appreciation.

That way, our international is represented by the presence of Macalester students from 40 great nations and the flags which adorn this hall. How fortunate we are to be a living manifestation of humanity's ability to work and study together here at Macalester, at a time when so much of our terrestrial globe seems ready and capable of self-destruction.

It did not seem inappropriate to me to make these opening remarks about Macalester and its great qualities, for they are, in a true sense, reflected in our distinguished speaker, a member of the class of 1950. I referred earlier to Macalester and its commitment to action.

So also did I refer to our commitment to internationalism. Few in our nation's history have been closer to action and international affairs than he who returns to this Macalester tonight. Sir, much of what I have described as Macalester's values, you have embodied in your distinguished career.

We welcome you with pride and affection and await with high interest your report on international affairs as viewed through the experiences of the nation's most active and involved vice president.

WALTER F. MONDALE: Thank you very much.

JOHN B. DAVIS: Thank you. Thank you.

BOB POTTER: Dr. John Davis, President of Macalester College, introducing Walter Mondale. Mr. Mondale holds an honorary doctorate of letters degree from Macalester College, awarded him in 1976.

[APPLAUSE]

Walter Mondale was enrolled here for a couple of years before finishing his baccalaureate degree at the University of Minnesota. And now here is Walter Mondale.

WALTER F. MONDALE: Thank you very much, Dr. Davis, for that very, very kind introduction. I'm delighted to be here this evening with so many distinguished leaders of Macalester College. Dick [INAUDIBLE] and I, as most military histories have reported, were inducted on the same day to go as privates to Fort Sheridan, Illinois, to defend this nation in the Korean War.

After that distinguished career on his part and mine, I went into politics, and he went into business. I'm now unemployed, and he owns Dayton's.

[LAUGHTER]

[APPLAUSE]

The Reverend Wigfield to my dear and old friend Yahya Armajani, what he said, for those of us who went to Macalester about that time is exactly right. And I'm glad you said it, because I was privileged to learn from Dr. Dupre, from Ted Mitau, from Dr. Armajani, and from so many others that absolutely insisted that a student could not go through Macalester College unscathed.

That you had to at least be exposed to learning, not just in terms of St. Paul or Minnesota or even the United States, but that you should become a citizen of the world. And I don't think this is known, but when this nation went through those awful days and weeks and months with the holding of our hostages in Iran, one of the most capable, sensitive, and valued advisors of the government of the United States on Iranian matters was Dr. Yahya Armajani, and I want to thank him for his daily help in those difficult times.

[APPLAUSE]

And it all started a couple of days after the hostages were taken, when Yahya called me and said, now listen, young man, you're going to listen to me.

[LAUGHTER]

And it worked out all right. Took us a little time. I want to pay my respects to my dear friend and the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, Warren Spannaus.

[APPLAUSE]

To my old friend, the President of the College of St. Thomas, Monsignor Terrence Murphy, I'm looking forward to being with you next week at St. Thomas, to Harlan Cleveland, the Director of the Humphrey Institute. And if I may digress just one second this evening, because in a few days, someone who served me in our nation now for many, many years will be leaving public office.

And his name is David Aaron. So many, many people who service with such skill and such devotion and with such intelligence and public spirit are not known to the American people. David Aaron is an example of the best. He came with me in the United States Senate some eight or nine years ago when he left the government because of his objections to our intervention in Cambodia.

He's one of the world's top experts in security matters, in arms control, is one of the most thoughtful men I've ever worked with in my life. And just, you say that I hate to lose, yes, and one of the reasons is that I'm going to lose David Aaron. And I want to thank him wherever he is tonight. I think he's smart enough not to have come tonight, but tell him if he's around, how much I appreciate his help.

And to the students and to the faculty of Macalester College, Dr. Mrs. Adams, who are here tonight, although they said they wouldn't be, and so many of my friends here this evening. Dr. Davis, it's great to be back at Macalester. Even before fast food was invented, this was the Big Mac for me.

[LAUGHTER]

[APPLAUSE]

And as you introduced me, I was reminded of the story I heard the other day about her mother, who went to her son and said, get up, son, it's time to go to school. And the son said to his mother, I don't want to. His mother said, you have to go to school.

And he said, they don't like me. The teachers don't like me. Nobody likes me. And can you give me a reason why I should go to school? Son, his mother said, I'll give you two. First, you're 42 years old. Secondly, you're the President of the University.

[LAUGHTER]

Now, I know that's not true of your great president, John Davis. But if it were, Barbara would get you here on time. I have no doubt. This school has meant so much to me. I met John here. I met Hubert Humphrey on this campus. Here, I went to my first serious political meeting. Here, I was exposed for the first time to the broad range of domestic and international issues that made up what we then called the citizenship sequence.

Here, I met Ted Mitau, a great teacher and a great inspiration, who said something to me, I'll never forget. He came up to me one day just after I'd taken an exam. He said, Fritz, if you continue to study hard, if you continue to work hard, and if you're honest, you'll never have to take second place to anybody.

[LAUGHTER]

[APPLAUSE]

There's only one regret I have about Macalester. And that is, I dropped that course I was taking on acting.

[LAUGHTER]

[APPLAUSE]

But enough of that. Tonight, I want to do something that I have done very rarely in my life. As a matter of fact, only once before. And that is, not give a speech, but rather what in the academic community we call a lecture. I used to be amazed at how boring professors could be until I gave my first lecture last week. And now I understand.

I want to go into some depth on one of the most central issues bearing on American life, and that is what is American strength all about. People have conflicting views on this issue, and different ideas on what it takes to enhance it. And at a time when our government proposes to make a massive reallocation of resources, with the one goal being increasing our strength, it is important for us to stand back and to see where there's a definition of American strength on which we can all agree.

Tonight, I speak, having been blessed by the people of Minnesota, and by the people of this country, to have a range of experiences that few people in America have been privileged to have. I served for 12 years in the Senate, and then I was privileged to serve for 4 years in the second highest office in our land.

Every morning, I saw in the president's daily brief, the same secrets that the president reads. All day long, for four years, I saw the same data, the same information as the president. I sat through all of the serious discussions about our defense, our security, our military, and other budgets, our intelligence budgets.

I traveled over much of this Earth the last four years over-- I counted it up the other day over, I think, 26 nations, I visited. Some of them, more than once in Asia, in the Pacific, in the Middle East, in Europe, in Scandinavia, in Africa, in Central America, in Latin, in Southern America, the People's Republic of China, and the rest.

Tonight, I want to talk about national strength based on what I hope I've learned and can contribute to that discussion because of those experiences. During the recent presidential campaign, we vigorously debated what was meant by national strength.

But the debate didn't begin then, and it didn't end on election day. It was part of an enduring process in the history of our nation, and especially in the events of this century, which called forth the United States to play a critical role among the nations on Earth.

With each succeeding generation, we have had to redefine our purposes as the world changed, and with it, the role that American power was required to play. In our own generation, at least in my own generation, the Vietnam War was a decisive event in that historical continuing process, for it literally destroyed a quarter of a century of consensus about American power and foreign policy.

And the students at Macalester now, I'm afraid, do not know what Mac and all the better campuses and communities went through during that war. The toughest speech I ever gave in my life, I gave right under that basketball hoop there to a crowded, angry group of students and citizens from this area who were troubled about my position in the Vietnam War.

And I came home to do something that's very hard for us to do in politics, to stand up and say, I'm wrong. I'm wrong. And I had to change my mind, because it was wrong. And what I did, millions and millions of Americans did. We had pursued a course, which was not sustainable. And the tragedy in human lives, the tragedy and the divisions in American life, the tragedy in terms of the poisoned dialogue on the American campuses was something that has that polarized this nation for nearly 20 years thereafter and during and thereafter.

In the years since, the national security debate has become polarized by two extremes. There were those who reacted to the horrors of that experience by urging courses of action that would have resulted in an American retreat from the world. A few even opposed maintaining strong and efficient military forces, as though they feared these forces would be used for unjust ends, or would, by their very existence, irresistibly involve the nation in further tragedies.

The same time, there were those, perhaps, reacting to the humiliation of Vietnam, who seemed to be obsessed with what they saw as growing American weakness. The powerful forces of change sweeping the globe were seen as inevitably hostile to the United States and the result of American powerlessness or lack of will.

Arms control was dismissed as weakness in the face of our principal adversary, and above all, there was a constant and self-defeating refrain that America had become a pitiful, helpless giant. This polarization created a charged atmosphere, which undermined rational discussion and made even more difficult the conduct of a prudent and realistic policy.

I believe, and I think most Americans believe, that it is long past time that this breach be healed. We need a new and mature consensus about what makes America strong, how our strength must be used, not just for ourselves, but for others who look to us for partnership and leadership.

Without such a consensus, we will be driven by our fears, lurching from crisis to crisis, with the pendulum swinging from intervention to retreat from year to year. Tonight, I would like to suggest what I believe to be the four cardinal principles that could form a national consensus on the sources and purposes of American strength.

First, we must have a rational and effective defense program whose burdens are shared fairly, in our society. There is no question that greater defense efforts are needed. I would like to say they are not. But I believe they are needed not just today, but to be sustained over many years.

For nearly two decades, the Soviet Union has been increasing its military efforts. It now has four million men under arms, twice the size of our military. It is producing major weapons-- guns, tanks, planes, and missiles at a rate three times greater than ours.

And it is now closing the gap in technology that for so long gave us a compensatory advantage. Six years ago, I went to Moscow, and I spoke before what is called the USA Institute. And at that meeting, I told the Soviets that their military build up was exceeding, in my opinion, any legitimate defensive needs.

I said that if it continued, we would be forced to conclude that they were seeking to tilt the military balance in their favor. And I made clear that regardless of who was in power in America, Americans would respond. We know, everyone knows the Soviets are willing to exploit the power and influence conferred by their military build up, whether by direct aggression in Afghanistan or by the use of Cuba and Vietnamese proxies to increase their reach in Asia, Africa, and even Latin America.

If we fail to maintain the military balance, we will see threats to our allies in Europe, Soviet expansion in the vital Persian Gulf, the spreading of Moscow's influence deeper into developing nations, and even risks to the stability of the nuclear balance. During recent years, we have responded to that challenge.

We reversed the downturn in US military effort. We worked to modernize our forces across the board. We particularly sought to strengthen our position in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf region, through Camp David, the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, and creation of forces that could be deployed in the Gulf.

These efforts to redress the balance are far from complete. To carry them forward poses, in my opinion, three requirements. First, we must have a clear strategy for a spending additional defense dollars that takes advantage of our technological strengths. And I don't know of any field in American public life that is more complex and difficult to master and understand than the technology of modern weaponry.

And we must take advantage of the most advanced technology. The precise amount that we spend on defense may not be as important as how we spend the money. We can embark, for example, on a program of matching the Soviet Union, man for man, weapon for weapon. And I'm sure it would be a terrible mistake. We are not surrounded by adversaries and unwilling allies.

We are surrounded by friends and broad oceans, and we have strong allies. We should not alone, seek to match Soviet bulk. Rather, we must exploit our technological strength to make superior weapons which are both affordable and reliable. Many times, that desire to match bulk leads us to do things or tends to lead us to do things, which I think wastes our natural and our national resources.

Many times, and one example would be tanks versus anti-tank weapons. The Russians, the last 20 years, 25 years have had an unbelievable investment in the production of tanks which are deployed all along Eastern Europe, all along the border of China.

We could have matched them tank for tank. But instead of that, we took advantage of very advanced US technology and have deployed some 150,000 extremely effective anti-tank missiles that are-- and we continue to deploy them five times faster and for far less money than the Soviets do in deploying tanks.

This is one example. I can give you many, many others of the importance of continuing to insist that we take advantage of America's advanced high technology. The second requirement of a rational defense is to complement our defense efforts by seeking to restrain the overall military competition with the Soviet Union.

Every administration in the last 20 years has understood the importance of this objective. During the last four years, we continued the strategy of strengthening our defense while seeking to hold down the Soviet threat through negotiation. We concluded the SALT II treaty, which would permit all of our needed programs to continue while cutting off the Soviet Union at levels as much as a third lower than will exist if this agreement fails.

In Europe, we decided with our allies, both to modernize theater nuclear forces and to try and negotiating equal limits on those forces with the Soviet Union. It makes no sense to say that we must choose between a strong military posture and arms control. The fact of it is they go together.

There is no way that either the United States or the Soviet Union can commit itself to an unlimited arms race and call itself secure. If we abandoned the SALT process or surrounded it with unjustified doubt and derision so that it becomes useless, we cannot claim to be making our best efforts to provide for the security of the United States.

The third requirement in meeting the Soviet challenge is to share fairly the burden of our defense efforts. Soviet military power did not grow up overnight, our defenses will not be repaired in a day. A typical weapons system takes from 5 to as many 10 years from the time it is conceived, until it's ready to be used.

The strengthening of our defenses demands a long-term commitment by the American people. And to sustain that commitment, the American people must believe that the needed sacrifices for defenses are being shared fairly by all of our people. For generations, one of the inherent strengths of America has been our commitment to social justice.

That means ensuring that men and women who produce our abundance of goods and services can provide good homes And health and education for their families. It means dealing fairly with the poor and the infirm, and the handicapped, and the minorities, and with our senior citizens.

It means paying those who volunteer for the military a living wage. And it means providing hope for younger citizens, like those of you here tonight, that American society will both be promising and just in the future. The need for a strong defense leads directly to the second principle of American strength. And that is this. We must build our relations with our allies, with China, and with nations in the developing world, so that they complement our own efforts to provide for security.

Clearly, relations with our allies are the most important. During the last four years, we've worked hard to strengthen NATO. To put in place a long-term defense program, to increase and enhance the ability of NATO as an alliance. We've agreed on a target of 3% real growth in the strength of NATO.

It is vital that this commitment continue to be honored as a fundamental source of Allied strength and as a necessary act of Allied solidarity. If the American people are to be asked to shoulder new burdens for what is after all, the Common Allied defense, that burden must not only be shared fairly at home, but by the Alliance as well.

In addition, our European allies must now join with us in meeting new threats to our common security outside NATO's traditional areas, especially Soviet activities in the region of the Persian Gulf, which can directly threaten both Europe and America's oil lifeline. Where a direct military presence is not appropriate, our allies must take part through economic support, by picking up the slack in NATO and by supporting American diplomatic efforts, such as the Camp David effort to stabilize the Middle East.

They must resist their inclination to see Israel as the source of Middle East turmoil. The war between Iran and Iraq, the '78 war between the Yemens, the threat of conflict between Syria and Jordan, and Libya's effort to destabilize the region all prove the contrary.

Israel, in my opinion, is a strategic asset for the West in the Middle East. Every ally must bear its fair share of responsibility for countering the actions of our Soviet adversaries. We cannot pursue a division of labor in security matters in which our allies wield the carrot, and America alone wields the stick.

Japan is the anchor of our strength and security in East Asia. Japan gains immeasurably from its security relations with us, yet it must know how to assume a greater role in preserving its own security. We can and must call upon our Japanese allies to share other responsibilities with us by increasing foreign aid, by assuming a larger role in managing the global economy, and by demonstrating fair play in trade competition.

Our relations with the People's Republic of China are also a source of strength in our effort to maintain global stability. While we and the Chinese are not allies, we are now friends, an historic development that serves our national interest, it would be a tragic mistake if anything now happened to reverse this course developed under the last three presidents.

Finally, we have the matter of relations with the so-called third world, which by the year 2000, will contain 3/4 of all humanity. They are also crucial to the security of the United States and a potential source of enormous strength. We recognize that fact, when we took the politically very unpopular step of concluding the Panama Canal treaties, and created the best basis for productive relations with our Southern neighbors in a generation.

We recognize it when we work to resolve the crisis over Rhodesia or Zimbabwe and showed, I think, new sensitivity to the problems of Black Africa. But if we're to build closer ties to the nation of the third world, especially nations uncertain which way to turn or facing Soviet-backed threats, we must have the tools to do the job.

And here I'm talking about that unmentionable subject of foreign aid. It may be the most single unpopular item in this year's budget or any budget. I have participated in foreign aid debates now for 12 years in the Senate floor and 4 years as vice president, and it brings out the worst in everybody.

Nothing is easier than voting against foreign aid. The people that are mad at you don't vote in the United States. And yet, in my opinion, if there is one glaring gaping limit self-imposed, unnecessarily injuring American national strength, it's the failure to have an adequate, sensitive, and responsive, prompt way of helping nations who need help so desperately.

I believe we tend, I know we tend to undervalue the contribution made by foreign assistance to our overall national strength. A few million dollars in economic or military aid can forestall events that could cost many billions of dollars, if US military forces became involved, not to mention, the loss of lives.

Foreign aid also, when it's at its best, reflects America at its best in helping people grow their food, build roads, seek better health, educate their children. Despite economic hardships, Americans remain the fortunate among the peoples on Earth. It is our moral duty to stretch out a helping hand to the rest of humankind.

I have seen so many examples of where the limits on US foreign aid has served to adversely affect, in a crucial way, the security interests of our nation. Not long ago, we were negotiating for military bases at Berbera in Somalia to protect our vital interests in the Persian Gulf.

The Pentagon was prepared to spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars to develop the facilities there at Berbera. Yet we argued constantly in the bureaucracy and with the Congress over whether we could spend and provide $10 million in aid to Somalia in order to strengthen our relationship and make our access to the facilities politically acceptable.

For nearly a year or more, we tried to get some help early after the fall of Somoza in Nicaragua, when there was a chance that the moderate elements of Nicaragua might gain strength and become the dominant force. We were unable to get a penny of help for over a year, and we strengthened enormously the extremist elements within Nicaragua, because they were able to point to the inability of the United States and others to come to arrive in a way, with the help that would give that economy a chance to grow, to get on its feet, and to give the moderates something to argue about.

Time and time again, I have seen this happen to our country unhappily. It is past time when we should understand the real importance to our nation of a strong foreign aid commitment. It is time, in my opinion, that the President of the United States be given a substantial foreign aid fund, which he is able to administer himself, subject to reporting to the Congress, of course, but one which the president himself can use to use swiftly and effectively as a tool of foreign assistance.

Measured in terms of relative amounts, no monies appropriated by Congress, are likely to make a more direct and decisive impact in advancing our own national security interests than a good and a strong program of foreign assistance. US defense and effective relations with our allies and nations are fundamental to our future. But it is obvious as well that we need in our own country a strong and a vital economy.

When our national economy is in trouble, when we're suffering deep adverse balances, when we're suffering from high inflation and high interest rates, when we're suffering from unemployment, when we are in those kinds of deep, salient economic difficulties, we are also harshly and adversely affected in terms of our national strength.

Tonight's not the occasion, I can tell by looking at your faces, to go into the economics of a strong economy. But let me just make one point, and that is this energy crisis we're in is no joke. It is a threat to the independence of our nation. It is one of the basic sources of inflation in America today.

It is as though we had voluntarily closed down half of the US Army, because the subtle power of intimidation that those who control sources of energy around the world hold exerted by certain of the holders of that oil, is one that runs through the fabric of international relations today.

This nation never before has been short of something fundamental that it must have. Now, we are short of something-- oil and energy, that we cannot do without. It is a complex problem involving both production and conservation, and I won't go into it tonight. President Carter once said, it was the moral equivalent of war and got guffaws for what he said.

But I'm here tonight to say, this energy crisis is still the moral equivalent of war, and this nation will not be fully strong until we've solved it.

[APPLAUSE]

We need to pay a special attention to the need to revitalize our basic industries and to increase productivity. There are those who deprecate the importance of the heavy industrial sector of the American economy. But heavy industry is vital to creating our military strength.

The blunt truth is that our country is declining in the economic capacity required to support our defense effort. Each year, as we sat in the cabinet room and discussed major weapons production bottlenecks, we found that many of them were due to a decline in basic industrial capacity.

There is now only one foundry in America, in the entire nation, which can make the large castings required for the main battle tank. The hull of our most advanced strategic nuclear submarine, the trident is fashioned with a steel press made at the time of World War I. Failure to reverse our industrial decline will squander a vital national resource as well.

The fourth and final principle of American strength must be the support for our moral values. In the realm of national security, there are those who argue that we should play down moral judgments and objectives. They insist that we focus unashamedly on our interests alone.

Others would have us serve moral ends and crusades that might blind us to the practical consequences for our nation's interests and well-being. I believe to be strong, we must reconcile the two. In fact, it is the determination to do so that is particularly American and a source of our strength, perhaps more than any other quality.

This penchant to blend the practical with principle, to synthesize our interests and moral concerns, has placed us at the forefront of world history. Safeguarding our interests and values requires active and creative diplomacy. But we must also recognize that at times it requires the deployment of military power, as in the case of helping others resist aggression and threats to peace.

Four examples come to mind. I recall when the Cubans working with the Angolans moved into the Shaba province in Southern Zaire. The copper mining area of that country. We moved quickly, providing airlift forces for the French, the Belgian, and the African troops, and we were able to solve that problem rather quickly.

We sent significant quantities of military assistance to North Yemen as the South Yemenis were coming in there, obviously, with foreign support, and we were able to stop that movement in its tracks. We provided our modern airborne Warning aircraft, called AWACS, to Saudi Arabia to help prevent the spread of the Iran-Iraq war, and we used US Naval forces to assure the permanent opening and security of that crucial sea lane, the Straits of Hormuz.

We airlifted a small but symbolically significant amount of military equipment to Thailand last year, within hours of the Vietnamese attacks. This helped make clear our readiness to meet our long-standing commitments to Thailand, and I think it helped reduce the prospect of further difficulties.

In each case, the prompt but prudent supply of military assistance protected both our own interests and those of beleaguered states friendly to us in a way that was consistent with our values. We sought to advance our values directly and implicitly.

We tried, and I am proud of this, to advance human rights all over this Earth, not as an act of expediency, but because those rights are deeply ingrained in our own history and are the essence of the aspiration of mankind. At the conferences on security and cooperation in Europe, we proclaim to the world the abuses and moral poverty of the Soviet political system.

We saw to it that the cry for freedom of the Orlovs and the Sharanskys was heard at Belgrade and at Madrid. We put the full weight of that process behind the principle that the Polish people should be able to work out their path toward liberty by themselves.

In the four corners of the Earth, thousands of people are alive today, and millions more have hoped for the future because the United States, despite criticism, did not turn its back on human rights. Time and time again on diplomatic missions, I would take to nations, which had been committing human rights violations.

I would have to blend the combined need to serve our nation's interests and to serve American values, and this constant, repeated, unrestrained espousal in a practical and sensible way of American values, I think, has contributed enormously to the cause of freedom on Earth.

And may I say, we've not been alone. And with Monsignor Murphy here this evening, may I say, we were thrilled by the leadership of the Holy Father this past week in the Philippines when he stood up for liberty and human justice in that land. This has not always been easy.

There are countries and peoples whose strategic positions are so important to us that we must work together, even though we disapprove of their government's human rights policies. But even where we do so, we must not lose sight of our moral purpose.

It is essential to the political consensus supporting our foreign policy. For example, it was imperative to work with the new government of South Korea after the assassination of President Park. But we also worked long and hard and ultimately with success, to save the life of the Korean dissident Kim Dae-jung.

The basic lesson of our experience in struggling to promote human rights is that the advance of our own moral concerns for humanity, democracy, freedom, and justice is profoundly in our national interest. It is a strategic advantage, as we contest for support from the developing world and leadership of our alliance.

It is no accident that we are principally allied with democracies, and that our adversary is principally allied with totalitarian governments. A world of tyranny would threaten our security. A world where pluralism dominates, where human rights are advanced, where there is freedom of religion, where democracy prevails would not be a world without conflict, but it would be a world safer for Americans.

Coupling our military strength with a sense of justice is not a call for intervention, or for the use of our might to remake the world of our image. And may I say, I am proud of the fact that we completed four years without engaging American military might anywhere on Earth.

[APPLAUSE]

We have too much faith in the diversity of mankind and the universal thirst for human freedom for that. Our power is not imperial. To be sure, it must be used to advance our security and our interests, but to be true to ourselves, it must also serve in the struggle against oppression and injustice.

Abandoning our values abroad is but the first step to losing them at home. We have seen enough in this century to know that our greatest strength at home is our love for the values involved in our constitution and in our religious beliefs, and that our greatest attraction abroad is the beacon, those values cast in a world darkened by turbulence and oppression.

Our deep commitment to social justice, a commitment to give opportunity to the poor and to the disadvantaged, to care for the old, to end discrimination, to safeguard the family. This is the rock upon which our nation's true security is to be found.

The inner strength that comes from our dedication to social justice makes the United States an inspiration to other nations, to the young people here tonight who I'm sure often believe that values and beliefs, activities, and involvement to try to achieve our ideals may be irrelevant, let me just tell a little story out of my own life.

When I was a student at Mac, official discrimination was permitted throughout this land. There were many states in which state laws, local laws, county laws prohibited Blacks and whites and minorities from being on the same buses, going to the same schools, having anything to do with each other, period.

And we used to debate those issues here at Mac. And I wondered then whether we ever would make any progress. And I remember then, during the darkest days of Stalin, that whenever an American diplomat would rise in an international forum of any kind and criticize the abuses of the Soviet Union within their own country, inevitably and effectively, the Soviet spokesman would rise and say, what about civil rights and human rights in the United States?

And try as you could. You couldn't get around that corner, they had you. And when we reform civil rights in America, we got a long way to go. But in these last 20 years, there has been a peaceful, profound, and magnificent revolution in this United States of ours.

We no longer permit laws that discriminate. And across the board, through social and economic legislation, we're trying to make up for these past wrongs so that every American, regardless of background of race, religion, or color, will have a chance for the fullness of American life.

And that is a matter of justice and values here at home. But just recently, representing our country, I went to Nigeria, the largest, the wealthiest, and the most influential Black nation on Earth. A central player in the whole international scene. Incidentally, the largest supplier or second largest supplier of oil to the United States and a great source of strength to our nation.

A few years ago, we were unwelcome in Nigeria. This past year when I went there, they had just had a free election under a constitution that was patterned almost identically upon the Constitution of the United States, and wherever I went, they said, tell me about this. Tell me about this. How do you preside over the Senate?

America had become the ideal-- not the perfect ideal, but the example that had achieved social justice, an ideal that was so powerful that this nation, without us having to do anything, voluntarily and happily, established a system patterned upon the example of our nation. And that's the basic lesson about national strength.

The rest is important. But to the young people here today, and tonight, let me say this, it is our ideals. It is our belief in democracy and justice and human rights, our caring and compassion that is the greatest strength of this country, and let's never forget it.

[APPLAUSE]

BOB POTTER: Walter Mondale has concluded his lecture here at Macalester College on the topic of foreign policy. The 1,500 or so people in the audience are standing and applauding him, as are the people on the speaker's podium with him. President John Davis of Macalester College, Russell Wigfield-- the college chaplain, Richard Schall-- the Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Yahya Armajani-- Professor of History Emeritus here at Macalester College.

[APPLAUSE]

Mr. Mondale will be back on campus tomorrow for a question and answer session with students, and he will participate in further activities at the college. Although, as far as we know, those arrangements have not been worked out in final detail. Now, you hear in the background the Macalester Pipe Band, Bagpipe Band, leading the recessional.

The Bagpipes' a strong tradition at this college, this liberal arts college, which, of course, has a strong Scottish heritage. It is affiliated with the United Presbyterian Church. In his address tonight, Mr. Mondale laid out four principles which he said would lead to a consensus on foreign policy.

The first of those principles, a rational, effective defense program, whose burdens would be shared equally by all the people. He said that a rational defense policy must have a clear strategy for spending money on defense that takes advantage of America's technological strength.

He said that desiring to match bulk with the Soviet Union is a waste of money. Second part of a rational defense policy would be to complement that policy with an effort to restrain military competition with the Soviet Union. And he talked a little bit about the SALT II treaty, which, of course, is still unratified by Congress.

And the third aspect of that would be to share the burden of defense fairly among the American people. His second major principle of four was that the United States should build relations with its allies, with China, with the developing world, so that they complement our overall security program.

He called for continued strengthening of NATO, continued sharing of defense burdens by NATO and by Japan, called on three world area, particularly for a fair and effective foreign policy, a particularly foreign aid program. He says it's past the time when we should understand the importance of foreign aid in America's overall security efforts.

And he proposed that the president should have a discretionary foreign aid fund. He said that dollar for dollar, that could do more to enhance American strength than many other things that might be done. The third major principle, a strong economy in the United States.

He said the energy crisis is no joke, although Jimmy Carter was guffawed for calling the energy crisis the moral equivalent of war. Mr. Mondale said it is indeed, a very major threat to this nation. He also called for revitalizing the basic American industries and improving productivity, noting that there's only one foundry in the United States that can make a particular important part for a tank.

And the fourth principle, which he concluded on was the support for moral values. He said, it is our ideals, our belief in democracy, that, in fact, is our greatest strength and is of greatest importance in shaping a consensus on foreign policy. Live from Macalester College in Saint Paul, you have heard an address by Former Vice President Walter Mondale on foreign policy.

This was the second in a series of three lectures that Mr. Mondale is delivering in as many weeks at Twin Cities area colleges. Last Tuesday, he lectured on the institution of the vice presidency at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. And next week, he speaks at 8:00 PM Monday night at the campus of the College of St. Thomas in St. Paul on domestic policy.

These special broadcasts of the Mondale lectures are made possible in part with a grant from [INAUDIBLE] Incorporated. The technical director for tonight's broadcast was Linda Murray, assisted by Rhett Olsen. Special thanks to Tom Brown of Macalester College. And now this is Bob Potter speaking live from Macalester College. This program was a production of Minnesota Public Radio-- a listener-supported broadcast service.