(00:00:00) Most of the things that have happened in my lifetime happens happened because students essentially decided to take a few risks and they decided to believe that some things could happen and they decided to commit themselves to making new things happen in their lives. And that was the kind of mood that made the 1960s a very important part of our lives and I think that's the kind of mood that we're looking for now. I'd like to go back though not to the 60s but to the late 40s because I contend that the kind of thing that we're looking for in today's world and the kind of thing that we need in today's world essentially peace and security and the continuation and the maintenance of freedom. is well, I think we're kind of going about it the wrong way. And I think we do have a track record and we do have an American model from which to choose one that unfortunately we forgotten it's in many respects of Hubert Humphrey model because the model of world change in the late 40s and 50s parallel the early career of Hubert Humphrey and his understanding of Human Rights and his understanding of the importance of civil rights and the relationship between human rights and development and peace and progress and prosperity is something that not only this Administration but it's something that we as an American people have been losing gradually for more than a decade. I'd like to remind you of what happened. In the wake of the second World War One America believed that we could lead the world. We had demonstrated military leadership and we were determined that the world would never again face worldwide Warfare. We understood it seemed the the danger of the new era that we had opened up with the bombs on Hiroshima Nagasaki and we cooperated even with our enemies in pulling them into a United Nations and we put together a political forum for the resolution of disputes and we made it possible for that Forum to include in it all of the nations of the world whether they were friend or fold and we created certain political checks and balances in those United Nations that enabled us to talk together and work together. But at the same time there were checks and balances mainly The veto that protected us from having to give up any of our national sovereignty in the process in some sense. It's a powerless organization in some sense. It's a meaningless and empty organization in some sense. It's an organization that was designed not to work and yet with all of those limitations the United Nations has maintained its objective of preventing the local and Regional conflicts that are inevitable in the Affairs of humankind from turning into a worldwide conflagration, but we didn't just stop with the United Nations and the United Nations work is even greater than that political Forum. We went on up into New Hampshire to a little place called Bretton Woods, and we decided that we were going to structure the economy of the world. We understood then it seemed the Relationship between development and security between development and peace. We understood that if we were going to keep communism from spreading we had to provide an alternative map pattern of development for of those Nations who had been virtually destroyed and whose economies were terribly destroyed in the second world war and so we went so far as to give Aid and comfort to our enemies we went so far as to tax the American people to create a Marshall Plan we put together an International Bank for reconstruction and development the World Bank. We set out certain agreements on the values of currency. We created an international monetary fund and we set in motion General agreement on trade and tariffs. We put together the rules of economic interchange. for the world and we tied it to American Security into the strength of the American dollar but What we did in doing that was we guaranteed stable economic conditions at a reasonably low interest rate. And so Europe and Japan were able to redevelop their economies and the emerging nations of the world were able to develop their economies under conditions that were a fairly predictable and for the most part stable and tied to the security of the American dollar now that security that stability which extended from about the late 40s right on up until 1971. That's security provided the 25-year period that enable Japan and the European Community to get on their feet it gave us. New Economic strength and emerging Nations like Brazil and Mexico and Nigeria it gave us an opportunity to look at the newly developing nations of the world which were rapidly coming into being from 1960 to 70 under the UN auspices the UN which was formed with just 50 members 51 members now has about a hundred and fifty five members and those hundred and five additional member states, which have become Nations since 1960 essentially came into (00:06:29) being (00:06:31) under a process of decolonization which had America support and in which America provided The Economic Security For Europe to give up her colonies what they did actually was trade colonialism for neocolonialism, but they gave up political control and they kept (00:06:51) economic control. (00:06:53) But even that must be seen as progress and an important and necessary step and and yet that process was working and working extremely well and the only times that it did not work we're times when we didn't understand how it was. Well when it came in the conflict with some of our so-called allies, it didn't work in Angola and Mozambique and Cape Verde because Portugal was a member of NATO and we supplied Portugal with weapons and Portugal use those weapons to continue the colonization of their African colonies. and it took literally the collapse of Portugal to bring that about it didn't work in Vietnam because the French didn't want to leave and then we got involved keeping them there and they left and left us there and we didn't know what the heck was going on and (00:08:02) But (00:08:03) the one thing that we've never quite understood is how these nations came into being. And for that we've got to go back almost a hundred years. We've got to go back to an early Christian Missionary movement. We've got to go back to you church folk going around the world telling people that they were God's children as dangerous stuff. Particularly when they begin to believe it if you believe my father has Catalan Ten Thousand Hills you pretty soon wonder. Why are you hungry and why you can't eat steak and if you understand that the Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof. And you are God's child. Why is it that somebody else is controlling your land and those questions that led to the end of colonialism essentially what questions which were raised religiously and when you couple that religious sense of all men and women and even children nowadays thinking of themselves as children of God, then you got a major series of revolutionary forces on your hands. Now, you can almost document that very clearly and we forget it. I even forget it. I remember in the negotiations with the patriotic front. Zimbabwe all I had heard was you know, the Marxist terrorists patriotic front and we never use the word patriotic front without putting the prefect's Marxist terrorists. And so when I found myself being sent by President Carter to get to know these folk in to see if there was some possible settlement that we could could explore at least know what they were like, I found myself sitting on one side of the table with some very proper British gentleman and all of the patriotic front very Fierce. Looking African Brothers on the other side and needless to say, I was rather insecure and when they sat and scowled at us for an hour and we scouted them for an hour and didn't really make it. I finally suggested why don't we, you know, just take a coffee break and and come back in about a half an hour and as we got Up, one of the big Burly a Brothers came over to me and said look, I need to talk to you. Come here a minute. And I said all Lord have mercy here I go and he pulled me off on the side. This was February 1978 and he said look what really happened to the Oakland Raiders quite a philosophical question for a Marxist terrorists. And I said, I thought he was speaking a strange language and I really didn't understand him and he said, you know, they told me they were going to be in the Super Bowl this year and I hear Denver beat him out. And I said here you are in Zimbabwe struggling for your Independence. We're in about some Super Bowl. How did you get interested in football? He said well, I was in the Bay Area for nine years. I said, what were you doing? He said well, that's where I got my doctorate. I said you what he said. I did my undergraduate work at San Francisco State. At the University of San Francisco and I got my doctorate at Berkeley and then as I began to get to know the people that with a fierce Marxist terrorist the kind of people I'd read about as jungle bunnies on the loose, you know, they wanted to kill all the white men and rape all the white women and that's the image you got from our press and yet (00:11:49) there were (00:11:54) there were 30 american-trained phds in the leadership of the patriotic front 30 and you never read about that a single time. There was one fellow across the there was one fellow across the table for us that was particularly hard to deal with and he was always playing games and I finally went back and got the CIA papers and realize that he had a PhD from Fletcher School of diplomacy and a law degree from Harvard. But that he had gotten simultaneously in order to rush back to get into the struggle. Now. You don't have to be a Marxist terrorists to have that kind of American education and then go back and refuse to let your country be run by a group of you know, European castoffs who really couldn't make it in England and furthermore when you looked at the leadership all of them got their training in Christian Missionary schools, Joshua. Nkomo was a presbyterian lay preacher. Robert Mugabe had been a Roman Catholic school teacher for 17 years in a Jesuit school. We thought he was an impossible intransigent negotiator and David Owen used to say these Communists are so rigid but we miss the point. It wasn't that he was a communist. It was that he was a Is it and they can be just as intransigent and just as impossible in negotiations and and sertoli was a minister of the United Church of Christ. Mazzara was a bishop of the Methodist Church and all of that leadership in that so-called Marxist terrorist movement was a product of Christian Missionary education and American or British higher education, even right. Now as you go around the world. In fact going to Nigeria with President Carter, we found that President Carter read the New Testament scripture General obaasan, Joe read the other one Old Testament and what they both made similar remarks President. Carter said I first heard about Nigeria as a little boy in south, Georgia and our Sunday school class. Raise some money for a Baptist training school in this far-off land of Nigeria. When obaasan Joe got up. He said I want to thank you for the contribution to my school. That's where I got my primary and my secondary education. In fact right now the secretary to the government of Nigeria running the most powerful government in Africa and running it well in spite of again what you read in the Press Nigeria's economy anticipated $25 a barrel oil last year and they anticipated a reduction in Supply and they budgeted accordingly and and the guy who's at the key to that is an alumnus of the University of Minnesota. Alhaji che-hoo Musa and anywhere you go The people who are challenging the American domination of the world and America's misunderstandings of their part of the world essentially have been trained here. We forget that Ho Chi Minh studied in Boston and worked his way through school as a chef at the Parker House. We also don't like to remember I'll remind ourselves we talk about this horrible OPEC, but all of those, you know, Saudi administrators were Harvard Business School and USC and essentially what we're seeing around the world is not a revolution against American ideals and values. But what we're seeing is a revolutionary Force demanding that America live up to her. olds and (00:16:23) values and (00:16:36) we understand this and praise it when we see a strong vibrant Catholic Church rising up against a Communist party in Poland and we praise that religious Resurgence that not only took over Poland but took over Rome and gave us a Polish Pope and at Thrills us to see the power of those Christians and their faith standing up against communism, but we don't understand that. It's that same Catholic Church in El Salvador and Nicaragua that standing up against Fascism and wondering why we can understand (00:17:17) that. (00:17:23) even in the Carter Administration ministration, we had trouble really believing it and these folk don't have the slightest idea of what's going on (00:17:34) down there, but (00:17:39) In the early days of the sandanista regime a group of the committee of 12 came up to Washington and nobody would meet with them. So they called up and I happened to be in the hospital and they called a fellow on my staff who had been a missionary in Central America and said look, we know the ambassador's in the hospital but it's just embarrassing for us to come here and not talk to any American government official and since we know he's a minister and since we're priest, I wonder if we could just drop by and pray with him for a little while. So we won't talk any politics. We just need to say that some officials that we did have some opportunity to tell what was going on. And so they spent about three hours with me to Roman Catholic priest to american-educated businessmen who were part of the sandanista movement who simply asked that we not isolate them. but we don't do them to them what we did to Cuba and force them to be dependent on someone else that we work along with them to strengthen and preserve the Democratic elements within that Coalition and to help them develop their country, which was not only suffering from a samosa exploitation, but which had only recently been Shattered by a series of earthquakes and and difficulties in the lands and in The Villages and they clearly saw that if we could see that the answer to their security and stability was an economic development and land reform and meeting the needs of their people and that they could do that best in association with us that if we could just understand that they were sure that in a matter of a few years, they could move their country into a reasonable association with the organization of American states and with the kinds of values that we were were particularly, you know strict about You know, we're very strict about elections when they left wing governments around we don't worry about them too much when they're right wing governments in (00:19:45) charge, but they were willing to go through that (00:19:50) but they just wanted a little time and a little understanding and a little support and those are the very things that we've been reluctant to Grant and yet that's I think the answer to some of the problems of our world that the answers are essentially for us now to kind of restore that kind of stability. Economically that kind of political use of the United Nations to try to contain and resolve reasonable reasonable disputes and to redefine the rules of the economy for the next 25 years. The Bretton Woods agreement worked well for almost 25 years, but then our involvement in the war in Vietnam and followed by the quadrupling in the price of oil very rapidly created such shocks that had destroyed the Bretton Woods system almost completely and what we've had is just wild fluctuations that make it impossible for any but the strongest of economies to know what's going to happen from one year to the next and if we could but restore those kinds of agreements that would give us another not 25 years even but if we could be guaranteed 10 years of economic stability Some confidence about the infrastructure interest rates some confidence about the availability of capital and nobody can do that. Nobody can give that leadership in the world but America, but we would also need for the developing world the same kind of long-term stability and security we provided for Europe but not only does the developing World need it. Now. We need it now in the United States as well. The American Farmer would have no more problems if they had the same 6% interest rates a less that they had in the 40s and 50s (00:21:53) and and that's not out of the (00:21:55) question 6% interest rates could be guaranteed by one aircraft carrier going by the board and I would contend that we would probably be far. Secure with a solid base of American agriculture protecting us against these enormous trade deficits as our Farmers have in the past that that that has been one of the mighty arms of our national security the ability to feed people in need and the ability of making it necessary for even our potential enemies to become dependent upon us to eat. There's nothing more guaranteeing of the possibility of Peace then your enemy depending on you for food. And I guarantee you that food is far more important to American Security than another aircraft carrier would be in the North (00:23:02) Sea but providing that (00:23:09) kind of security providing that kind of money would depend on another kind of replenishment of the World Bank and the international monetary fund that somewhere in the neighborhood of 50 to a hundred billion dollars. That's now floating around the world building gambling joins in the Caribbean and speculating on this that and the other all over the world if it could be tied down and harnessed in such a development facility that Europe had through the World Bank and through the international monetary fund. So the developing nations of the world could could handle their credit and they're developing. But needs over a period of at least 10 years stability at a time that if we could do that, we could guarantee the kind of development in Latin America and Central America in the Caribbean in African countries, you know in spite of all you read about Zimbabwe now Zimbabwe is working against Great odds, and they are past that ratio kind of confusion, but they had a growth in their GNP last year of 12% But what you read about is that mm oven Como's men who admittedly didn't get into the economy broke off and a terrorizing people in the South and he sent some of the national sold guard down to try to curtail that you don't really know who's responsible for it. He doesn't know Como doesn't know and Como is not in charge of that, but you have the South Africans play. Games and Zimbabwe and you had the Russians that train them Como folks in the beginning and Mugabe and the central government have always been suspicious of both and feeling that it's in some people's interest namely South Africa and Russia just to have turmoil. It doesn't matter who wins that anything that continues the turmoil continues to be a breeding ground of frustration and insecurity and a week. Zimbabwe is in those competing and conflicting interests a strong United Zimbabwe whose economy is a growing who's supplying us with the Chrome for our Specialty Steel that's contributing to the advances of development. The worldwide is very much in our interest and yet instead of focusing on those interests, which would lead to our development into the restoration of our steel industry. We're down there playing games with Races in South Africa (00:25:55) and (00:25:56) somehow getting a focus on the problems of the world from a development standpoint from providing the same kind of security to the developing world and to Americans at home economically that we enjoyed in the 50s and 60s, but essentially that's my prescription for peace and security its development and how do we get that we get that in America through a political process and we lost that Vision in America through a political process. One of the great tragedies of our time. Was that Hubert Humphrey lost the election for president in 1968. And just stop with me for just a minute and speculate on what it might have been like had we gone from the New Frontier and the Great Society and Lyndon Johnson understood domestic realities. But Lyndon Johnson didn't understand anything beyond our Shores very well, but Hubert Humphrey was an internationalist Hubert Humphrey was a founder of the the food for peace movement Hubert Humphrey was one of those that advocated the bringing of large numbers of students here as chairman of the subcommittee on Africa. Most of those African students in Zimbabwe came on Kennedy Administration programs that were the idea of Hubert Humphrey a southern Africa scholarship program in the 1960s that by the 1970s had produced a generation of leadership that could produce 30 phds in Zimbabwe that could produce people in the Sudan who Were able to begin to heal the African and Arab split of that country who could produce people all over the country that essentially had adopted the ideal of our lifestyle and for with all of its faults still produces more goods and more services more cheaply to more people than any other system around and people people say that back to us in strange ways. I remember going to a little village in Kenya and the District Governor there. I had a picture of Jomo Kenyatta on one side of his mantelpiece and he had a picture of Jesus Christ in the middle and a picture of Mark Hatfield on the other side, (00:28:31) you know, and I (00:28:33) couldn't understand it and and yet he'd been to school in Aragon and One Mark Hatfield was governor and he had a concept of Mark Hatfield dedication to his State and to his people and so he cut out a picture out of a Sunday supplement of Mark Hatfield and his family and had it over his mantel as something of the kind of ideal of governance that he was trying to share with his constituents and Kenyan the the values the lifestyle the faith the hopes of this country have been bought by the peoples of the world and they're looking to work with us to establish a kind of leadership that will make it a reality for the whole world at least as much as it is for us. And that's well within our time. Oh Hubert Humphrey presidency for eight years could have moved us irreversibly in that division that direction but we missed it and we missed it by less than one vote per And while you know the energy of a degregory candidacy and of Eldridge Cleaver Canada see essentially siphoned off some of the moral effort that had come out of the black community and out of the ideals of young people and had gone into the Democratic party to make a Kennedy Johnson presidency possible. But when we lost that idealistic Edge By playing all kinds of games and so-called radical politics. We experienced a drastic setback and one of the reasons why I'm very reluctant to look to any kind of protest politics or to play any kind of games in 1984 is I think we have only one agenda and that is to defeat Ronald Reagan and to reduce military (00:30:36) spending. And after and after we accomplish that very difficult (00:30:54) task and have backed the White House and the Senate then we can begin to fight about priorities and we can begin to fight about reforms and we can begin to fight about all of the things that us as Democrats are going to fight about and there's no question about our ability to fight each other. There is a question about our ability to pull together to restore restore the leadership to this nation and the world and I think we really see that in process if we can just keep it moving. We see it in the election not only in Chicago but in the 1982 (00:31:32) election as well, (00:31:36) we're going to see it next week again and Gary and we're going to see it in. (00:31:39) All Adelphia (00:31:42) and those are victories that are seen as black victories and in some sense they are because black people are hurting the most and were hollering the loudest but they're so student victories the University of Illinois Chicago campus literally closed down and students that were about 1,700 students that drove people to the polls in Chicago and I we done that in 78 or 68. We wouldn't be in the mess. We're in (00:32:12) now. And so the (00:32:17) political Awakening that you see in those elections and then a nuclear freeze movement and serious discussions of what's going on now in El Salvador and Nicaragua and the kind of energy that the American people have for change. Once they get it in Focus. That's the kind of thing that I see moving very clearly on the horizon and I don't get the least bit discouraged because we you know, we've come so far it's hard for me to think about being set back because you know when I was leaving College, I drove through Georgia going back to Louisiana, and I wouldn't stop I got gas in South Carolina and drove straight on through the Tuskegee, Alabama because Atlanta was the worst place in the world for somebody black to be caught at night. And if somebody had stopped me and said Son you better slow down in that town. You'll all be the mayor there one day (00:33:21) impossible (00:33:23) and I think the kind of things that have happened to me over the last couple of decades are going to happen to you in Spades. And so I leave now with a kind of feeling of a modern spiritual of the Reverend James Cleveland that says very simply Lord. I don't feel no Ways (00:33:43) Tired we've come too (00:33:54) far from where we started from and nobody told us that the way would be easy, but I don't believe He brought us this far to leave us. (00:34:44) The first question is as (00:34:45) follows as an ambassador. What do you think is the proper balance between the United Nations ambassadors views and the administration the president that appointed the Ambassador. (00:34:57) Thank you (00:35:01) for normally the ambassador to the United Nations is an appointee of the president and should take orders from the president and the state department, but I felt that (00:35:16) I had helped to elect the president. (00:35:19) and so I felt not only responsible to the president, but I felt responsible to the people who I encouraged to vote for the president and I guess almost 30 percent of the votes that Jimmy Carter got came from the black community and he could not have been president. If you add to that the student votes and young people and the liberal wing of the democratic party essentially makes up. I think the majority of the party but the state department was still giving the president the same kind of analyses that they had been giving to Kissinger and Nixon and so I felt as though it was important to challenge that analysis because I thought that's what Jimmy Carter's election was about and to just get in there and then take orders from the state department that we had defeated. I was stupid (00:36:25) and I guess (00:36:27) I do believe in me and I think we ought to think in terms of the democratic party and more European terms. And we do then the president likes to we are a coalition party and there was no difficulty in Germany for you know Schmidt to realize that Ginger had a different constituency. I mean, you look party has to balance the coil. I mean the government has to balance the coalition to govern and I felt as though it was important for me to keep speaking out on those issues that were in the Forefront of the facts section of the party that I represented and I frankly think the only thing I did wrong was not do it often enough all out enough because if I had done what I really wanted to do and I mean for about two months I played it kind of straight and tried to learn their game and then I realized that was a no-win proposition and that they were basically in the bureaucracy. It was sort of you know, what we call the cya diplomacy. you all know what that is, you know, but they everybody was trying to cover their own backside (00:37:52) and (00:37:54) And they were looking out for their own promotions and their advance advance advance in the system and nobody wanted to take any risk and mean they really let me go into Zimbabwe in Africa to kind of get rid of me. They figured nothing was going to happen there and but we should have we should have gone as aggressively at Cuba at Vietnam at Angola as we did at Panama and Zimbabwe and we could have reconcile some of those tensions deprive the Russians of their ponds and not had to face some of the kinds of problems that we Face later and Afghanistan and and in the Horn of Africa if we had gone aggressively at well, we did it tentatively and and I think the Carter Ministrations weaknesses were not that they did they move wrongly but they didn't move rapidly enough. We were right and going I mean the difference, you know, nobody points it out. We went after the argentinians with human rights Reagan went after the argentinians trying to get them to participate in the overthrow of Nicaragua. He didn't get over Nicaragua overthrown. He got the the Falkland Islands invaded and yet those same people will come back and tell you that human rights failed as a policy now, we didn't have any invasions in Latin America. I mean the Panama Canal treaty essentially provided the only stable Ally that we have in Central America and we did it without any guns without any enormous Aid package. We did it through strict diplomacy and the more if we had done that if we had been more aggressive with human rights. ran we might have had a different scenario (00:39:59) there. Mr. Mayor, we have so many questions here. I'm going to try to group a several of them. There are several that asked concerning the Middle East one part would be do you think that simultaneous recognition between the United States and the PLO? I think they must be in Israel. Peels sounds a fair or just approach towards breaking the deadlock. That's part one part two that you think it makes any sense for the u.s. Government to refuse to talk with the PLO leadership and number three. Would you please come in on your resignation as a result of meeting with the PLO officials (00:40:34) once every 15 months the US ambassador? Rotates to become the president of the security Council of the United Nations and that was my month. and coming up that month was a report on the committee of pain Palestinian rights (00:40:56) and (00:40:56) appeal low resolution was coming to the floor of the United Nations that was implying acceptance of Israel's right to Exist by accepting UN resolution 242 and in the next sentence calling for a Palestinian State. Well, that was what we've been trying to get the PLO to do to accept Israel's right to exist and to recognize 242 as a starting point for conversations, but we were not in a position in the US government to vote for a resolution calling for a Palestinian state. So to have that come up was just to put everybody in an embarrassing position and I went to all of the so-called moderate Arabs to try to get them to talk the PLO out of it and I call Washington and told them what the situation was and they didn't have any good advice. So finally I told the Kuwaiti ambassador. That he ought to get me in the PLO representative together now, I'd met with the PLO lots of times before I always met with everybody and there was nothing secret about it and I just took a position that you talk to people in diplomacy and you talk particularly to your (00:42:17) enemies (00:42:21) the only mistake I made was normally when I talked to the PLO I (00:42:24) reported it (00:42:27) and this time because I did not succeed in getting them to withdraw the resolution. I didn't say anything about it and it leaked as everything does at the United Nations and it became a big issue which nobody ever really understood. And so rather than see that issue of whether I stay in a job become the issue and whether and dividing the Democratic party, I Decided that since I hadn't asked anybody's permission to do this. I did it knowing that what I did was legal, but that it wasn't really worth fighting about the legality of my action. It was much more important for America to continue the debate on how to resolve the Palestinian situation and furthermore. We were just about three months away from Independence in Zimbabwe. The president was in the process. We thought of going to the Senate with a strategic arms limitation treaty and there's no way I would equate my job or me with progress the possibility of progress in the Middle East in Africa and with the Soviet Union. So I felt the best thing I could do was get out of that job as quickly as possible and work on continue working on those things, which I've done and I've done it with in Democratic party without breaking my relationship with the Jewish Community or Israel or anybody else. In fact, I reported my meeting to the Israeli Ambassador before I reported it to the state department and disgusted with him and it was just well, it's important to keep I think politicians to keep those kinds of policies on the issues rather than on the personalities and that was the reason for my resignation. Those still are seemingly insoluble problems, but their problems that we can't avoid and problems that we have to press ahead with and we really do need to continue that debate now. I understand very clearly. How we got into the business of not talking with the PLO that was an agreement that Kissinger made in 1975 when thousands of Egyptian troops who had invaded Israel was surrounded by the Israeli Army. And that was one of the concessions Jimmy Carter re-approve that in order to get Bagans agreement on withdrawal of from the Sinai and the West Bank but since Megan and them kind of fudged on their agreement on the withdrawals on the West Bank, maybe we have a legitimate diplomatic reason for questioning our continuation of of that policy of not talking and so it's The only thing you can do wrong in in diplomacy is is not doing enough and not working fast enough. So I would I would still say that but we've got to press ahead on those questions, but there really are no military Solutions and I think that that Israel finds herself now and in a much weaker position as a result of the invasion of Lebanon than she was before the invasion of Lebanon and that the the problems of the Israeli economy and the development challenge in the Arab world the same kind of formula for for peaceful change through development providing security through development. I think would work in the Middle East and probably is the only thing that will work how we resolve the Palestinian question over the Long Haul. I don't really know but We've got to do it and the Arab world has to get a consensus. (00:46:47) I (00:46:49) we were able to get Zimbabwe settled essentially because Nigeria and Tanzania and Zambia and even Mozambique and Angola took the burden of stopping the war on themselves. It's hard for a military leader to agree to stop fighting and to talk that's that's seen as a sign of weakness by their own troops and their own leadership position is threatened by that decision. And so Nigeria and the Frontline States took on that decision. They took that decision in the responsibility for forcing stalks away from the patriotic front. And they took it upon themselves that made it possible for the patriotic front to sit down with Ian Smith and the British and work out an agreement. I don't know whether the parallels are direct but if you could get some how are an Arab consensus to take the responsibility of the recognition of Israel and the talking away from Arafat, but literally force that question upon them and say we will take the responsibility. We recognize Israel. We insist that you recognize Israel and begin talking and Israel then Before it's like Ian Smith was forced by in South Africa. Like we pressured them through Britain that might be the possibility over a period of time of moving us further in the right direction. (00:48:30) There are there are a number of questions that grow out of the Chicago election. And I'm going to try to group these again in a three-part question. First one is if a black presidential candidate should emerge will a black foreign policy emerge. If so, will it be has substantially different that's part 1 part 2 says there was so much education in Chicago. How does it happen? The there wasn't such a gestation when you were elected mayor of Atlanta and third is are you going to run in the united for the presidency in (00:49:00) 1984? (00:49:04) Let me say that the answer the last question is no but I I took the time to create a bi-racial Coalition when I first ran for Congress and my congressional office was always half and half black and white half and half male and female and even the salaries were balanced (00:49:29) and mean as a matter of (00:49:32) policy. We have worked since 1960 to create a racially balanced harmonious community in Atlanta Chicago has been an extremely polarized community and nobody expected Harold Washington to have a chance to win. And so the white Community had divided up basically between Jane Byrne and and Richard Daley and the black community and a few students. Got together and essentially mobilize the rejection and frustration that people had felt from Jane Byrne and Ronald Reagan into a voter registration Drive, which registered another 300,000 voters with almost no money and suddenly you had this massive people's movement that ran up against I guess Jane Byrne had close to ten million dollars to spend and Richie daily almost 5:00. I don't think Harold had a half million, but he had the energy of the people and none of the none of the experts predicted it when I went to campaign for Harold Washington the Atlanta Constitution Center reporter with me and she came back and wrote my optimistic predictions and she almost got fired her City editor said, this is a irresponsible story. Everybody knows that Harold Washington doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected, you know. That's what everybody thought officially and yet the people decided he was going to be elected and that's what counts in America. (00:51:22) We we (00:51:23) should probably make this the last two written question will go to the floor after this one in a recent interview. You stated that the most important revolution of the 20th century is the politics of the bedroom or the women's movement. How should United States development policy change to improve women in development? (00:51:42) No, I in 1903 W EB Du Bois wrote that the problem of the 20th century would be the problem of the color line. I think very clearly around the world. The problem of The Next Century is the problem of a new definition of relationships and roles between men and women and I think we're already in the midst of that revolution in this country, but it it's even more dangerous and disastrous in the developing world for instance in Africa women have traditionally done Agriculture and yet when we give money, you know, we give the money to men. And men don't care about agriculture and those some of those traditional societies and and we've not understood the emerging changing role of women in the world a lot of people in a lot of places. Well take Saudi Arabia for instance women do have economic rights and they now have the right to education but they have no political and few social rights. Well in some sense I would would would say that that the role of women and the changes produced by women in that Society are going to be at least as cataclysmic as the changes that are being promised by the so called Islamic fundamentalist movement. In fact, it'll probably be the women's movement that will put down that Islamic fundamentalist movement. But in the process, it's going to create a kind of upheaval in that part of the world inevitably educated women with money aren't going to stay in the back of the bust. You know, I (00:53:36) mean when they're (00:53:41) going to redefine their role in that Society Quite differently, but in critical places like that that's going to take on on a geopolitical kind of significance. And I think we've just got to begin to be much more sensitive to that. We had a meeting of leaders of 31 Grassroots Nation 30 was about a hundred leaders from 31 different nations, Grassroots organizations over half of them are women India Bangladesh Sierra Leone and Nigeria Mexico, the southwestern part of the United States of the people who are the creative Grassroots movement around the world are generating new leadership, which is right now is not defined as feminists. In the sense that we Define it in this country, but it's women taking a different view of the way things happen in their countries.