>> this week former abcathree discusses his new book, white house diary. a daily account of the events of his administration as they occurred. the 309th president of the united states, a nobel peace prize winner reflects on the players and controversies of the late 1970's more than 30 years after reporting his account of the attacks. he talks of his account in office with historian douglas brinkley.

>> host: welcome to washington d.c., mr. president. it is wonderful to see you. i was wondering when you fly in here and go over all these monuments, the potomac river, the tidal basin. what do you think when you're flying into this town? >> it's still there. the wonderful times we had. over cocoanut all of this afternoon. one of our great justices of the supreme court. it's where i used to run every afternoon. i was running 40 miles a week, which is a lot. around here and at camp david on the weekends. so i just think about the good times we had. at think about the congress and help thankful i am now that i had the superb some bipartisan support that existed back then

in the 70's. it doesn't exist anymore. i think about the similarities and differences. >> is there a republican in congress or the senate that you really personally learned to enjoy working with that you became friends with? >> guest: well, senator baker from tennessee was the minority leader in charge of the republican side. he was a great personal friend of mine and still is. i get wonderful cooperation from the republican side. of course senator michael in the house was a minority leader. bob michael was also a great supporter of mine. during the last couple of years that i was in the white house then senator kennedy was running against me. he kind of took away a lot of the very liberal democrats to support him. they did not much want me to succeed on some of the issues.

increasingly into the moderate conservative democrats and republicans. that's how we were able to have such a good batting average with the congress. >> how important has he been? >> host: i young senator. he was kind of my floor leader of some of the key issues like the nuclear power. he was very knowledgeable about it. he was working his way up to be chairman. later on. but sam being a friend in the legislature when i was governor of georgia working very closely with me. and i have to say so did our senior citizens -- senator. both made a very difficult choice to vote for the panama canal treaties, which was a most courageous vote. i believe the u.s. senate has ever cast.

twenty senators who voted for the panama canal treaties in 1978 who were up for reelection. only seven of them came back to the senate the following january. two senators voted with me. although he was very popular at the time he was later defeated. i'd say one of the main reasons was because he voted for the panama canal treaties. very right, but also very unpopular. >> host: 5050. walter mondale. >> guest: as a matter of fact it required a two-thirds vote. actually get 68 votes. we had to get 67. that was what took so much. i had to get a large number of republicans to vote for it. in spite of the fact that at the time ronald reagan was making a nationwide crusade against the panama canal treaty.

it was not easy for the republicans to vote for it, but enough of them dead. >> host: why do you feel reagan and john wayne and some of the conservative leaders were so the emily opposed? >> guest: as a matter of fact john wayne supported the treaty. he disliked reagan. another reason was he had been to panama several times and he knew the leader of panama at the time. so john wayne let me know quite early that he would be in favor of the panama canal treaty and then wrote me a letter reportedly which are used with maximum advantage against the opposition of ronald reagan. >> host: spoke to tallmadge in georgia who thought that it burned him out, the canal treaty, just what you're saying. do you feel you pushed the canal is she too quickly? >> guest: no. >> host: you feel you had to do it? >> guest: it had dragged. it was during the early stages

of delight eisenhower's term pivoted had become increasingly dissatisfied about only in panama, but throughout the latin american hemisphere against the unfair treaty that we had formulated back in the early 1900's. then when johnson was in office they had a big altercation. a group of people were killed. panama broke diplomatic relations with the united states. venezuela and other leaders organized the third world powers and so all over the world there was opposition to the united states because we were violating panama's human rights as you may or may not remember. panama canal treaty was signed in the middle of the night. i think john hay was the secretary of state and washington. no panamanian ever saw the treaty.

it was negotiated by someone who had not been to panama for 18 years. it was an unfair treaty from the very beginning. almost everybody recognized it, including two-thirds of the u.s. ought to rush. >> host: he went back to panama. went to panama as ex-president to monitor the election and call noriega out as running essentially a fraudulent election. to you think the fact that you were the architect of the panama canal treaties gave you a credibility in panama that otherwise would not have been there? >> guest: there is no doubt about that. after i left office one of our first very important elections was in panama. noriega who was the head of the so-called military, the national guard was a crack. he tried to steal the election and stuff the ballot box.

and since the carter center was monitoring the election and the new the ballot box was stuffed up publicly announce the whole election was fraudulent. we did an early escape. and although his candid its with the stuffed ballot box were declared to be winners they never took office and eventually, of course, he was arrested and put in prison. the next free election was held at the carter center. it was an honest and fair election. no panama is one of the sterling democracies. >> host: do you feel maria should still be in prison? >> guest: well, he serve his term. he was sentenced for 40 years. he was qualified for a pardon. he has been rearrested because of some of the things he perpetrated against citizens of

france. he was extradited to france to be tried on another crime after he was -- had served his term. >> host: did he ever reach out to you? >> guest: no. noriega is not my friend. he was one of those that got the carter center involved on a worldwide basis monitoring elections. at that time we were innovators in monitoring elections. now we just finished our 801st election this week -- this month in guinea. before that we had ten major elections. the palestinian area. we did our first two elections in indonesia when they change from 50 years of dictatorship into a democracy. we have had a very exciting time

holding elections. i have to give noriega credit he get restarted on the election. i had to denounce him as a crook. >> host: tell me about you eventually in the white house diaries, you're on the campaign trail going to texas, you're going of a jock. and then when you were inaugurated the did the famous walk. how did the idea of walking for your inaugural come about? >> guest: well, some of the senators from wisconsin were talking about physical fitness. he suggested that we might walk as a symbolic gesture. and then as the time approached for the inauguration i concede that there was a great deal of distrust and even animosity between the people of america and the government in washington. very similar to what was the case this past election with the tea party and so forth.

a lot of disillusionment with washington. so we discussed. we finally decided that we would walk just to show that we trusted the american people. you have to remember that back in those days when i ran for president in 76 we had just experienced this in great watergate. the defeat in vietnam. had not been too long before that when bobby kennedy and john kennedy were assassinated. the so-called church committee in the senate had revealed that presidents and the cia had perpetrated crimes including murder against elected leaders in foreign countries who we did not approve policies. one was in chile and one was in a wrong. all of these things cost americans to kind of doubt the integrity of the government and the confidence. i wanted to walk down pennsylvania avenue just to show the american people that i was one of them.

>> host: it used to be mention william of douglas. he used to do walks along the canal. he used to dock -- jog along the canal. did you have our roots that you would run? was it too hard with secret service to keep one jogging route? >> guest: we were able to keep it secret. sometimes i would jog in other areas. for instance, we laid out the 7-mile jogging area inside the white house grounds by making several laps to the rose garden and down through the south lawn. and then on the weekends we would talk at camp david. but that ultimately became a national park, as you may know, sponsored by william r. douglass. extends 108 miles from downtown washington all the way to west virginia. and this canal used to be

adjacent to and sometimes in the potomac. a very important trade route back in those early days. but they had about a 12-foot wide very smooth path that the horses used to walk on to pull the barges down the canal. that's where i jog. it was a wonderful an isolated place. >> host: out of all aspects of your presidency that history will treat well, but people don't seem to know about it. jimmy carter's conservationist. working with the department of energy. also putting solar panels. with the solar panel and then i want to talk. the solar panel, were you upset that reagan took them down? >> guest: i was. there was a total difference of philosophy. i thought the american people should pay attention to our

excessive dependence on foreign oil. so as a work to get comprehensive energy package passed, and i did before i went out of office, in fact when i was inaugurated we were importing almost 9 billion barrels of oil a day. we reduced that by half down to 43 million. when reagan came in he said american doesn't have to conserve. we can use as much oil as we want to. we have -- we are a city on a hill. we don't have to defer. we do away with all these listings that president carter imposed. and so i have put these solar panels on the white house. i think there were 36 of them to provide hot water throughout the warehouse. but also as a symbolic proof to the american people that i was willing to do something.

as soon as reagan was in office he ostentatiously and with great publicity remove the solar panels and said this is a waste of money and time. as a matter of fact a small college in may purchased the 36 panels that were taken off the white house. they started a crusade about a year ago and finally induced president obama to put solar panels back on the white house. last year -- will cover this year earlier i was in china. the major producer of photovoltaic cells is in china. they brought one of the panel's. so when i was over there they should leave the panel. >> host: are you still high on the area of solar? studying wind power? >> guest: what we used to call it is alternate sources. not oil primarily.

but clean burning coal in america, as good as you can make it. reduce the dependence on foreign sources of oil was the major purpose of michael. so we put into law things that are still permanent. required electric motors and refrigerators and stoves be made highly efficient. a stamp be put on everyone about the degree of efficiency. we pass laws that required hazards to be insulated for the first time. the law was passed for the first time. we also imposed a very severe restraints on automobile efficiency. unfortunately we left a loophole so that the president could back out of it. of course when reagan came into office he backed out of the. and so when obama came and to be the president the efficiency of automobiles was down almost as

low as it was when i went into office. there were some things that we never dreamed a president would do that reagan and his successors did to waste energy, but the laws are still on the books. we still have efficient refrigerators and stoves. >> host: do you worry about eisenhower and the industrial military complex? are you worried about big oil?ñ what do we do to control the oil industry better? why are they having so much power? what can americans do? >> guest: well, the arms manufacturing industry and the oil industry and others of that kind are extremely rich, almost unbelievably rich and influential in congress. even in national elections. they have always put as much money as they possibly could into campaigns.

this includes others not related to energy like the health industry. and i think one of the most stupid things that the supreme court has ever done was a ruling last january that took off all limits on corporations and making contributions to political campaigns and even remove the requirement that they had to identify themselves. so now even in this election in 2010 there has been a massive influx of money for corporations totally in secret without the dollar's been identified. almost all of it goes to republicans. so that is what has happened with the election. his change the whole character of american politics. for instance, when i was running for office against incumbent gerald ford and later four years later against governor reagan we

never dreamed of using negative commercials. we just refer to each other's as my distinguished opponent i think that the reason for the escalation and almost universal use of negative advertising on television and radio has become because of enormous influx of money into the campaigns. so if a candidate for congress pockets of $500,000 from oil companies or so forth this been a lot of that $500,000 on destroying the character and reputation of their opponent. it happens on both sides. i don't mean just to blame republicans. democrats do it, too. although the american people disagree with that procedure, it works. one of the candice prevails. both sides have pretty will convince the public that neither can it was worthy of all the

office. so by the time they get to washington is still carryover that highly partisan animosity. it did not prevail at all when i was present or when president reagan was first elected. we had a wonderful bipartisan support. now there is ness as they. congress is much more polarized. i would say even in the months preceding the civil war. as you know the major programs that president obama put forward, he did not get a single republican vote in the house or senate. so the republicans have acted almost completely irresponsibly during the first few months of president obama stern. i think that after this election -- at least the have to assume some responsibility. that has to be an improvement.

>> guest: what about the start treaty? >> guest: very worried about it. it's a wonderful treat. good for the soviet union, europe, the united states. it starts a downward trend in the excessive arsenals of nuclear weapons. i think in an ordinary time when i was in office when george w. bush was in office it would have been approved by an overwhelming majority of the u.s. senators. with this boycott you might say of republicans against president obama in their purpose of preventing him from being reelected in 22 of, he's going to be lucky to get enough republican votes. but it certainly should be passed. >> host: what should president obama to at this point connections eagle alone and try to use executive power? this he have to somehow try to find a way to work with congress

if you were present in this political climate what card which you play? >> guest: what he is likely to do is to be much more resolved to much more determined to stick with what he wants to get done and to stop trying to induce very few republicans to support his position. he has said he is not going to permit an extension of the george w. bush tax breaks were people the very rich. at think he ought to do that. what he said he was going to do. maybe have one vote in the senate to grant an extension of the bush tax reductions to people that make less than $250,000 a year.

and that one vote only and not permit any possibility of extending the tax reductions for the very rich people. if he does things like that i think he will have a good bit of success. it was only when he used, as you know, a very well known technique that george w. bush had used many times, reconciliation, that he was able to get the health bill passed. that is playing tough. i think most of the democrats will do better in 2012 if the president does hang tough. i think he will. >> host: back to conservation. can you tell us by december 1980 you do this remarkable alaska land conservation act. it is putting aside over 50 million acres. it is going to be a legacy as the world gets more populated and there is less wild space, your name and conservation. he will be on that short list with fdr.

what happened? how are you able to succeed so wildly up there in the conservation field? >> guest: first of all, it took me four years to do. about halfway through i saw the we were not going to get any support from the to alaskan senators, one a democrat and the member of the house. so my secretary of interior came up with an idea of using a bill that passed the congress and the early 1900's. at think 1907. it was designed to save monuments. highly valuable things to the future that should be preserved. gave the president almost unilateral right to do so.

we use that legislation on large areas of land to designate them as precious monuments to be preserved. there was nothing that the congress to do to override my decisions. eventually the amount of land that we set aside as national monuments in alaska was large. i have that the use. >> host: would you actually have a map to really start learning? >> guest: absolutely. i did. the house of representatives, the very famous house member who was my partner and i have others as well. we would sit around the table in the president's cabinet room and said this is very precious. i will set it aside to save.

set it aside permanently as a national monument. i think the original bill referred to just one specific building or something like that. we use it for vast areas of precious land. it was that leverage that i used on the members of congress from alaska and also others who were reluctant about the alaska lands bill to prevail. so after i was defeated in the election in november 1980 that is when the alaska lands bill actually passed. we actually set aside an area almost as large as the state of california. we doubled the size of the national park service and tripled the size of the wilderness areas and not one bill. although i was very unpopular than in alaska because the senators and all have convince them i was ticking away alaska land it is now become one of the most popular things that i did

even with alaskan people because they see how much it is meant to their state. >> what about with sarah palin in the arctic refuge? with the arctic refuge to you think it should ever be allowed to have oil? >> guest: never. >> host: have you been? >> guest: absolutely. >> host: what was it like going there and why the san never? but the say to people who say it is empty tundra? >> guest: i have stood in front of the porcupine herd. this is a herd of about 140,000 animals. my wife and i have gotten in front. tell me when they see as the split and go by. we have actually flown over area but was a wolf than with 30 will senate. we went just off the coast of northern alaska.

we observed a group of talks. when they were disturbed they formed a circle facing outward to protect the females. we go fishing. so i have become quite familiar with the alaska and many of the national parks that i created that there in 1980. and at think that there will be preserved. there is a tremendous pressure from the oil companies i would say to lely bribe members of congress to take this beautiful area and make available for exploration. this was an area that was first set aside by president eisenhower in the 1950's. and i just preserved what eisenhower had first set aside. that's when alaska became a

state. when i left office the only way you could do that was if the president and both houses of congress voted to let oil exploration be done. i had never dreamed that we would have presidents in both houses of congress that might do so. president reagan and george h. w. bush and president george w. bush tried and sometimes came within two or three votes of getting the required legislative support. i hope it never happens. over time more and more americans and more and more alaskans are realizing we need to preserve the special area. >> host: what about offshore drilling? and believe shell wants to drill up there. off shore up there? >> guest: i don't think so. i think we need it. that is where some of the islands are. the peninsula went out in the region. when we passed the alaska land built in late 1980 we opened up

95 percent of all the coastal areas of alaska for oil drilling. we only preserve 5% which is a special area were talking about. we prohibited the oil drilling. i think the 5% is not too much to say because it's just like god made it. i hope it will be there for my grandchildren to enjoy. >> host: why do you feel sarah palin and alaska is becoming so much a part of our public discourse? is it her personality? have you ever met her or do you have any views about what she is contributing or not contributing? >> guest: never met her, but obviously was toronto is in many times. the she is one of the most dynamic in attractive speakers we have ever seen and knows how to appeal to a crowd. she is extremely eloquent. she has a very clear-cut political philosophy that she expresses. she appeals highly to an

enthusiastic group of supporters i think within the republican party and within the two-party element she is point to be a formidable candidate if she decides to run in 2012. i would not be surprised if she could get the republican nomination. however, even within the republican party as you know from opinion polls even the majority of republicans don't think she is qualified to the president. she does have the capability in my opinion as an extreme outsider to maybe get the nomination. >> host: dc any connection to yourself? she was a governor from the state and you were governor in georgia. the offense seemed very odd and came out of nowhere to beat you went into iowa and new hampshire did you feel although you are obviously coming from the democratic side, to you see any connection with what she is

trying to do? >> guest: not really. i finished my term as governor. >> host: to you think quitting will hurt her? >> guest: in a particular locker of supporters don't think -- don't hold that against her. i don't see any parallel. i do see a parallel between the times that i ran for president in 1946 and this past year with the tea party movement because it is primarily a group of well-meaning people in my opinion who were just completely dissatisfied with what was happening in washington. the have to admit that i had the same kind of benefit when i ran for office. a wonderful group of candidates who were my opponents, most of whom were u.s. senators, very distinguished. i was able to prevail, primarily because i capitalized on the

dissatisfaction. one of the driving forces for the two-party. >> host: let me shift gears to the middle east. the iranian hostage crisis. they eventually all came home. you ever hear from many of them? >> guest: quite often. usually one or two of the hostages will send word at a time and want to meet me behind the scenes. i will give them a free book and shake hands and have photographs. i'm very proud of the fact that they're doing quite well. this is not as much as it used to be right after i left office, but a good many of them would actually drive and let me know in advance that they would come in just want to spend a few minutes and thank me for the fact that they did come on safe and free. so i have had a good and friendly relationship with all of them so far as i know.

>> host: iran was so much a part of your administration and the white house diaries in your book. you talk about this. to white house is. the carter white house and they were dealing with the hostage crisis. in retrospect is this something you would have done differently in europe that course? and their he said an extra helicopter. can you withdraw back and look at that whole situation is and wish you would have done something differently? >> guest: not really. if i had known completely what was happening and might have done something different, but i don't think so under the circumstances. i was the last holdout on the top management team in letting this come to new york for the treatment of the star of cancer. and henry kissinger and all my advisers were saying let him come. is the humanitarian thing to do.

so i contacted the president and the prime minister of a wrong. i told them that i was contemplating letting him come to new york for treatment. i wanted assurance from them that they would protect americans. at that time there were about 8,000 americans in iran on working in different forces including 66 members of the embassy staff. they sent me word that they would guarantee that nothing would happen to americans if the shot came to new york provided that he would pledge not to make any political statement while in america. he didn't. and then to the surprise of myself and i think to the surprise of the president and prime minister, the militants

took hostages. when the ayatollah after three days supported the capture and holding of hostages then both the president and prime minister resigned in protest. that was just the beginning of a long ordeal where they held hostages. so i don't really believe that i would have done anything differently. the main advice i got was to attack iran. ballmer on. but i was convinced then and still am convinced that had done so i would have killed me beaten thousand innocent iranians. they would have immediately executed hostages. i'm glad i held out. >> host: does your religion ever come into making big decisions? that is a very profound thing to think that you could take up 10,000 people's. do you think it informed your

judgment that you made as president? >> guest: i think so. well, i worshipped jesus christ as a prince of peace. i was resolved as the president within the bounds of defending my nations security that i would try to preserve the piece. although we went through four years of extreme tension and sometimes i would say political confrontation i was able to go through my four years. never dropped a bomb. never lost a missile fired a bullet. we protected our own integrity and security. we not only brought peace between us and potential adversaries but peace to others around the world. one of the things i wanted to do

was to start the process of eliminating apartheid in south africa and malaysia. we will successful in rhodesia. we laid the groundwork for progress toward the end of apartheid in south africa. that my daughter was arrested three times for demonstrating against apartheid in south africa. so we were able to of form a peaceful relationship with china for the first time. normal diplomatic relations. the result -- resolve of potential conflict. we brought peace. a bill down the list of things. as we try to do. >> host: would you ever at this point in your life -- you have broken the mold as an ex-president and are very much an individual and marched to the beat of your own drum. could you ever imagine being arrested like your daughter was? say somebody was going to drill

the arctic refuge, would you be willing to go to a protest and actually be arrested? do you draw a kind of line from something like that? >> guest: i will say that if an issue came up that i felt was a matter of moral conflict if it happened i would certainly consider being arrested. i know that i wouldn't be heard. i might just be arrested as a pro forma thing. that would magnify my ability to bring publicity tour and unsavory act. but amy was -- she felt very deeply. we didn't have to inspire her to protest against apartheid. she felt very deeply like i did that it was wrong. >> host: in your diaries their is a little section about you reading the bible that night in spanish and also getting your hair cut.

he practiced spanish. was it because -- to you believe that being bilingual is important in today's america? >> guest: when i was a young person, a student at the naval academy after the spanish. when we have a chance to go on vacation we generally go to a spanish-speaking country, quite often to spain. we still -- in fact last night i read part of the bible and spanish. the next time we are together she will read a portion of the bible and spanish. it gives us a chance to practice in between times. and so she has got an ipod. she has 85 spanish lessons. i think that being bilingual is a great advantage. turned out the spanish-speaking

is important, not only in planes georgia where we have 85 hispanics who live but don't speak english. we were kind of the interpreters for the occasion. so it is of wonderful second language and also just to have a second language is very important. >> host: do you use a laptop? write your own letters and you know? >> guest: i never have dictated a letter in my life. i never have dictated any of my books. this is my 2016 book. i do all my writing myself. >> host: why is that? is this because he wanted to have the control over? >> guest: it's not that. >> host: and theodore roosevelt would dictate them. you really keep a personal -- >> guest: it does back to my childhood. and i was in planes high-school in the eighth grade i took typing. i took great shorthand. all the way through my college

years i to call mike ellis notes in short and. so i became you might say a good stenographer on my own. i'm not bragging about it. there's nothing wrong with dictating letters. i have to say that when i was in the white house a lot of people wrote messages by my secretary of state would write a letter saying to a floor leader. we come to me. i would edit and approve it and later signed. i didn't handwrite everything from the very beginning. but for instance when i wanted to reagan and some thought to come to camp david for negotiations i had wrote the letter and had been delivered so that they would know it came for me. and that's one of the reasons that they both accepted the invitations. >> host: you have handwritten letters to people around the world for political prisoners as the war leaders to release people. you still keep an eye on that? >> guest: yes, we do.

the carter center has a very strong human rights program. i have a staff full time executor of the human rights group. she and her staff at the carter center -- center monitor the most egregious abuses of human rights. quite often they will prepare a draft letter for me to send to a foreign leader who is abusing people in his or her country. i will send them personal letter . the law students at emory university will double check the legality of what i'm doing so that i don't do something foolish. then i send the letter. i say i have heard that you're doing this to such and such people. i named them. they are imprisoned without a proper trial. they may be ill and need to be released. i know this is contrary to your nation's constitution and commitments. i would like to have a report

from you just on a personal basis about what can be done to alleviate their suffering. i would just hope this particular matter does not have to go further into the public is wrong. it is surprising how many times the dictator will send you a letter back and say i've looked into this and the people have been released from prison. we still do that. we have an annual meeting at the carter center. we call it a meeting of human rights defenders. we have people from about 40 nations to come to the carter center. human rights abuses take place in their country. they are heroes in their own countries fighting against human rights abuses. sometimes the dictators will let them out of the country, but we meet with them and discuss their problems. then generally about seven or

eight of them who are the most eloquent sit around a table with me and ask questions about these particular human rights abuses. then that same group travels to washington without me and meets with leaders, human rights specialists said the administration in the committees of congress. we do that every year. >> host: i once went with the carter center and the lead you to haiti. i noticed a characteristic. you are very much -- you have the second-largest military career of any president of the 20th century. you are very punctual. but when we get to a village where most of the people at a set fee or an hiv-positive i saw that whole tough jimmy carter side kind of milk in an incredibly emotional way that you were touching people and putting the children. is that it -- to you have to of

the -- piece seem to feel the suffering of people like your mother did he take care of people with leprosy. is that hard to have that much compassion for the port but then have to keep a hard shell and ordered just to get things done? >> guest: i don't feel it difficult. the carter center which was organized soon after rose and i came home has a commitment to eradicating or controlling the most terrible diseases on earth. the world health organization calls them neglected diseases because they no longer exist in a rich world. they have played hundreds of millions of people still, primarily in africa, but sometimes in latin america. that is why we have dedicated the carter center to do as its primary purpose. control or reduce or eradicate

those neglected diseases. she and i, my wife and i go to a latin america or primarily to africa to deal with those kinds of diseases. it's not even known in america. these diseases can be eliminated. we have already proven that. they don't exist in any of the bridge world. we also deal with one major disease called malaria which everybody knows about, but we no longer have it here. for instance in ethiopia the carter center helped the government of ethiopia put to a remarkable new insecticide treated bed nets in every home in ethiopia that had malaria mosquitoes. this was -- this took 20 million next. the government in ethiopia

raised $17 million. i raise $3 million to buy the other nets we need it. we put them in homes. that is the kind of thing we do around the world now. it's a lot of you might say professional commitment by the carter center to help. i guess it comes natural. >> host: when you were a younger man coming you like harry truman quite a bit. now as an ex-president at this point in your life thinking about what you know and having been in the white house, is there a president you draw inspiration to now that might mean differently you have read more biographies. is there somebody that you think, there was the president that i can truly respect to mack >> guest: i often change my mind. a common question. i still say harry truman. i don't remember.

obviously i'm not derogating abraham lincoln. harry truman affected me personally. when roosevelt was killed by was a midshipman at annapolis. i cried when i realized that this a non vice-president would now be my commander in chief. later when i was on a submarine, a submarine officer harry truman in 1948 decided to do away with racial segregation in the military forces, the army and navy marines and their force. it was an extremely unpopular thing for him to do. the congress warned him not to do it. a lot of his own military leaders, said the majority of the military said don't do it. he did it anyway. that affected my life greatly. it was eight years later that rosa parks sat in front of a bus and long live the king jr.

became famous. i still give harry truman credit for being a pioneer in his country of doing away with almost 100 years of racial segregation. that changed my mind. and so i've always felt that he was an honest and courageous and intelligent. >> host: to you identify as a navy man commit yourself with the korean war? >> guest: i was a submarine officer. i was in the pacific when the korean war started. up until 1950. then i was transferred back to the east coast. i still feel personally involved i just came back from north korea recently. >> host: of wanted to ask you. the white house diaries you write about this. a huge crowd, like a million more people.

why do you have the kind of crowd and south korea? it is estimates up to 2 million people. closer to a million in the book. tell me about what you have learned. i know when you micra study a place like alaska. has been a big part of your life. what's going on there now? with you today be willing to go to dallas career tonight, tomorrow, and try to negotiate some kind of settlement? >> i hate to say this. but theresa stressed me. fifty years ago we were faced with the prospect of a korean war. were shipped in north. he is a combination of jesus christ and george washington for north korea.

various reasons that i don't have time to go into. he decided that he would expel the international atomic energy inspectors and start reprocessing spent nuclear fuel rods from their ancient atomic reactor that produced electricity. the united states started trying to impose much more severe sanctions on north korea then they had been since the 1950's when the korean war was over. he announced that if that happened he was going to attack south korea. the fact is that then and now north korea could almost totally destroyed the capital of south korea. i decided to go over and try to resolve the issue. i got reluctant approval from president bill clinton. i went over and negotiated successfully. the united states eventually put that into an official agreement

by negotiating. that is what bill clinton did. later -- and they stop the nuclear process. we were well on our way toward a peace treaty with north korea. when president bush came into office that entire process was undone. in his inaugural address president bush declared that north korea was an axis of evil. to make a long story short north korea began to reprocess the nuclear fuel rods. they get six or seven capable. so back in july and the north koreans as me to come over again because they wanted to deliver a message to the u.s. government. again they wanted to negotiate and do away with their nuclear-weapons and to have a permanent peace treaty to replace the cease-fire that had existed no. so that is what i have done.

if president obama asked me to go over with certainly be glad to do so, but i would not presume as a private citizen to intercede. >> with the carter center at all? if it takes is the terrible and it looks like a war to break out with you go if you were asked by president obama simply because you really believe that you could perhaps stop what could be -- >> i would go, but only if i got permission. i never have been on a foreign trip into a troubled area without getting prior permission or approval. always make a report when i get back. sometimes i have to say that the president was not enthusiastic about my going, but it's just a matter of my commitment that i don't go unless i get permission to go. and this past time i got permission from the white house, but they made it clear that i was doing to represent the carter center and not the white house. they didn't have anything to do with the trip.

i went on a private plane. when i got back i made a full report to my secretary of state. >> host: george w. bush axis of evil speech including north korea, was that a mistake to back. >> guest: i think so. at that time was to reel and the united states has good relations . the secretary of state had already been to visit. on an official basis. president clinton had decided to go to dr. rhea in the summer of 2000. he had to cancel his visit because of the standoff between bush and core. nobody knew who was going to be president. so that was a situation. communication. but when president bush made his speech classifying north korea as an axis of evil and that was

a signal that the bush administration was abandoning the agreement that i had helped negotiate. >> host: china, your administration, the first person to recognize the people's republic of china. not nixon. people often get that mixed up. are you treated as a special person when you go to china? >> guest: im. >> host: did you have any plans of trying to work on u.s.-china relations in some way? >> guest: note. i work on carter center-china relationships. we have major projects in china. endorsed by the chinese government. for instance, they have 600,000 small villages in china. they are not part of the communist party system. the carter center has been asked by the government of china to monitor the elections held in the 600,000 little villages. we do that and have done that for maybe 12 years.

so we go. it rose to my wife, ghosts and representatives of the carter center to make sure that we help little villages have honest, fair, open and free elections. and they do. everybody in the village is automatically register to vote when your 18 years old. the candidates don't have to be a member of the communist party. most of them when aren't. there is a secret ballot. it is completely a democratic process. i have been hoping that it would move from the little village of to the higher levels where the communist party takes over. the communist party takes over at the township which is large cities and counties and provinces. the provincial people. so the government to process is involved with the carter center as a major monitor of what the chinese government is doing to

bring democracy, at least on the local level. >> host: final question because we are winding down. i could go on for hours. the issue of global warming. we talk about conservation and the department of energy and your long time concerned about getting off of fossil fuels. you at all concerned that this is to be this global warming concern and now people don't mention that? a midterm election and the ultimate present republicans are kind of staying away from the. are you deeply concerned? >> guest: i really am. in fact i just read an article the other day. american cities in north fork virginia, they have had an increase in sea level. at think it's the 16 inches already. people that have lived on trial and are now having to leave their homes and into communities in norfolk. in alaska they have abandoned several of the villages along

the coast that have now become inundated. they used to protect. so yes. a very concerned. all over latin america. bolivia is going to be the first major country that will suffer. they have gotten their fresh water supply for people to drink from the melting glaciers. now the glaciers melted. they will be part of the first major country that will have the adverse effect on the lives of their people. i'm very deeply worried about the. it is something, another thing that hopefully president obama will be very stern on and supportive of the global warming issue and put into effect some way to reduce unnecessary production of carbon dioxide