hard for me to know of my students are actually paying attention. it is so easy to get distracted. maybe something like that where you could experiment with it a little bit. see if you could create some case studies and make a presentation to yourif you can n where you say this is how it could benefit are learning and firemen and we could better developed 21st century skills, and this is the code of conduct, or rules of participation that we would all agree to abide by -- then i would hope that a principal would be receptive to hearing this, all well brought through idea like that -- a well thought through idea like that.

>> one of the big concerns i have heard from educators is that in using social media and classes, you have issues of online bullying and safety issues that would have to be grappled with. but that code of conduct is important, showing a principles and your teachers that you are using social media responsibly, that you are using it to further your education, to organize your student groups on campus, to promote your smart steams -- sports teams, and not negative behavior, i think that is an important step in having social media tools brought into the classroom and for you to be able to text in class. all the things that students want to do but are banned in

schools, it is the responsible use, i think, that administrators are worried about. i am sure they see the value of it. but there are school safety concerns and things that trumped everything else. >> the one i was going to say -- a couple of things. your principal is not the first person to have the challenge to be convinced to bring technology for social media it into the classroom. recognize that the principle has to answer to a lot of other folks, and it is not even their decision some time, and the district might dictate what computer network can be accessed. but educators should hear from you guys. their answers make a lot of sense -- what the projects would

look like and make sure that is transparent, start that conversation with them. but educators are impacted by other educators. there have been a lot of work over the last four or five years on these kinds of models for how to bring technology and social media into the classroom space. when we talk about these case studies that are the easiest ways to convince people, you showed them a web page force house someone has already done it, you can put that in front of the principal isn't easy and quick way to make that argument instead of figuring it out on your run. pbs just did a great documentary, and i will try posted to my twitter later, they talked about these issues that came out a couple of months ago. it focuses on how different people are using different media in different ways and how

impacts schools. finding a lot of these conversations that already exist, if you ask the teachers in the room, they are already familiar with that. they are interacting with each other. they're thinking about how they can be better teachers. they recognize at that level the value of it. you can partner with them to bottle that conversation ought to the principles and the people at the district level in your respective areas as well. i'll try to add onto the hashtag at some point and start the conversation. sometimes they think that everything about facebook or twitter is bad paired we need to make sure that we're tackling the issue of how people are using social media and bring it into the classroom. bullying issues are real, but we

are getting too afraid of engaging in any conversation because of those issues. we see cyber bullying thrown out there and it stops everyone in their tracks. but it is also in the hallway and outside the school, bullying issues are already there. the question is now, do we understand social media and take what we know about bullying or what ever is you and bring that end to have some order around how we would engage in some of these tools. >> as organizers, is good to think about -- do not think about the principle as your enemy. think of them as your friend and think about their different way of looking at it, different interests. you can work together to find similar common ground. you put the face -- out facebook group and say that my school should win the blue ribbon and get a lot of people

around it, they will like that. look at all the amazing ways you can do that and use good media for the school and showed young people in our school doing good things. go to your school board meetings and bring it up in positive ways. the mature young adults and dress appropriately and speak well. that really goes far. >> thank you, and i think we have maybe time for one more question. it looks like we have an audience member with a question here. go ahead. >> my name is chris, and happy birthday, a christian. how can social media be used in negative ways and how will people -- young people know the difference? >> that is a really important question. some of the things mentioned

about cyber bullying are definitely negative. you have to tweet responsibly. it is certainly not all great and positive and helpful. there are some real challenges associated with it, particularly one of the things is that you can put anything as a citizen journalist on the internet and it does not have to be packed checked for correct. it did not have to be respectful or any of that. a lot of times we perpetuate a lot of misinformation and in mesa really hard to distinguish opinion from fact. or to even know if those facts are correct. that is really challenging. it is important for even schools, if we are talking about how can schools encourage this, it is helping people understand how to research, how

determine facts, how the top respectfully about current events, how to make sure that everything that they are putting out there is actually correct and accurate, especially when it comes to political statements. we are seeing so much partisan ships and hateful message is being perpetuated very quickly online by political candidates and by citizens as well. it is important to use to use politifact.com. other websites like that. check twice, san the ones. make sure it did you really bill -- check twice, send once. make sure that you really are correct. >> one of the biggest challenges

that young people face in terms of social media and taking stands for things and making public comments is that when you do, it is searchable by the world. a lot of conversation in the midi and the press and college campuses and job recruiters offices is that the stuff you put on line, do not think that just your friends are seeing it. people are seeing it that you may interview with for a job one day or who may be evaluating your college application and determining whether to admit you as a student. realize that one of the biggest negatives or drawbacks that i have seen is that people post things in a bad mood -- is so instantaneous. you can write anything in a moment. then it is hard to get rid of

that. it can have an impact on your life. always realize when you are involved in social media, when you are tweeting and joining groups, it is public. other people are going to hold you accountable for what you are doing. other than that, i think it is positive, and the positives far outweigh the negative, and that you had the potential like no other generation, like no other people in history, to take these tools and to change the world with them. >> one quick example, just to make that real. when osama bin laden was killed and everything was spread out over twitter, this guy recognized in a lot of articles appeared a lot of people were on facebook and twitter just retweeting a quote attributed to martin luther king. people knew what they were

trying to say and what they were trying to convey, and they were trying to influence others to get their ideas about their about this point, but fiber six hours passes and someone does a google search and realizes about two-thirds of the " is something mlk actually said and someone attacked an extra sentence on to that, intentionally, unintentionally, who knows? people were tetweeting that. you have to think about the quality of the messaging that you put out there. it is such a fast paced piece that you have to figure out to do your research and balance that out with having impact full messaging as well. >> i see there are a couple of more questions. but we are just about of time. after weekend, if you want has

the panelists in purpose -- in person, afterwards, we will do that because we want to make sure we get your questions answered. we're going to wrap up but come back afterwards. >> 5 more hours. >> i just want to wrap up and share few highlights and things i heard from our panelists and say a few thank yous, some things that stuck with me today. leveraging your skills when you get into the social media environment, become active and engaged in your community. from melissa, making up your own mind on what you believe in, stepping out and using this time of your life to figure out who you are and what you stand for 3 from landrieu, -- and what you stand for. social media is an on ramp to

civic engagement, it is not all of the civic engagement. i like to thank our remarkable panelist for spending a few hours of their valuable time to be with us here today. thank you so much. [applause] >> i also like to thank melissa, who made the rough opening remarks today. they give for contributing to our discussion today. i would like to thank my colleagues at the annenberg presidential learning center for all the behind-the-scenes stuff they have been doing today. our tech team set up a new set up for what we're doing. thank you for graphics team for making today goes smoothly. and finally, a big huge thank- you to all of you, to the students, the teachers here in person and are watching with us online, for deciding that this

is a discussion important enough to take part in and to contribute. i have enjoyed seeing the things going on in the back panels. have a terrific rest of your day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> a look ahead here on c-span. the dalai lama on non-violence in the 20 century. that is followed by discussion about president richard nixon's foreign-policy with staff members from his national security council. later, another look at how social media can be used as a tool to promote civic engagement. >> on "washington journal," political reporter kenneth vogel discusses the latest fund raising -- fund-raising efforts by 2012 presidential candidates and the national parties.

a look in your report showing's in the chemical -- criminal background check. we will speak with rick schmitt from the center for public integrity. later, paul light talks about are recent report examining peak efficiency, accountability, and productivity challenges facing the federal government. "washington journal" bears live every day beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the senate was scheduled to take a week-long break for the july 4 holiday, but one party leader read decided have senators return to more to continue negotiations on the debt and deficit. on the floor, military operations in libya starting at 2:00 a.m. -- 2:00 p.m. eastern. the house is out for the july 4 holiday. lawmakers return to legislative business at 2:00 p.m. eastern on

wednesday. the main work will be on fiscal spending. the-defense spending. the house is live on c-span and the senate on c-span2. the dalai lama spoke about non- violence in the 20th-century to a crowd of more than 10,000 at the university of alabama. he was joined by helen prejean and vincent harding, a former speechwriter for martin luther king, jr. this is about an hour-and-a- half. >> we have here on our stage today, among, and none, and a college professor. this is not what we associate with widespread political change. but i would suggest to you --

>> i would suggest to you that these individuals from their cloistered positions affected more positive change in their lives than many who have devoted their careers the public service in a traditional manner. my first inkling of an answer came while reading sister helen as she described a day in 1980 that would change her life. she was listening to sister maria as she lectured on her community, and she was urging direct action with the poor. within the year, sister helen had moved from a lakefront suburb into the st. thomas housing project in new orleans, where she began her work on death row. it was about this experience that she would later write, "better i decide to try to help san real hurting people or nine or one than to be overwhelmed

and withdraw and nothing, or write an academic paper on the problem of evil." i would suggest we know and respect sister helen now because she avoided that academic paper and embraced instead attend a -- the ten real hurting people, a number that has grown steadily and shows no signs of slowing. because we know how deeply doctor kean weighed the words he -- dr. king weighed the words he spoke in public, we are impressed to learn that he turned to professor harding to craft a speech that outlined king's opposition to the war in vietnam. one of the landmark statements on non-violence in american history. how many of us know the following words of professor harding, which described a

conversation he had with a young man, articulate and intelligent, who was bent on surviving the tough neighborhood in boston where he had a grown- up who this young man told professor harding that what he needed were living, human signposts to help him find his way, and professor harding's response is emblematic, i believe, of his life. i had never forgotten these words, prof. harding rights, and these concessions seemed cast -- seem to ask us not only to be signposts, but introduce students to other living signs who may be able to help them find a way. they need to see and know the lives of women and men who provide intimations of human grandeur. to all of his students who number in the thousands, prof. harding has served as such a sign post, and i would suggest that our stage today is

brimming with such signposts. i first saw his holiness in 1979 when i was a young graduate student at the university of virginia. since then, i have read his books, attended his teachings, and generally tried to understand the great compassion and generosity eliminate his -- that eliminates -- illuminate his work in our world. you can open many of his books randomly and find passages that clarify and eliminate. -- illuminate. here is a passage from a recent collection -- nonviolence is not limited to an absence of violence. for it is a matter of an active attitude, motivated by the wish to do others could.

-- good. it is equivalent to altruism. altruism, which defines all our panelists, is a form of nonviolence. it is a formula both clear and profound, and these are the two qualities, clarity and profundity, that i most associate with his holiness. our panelists agree -- happiness depends on developing the kind of warm heart that will recognize human suffering wherever we might find, and on developing the capacity to declare this suffering intolerable. of course, the spirit finds this suffering intolerable rises from the spirit of nonviolence. our three analysts have all devoted their lives to this principle, and i am anxious, as i know you are, to hear their advice on how we might incorporate some of this in our

own lives. it is a great honor to present to you once again professor vincent harding, sister helen prejean, and his holiness, the 14th dalai lama. [applause] now, a word about how we intend operate here today in this conversation. i have spoken to sister helen and vincent earlier, and we will allow our panelists to talk for two or three minutes about their own personal path to the path of -- stance of non- violence, and the particular role that nonviolence plays in what they do in the world. we will then follow that up with

questions and comments, and then at the and we will have a one minute or so summary from each of the panelists, and i am certain we will all be greatly enlightened by that time. we would like to start, of course, with his holiness. if you could talk for a couple of minutes about your own personal path 29 plot -- to nonviolence, and then sister helen and vincent harding. >> good morning, everybody. >> good morning. >> indeed, i am really happy, the first time to come to the state, this city. so this morning -- of course i get up early in the morning --

so i got up at dawn, i heard some birds singing. unlike big city. very beautiful, very beautiful. very happy. thank you. and then the opportunity to share my own experience on non- violence. we human beings are social animals. individual survival depends on the rest of the committee, so -- rest of the community, so there must be some force and our motions to bring us together.

that is compassion. human volition. secondly, the way our lives start come from our mother, and not like some other species, the mother lays down their eggs, the eggs are then left, no need for a motherhouse care. so they are helpless. we are let that -- we are like that. -- we are not like that. had the young age, their survival entirely depends on others for their care, their

survival depends on the affection or carrying by the mother. so our life starts that way. because of greed and some other different emotion -- however, now according to medical scientists, constant anger,

fear, very bad for our health. a compassionate mind, a very good for our health. so that confirms our basic nature is more gentleness, it is very well with our body. the difficult emotions cannot go well with our bottom. -- with our body. although there are different levels of action -- generally i think violence and nonviolence his action. every human action must come through motivation. so any action, motivated by

compassion, is non violence. any action, horrible, a physical , out of anger, out of hatred, out of jealousy, negative feeling, that essentially is violence. so in order to promote nonviolence, we have do -- we should make awareness, the compassionate mind is very good for the society, a very good for the family come very good for individuals. jealousy, suspicion, fear,

hatred, anger -- these are very bad for the society and also on individuals. so that is my reason to promote nonviolence -- out of motivation. so now -- finished. >> thank you. [applause] >> my path awakening to nonviolence, what got the call soul force, try to create

something that is new, not to be passive -- a catholic nun, grew up with a great mom and dad a, i was not just an egg that was placed in a nest, latin e,uge, -- baton roughe louisiana, and to give our life over to god was prized and her family, and i became a nun. i became a nun, and the spirit trolley out of what i was trying -- spirituality out of the way i was trying to follow the ways of jesus was a spirit quality that separated -- spirituality that separated the war. -- the world. everybody was trying to get to heaven. one day they can have a great crown in heaven.

i was separated. we became nuns and closet ourselves, i was separated from the world, and living out and the suburbs in new orleans -- [whispering] and living in the suburbs, my father had been a successful lawyer. in new orleans, 10 major housing projects in the inner city of struggling african-american people, and i had only known african-american people growing up as a our servants. i did not even know their last names of the woman who worked in the house, the man who worked in the yard. the awakening, the spiritual awakening happened, through coming to understand who jesus was, and actually to the god revealed in the hebron test of -- hebrew testament of the burning bush, that one of the first revelations in the hebrew scriptures, the burning question of moses, i had heard the cry of my people.

i realized that here i was in and of world, here was the inner city, and i woke up. and the awakening was such a grace. and grateful that i woke up, and when you talked about, the motivation to act, the consciousness -- when my conscious as changed i realized i do not even know this people. i moved, active, and lived in the presence of african- american people in the st. thomas housing project who became my teachers. once you get in this river, and doctor harding loves to read about it -- one day coming out of the adult learning center, i realized the miserable state of education for poor african- american people in public schools. people were coming into the learning centers, and could not read a third grade -- what is

going to happen to these people, and why had i been so privileged to why was i so blessed? i began to accept, and coming out one day, some of the said, you want to write a letter to someone on death row in louisiana? i did not know anything about the death of a, and i never dreamed they would kill a person because there had been a hiatus on that for over 20 years. i wrote a letter, and he wrote back. his name was captured, and he -- patrick, and he changed my life forever, because two and half years later i am in the killing chamber when the state of louisiana electric cheated him to deaf -- when the state of louisiana electrocuted him to death. he in compassion for me said i could not be there at the end because of the scarring.

i said, no, after, i do not know what it will do to me, but he -- you will not die you will not die. [whispering] you are not want to die without a loving face. it was his dignity. i said i will be the face of christ for you. they killed him and from my eyes. i left the execution chamber. it was in the middle of the night in louisiana. i vomited. i had never seen a human being killed. that motivation, that fire, i realized that moment, it was in the dark, people are never want to see this.

-- going to see this. when the state kills, it is a secret rituals lined walls, and people cannot hear the last words, they cannot see it, so that are caught -- he deserves to die. my mission was born at that moment. for that moment, i must tell the story to awaken people, to bring them close to this. that brings us to the other side, why was this man killed? what crime had he done? he and his brother two innocent teenage kids, killed them, shot them in the back of the head. every parent's nightmare, going to a football game and never being seen alive again. when i knew the crime, my impulse was to reach out to the family, and i held back because they are not going to want to

see me, and i was wrong about that. it was a big mistake i made. when i met them, the father of the boy, david, who had been killed, said to me, sister, you cannot believe that pressure on us to be for the death penalty, and i had nobody to talk to. where have you been? [unintelligible] [applause] anyway, he said, where have you been? he invited me to come and pray

with 10, and through this man, he is the hero of "dead man walking." his father shared his inner journey of first trying to go to the place, because everybody was saying that, wanting to see that it dead, and he said, but i did not like the way it made me feel when i went to that place of hatred and bitterness. then i said to myself," they killed our sons, but i am not want to let them kill me. i want to do what jesus said, and he set his face to go on the road of forgiveness. around this country, telling that story, it is very important in this journey when we deal with our outrage that we feel when innocent people have been ripped from life, and corn to stand in the eye out range,

feel -- and important to stand feel thetrage, the ol outrage, but then a look past and try to see -- i have been in the killing chambers for the state of texas. one is for the victim's family. one is the third witness in place is where families and their mothers have stood with their hands against the glass to watch as the state killed their child. and the question is, where does it take us? where does the imitation of violence take us as a society? that is my little opening.

>> thank you, sister helen. [applause] >> we owe this member of this panel -- i am going to take the liberty that age and allows of being disobedient. because i want to start off not with my assignment of telling about my path to nonviolence, but i want to start off by giving great thanks for the path that sister helen took to bring us to this place.

[applause] when i heard a story about how long he has been working on make this a possibility, i was deeply grateful, and i knew that i needed to testify to that. so, sidney, forgive me for being an elderly disobedient one, but that is how i needed to start. >> thank you. >> to go to my assignment, i want to say that my path to the way of non-violence was a path that was suggested by his holiness. it was a path that was the ball -- that was developed first by the love of a single mother, a recently divorced mother who

insisted on let me know that i was loved, that she expected great things of me, and to make great sacrifices for me. i see that as being the central to the starting of my own path. my path was also lined with teachers, and public school -- in public school who literally loved me, who cared about me, who demanded great things of me, and to push me when i was not ready to know that i could go forward.

my pathway to non-violence was also opened up by a little confrontation of church people -- congregational church people -- kahne corp. -- congregation of church people in new york, church people he took me into their arms and taught me what the new and encouraged me to explore the way of faith, the way of the teachings of jesus, the ways of love. my path was deeply affected by the fact that in my early 20's, i was drafted into the army of the united states of america.

and it was the first time that i was away from mother, from church, from home community, for any significant period of time. and in that experience of solitude, i began to explore more fully the teachings of, especially, the new testament, reading, and all the time the basic training gives you to be doing nothing. i took the nothing time and tried to make something out of it by reading the things that people had told me about, but that i had never studied myself. and in the process of that reading, i came in touch with this magnificent person, jesus of nazareth, and i began topeka very deeply attracted " i began

to be very deeply attracted to him and to his life and what that life meant. and it was in the course of that basic training time when i was studying and learning about jesus of nazareth that i was also at the same moment really enjoying basic training, because i was an outdoor kind of person, i love to run, i love to be around exercise practiced, and i surprised myself by really enjoying learning how to fire a rifle and learning how to fire it with great accuracy. it was one morning, down on my belly firing the rifle at the targets hitting it rather well,

in july and myself, that i -- enjoying myself, that i almost heard a voice saying to me, you are enjoying best. do you think that is why the army is paying all this money, so that you can enjoy this? no, you are being taught how to kill a man without him being able to see you. what does your jesus have to do with that? i was being taught how to use a bayonets, that a sharp knife at the end of a rifle that was used in those days. i was praying, have to -- trained how to immediately

slashed out another human being's bowels without him even knowing what was happening to him. in strange ways, in that moment, i heard this song that i have been singing it in my church schools for many years. jesus loves all little children. a voice came to me, that is dead. -- so that is in it. jesus loves the little children, all of the children and the world. when they grow ok'd, and when your government tells you -- when they grow up and when your government tells you they are your enemies, but when they grow up, you will cut their guts out because your government says that is what you need to do. from that moment on, i began wrestling with myself.

wrestling with the meaning of this jesus. wrestling with the idea that i has his followers was kidding myself over to that kind of -- i was giving myself over to that kind of madness. from that point, i became a conscientious objector. [applause] it was in that process after i got out of the army that i meant -- met a church group that seemed to take jesus seriously on this matter of loving the enemy. i became a part of the mennonite churches in this country. it was in the course of that that my late wife and i went

south to work with martin luther king jr. and a wonderful young people of the student nonviolent coordinating committee. they invited me into saying essentially, you have begun to think about this matter of nonviolence already. help us teach it, at practice it, work with us here in the south. that was the beginning of my pathway. i met many magnificent human beings, who without any great study, and the great teaching, came from the depth of their hearts to know they could never create a new american society if they allowed hatred and anger to overcome them even though they were understandably filled

with the right to be angry. they decided following the teachings of king that they wanted a new society where hatred and anger would not rule our way. that group of people took me in and that became part of that movement for a new society and i am still on that path, and now coming close to my 80th year. [applause] >> thank you very much, professor. you mentioned something in your last comments come a professor, that i would like to follow up

on and have all of our panelist respond to it. his holiness will recognize this colgate -- this quotation. tibetans typically say, my enemy, my teacher. it is another way to save it is important that we learn how to love our enemies. what i would like to hear all of you comment on, how does an engagement with the opposing perspectives actually cause us to strengthen our practice of non-violence? >> would you repeat that question? >> absolutely. >> tibetans have a saying, my enemy, my teacher. as long as we are around people that we love and adore, we'll learn no lessons. it is only when we are around

the enemy that we get to watch hatred and anger work. at that point, we can attack it and understand how to manage it. in each of your experiences, how does an engagement with "the enemy" strength in your practice of non-violence? >> determination [inaudible]

this sort of conviction comes from christianity. the teaching of jesus christ. all the major world traditions has all of the same potential to bring such wonderful people. one of my covenants is emotion -- commitments is in motion of religious harmony. [applause] to know the value of potential of that teaching, that wagy changes in harmony can derive. i appreciate that.

just not a scholar way, the enemy and is your best teacher. one scholar expressed that. further, we follow this practice. the enemy -- the concept of the

enemy is based on a person's attitude. this person's attitude toward me will be nice and helpful, so we call them friends. this person's -- it creates some danger for my life. we call academy. -- we call them an enemy. not on the basis of -- when you are young, we have no idea, this is my enemy, this is my friend. now there are two levels of compassion. one is oriented out of attitude.

that kind of compassion is mainly -- this person is helpful for me. that kind of compassion is a biological factor. it is oriented out of action. that you cannot extend to your enemy. another level of compassion, not oriented in another's attitude or action, but people themselves.

or even animals or others. no differences. this group is an enemy, this group is a friend. on the basic level of human being, the same. they're both -- they both want happiness, they both have the right to achieve that. both are suffering. from that understanding, regardless of their attitudes toward you, that kind of compassion is secondary compassion. you need effort to get compassion and attitude toward

your enemy. the opposite is hatred and anger. patience, tolerance, forgiveness. in order to practice forgiveness, tolerance, you need someone [inaudible] [laughter] christian practitioners, there is no possibility to practice forgiveness to jesus christ. or for buddha. no possibility. no possibility to practice

tolerance with buddha. with my mother, no. [laughter] all these people to create trouble people for you, this is testing my practice. i need to practice tolerance and forgiveness. in order to practice that, you need opportunity. that opportunity is by your enemy. from that viewpoint, very important to practice and you can learn only from the help of your enemy. that is why your enemy is your best teacher. [applause] >> sister helen -- excuse me, go ahead, your holiness.

>> i want to make clear. some people -- if you really offer forgiveness to your enemy, regardless of their bad attitude, that means -- we have to make a distinction. with not bowed down. after auction, -- they deserve our love, of our compassion, our sense of concern. as far as their action is

concerned, necessary. you have to make action to stop their wrongdoing. a central concern for that person. if you have a genuine sense of concern for that person, you person. have to make an effort to stop their wrongdoing. ultimately, their wrongdoing ultimately harms. try to stop their wrongdoing. after a fight, we must keep our compassion.

[applause] these individuals, we respect them. bionwe deliberately tried to promote our sense of well-being and compassion. as far as their action is concerned, sometimes we criticize. any possibility -- since we oppose their action, they

consider me as a troublemaker. sometimes i jokingly tell people, in order to justify their accusations, i have to have a little fun. [applause] this practice, an immense benefit to yourself, very important. the practice of compassion, some people feel something holy, something good. it is totally wrong. >> thank you, your holiness.

sister helen, keeping on this theme of my enemy, my teacher, i was struck by reading the death of innocence and dead man walking, you have a kind of reverse example but i would like to hear you talk about. when he started dealing with the victims' families, you became the enemy because you had been an advocate for the murderer. i would like to hear you talk about how you handled that particular position in which you found yourself as being the enemy of the bereaved family. >> this is a very interesting current and the river to be talking about the enemy as teacher because when i first visited a man on death row who had done this unspeakable

murder, i did not know tennessee. -- i did not know anything. when i was walking into the prison for the first time, the guards were very matter-of- fact, kind of harsh. there was an instinct because they have the ones -- i suddenly realized. the guards whose job is to work in this prison and carry out the execution are not the enemy. the same thing with the victim's family. instinctively, the opposition and was coming from the victims. because i did not reach out to them as i should have in the very beginning, harsh letters to the editor were written about me, victims' families for getting on television. she does not care about the

victims. i would try to go inside myself. i used the image of my fingers moving on a piece of cloth to see if there were any tears. i knew they were right because i had not reached out to them right away. what happened inside me was that, i need to be there for them. if they reject me or an angry at me -- because they are put on a tremendous seesaw in society. the loss that you have had of your loved ones, what we are going to do for you in order to honor your dad loved ones is that we are going to kill the one who killed your child and you get to watch and that is how we will honor you.

they are very much placed on this seesaw. all of these cultural currents that say, if you really love your child, you want to see the enemy dead. we will do that for you. anybody who says, i am not for the death penalty, -- i am acting defensively because they are opposed to me. it was the gilts because i had not reached out. when you put yourself out there to go to them, when i went to visit, when i walked in his shoes, when i heard his story, when i went to these groups, up murder victims' families groups, they were all talking about. all of them are talking about

how everybody it leaves them alone because they do not know what to do with their pain. they are being shunned in a way. one man lost his daughter. he said, a sister, if you want to see a room into out, just let me boxed into its. -- just let me walk in to it. everybody knows my daughter was killed and people do not know what to say to people in great pain. it was just one in fact after i got to know lloyd, to start a group to help murder victims' families for people to accompany them in their pain. it is one act. i did not change everything. i knew my relationship with the family, who had allowed me to come into their lives, needed to be intact. i needed to be continued to be faithful in my friendship with them.

and then to start a group. when i am talking to young people, they say, when are we going to pick up this whole world? the minute you put your hand on the rope and began to pull, whoever is hurting, the light energy and compassion flows through us. that is one response. [applause] >> i have always been struck by longevity of all types. you are a living example of that. when i was able to hear you speak about that yesterday, about traveling down to the south in 1958 with a religious

group composed of >> and whites -- blacks and whites and when i think about your initial engagement with dr. king in 1958, you met him in montgomery, alabama. i fast forward had nine years when he gets in touch with you and says, he wants to come out against the vietnam war with a major speech in riverside church in new york city. i am struck by the fact that you had seen racism of all sorts, you had seen bigotry, you had been confronted with violence of every imaginable stripe, and to hear you speak, to hear your message, you are clearly one of the most gentle people i have never confronted.

what i would like for you to share with us is how you did that. how did you confront that kind of hatred? it was highly organized hatred. it had the power of the government behind it at times. just as the victims' families are out there alone, you, too, had been out there alone. how did you stop yourself from hardening into the easy solution of hatred? >> that is not a question that one leaps into too quickly or easily.

i think it goes back to the initial statement that i was making. i was never in any of these situations of danger, of fear. i was never sensing that i was alone. for one thing, i was coming at someone deeply fortified by the love i had received all my life. i was also coming especially in the southern situations that i was a part of, i was surrounded by other people who were loving

and concerned and convinced that we had to do something to bring about to a new society. we did not have time to allow hatred and to take its place in our presence because we were busy dreaming this. this is what our imagination and what our energy had to be given to. at some time, 50 years after our struggle, we would one day be in a place that had never dreamed that it would house the dali lama. that it would have a black

students and faculty. not enough of either, but still some of both. [applause] what i am saying, our minds and hearts were too full of the dream of the possibility of what this country could be, what this south could be, what'll we could be together, hatred would only push us off that ford path. -- forward path. i could not afford, that was not what i was there for. i knew there was something else that i was there for.

i knew, as i said, that i was not alone. i knew that the ancestors were with me. i knew that the spirit was with me. all sorts of magnificent powers that i cannot even name were with me. i was trying to be involved in a work for our building of our humanity. i am deeply convinced now that when we are involved and commit ourselves to the building of humanity, all kinds of forces that we never dreamed could be available to us become available and we are able to do much more than we ever dreamed we would be able to do, including not giving into hatred. [applause]

>> thank you. >> as we hear this, seeing how our american society works, nobody ever makes a statement, even when they kill somebody in the killing chamber, we are killing an enemy tonight. there are euphemisms, different words that they use. we are doing justice. when we look at the struggle with the enemy and our society, -- in our society. they say things like, they're coming to get our jobs. these people are the criminal element. fear is what is underneath so much of our society. [applause]

with this added elements, so much of our news about each other we get from television. the more people look at television, the more hours they look at tv, the more afraid we are. could we talk about fear as the basis? >> absolutely. i would love to hear his holiness's comment on how fear of the unknowns sometimes causes us to embrace of violence. >> there are two types of fear. one fear is with the reasons. when i was in some area in india where the malaria mosquito -- out of fear, there were

questions. necessary. emotional system is such. more self-centered attitude here, more fear, more anxiety, more stress. >> they need you to project your voice. >> i think this should be sufficient. there are two levels of fear.

one fear is with reasons. when a mad dog comes ready to bite, if you are still meditating compassion, it is rather foolish. [laughter] another kind of fear is protection. when you talk of fear, it is a bottled emotion. there are many other emotions. fehr -- fear -- selfish is part of our nature.

without that, we would be like a robot. we cannot survive. therefore, we are selfish. wise selfish is much better than foolish selfish. it brings more fear.

more suspicion. this unnecessary source of suspicion, it is based on the distressed, selfishness. -- this trust, selfishness. brotherhood, sisterhood. everybody wants happiness. i am one of them. the more the rest of the community is healthy, i get more happiness.

there is no way to gain maximum benefit to oneself for getting others. -- forgetting others. a sense of human brother or sister. or a stranger, you never know, but still a human being. if you show affection, normally, they will receive it. society, culture, more individual. it is a key factor.

too much competition, more stress and anxiety. as you mentioned, the television is showing those things which are more negative. murder, these bad things. these become news. there are good things. serving others out of genuine compassion.

these are news. we take for granted. there is some impact on our minds. eventually, people get a feeling. our basic nature it is negative. some people described as

aggressiveness. not necessarily a description of basic human nature, i do not think so. >> thank you. i am trying to keep watch on the time. [applause] we have less than 10 minutes left. by way of making a closing statement, i would very much like to hear the panel respond to the following question. recently, with the killing of osama bin laden, there is been a great debate in this country about the efficacy of violence. i do not need to your you talk about bin laden. you can, if he would like. -- if you would like great from the perspective of a

practitioner of non-violence, i think it is very helpful to have it explained to us logically why a violence does not work as a long-term solution to a problem. everyone understands the impetus to use of violence to stop something in the short run. but if i could hear each of you talk about how violence is not an efficient means of solving a problem, i think that would bring clarity to a lot of us who are trying to adopt a non- violent way. >> when i hear the example that you started out with, the bin laden murder, what came to my

mind when i first heard about that was another situation of terrorism that i was very close to. i was deeply involved in the movement that took place in birmingham, alabama, in 1963. it helped to open up to the world what was wrong in our society and what needed to be made rights, especially along the lines of white supremacy and the oppression of people of color. you have -- you may remember

that weeks after the march on washington of august 1963, in september, 1963, the 16th street baptist church had a bomb placed at its base and a bomb went off. it was a terrorist act. it resulted in the death of four young sunday school girls and the injury to a good many people in the church. what i remember is is a conversation that i had with two of the most magnificent

teachers of nonviolence that i knew in that moment. diane nash was one of them. at the time, she was married to another great practitioner, james. diane told me some time after that terrorist explosion that she and jim were in another state visiting day another freedom worker when they got the news over television that the bombing had taken place and those children had been killed.

as two of the deepest believers in the wave of non-violence, they nevertheless immediately said, up we have got to get back to birmingham and we have got to find out who did that terrible work and we have got to make sure that they never are able to do anything like that again. they had great understandable, and justifiable anger and the move and them was for revenge and retribution. as they sat with their friends thinking about that action, they began to rethink that initial response.

they said to each other, we can not copy that terrible path of violence. that is not true we are. that is not legal -- that is not what we believe in. we will be on faithful to ourselves and to all of the people who are part of our movement. we must think in another way about called to respond to. we must respond, but we must find another way. what they decided was that they would return to alabama, but they would devote all of their time and attention and skill to the work that was just beginning.

a voting registration campaign was going on. they said, we decided that if we could bring black people into the electorate to change those who are running that states, we can change the atmosphere, change the setting, so that the possibility of such terrorism would be reduced. they decided to go to selma to work on voter registration. as you know, eventually, that marvelous movements ended up with that march from selma to

montgomery. they spent two years working on the response to the death of the children. what came out of it was in the opening of another level of democracy in this country. the death of the children lead not to the death of more people, but to the opening of new life, new possibilities for this country. [applause] >> thank you very much, a professor. sister helen? >> the answer to fear of the

enemy is for us to meet each other. i believe the more we can connect, build bridges, have different kinds of people meeting, having breakfast together, crossing the boundaries, these individual -- and did -- invisible boundaries that have been set up in these culture. the university students, and you are in the environment of being at a university. you are there with your team. but to are the others that are different -- but who are the others that are different from us? the more we can meet each other, we will positively promote building communities of peace.

[applause] >> your holiness, if you have any final thoughts on the ways in which violence perpetuates violence. >> basically, the very nature of violence is unpredictable. once you involve violence, it often becomes out of control. more damage. so i believe, at the turn of the century, the number of people who killed through

violence, over 200 million. that kind of action, the exploitation, it lays down the seat of hatred. -- seed of hatred. this century, it should be a century of dialogue. meet and talk. if possible, meet him.

what are his reasons? i am quite sure there could be some openness. i visited on a few occasions in northern ireland, and one time they invited me. the organized the victims together. in one room. when i entered that room, very

tense. each person's face, full of sadness and anger. then we start some sort of conversation. after one hour or two hours, we had a meal together. the atmosphere completely changed. the next time i visited, i met with some of them. completely changed. already defeated, but carried a

death sentence in the name of revenge or something. at that time, i was pretty young. prevent further problems, but defeated people. what is that? saddam hussein, a possible death sentence. i think i was in japan or

australia or somewhere. now defeated. completely demoralized. the object is to feel compassion, not hate. not anger. they carry a movement to -- i oppose the death sentence. as a result of their wrongdoing. no opportunity to see their wrongdoing. this eliminates the person, not the action.

[applause] a real effective measure to seize -- cease the action, deal with the person, listen, and then talk. the control of that destructive action.

otherwise, if we handle not properly, after two years, then osama bin laden. the change must take place here, not a physical elimination. it is another sort of problem. regarding the bin laden case, 100 people with different opinions. it is difficult to say.

some people are overjoyed. some people say, it is quite normal. some people say, this is wrong. i am one of them. [applause] >> that was absolutely wonderful. it exceeded even my highest expectations. in my humble opinion, i believe we have just borne witness to what i am certain is an historic conversation. let me thank once again our

guests. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> coming up, president richard nixon's foreign policy with members of his national security council. then they look at how social media can be used as a tool to promote civic engagement. later, a discussion on the social, economic, and local forces that divide and unite americans today. >> tomorrow morning, kenneth l. vogel discusses the latest fund- raising efforts by 2012 candidates. and a new report showing flaws

in the criminal background check system used during firearm purchases. we will speak with rick schmidt. then paul light talks about accountability and productivity challenges facing the federal government. "washington journal" bears live everyday beginning at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> the richard nixon foundation recently hosted a discussion looking back at president nixon's foreign policy. speakers included former national security council staff members who work in the nixon administration. this took place of the u.s. navy memorial in washington, d.c. good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

i am the president of the navy memorial. i welcome you to this richard nixon legacy for more, specifically addressing the cold war strategy and has the effect upon it. my pleasure to have you with us today. this may be memorial has been here for now 22 years. we are in existence honor the service of people who have served in all of the sea services, maybe, marine, coast guard, and merchant marine, and as you can see behind me, nixon was in the navy. he served in the second world war. he was a freight car go forward your, and he was probably most famous for helping troops out because somehow or other he got a channel to get hold of fresh hamburger meat once or twice a month, and he had nix's

hamburger stands on the steely islands in the south pacific. he labored under extremely difficult conditions, an unsung, but critical to winning the war. it is my pleasure to have this forum here, pennsylvania avenue, on america's main street. with that, i would like to turn you over to the coordinator of the richard nixon legacy program, mr. jeff sheppard. [applause] >> morning, and welcome. i am here to open the 11th of our series of richard nixon's legacy for us. this is the first one on foreign affairs. part of the reason is i spent

five years on his staff doing domestic affairs, but we decided we should recognize he was a foreign exporters expert. we are pleased to do this. we are starting with richard nixon as cold war strategist. if you would study the cold war, an excellent way to start is to study the public life of richard nixon, as a congressman, senator, vice president, years as a private citizen, then present, and then years as an elder statesman. the cold war was ever a focus, and for america, we were extraordinarily fortunate to have such a well-prepared, thoroughly experienced individual involved in that area. we know that because of the records, and one of the interesting things that we are able have welcomed us today is the archivist of the united

states, who is the keeper of those records. david is a super archivist. he is a library and. he was a librarian at do, miuke. at one point in the recent past, i had a meeting with him, and i snuck in five or six books, because he is a love of books, that represented a different point of view on some aspect of the nixon presidency. i put the books on a table, we had our meeting, and he got up with without the books, but then it occurred to me it was going to be a whole lot easier having gotten the books in to the national archives and to get the books back out. fortunately, david sent and this is now so i would take it pops out of the national archives. how am one of the very few people that have been able to do

that. with that, if that we have ferrero, david archivist of the united states. , thank you, and it is a special treat to be in this building as a navy have vet. i wander over here as often as i can. it is a privilege -- pleasure to join you this morning for the latest in a distinguished series of nixon forums, co-sponsored by the national archives to read archives assumes responsibility for all libraries in 1945, when we assumed the responsibility for the rest of the library. in 2007, the nixon library join us. a few months ago, we moved more than 42 million pages of nixon presidential records from the facility in college park,

maryland, a new facility will be built at nixon library in california. the nixon library holds the fullest record of any presidential administration in history, and me know many works of scholarship will be merged from that rich trove assembled so carefully. as these forums illustrate, today for the first time his foreign policy, they play a vital part in filling in a blanket even papers and tapes cannot do. they will convey a sense of what it was like to be there. now it is my pleasure to be them -- to introduce the moderator, edward cox. he has served three presidents

and his home state of the york. he has been active in education policy and the environment. in 2009, he was elected chairman of the new york state republican party. president's7th's son and law. during the post presidential year, he accompanied nixon on many foreign trips, including some to china and the soviet union. ladies and gentlemen, ed cox. >> david, thank you very much. it is a pleasure to be here for this forum. i would like to lead off by setting the stage about the values that president nixon held here and was a part of his make up that those values that were at the basis of everything that

he did. to do that, i am going to read eulogy inor dole's 1994 for president nixon. senator dole, said, i believe the second half of that ever collect 20th-century will be known as the age of nixon. he always embodied the deepest feelings of the people he led. one of his biography said nixon was one of us/ for those among you who are wondering who that was, that was tom wicker, but he said richard nixon was one of us, and so he was, said senator dole. tens of millions of his countrymen, he was an american hero who shared their belief in working hard, worshiping god, loving families, and saluting the flag. he called them the silent

majority. like that he valued accomplishment more than ideology. they wanted the government to do the decent thing, but not to bankrupt the nation. they wanted his protection in a dangerous world, but they wanted statesmanship. it is true no one knew the world better than richard nixon. the man who was born in a house his father built would go on to become this century's greatest architect of peace. richard nixon, who i knew intimately, was a great man. some men are great because of their positions, and they do well in those positions. richard nixon was just a great man,. . that is because some of the basic attributes that he had, and of those i would say the most important was this

tremendous intellect, and intellect that thought strategically. his daughter said if there was any characteristic about him that was most important it was that he thought strategically. i would not call him an intellectual. if i did, he would probably strike me, because intellectual -- an intellectual on his or her own was not what richard nixon was about. he was about putting actions together with fox, and -- with and anyone who has worked with these people, they understood how he put fought together with action. let me read to you from his writings in which she talked about the interaction between intellectual thought and action. he said reading is indispensable

to provide perspective, so when you tackle problems, you will think broadly and not narrowly. most of the great leaders i have -- -- churchill, nowmao were prolific breeders. -- readeres. he concludes this chapter on thinking in one of his post presidential books by saying, there is no greater exhilaration than the sense of accomplishment you feel after making a decision based on thought. intense, fo thinking provides the peace and serenity and necessary for decisive and the effective action. a man. thought and a man of action --

that was richard nixon. on his other attributes that served him well, he's a cheap sense of shifting political forces, both domestically, which made him the effective politician he was, and also internationally, which made him into the architect of peace that he was. in his post presidential years, york, heack in yto new wrote a book, a book that was made sure that was placed on table, with pictures taken for "time"magazine. the book was entitled "the real

war." we were still recovering from the imam. you had the neocons growing, the committee on present danger, and in this context, nixon wrote, this is the essence of what he was saying about foreign policy at the time -- the united states represents hope and peace. the soviet union stands for aggression and war. if we're determined to win, if we resolve to accept no substitutes for victory, victory becomes possible and the spirit gives way, gives a edge to the sword, and the sort preserve the spirit, and freedom will prevail. those are stirring words, fighting words, words that were attempting to bring back the fighting spirit, as reagan was trying to do in the 1980 campaign and in his early can --

presidency to confront the soviet union . in 1982, i was privileged to travel with president nixon to eastern europe. went to check of slovakia, hungary romania, to bulgaria, and they did not let him into poland. if they were in poland, he was so popular there, he was possibly going to cause a riot that could topple the regime. he had tense discussions with presidents, like the president of hungary, and he absorbed what was going on. he absorbed not just eastern europe, closely reacting to what was going on in the soviet union, and quickly read a book about real peace, a small bowl, no index, he just wanted to get

it out. he knew it was time for change. here is what he said. this is makes it reacting to realities and trying to change the approach of the country of the administration. the cost of solving conflict are a massive drain on this desperately weak economy. the british may have been enriched by empire, but the soviets are be impoverished by theirs. the assets are his military power, and great as they are, they are ill suited to solving his problems. he has to look for ways for dealing with problems or mitigate that. that brings the prospect for real peace great. both sides want peace. the time is right for a deal.

this was hard-headed detente. 1983, time to adjust, time to make a deal, but time to negotiate. i think we have here some sound bites that have never been heard before of richard nixon in 1983, talking about the talks. -- about detente. >> i recall talking to the former secretary general of nato, a diplomat who served six years in moscow. and he told me in the late 1960's, vigorously when many europeans were clamoring for detente. he said i know the russians are lyders. they are cheaters. they lie and they act because

they consider it is their duty to themselves. you cannot trust them. having said that, he did not go on to say that he should not deal with them, and my answer to this whole proposal as to whether not the russians could be trusted is very simply only if we make agreements which are in their interest to keep. only if everything we do with them is linked to something else which wolcott cost them if they break the agreement. the reason is their goal is very different from ours. our goal is peace, their goal is victory, whether it is peace or war, it is the means to the end. and under marxist teachings, use

any means to achieve that creigh goal, and if it requires to lie or cheat, you lie and cheat. under the circumstances, we simply cannot follow that particular type of morality, and in dealing with that, it does not mean we have to lie and cheat, but we must be aware that they will when they can get away with it. on the other hand, we can deal with them and they will keep a deal if you make it on the basis that will serve their interests and our strees. they are thinking in terms of the total common this world, communist society, for everybody, equality, and everything else, that communism will produce. they believe that anything they do to achieve that is justifiable. i recall a conversation with

regard to the whole idea of whether or not they were sincere with a former ambassador of russian, a great russian expert, and he was concerned -- this was in the early 1960's after he had become ambassador -- statements out of washington that some washington people in the government were convinced nikita khrushchev was sincere in his desire for peace, and he said that the system board and so wrong. he said, he is a common test. -- communist. he is a meet their ellis. he will therefore do what ever is necessary to achieve his ends. sincerity has nothing to do with it. i recall talking to -- >> you see a man who understands

that you need to do a deal to initiate, but you need to negotiate from strength. it is time to negotiate because of those early years of the reagan presidency, the united states had come back in its list three straight and fighting spirit. the soviet had declined because of economic problems, the time was right to do a deal. this is his sense of the shifting political forces and what we ought to do with them. you saw here a second point, his ability to communicate in clear, simple phrases. both of our panel who watched him work on speeches, he would work them over and over again on his yellow pad, not just the words, but his thoughts, holding them down so every word had meeting, and his audience understood that and was complemented by that, and that

is what made him such an effective communicator. the other point i would like to raise about him, a basic attribute that he had throughout his career, he rejected political correctness, the accepted wisdom, the fear that people would have -- the veneer people would have, he would try to get to the essence of what the person was. out your his and whitaker chambers, good examples at the stop -- start. chambers was disheveled and is organized, and he was a member of the e. lee and it was put together. he said, no, chambers was right,hiss was wrong. he would talk at the end of his career about gorbachev and yeltsin.

everybody was impressed with gorbachev, but he went with yeltsin because he understood the essence of gorbachev. gorbachev wanted to improve communism. nelson was a true democrat who wanted to turn russia into a true democracy, and he is the person we should work with the spite of his personal problems, drinking, and all the other things we know about yeltsin. i was down in cuba and ended in 1987 in the for our conversation with fidel castro. it was simultaneous translation from 4:00 until midnight, and in the middle, castro ordered out, how did nixon know i was a communist? 1959, washington, castro comes into power, comes the washington, and he needs with the vice president.

they had a conversation, and the vice president and produced a memorandum to the president, saying, this man is a communist. castro was then operating as a great democrat, the world, and the media was saying that we had turned castro into being a communist by our approach to him. castro was saying to me in that comment that he was a communist, he is trying to deceive people about that, and president nixon saw through him and that bug him, it bothered him. he wanted to know, how did he do that? that was the ability of mr. nixon to see through the essence of what a person was or a situation. i would like to emphasize the courage he had of his convictions. some people have the great insight and are not willing to go out there on the stage and fight for them. whether it was hiss, or whether

in his final years, talking about yeltsin and pushing with the bush administration and public and private, yeltsin is the man we have to deal with. he had the courage of his convictions, which came to, which came through and everything that he did. briefly i would like to say a few things about him personally and the settings in which he worked. since he liked to think, ideas were more important than things. a small symbol bedroom and study, his favorite in the white house was the lincoln sitting room. he had his hideaway office next to the oval office. he often entertained in his post presidential years in new york city in a library in our small apartment, which tricia been the

hostess. never accepted an honorarium. he gave up his secret service because they were an impediment to his moving around freely, and he did not feel the government should pay for it. for a living, he wrote books, but he wrote books like the one i showed you, he did not make any money on it. he made speeches for impact, not for the money that was involved. as a result he did have impact. his biggest one was his trip to china, and i had my interest back in the 1960's, singapore, one word, tricia. in the process i interacted with mr. nixon as he was campaigning for the presidency, and i was in the library, in february of

1968, and the discussion then in the newspaper was "nixon's secret plan for peace." that was rockefeller pushing nixon to expose what his plan was. i was in the library, waiting -- i was in the library, waiting for tricia to change. i asked him, i am almost a member of the family, mr. nixon, what is your plan? i'm going to peaking, i'm going to moscow, and that is how we are going to bring peace into the world. i did not tell anyone. had already fought out what he was going to do.

there are many other areas that will be discussed here, the yom kippur war, peace with honor in vietnam, and a lot of the ways of the fight now, the india- pakistan war which defines what is going on in the subcontinent now. even at the end of his career and of his life, 1994, he was still in the game. he was still thinking strategically, and to him, the cold war, the effects of the cold war still were not over. he was concerned about russia, and his thesis was communism is dead in warsaw, but democracy has not yet won, and for that

reason he was traveling back and forth to russia, worried about whether gorbachev or yeltsin was speaking on that topic. he got a call from president clinton, they had a conservation -- conversation about clinton's russia policy, and you could see how his policy changed along with the advice that was given by richard nixon. as i see it, that is the essence of the man. i would like to conclude by going back to senator dole's look cheap. he talks about the last sign he saw president nixon, at a luncheon held in the capital honoring the 25th anniversary of his first inaugural. president nixon stood and delivered a speech, capturing

the global seen as only he could and sharing his vision of america's future. he was surrounded by democrats and republicans alike when it was over, needing one more insight into world affairs, dole concluded, made the day of judging president nixon on anything other than his life would come to a close. that is what this forum is about, and the distinguished folks here who served in president nixon's administration, to address nixon and the cold war. let me introduce them. the first speaker will be richard allen. mr. allen added a foreign affairs team during nixon's 1960 campaign and served as a member of his national security

council. he went on to he is now a senior fellow at the hoover institution and president of a washington-based consulting services firm. our next speaker will be richard solomon. heat is president of the u.s. institute of peace. he served on the national security council from 1971 to 1976. he was an aide to henry kissinger. he supported nixon's efforts to normalize relationships with the people's republic of china. he has been the assistant secretary of state for east asian and pacific affairs, and ambassador to the philippines. our third speaker will be john lehman.

he is president of a private equity investment firm. he served as secretary of the navy during the reagan administration. as a staff member to henry kissinger on the national security council. as a delicate to the force reductions in vienna and at the director of the u.s. arms control and disarmament agency. richard allen, you are up. >> thank you very much. the audience is confronted today with about 210 years of solid hands-on nixon experience.

we got to know him very well. we had the opportunity to pass out nixon, pamphlets in working- class indiana when i was imprisoned in a catholic anniversary known as the university of notre dame. i got to meet mr. nixon when he came to the campus and was enormously impressed. in 1957, i met him again. i got to know him because i

crashed a cocktail party at the capitol hill to when i was working here this summer. it was a vice president. i said i met you last year. >> he said, i remember. i began sending him my articles when i began to write. i went abroad to the university of munich to germany to do my postgraduate work. i came back and i began communicating with mr. nixon. he eventually moved to new york. on the number of occasions i had the opportunity to visit him in new york. i was wondered about this man had a singular vision about the way the world should be

organized would decide to run for president after having the experience of 1960 and then the setback for 1962 having lost the governorship to pat brown in california. maybe some people thought he would never again surfaced as a public figure. in 1966, he visited 47 congressional districts. lo and behold, 47 republican congressmen were elected. his thinking was moving more and more towards running for president again. became east enjoyed a very young

crowd, pat buchanan, i was a little over 31. bill safire, who was not a few years older than we were. also alan greenspan. a small campaign began to build. also my domestic counterpart. they put together a comprehensive programs. this is very important. it is important, when you study president reagan, to whom i was quite close over the years.

when a it said that president nixon read, he did read deeply and he communed deeply with those who have specialized knowledge. he broke on tablets like that. that is exactly the way he wrote his inauguration speech. also his first inaugural address. all of these study habits and these deep discussion habits and thinking habits are brought to bear in a way that you cannot attribute to a lot of presidents we have known at least during my lifetime. that is not to say that they were not good, excellent, or even great in their own right. those that were the most serious and the most studious that i can recall in my own mind during this time of my life which spans from 1936 were

to richard nixon and ronald reagan. this came about very naturally in a way. in 1946, he was drafted to run for congress and was elected. in 1948, he began the investigation of alger hiss who invoked the sympathies of the entire establishment and correct the remark in the long run, richard nixon was right, alger hiss was wrong. whitaker chambers was right. the alger hiss was a soviet spy.

he then moved on to douglas in 1950. that also evoked a great antipathy. you can see now if you were an anti nixon -- forming. in 1968, it was a different story. we had a lot of deep thinkers on the small campaign team. they believe it was time to demonstrate a new nixon. the new nixon was very much part of the shtick that they would say in these days. he even went to laugh and in 1968. his one line was, sock it to me.

the crows eyes and a smile. a new impression was created. a hard fought campaign with nelson rockefeller and henry kissinger on the other side who did not even know richard nixon during 1968. a minor adjustment that henry and i were able to make on the vietnam platform so we would have no argument. i had been reviewing the other night to the only set of notes, page after page after page of the first cabinet meeting the day after the cabinet was announced in the theater. mr. nixon forgot the name of his first -- his best friend.

that was kind of humorous. minos go on and on and on. they charged his cabinet with getting the right people in government. this was a stupendous lesson on how to staff the government. take the people that you trust and those that you don't know, those in the bureaucracy, try to convince them of the words of your program but always take the people that you trust. that lesson was not always learned and as a consequence we had some anomalies, shall we say, in the administrations. the nixon world view was well- developed. i think he did think in terms of winning the cold war without

question. that policy came off -- for a brief amount of time during the 1970 ponce. taking a simple term that is used in diplomacy to describe relaxation of tensions, detente. taking that one simple turn and somehow elevating it into a form of theology, if you will. this was through all sorts of offshoots of thinking about the inevitability of the process. my good friend who eventually became jimmy carter's national security adviser, he wrote a book entitled "convergence," how we would drift steadily leftward and the soviet union

would draft steadily toward the right and at some point we would converge. tactically, the use of what became the theology of detente and eventually caused a great deal of ripples within the republican party and perhaps elsewhere as well. it held the theory that if you could coax the soviet union into becoming dependent on trade and aid and the transfer of technology, you could alter its behavior by the threat of the nile of that very same technology and trade to which it had become accustomed to. it did not work. it simply did not work. that caused a bit of a setback. in the later years, after mr. nixon left office, i went to

visit him in california and had long discussions with him. i think that he saw that this had been elevated to a level that did not make sense. he did think constantly about people. he was concerned about his country in a profound way. the opening to china, said cox heard it in 68. i heard it not long before that. i visited him in along offices in york city. i made some input on an article for foreign affairs magazine in october of the 1967 entitled "asia after vietnam." in that article, which was ignored by and large, was a set

of sentences that indicated what nixon had in mind. he was not prepared to talk about what that plan was in any elaborate detail lest the conversation get off track. what he wanted to do is plant the seed. i was scheduled, i was working full time in the campaign. my job was to be editor of the book on international communist affairs. i had 60 or 17 people on the staff. i talked to people who were working for us in various places in asia. i was on my way to korea, japan, hong kong. mr. nixon said, i would like to give you letters for the president of korea and for the prime minister of japan. i don't think that the prime minister of japan will see you. his brother is a very good friend and was prime minister

when i was vice president. i went on to follow the premiere in japan and to the president in korea. i was authorized to drop the notion and also another notion, the return of okinawa. the possible return of okinawa would be considered if richard nixon was elected. these two gifts, advance notice what might happen with respect to china, although it could not be quite explicit, were very welcome in japan. by the time i got to korea, i could not deliver the letter because four days prior, the north korean sappers what guerrillas had attacked the blue house and -- was shot dead of

the blue house. i could not deliver the letter. as it was, mr. nixon had a broad vision of asia after vietnam. he saw a vision to conclude as he would have liked. he saw something very profound. he opened the door to china. there is no question about it. if he was alive today, he would have some serious second thoughts. >> thank you very much, ambassador solomon. >> my colleagues have talked about a number of the points

that i would make but i will put them in more of a framework. >> please do. >> as we look at richard nixon's great contributions to our national security and our strategic positioning, it is very clear that the opening to china and the subsequent arms control negotiations with the soviet union, particularly the china opening fracture the dynamic of the cold war and restructure our dealings with the two major communist powers. there is a long history in that kind of maneuvering. the nixon initiative that really stands out, you can go back to george washington's time. here is our first president even before the revolution and trying to figure out how to maneuver his would be country between the french and the british.

the russians were there, the spanish were there. if you look at the history of that early time, you see the country trying to figure out how to deal with pressures at opportunities with countries abroad. china clearly stands out as one of the great strategic initiatives in the 20th-century diplomacy. we can look at it in some interesting perspectives that will reinforce what my colleagues have said. richard nixon came to the presidency as probably the best prepared candidate to deal with the world of the 20 of century. as we look back on his experience as president eisenhower's vice president, it is clear that the world he was confronting in the late 60's he had dealt with very similar

structural terms in the 1950's. president eisenhower dispatched vice president eisenhower -- vice president nixon. eisenhower was dealing with the alliance between the chinese and russians. one of his problems was to reassure a range of allied countries in asia that we would stand by them. that we would contribute to their security. vice-president nixon tell with the world that 15 or 60 years later that he confronts again with this time the challenge is not the korean war but this is the vietnam war. this time, the relationship is showing at the signs of political strains. again, we have asian allied

countries concerned about whether the u.s. would support the security. in 1967, for mr. nixon was mentioned in business but also considering a run to the presidency and he has to say to himself that if i win, the last thing that i've wanted to deal with is the burden of the vietnam war. it was destroying the presidency of lyndon johnson. he knew it would be a great burden to his likely candidate and challenger, hubert humphrey. the brilliance of his consideration of the world at that time was that he could see that there might be a possibility of splitting the communist world and creating circumstances where he could

leapfrog out of the quagmire and reposition the u.s. as the most maneuverable and secure element in a strategic situation. it is very interesting about the 1967 article that dick allen has referred to is that it is very -- he was thinking beyond the quagmire. how do i get out of vietnam? the other thing that is interesting as we read the article, for someone who was mentioning the article, there is a dog who isn't working. there's almost no mention of the soviet union. whatever thinking that was going on was not communicated but in the most elliptical fashion where mr. nixon had talked about

the need to engage china and so that it would not persist in its posture of angry isolation. the article did not gain much attention and what is fascinating about the subsequent history is the thing that gained world attention was a ping-pong ball. president nixon, within two weeks of his inauguration, had henry kissinger in and said that he wanted to try to engage the chinese. he started sending messages to beijing, peking first through the romanians and then through the pakistani said. initially, those messages did not elicit much of a response.

at that point, the chinese and soviet feud led to a series of military clashes along the river. that signal to the differences between the two major communist countries had reached a point where maybe something serious could be done. shortly, they went after mr. nixon began to see positive responses coming out of china. chairman mao's a don't brought edgar snow over 40 -- chairman mao brought edgar snow over for a celebration. in april of 71, as chairman mao later said to i guess it was to

henry kissinger or maybe it was the president himself, he said, all we did was we threw out a ping-pong ball and the world with crazy. suddenly, in the u.s., the great fear that we would be drawn into a war with china over vietnam and reprise in the fear that we have had in the korean war of being drawn into a war with china, suddenly that ping-pong diplomacy, the initiation of it gave people a sense that the game was in italy change. henry kissinger made his secret chip to beijing in july of 1971 and in no secret talks, he laid the basis for president nixon's formal presidential trip to

china in february of 1972. that really initiated this dynamic. let me comment a little bit. we did make an observation about china today. how did that play out. there was the relaxation of tensions and then the normalization with the u.s. that was completed during the carter administration in 1978.

-- set in motion the truly phenomenal economic growth of china and the rise of the most populous country in the world which today at the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century is reshaping certainly the world economy and we will have to see what its impact is more broadly in strategic terms. one of the things that president nixon was concerned about in his opening to the chinese was not dispiriting our allies. in the discussions with president nixon and henry kissinger thought that -- would be so dispirited by the opening that they would throw in the

town and it would be an accommodation of some sort and that china would be reunified on the basis of mao and -- had perceived which was taiwan coming under communist control. 2011 is still there. they have prospered. the politics have opened. when the questions is whether the mainland relationship as it is generally referred to largely is detoxified of the civil war element. there's a situation where the u.s. does what it can to secure the island. the other two fascinating

elements that are resulting out of the nixon initiative of 1971 to vietnam and korea, one of the tremendous irony is of those initiatives is today, who was are most enthusiastic friends in asia. the claims to the south china sea remains an interesting question. finally, there is korea.

at the same time that kissinger's secretly was in beijing, camel song -- kim il- song was in beijing. shortly after the secret trip, within a few hours, chairman mao went back to north korea to try to reassure kim il-sung was not going to harm the north korean interests. he went to vietnam to try to assure the vietnamese leaders that china would not compromise their security. these common as countries were highly inert as were frankly our allies in the region. ervedre highly ounn

as were frankly our allies in the region. . . so the nixon initiative set off dramatic trends that continue to play out and without question have enhanced the american

security. >> thank you very much. secretary lehman? >> thank you, and in the interest of full disclosure. i have to disclose that i am a dick allen-trained man. and while his introduction was brief, there are many things left out that are relevant here. dick was one of the three founders, along with arleigh burke, for whom this theater is named, of what is now the csis, and while he was there, he wrote a book called "peace or peaceful co-existence," which i read when i was an undergraduate and was very much struck by and so i made a pilgrimage to the css, as it was then called, part of georgetown university, which was

in a tiny little townhouse in georgetown, and met dick for the first time and that led to a long relationship that endures strongly front day. but it was dick allen who brought me into the white house on his staff and on the kissinger staff, and that has influenced my thinking ever since. and what i wanted to talk about is to set a geopolitical, and a military context for what the world looked like when richard nixon took office because it's really the balance was so much tilted against the united states that people tend to forget the environment in which he had to

work. he really had a three-front war. he was the first president elected since mid 19th century with both houses of congress in the hands of the other party. and it was bitterly divided at the time over the vietnam war and not just the vietnam war, but the actual cold war itself with books like "convergence" and two "two apes and a treadmill" and the rise of revisionists, historians who interpreted history as the cold war being our fault, that the soviet union was just reacting our constant building of the military and provocation and that was part and parcel of a

defeatism that had grown in nato because at the time people were skeptical of an idea of a sino-soviet rift and from the western europe perspective, they faced a massive chinese potential military reinforcement of an already massive warsaw pact, standing army of 180 divisions that were poised to sweep across western europe and everyone knew in nato councils that their argument was between whether it would take one week, two weeks or three weeks for the warsaw pact to reach the channel. nobody argued. there wasn't a serious argument anywhere in nato that that was all that it would take for them to sweep across europe, and then it would go nuclear, and the

western europeans knew that while we could call it a tactical nuclear weapon, that so-called flexible response was a trigger to all-out nuclear war for them. what is tactical from the other side of the atlantic is very total for them when nuclear weapons are used, and then the third front was, of course, vietnam, and southeast asia. and so, the president had a daunting strategic picture when he came and it was very easy to criticize his initiatives to start negotiations on strategic arms limitation and ballistic missile defense and so forth, but the fact is, there were no

real strategic building programs going on in the united states at the time when president nixon took office. the russians had five new strategic systems being deployed they had two new bombers, strategic bombers, including the backfire. they had ss-18, the ss-11's, they had solid fuel, new solid fuel rockets and nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles. they were at full deployment and touting of their 1700 ship navy and while the united states fleet at the time that president nixon came in was rapidly shrinking from just below 1,000 ships, it was declining at about 10% a year while the soviet

fleet was growing at about 20% a year and serious ships, more than 100 nuclear submarines and we had no building programs. and so it's my belief that his allowing of the detente view of american policy to gain the traction it did which led to the negotiations of the salt i treaty and the ballistic millions, the a.b.m. treaty, was because he, as i -- after he was out of office, had discussed with him myself -- he didn't have many alternatives. it was, in his view, a way to keep things kind of, say, nice doggie, nice doggie, while he looked for a stick.

and he -- and the congressional front, it's very -- we think we have a bitter, divided situation in washington today especially in congress. this was a sunday school picnic compared to the bitterness in congress at that time. congress was very different then. both parties were split between hawks and doves to oversimplify. the jackson wing of the democratic party was still very strong, and more anti-detente than the republicans were, whereas the republicans, there were many more liberal republicans at the time like clifford case and so forth that split the republicans. so it was a very complicated

situation, and i think that with the perspective of history, it was a very astute way to deal with the issue, because in order to get the a.b.m. treaty and the salt i treaty through, it was necessary to use and the president did it, i think, very effectively, with his congressional relations staff, and his own personal relationships on the hill, to force the liberal democrats and the liberal republicans in the case wing of the party to support an entirely new what was then called ulbms, underwater large ballistic missile system, tomahawk cruise millions.

missile. so it was a real criticism against those two treaties as the fruits of detente was that it legitimized a two-to-one advantage by the soviet union in strategic delivery systems and it put a stop, an effective stop to the expansion of the advantage that the united states had in the technology of ballistic missile defense. the soviets did not have the capability to deploy a.b.m. and we did. we had two active sites at the time the treaty was negotiated but in retrospect, this was what enabled the funding and the acceleration of these strategic programs which, here heretofored been totally blocked on the hill and so in retrospect it was, i

believe, in president nixon's view, the way to use some jiu-jitsu in a political hostile situation, to begin the redressing of the balance that he felt had been allowed to decline very, very seriously, and with regard to the opening to china, as you know, there have been several books written about the navy's role in gathering intelligence during those years. suffice it to say that some of these books have alleged that we were tapping cables and reading in realtime exactly what the russians were -- soviet high command was reacting, thinking and ordering in their deployments and so forth and there's no doubt in my mind that

the opening to china, which i thought was ably handled after the thunder clap of the trip, had a huge impact on soviet thinking, that suddenly transformed their perspective from clearly being arrogantly dominant, in knowing they could sweep to the channel, one of the highest soviet planners told me that they ran extensive war games just as we did every year and even better analytically tooled ops analysis of all of the nato exercises and all of our exercises and they said they never had an exercise that, in which, nor did their intelligence gathering from nato exercises, where they weren't

able to get to the channel in a week, and then suddenly they had to suddenly face a two-front strategic dilemma because here was the united states, now, dealing with china, and china was becoming more, much more aggressive in dealing with the soviet union because they had this new opening. the chinese saw even better than we how much that would change the strategic picture in the pacific. so, i believe that the cold war ended as it did in no small measure because of the impact, however astutely or badly was played as the years went by, of this tremendous sea change in the strategic global balance with the openings to china. >> john, you've really opened a very interesting line of inquiry here because the opening to

china was as much about the soviet union as it was about china, and president nixon, in his later years, said to me that there were two major mistakes he saw he had made. one was wage price controls, which i would agree. >> yes, indeed. >> i would agree that was a big mistake. >> i certainly would. >> politically and. >> and detaching the dollar from the gold standard. >> we're all foreign policy guys. you domestic guys react later. >> the second was that he didn't mine high fong and do more intense bombing of north vietnam earlier in 1969 rather than when he did it after the trip to china and before the trip to the soviet union. we forget that the trip to the soviet union was the first trip by an american president to the soviet union and he did it against the backdrop of very strong military attacks on north

vietnam that he later regret he had done earlier. my question is, if he had done it earlier, would it have been possible to do it earlier with respect to his thinking about going to china? would it have been possible to go to china against that? and with respect to the soviet union, would he have been able to do it without having some violent response from them. after the trip to china, they were unnerved by that and the very fact that the trip was pulled off after that was seen, as you can imagine how the north vietnamese held about that. >> even an earlier incident which occurred within the first 70 or 80 days, john will remember, the north koreans shot down unarmed