Here is a partial test of President Carter's speech prepared for delivery yesterday to the American Society of Newspaper Editors:
. . . . In many languages and out of many unfamiliar cultures other peoples constantly ask America for a response to myriad -- and often conflicting -- concerns.
Nations ask for leadership -- at the same time they demand independence of action.
They ask for aid -- but reject interference.
They ask for understanding -- yet often decline to understand us in return.
Some ask for protection -- but are wary of the obligations of alliance.
Others ask for firmness and certainty -- but at the same time demand the flexibility required by the pace of change and the subtlety of events.
The world asks, with impatience, for all these things at once -- and asks for them today, not tomorrow.
Nowhere today do we face the challenges I have just described more directly than in Iran. No single situation so aggravates our people -- so tests our maturity -- so tries our patience -- so challenges our unity -- as does the continued captivity of our fellow Americans in the Tehran embassy.
No other single event seems so clearly to mirror the disorder of our times and the competing pressures on a great and powerful nation. This crisis calls on us to act with a wisdom and courage that will both produce results and preserve life.
I am deeply proud of the steady strength America has shown in dealing with irresponsible Iranian authorities who have been unwilling to act or unable to carry out their commitments. The leaders of the Iranian government lack the cohesion and resolve to bring order to their chaotic land and to decide on a basis for ending their illegal detention of our hostages.
For long months, ours has been the restraint of strength -- despite outrageous provocation. I do not regret that restraint, which was designed to protect American lives and to permit Iranian government officials and United Nations officials to resolve the crisis.
But it has become necessary -- because Iran would not act in accordance with international law and their own interests -- for us to act again.
The steps I have taken this week to end diplomatic relations and impose sanctions are firm and substantive, and we hope they will be persuasive.
America will continue the careful and considered exercise of its power. We will pursue every -- and I repeat -- every legitimate use of that power to bring our people home, safe and free.
But the hard, sad reality is that a small number of zealots engaged in a power struggle within Iran are using the innocent American hostages for their own advancement, with serious adverse consequences for all Iranian people.
In the interests of the people of Iran and of their possible future as a unified and peaceful nation living in freedom, it is imperative that the Iranian government resolve this crisis. Every day that the crisis continues further isolates Iran. Every day that the American embassy remains a prison pushed Iran itself further into lawlessness, down and down the spiral of disorder.
With a return of rationality, international lawlessness need not be Iran's fate. Bankrupty -- political as well as moral -- need not be its future.
If interference from outside is a threat, that threat does not come from the United States.
The challenge in that area of the world -- as in some others -- comes from the intersection of two historic trends. One is the rising demand for development and self-determination which is felt -- and deeply felt -- throughout what we call the Third World. The United States responds with sympathy to that demand. The other trend is Soviet expansionism -- which we are determined to oppose.
In 1946 the United States stood firm against Soviet occupation of northern Iran, against Soviet-sponsored subversion in Greece and against Soviet demands on Turkey.
Historically, American strength has been used to help the countries of the Persian Gulf area protect their stability and retain their sovereignity.
The reality of our world today is that Moscow exploits unrest not to address the discontents behind that unrest, not to overcome the inequalities that give rise to the unrest, but to expand its dominion and to satisfy its imperial ambitions.
In Afghanistan the Soviet Union has revealed the hypocrisy of its courtship of the Third World. It has shown that it will not be deterred by principle, by international law, by world public opinion or by the opposition of patriotic Afghanis. And it has made this known in a region which is at once politically volatile and economically crucial.
The subjugation of Afghanistan represents the first direct intrusion of Soviet forces beyond the borders of the Warsaw Pact countries since the Second World War.
The explosiveness of the region, its great natural wealth, and the Soviet willingness to use the armed force developed during the Kremlin's enormous military buildup over the last 15 years -- are what makes the invasion of Afghanistan so unsettling to the future of international peace.
In Southwest Asia unstable and uncontrollable forces are at work. The Soviets have, with their invasion, disturbed forces of historic, religious, economic and ethnic conflict that are beyond their control, and that could lead to much more serious direct confrontation with other nations having vital interests in the region.
Nor can the world turn away from the harsh truth that the occupation of Afghanistan is marked by appalling inhumanity. Thousands of Afghan freedom fighters are dying every week, some in brutal mass executions. Whole villages are being wiped out. More than 800,000 people have fled the country. Terror tactics, including the use of chemical weapons, are the trademark of this ruthless attempt to crush Moslem resistance and to install a Soviet form of peace -- the peace of brutal armed suppression. . . .
We cannot know with certainty the motivations of the Soviet move into Afghanistan -- whether Afghanistan is the purpose or the prelude. Regardless of its motives, there can be no doubt that the Soviet invasion poses an increased threat to the independence of nations in the region and to the world's access to vital resources and sea lanes.
But our interest in peace and stability in the region goes far beyond economics. We cannot wish away the fact that conflict and tension in the region could endanger the broader peace. And if the invasion of Afghanistan does indeed foreshadow a pattern of Soviet behavior for the next decade, then Americans must accept the truth that we are in for challenging and difficult times. In this ever more interdependent world, to assume that aggression need be met only when it is at one's own doorstep is to tempt new adventures or to risk new miscalculations. Our course is clear -- by responding firmly we seek to halt aggression where it takes place and to deter it elsewhere.
Let me underline for you this most vital point in our policy. America and Americans are not motivated by relentless hostility -- by a desire for indiscriminate confrontation or a return to the Cold War. But for America simply to accept Soviet occupation and domination of Afghanistan as an accomplished fact would be a cynical signal to the world that could only encourage further aggression, further tension and further danger to peace. It is America's responsibility to register, in concrete terms, our condemnation of the Soviet invasion -- for as long as that invasion continues. c
It is extremely important that we not in any way condone Soviet aggression.
We must recall the experience of 1936, the year of the Berlin Olympic Games. They were used to inflate the prestige of the ambitious dictator Adolf Hitler to show Germany's totalitorian strength to the world in the sports stadium as it was being used to cow the world on the banks of the Rhine.
The parallel with the site and timing of the 1980 Olympics is striking. Let me call your attention to one compelling similarity between the Nazi view of the 1936 Olympics as a propaganda victory and the official Soviet view of the 1980 Games. Here is a passage from this year's edition of the "Handbook for Party Militants" issued in Moscow for Soviet Communist Party activists:
"The ideological struggle between East and West is directly involved in the selection of the cities where the Olympic Games take place. The decision to award the honor of holding the Olympic Games to the capital of the world's first socialist state is convincing testimony of the general recognition of the historic importance and correctness of the foreign policy course of our country, and of the enormous services of the Soviet Union in the struggle for peace."
A few weeks ago I met with American athletes in the White House. I explained the Soviet stake in the Olympics, and the moral and political reasons why the United States will not send a team to the Moscow Games. I understand the sacrifice I have asked these men and women to make for the sake of the security of their country and their world. The Soviet leaders certainly understand it. For our not sending a team to Moscow is far more than symbolic gesture. It is a direct repudiation -- in the phase of their propaganda handbook -- of the "correctness" of their foreign policy.
Under Olympic principles, athletes represent their nations. The United States does not wish to be represented in a host country that is invading and subjugating another nation. If legal actions are necessary to enforce the decision not to send a team to Moscow I will take them.
All of these decisions do require sacrifice, and I have acted to assure that the burdens are shared as fairly as possible. The American people have demonstrated that they are willing to bear their share of the burden -- but it is vital that the burden of sacrifice also be shared among our allies and other nations.
Neither we nor our allies want to destroy the framework of East-West relationship that has yielded concrete benefits for so many people. But, ultimately, if we continue to seek the benefit of detente while ignoring the necessity for deterrence, we would lose the advantages of both.
It is essential that our intentions be absolutely clear. The measures we have taken against the Soviet Union since the invasion will remain in effect until there is total withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. Then, and only then, we would be prepared to join with Afghanistan's neighbors in a guarantee of true neutrality and noninterference in Afghanistan's internal affairs. We support the restoration of a neutral, nonaligned Afghanistan, with a government that would be responsive to the wishes of the Afghan people.
Although the Soviets have talked about withdrawing troops, they have actually shown no interest in such proposals. There are no signs at this time of a Soviet withdrawal; in fact their military buildup continues. We must be prepared to hold to our course, to impose costs on aggression for as long as necessary.
We thus face what could be a protracted period of increased strain in East-West relations. To enhance stability as much as possible in this difficult period, we will continue to maintain a stable military balance, both through our own steady defense modernization and through negotiated arms limits that are equitable and verifiable. This objective -- a stable balance -- is advanced by the SALT II Treaty. In a period of heightened tensions it is all the more important we have reliable constraints on the competition in strategic weapons.SALT is an integral element of our national security policy. I remain committed to the ratification of the treaty, and the United States intends to abide by its obligation under international law to take no action inconsistent with its intent or purpose, so long as the Soviets act with similar restraint.