The First Amendment; Geoffrey Godspell

The following program is made possible in part by a grant from the Courier Corporation of Lowell Massachusetts. [electronic music] [announcer] WGBH radio Boston, in cooperation with the Institute for Democratic Communication at Boston University, now presents "The First Amendment and a Free People" — an examination of civil liberties and the media in the 1970s. And now here is the director of the Institute for Democratic Communication, Dr. Bernard Rubin. [Rubin] On this edition of "The First Amendment and a Free People," I'm very pleased to have with me Mr. Geoffrey Godsell, the overseas editor of The Christian Science Monitor and the subject is the impact if any and how much of constitutional forms of government on the Middle East and on Africa. Geoffrey has a great deal— Mr. Godsell has a great deal of experience in this area. But I want to open with a little quote by— from a book by William Attwood, who was our ambassador during President Kennedy's time to Guinea and to, uh, Kenya in the

Johnson, uh, period. The book is called "The Reds and the Blacks," and it was published in 1967. A little short paragraph: Quote, "In short, being the strongest power on earth doesn't mean that we can impose our will, our system, or our way of life on other countries. That's what the Russians and the Chinese have tried to do, and that's why they've made so little headway among the newly independent nations. Fortunately our aim and our strength is that we stand for free choice and not coercion. Slowly but surely people are beginning to understand this all over the world. For our part we should be satisfied to make the world safe for diversity. That's already a lot." End of quote. Geoffrey, I— I think that was written in 1967 in another era, and I'm not so certain that people understand constitutional forms of government or what we mean by the free society. Nor do I think that we have made much progress in

making the world free for diversity, let alone democracy. Is this an unfair or unkind statement in your view. [Godsell] No, I'd go along with you, Bernard. I think if anything things have gone in the opposite direction. I think that when one looks at the Third World genuinely— generally, whether it be the Middle East, Africa, Asia, or Latin America, that perhaps overall it's kind of sweeping statement. I would say that the press certainly is less free in those areas than it was when Ambassador Attwood wrote those words. Now, there are lots of things that one ?could sort of? comment on it. I think, by-and-large, although American diplomacy sometimes affronts the Africans or people in the Middle East or other Third World countries. Um. It affronts partly because of the size and weight of the United States. But I think when we see

people criticize the United States and, and criticize the United States [CQ], we overlook the fact that by and large I think if people had to choose — if people had to choose one or the other, they— and the choice ?were? free they would choose what the United States has to offer in the United States system. But sometimes the United States leaves them no choice. Uh. The United States says either/or or the United States is if you take a couple of countries. That ?is a threat of? sort of hostile one to the other. The United States has sided with one. And the other country sort of [unclear word(s)] necessarily becomes hostile to United States. I'm saying that because I think sometimes there is a tendency above all in the United States, uh, to, to downplay the attractiveness of the United States and what it has to offer to the rest of the world. I think the United States still is pretty attractive to rest of the world. [Rubin] But when we look at overseas problems as Americans —

and when I say as Americans I'm looking at a person who was born in a country that is known as the Mother of Parliaments. And so we're looking at our democratic structure. But when when— when we look at Angola for example, or in the 60s when we looked at the Congo, or when we look at most African or Middle Eastern countries today I suspect that Americans have only a transitory interest and that the choice given to these countries represents our government's decision rather than anything that came from the Senate and the House of Representatives, from our people, or from our press. We are reactive, are we not, to events in that particular area of the world. [Rubin] Yes. I mean I think there's a tendency and it's not it's not confined to the United States. Britain's been through the whole thing in its days of ascendancy. Uh, there is— there is— there is an inability to perceive problems from the other peoples' point of view. We have our perception of what's happening in Angola. It's completely different from what the Nigerian perception of what's happening in Angola is. And it's because, if we take Angola

[indistinct word] you raised it. It is because the United States failed to understand what the perception of Nigeria was whether the United States agreed to that perception or not, it's because it failed to see what that perception was. It has got itself into such a bind with Nigeria and many other African countries on the whole question of Angola. [Godsell] ?You know? [or "No,"] Nigeria is one of those places which from our official government point of view is difficult. The government going back to its revolution of a few years ago. But at the same time one of the hopes if democracy is to succeed at all in Africa one has the impression that the struggle in Nigeria will be very paramount in the continent. Do you agree or disagree? If it's the giant— If it's the giant— I mean it, it— Well, people quarrel about the number of people— The, the censuses in Nigeria are are a bone of contention in the politics of Nigeria. Some people think there are nearly 80 million people in Nigeria. I think there are probably at least 60 million people, which is roughly double the size of any other country,

but in terms of population, in the continent of Africa. It's a c— It's a country that has more oil than any other country in black Africa. It has a very gifted and talented people, people of considerable dynamism and drive and I think it's sees itself, and most others see it as a pacesetter. And it started as a democracy, with the forms of democracy at any rate. I think we— Immediately we run into into one of, one of the problems of democracy in these newly independent countries. If you take those that were under British rule, Britain tried to sort of build a structure for democracy before leaving. It even had sort of speakers of Parliament wearing wigs, which is, I think [indistinct word(s)] rather funny wearing wigs like the speaker of the House of Commons wears a wig in Westminster. And Britain did its best to convey to these countries the ideas of democracy, the ideas of debate, the ideas of dissent. But it completely overlooked one thing and that is the idea of national identity and the idea of

sovereignty. Uh,Nigerians, Nigerians had a feeling of Nigerianess, I think, when it came to getting rid of white Britons who were obviously alien and identifiable. But I don't think on any other count had they much feeling of identity as Nigerians. And it is, it is the welding of these countries and applies to Africa more than to any other countries in the Third World; the welding of these, these, these artificially drawn well these countries actually with an artificially drawn bound this into a sense of national unity. And we had in the Nigerian Civil War when the Evos tried to break away and we had the establishment of the Africa. The idea of national identity of national security within given frontiers. It was not there and not strong enough to support the operators of democracy. And I think one of the things that has happened in most of these countries where they have seem to go from democracy or democracy to

the forms of democracy that were bequeath to them by the more enlightened departing colonial powers was that the British or the French or who have you transferred power to a particular group. Britain always said it would not transfer power to anybody in Africa who did not prove that they were representative of the majority of opinion in Angola the Portuguese when just before the left couldn't agree on anybody and just left that's right. But but you have somebody who who who inherits or seizes power and what they they have not had the experience. The long history and the United States which is which is I think I'm right in saying is the oldest Republic in the world alert only 200 years young. That's right. The United States had the whole background of the people who came here established it. I mean who can trace the common roots all the way back to Magna Carta I mean Magna Carta is as much of American history as of British

history. It took centuries to develop this tolerance this consensus now. We had to do in our time with the Divine Right of Kings who used the Divine Right of Kings. They identified the national sovereignty of the nation with their person. Now you transferred in most cases in Africa the transfers are taking place in our lifetime. To presidents, to a republic. Who took upon themselves the Divine Right of Kings, who identified themselves or identified their person with national sovereignty and saw any move any shadow cast upon their person. Their interpretation of things their politics as something aimed directly at the national sovereignty. Therefore a threat to the nation rather than a threat to their personal position and treated it as a threat to the nation subversion sedition imprisonment. Of course that is what has spread to the press in these countries and this is what is so tragic.

Well most of the most of the continent has succumb to military government of one form or another some most of it not very subtle from the Mediterranean to to South Africa and what is going on in Raj Rhodesia and so on is not very conducive to to anyone thinking that the bill of rights concept will quickly spread in Rhodesia or in South Africa or in Angola. But what I worry about is not so much that these people have difficulties but as you said earlier we don't see them. We don't see that people going through transitions are not able to replicate our history are not able to come up with a free press without an industrial base not able to sustain a free radio station without the ability to keep the dogs of the military at bay. How do you feel about this. Conceptualization I think. I think you're absolutely right. Now of course it's a thing that works both ways.

They don't understand us sometimes, I think that's a terrible misconception, a misunderstanding-- [Speaker 2] But I would excuse them more than I would excuse us because we can see their picture. Whereas with most of their people cannot put us in any sort of a framework especially in black Africa. I would say throughout Africa even in Rhodesia the white citizens of Rhodesia probably are living under more mists along with their colleagues in South Africa than anywhere else. I couldn't agree more. I couldn't agree more. But if you want to if you want to place the responsibility upon us upon us who have the means to send correspondents to send TV teams to establish a network which would feed into us information and throw up if you like upon a screen that what is happening there to help us to understand what's happening. I think we don't do that do well. Sadly no. And what we run into is the bugaboo of journalism I think whether it be national or international.

And that's a stereotype without complimenting the Christian Science Monitor unjustifiably but justifiably the articles in The Christian Science Monitor. Especially under your leadership dealing with foreign policy, try to get at the essence of the matter not at the latest dispatch that came off the Y. You're very gracious to say that about the monitor and of course there's a whole team of us that the editor himself I think supports this approach in this concept. I suppose that a newspaper or TV stations that might want to talk about a newspaper it has various roles it has to inform. It is to educate is to entertain. Those are the three main ones that would seem to me. Now it shouldn't try to do its best to inform accurately now when it comes to overseas situations to which citizens in this country or if we talk about the British press citizens in Britain because the British press can be can be just as as as as mistaken sometimes in its approaches.

If we are to inform so that a free society can come to right conclusions we have to inform accurately. And we have to diagnose accurately. I mean one of the simplest mistakes made across the board made by people in authority to begin with, but also made by journalists, is that when something goes wrong in the third world today to blame the communists for it you're not to blame ourselves or let's take this current rather recent trip of Secretary Kissinger to a number of African countries in which he came for with the same grandiose plans that technology or technology bank and so on and so forth. And we we come forth with the most giant labels that we can. Our people on this I don't object. On the other side they don't understand it. And somehow at the end of this long effort another government may slip into a more authoritarian pattern with no concept of

freedom of the press or right of assembly or right of petition. And what I'm worried about Jeffrey is that our system seems to be stagnant in terms of replicating itself elsewhere in terms of having a mess and I complex. Maybe we're too old for that you said we're 200 years young. Maybe in this regard when it comes to looking at the plight of others maybe sometimes we act 200 years old. By and large, looking at what the United States has done since the end of World War 2. I don't want to invalidate what you're saying but if you put the United States record against that of those who gone before the great powers in the world I think the United States has done remarkably well. But that still does not spare United States some some criticism. And. You speak about Secretary Kissinger and the tour in Africa and the speech at the UN type meeting in Nairobi.

We have a monitor as quite a gifted woman correspondent. She probably would would say I'm wrong to identify as a woman correspondent or correspondent who from a start sort of sensed that there was not a positive reaction among the Africans to Kissinger. She said in one of her dispatches if you want to know what the African reaction is listen to the Nigerians lar. And I said What about giving us a quote besides somebody you might be able to misinterpret the sound of. You think you interpret it right what about a quote. And she came up with a quote from a Gambian actually in Gambia a small country on the west coast of Africa who said Kissinger told us what we knew already. We know already there's not much we can do without the United States. Your United States may as well have told me that I've got two eyes right. We want something more constructive than that. We want the application of that

to our needs in a way which is going to produce results. Or let's take a let's take a move from from that part of Africa to say Egypt. Another major power in all of Africa in the Middle East a major center of population all the debate was over the five airplanes the supply airplanes and whether we're letting them have them or not is beside the point but that was our debate. I haven't heard much of a debate. As to whether or not we ought to make a major commitment in places like Egypt so that whether it's a daughter or anybody else he will have the authority the backing of the United States to to push toward democratization as dangerous as it is there is elsewhere. At the same time that we don't do much he looks at our debate over the airplane and decides that that is all our Senate is interested in all our Congress is interested in. And I don't think he really understands when Nixon went to Egypt and was given this triumphal

tour just before his collapse on the political scene here. This told me something about the misconceptions over there they see the power but they don't see what is the constitutional basis behind the power. How can we do something about that. Cause I do think that in the case of Sadat, Sadat himself, not now not talking about the Egyptian public. I think Sadat is becoming increasingly sophisticated and does have some understanding now of the constitutional complexities of Washington D.C. since the Nixon affair. And I happen which is a personal view. I happen to think that from the point of view of an overall settlement in the Middle East from the point of view of the security of Israel in the Middle East from the point of view of the United States in the Middle East on the point of view of a more democratic system in the Middle East Sadat is about the best bet around. I agree with you and.

I think I think the administration in Washington perceives it that way. I think that's why they are trying to edge forward to to to deliver to help and to encourage. I think I think there has been a softening of American public opinion towards President Sadat and some softening of his really opinion towards President Sadat reflected also in the attitude of figures in the United States like Senator Jeffords who've always been loyal supporters of Israel and have raised questions about aid or encouragement to the Egyptians. But Senator Javits within the past month visited Egypt before going on to Israel and was complementary to and about President Sadat. And spoke at exactly the same kind of things when he got to Israel about Mr. Sadat that he had said in Egypt and there were there were friendly things. I am I am hopeful in the in the case of Egypt of of a better understanding in the United States and I am sure that a better understanding

on the part of President Sadat and those around him of the difficulties of leadership in the United States where President Sadat is vulnerable is that the Egyptian public doesn't understand that. Sadat has Sadat in effect Sadat has said look we've tried all options. We've gone full circle and the United States is the best bet for us there are certain things that we need. And he's not talking particularly about weapons of destruction, I mean he's going to ask for arms, but he's thinking things besides that the United States is the only country that can deliver. Do you think that the the Nixon problem the disaster of those days and the observation of the continuance of this government in the orderly process which followed and the very enthusiastic campaign now being conducted for the presidency has alerted people all across the third world, the less developed world, to the strength and viability of

democracy even if they don't understand what we mean by freedom of the press and speech and assembly and petition. Somehow or other we keep coming through as a continuing democracy even though I'm still of the opinion that we don't pay enough or sufficient attention to them. Well I am convinced that the net result is a deepened and a heightened admiration of the United States has as a durable democratic system. Now I can't exactly quote your words that you used in putting the question to me but I think you had all the right words. This is but Diddley perceived I think a lot of people in third world or in Africa thought that Nixon was a fool that he couldn't pull levers or pull strings to make sure this didn't happen to him or somebody in his position couldn't ?hounded?. From office if he was really a strong man in a country as mighty as the United States I think I think there is some of that. But but I think it

does sink in, it does sink in, that here is this remarkable country which we had we had you know people of the transfer of power from President Nixon to President Ford. Not a drop of blood was shed. There was no threat of a military coup. It was all done in a very orderly way and with with great dignity. It may have been the saving of the American press, a press that was somewhat moribund, had a bigger story to write about. I think I think myself you know all of us all all of us sometimes make mistakes or look at our perceptions of it wrong. I think there was a tendency at the height of the trouble of a Viet-Nam and the height of the cover over Watergate to sort of to wring one's hands for the future of the republic. But it's going on with great majesty. It's going on with great majesty. And here we are coming up the next presidential election after it all.

And I would say myself that the presidential election campaign the primaries have all been conducted with great seamless weather whether you like the people involved or not. The one thing though that in reference to Africa in the Middle East and Asia where I've been recently they don't understand our reactions or our activities on the racial problem. This is the big story and I wondered how you felt with your white experience as to whether this story would cause some lasting damage to the perception of of our view of constitutional government. Their perception of us-- [Speaker 2] This constant repetition of trouble. Yes look I'm a Briton and I can talk about the United States I think a little less self-consciously than Americans themselves. We are very much carrying the monkey on our shoulder on this. Yes. Now look obviously there are things that are wrong. Oh but there are things that are wrong on the question of race relations in all sorts of places. There are things

wrong on the question of race relations in Britain. Now there are questions wrong on race relations in East Africa and Africans and Asians but somehow if it happens here what. Well look it's because it's crucial. Well look you're big, you're a fair target, you're the biggest you're the wealthiest you're the most powerful you're the most successful and even in the best of families the richest and the most successful member of the family is when you get sniped at from within the family. Also how much credit do you give to the fact that we are the lynchpin as it were a European person who is a refugee of some 30 years ago. In casual conversation said you don't run anywhere from the United States of democracy fails here it fails everywhere. Absolute maybe they are. Maybe they observe on this racial story that unless we make progress on it they never will. I my honest belief about race in the United States and I am one who have the same pangs of conscience as you will. Some of the things that happened in Boston

this spring. But look I go back to the situation that prevailed and I first set foot in the United States nearly 25 centuries ago-- [Speaker 2] And what a remarkable journey. It is unbelievable Yes it is unbelievable. Yes. And that is progress. Now there are some terrible situations still. But what has happened is that in the areas where it was easiest to make progress the progress has been made. It was really like mowing a lawn, mowing a well-tended lawn. You know it's very easy to mow well-tended lawn but you wait till you get to brush and scrub and undergrowth then you run into into problems. I think the areas the areas where it is was relatively easy. Think where things have been done perhaps decades ago but where are the areas for example or thinking about blacks and whites where there where blacks are educated and are qualified to move into banks into radio TV and things like that. They've moved into

banks and radio and TV and you are left with a hard core that is not as easily. assimilable into the general society and the frustration, the disappointment, the bitterness is all the greater because it is this hard core which finds it hardest to escape from this prison of discrimination and neglect. And it's because we're dealing with that that we have the remaining Alyssa's. But if you look if you look at the broad picture I give evidence any day that the United States has made greater progress on this crucial question which is common to every part of the world. It has set an example. Last last question Jeffrey. You're a one of the Fedayeen of Egypt. You're listening in and your transistor radio you know about troubles in some American city. You you understand but dimly what is going on in this great place called America. You approve of it nevertheless. Are you more hopeful than you were five years ago or less hopeful? [Godsell] Oh, more hopeful particularly having felt in Egypt because the Egyptians are among the most intelligent

and perceptive of peoples. And I've come across in any part of the Third World they understand quickly and better they're able to laugh at themselves. They can be cynical about themselves and they understand more about America than most. [Rubin] Well, those two countries that we've talked mainly about today, Egypt and Nigeria, seem to offer great hope because our experiences with nationals from those countries show that they have much to teach us and a certain perception about how life should be. [Godsell] A\bsolutely, yes. [Rubin] Well, I want to thank you very much,Jeffrey Godsell, the overseas editor of The Christian Science Monitor. This is Bernard Rubin saying thank you all. [announcer] WGBH radio Boston, in cooperation with the Institute for Democratic Communication at Boston University, has presented the "First Amendment and A Free People," an examination of the media and civil liberties in the 1970s. This program was recorded in the studios of WGBH Boston and was

made possible in part by a grant from the Courier Corporation of Lowell Massachusetts.