THE BATTLE, BLOW BY BLOW

Starting with the very first question.

Gerald Ford was on the defensive--and Jimmy Carter on the offensive--for most of the debate. The opening question amounted to Ford's best argument for his foreign policy. New York Times Associate Editor Max Frankel asked Carter what fault he could find with the foreign policy of an Administration that had improved U.S. relations with the Soviet Union and China and promoted steps toward peace in the Middle East and southern Africa.

Sidestepping the question. Carter gave what seemed to be a prepared opening statement, much as John F. Kennedy did in his first debate with Richard Nixon in 1960. Carter criticized Ford for "an absence of leadership." He charged that the U.S. has "become fearful to compete with the Soviet Union on an equal basis." And, in a demagogic overstatement, he claimed that "our country is not strong any more, we're not respected any more." Carter never did make a strong substantive case against the Administration's foreign policy, but he managed to set much of the debate's tone and direction.

This time Carter was not in awe of Ford, and at times seemed deliberately caustic and sarcastic to keep him off balance. When the President claimed that

Carter, referring to Italy, had said he would "look with sympathy" on a Communist government in NATO, the Georgian retorted that the statement was "deliberate distortion." But Carter did once urge that the U.S. maintain friendly relations with Communist leaders in Italy to avoid driving them irrevocably into the Soviet orbit. When Ford cited Portugal's escape from Communist rule as a success for U.S. foreign policy, Carter replied, correctly, that the U.S. still "stuck to the Portugal dictatorships much longer" than other democracies had done. Among the other exchanges between the candidates:

MORALITY

Carter accused the Administration of being insensitive to moral concerns, of "supporting dictatorships [and] ignoring human rights" in its foreign policy, of becoming "the arms merchant of the world." In fact, U.S. sales of weapons overseas increased from $1 billion in fiscal 1970 to $11.6 billion in 1974, but they dropped to $8.4 billion in fiscal 1976. With some hyperbole, Carter also dragged out all the skeletons in the Nixon and Ford administrations' closets--the invasion of Cambodia, the right-wing coup in Chile, the covert support of anti-Communists in Angola, and even

Watergate. Carter is probably holding U.S. foreign policy to an impossibly high standard, one that he would have trouble meeting in a world in which power is still the main arbiter between nations. Ford defended the morality of his policies, citing U.S. efforts to feed the hungry, end the Middle East crisis, and make peace in southern Africa. Said he: "What is more moral than peace? And the U.S. is at peace today."

Carter also laced into Ford and Henry Kissinger for "secret, Lone Ranger-type" diplomacy. Said he: "Every time we've made a serious mistake in foreign affairs, it's been because the American people have been excluded from the process." But he gave little clue as to just how he would include Congress and the public. In his defense, Ford recounted the 60 or so speeches he and Kissinger have made on foreign policy, and Kissinger's 80 appearances before congressional committees. He also mentioned his disclosure to the Senate of every document covering the 1975 Sinai agreement. But he did not mention that he had initially refused to turn over the material, and did so only after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee insisted.

DEFENSE SPENDING

With considerable exaggeration.

Ford claimed that Carter's proposed reductions in the defense budget "will not permit the U.S. to be strong enough to deter aggression." Ford charged that

Carter once proposed a $15 billion cut but subsequently scaled it down to between $5 billion and $7 billion. Next day, Ford said that Carter "wants to speak loudly and carry a fly swatter." Carter denied ever proposing a $15 billion cut, despite at least two newspaper articles quoting him as having made the recommendation in Beverly Hills, Calif., in March 1975.

Attacking Carter's position that spending can safely be cut by making the military more efficient, Ford cited the calculations of former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, one of the experts who briefed Carter before the debate. According to Ford, Schlesinger reported in 1975 that reducing the budget by even $3 billion to $5 billion would require discharging 250,000 servicemen and 100,000 civilian employees, closing 20 military bases, and reducing military research and development and the procurement of new airplanes and ships. But Schlesinger later told TIME that the figures were intended to show the effects of a $10 billion cut.

Instead of rebutting, Carter tried to score some points by accusing Ford of making "a political football out of the defense budget." He recalled that the President at first considered cutting the Pentagon's budget proposal for fiscal 1977 by $6.8 billion. By Carter's account, Ford then gradually added back $6.3 billion for political reasons--$3 billion after his unpopular dismissal of Schlesinger, $1.5 billion after Ronald Reagan won the Texas primary and $1.8 billion on the eve of his narrow victory at the Republican National Convention. Actually, Ford asked for the $1.5 billion before the Texas primary; the appeal for $1.8 billion was merely a plea that Congress restore money it had cut from the budget. As Carter noted, however, Administration budget experts have admitted writing a $3 billion cushion into the budget to soften any cuts.

DETENTE

Both candidates had problems with the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks. In saying that "there has been absolutely no progress made toward a new SALT agreement" under Ford, Carter overlooked the 1974 Vladivostok agreement, which limited each country to 2,400 long-range missiles and heavy bombers.

Ford ducked a question about whether the SALT talks were dragging for domestic political reasons. Privately, high Administration officials express confidence that a SALT treaty will be signed several months after the election no matter who wins, but they figure that any pact agreed to before the election would be condemned in the U.S. as politically motivated.

The President was on very shaky ground in defending the 1975 Helsinki pact, which confirmed the postwar boundaries of Eastern Europe. Carter criticized the Administration for not forcing the Soviets to uphold the agreement's provisions for increased human rights, including freer emigration. Actually, Ford could have cited statistics showing that the Soviets have eased restrictions on emigration and travel. Instead, in something of a cheap shot, he criticized Carter for not supporting an agreement that was signed by 35 nations, including the Vatican. Said Carter: "I'm not criticizing His Holiness the Pope. I was talking about Mr. Ford." At another point, the Georgian got off a sophomoric low blow of his own. When Ford said that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations had low unemployment partly because the U.S. was at war, Carter insinuated that Ford was espousing one of Karl Marx's theories.

MIDDLE EAST

Ford and Carter fell all over themselves in wooing the Jewish vote by vowing all-out support for Israel. The President evoked the name of Israeli Premier Yitzhak Rabin three times, quoting him as saying that U.S.-Israeli relations have never been better. Carter charged that Ford, in response to oil pressure, has stepped up arms shipments to the Arabs. Not counting shipments to Iran, about 60% of U.S. arms sent to the Middle East went to Israel during the Kennedy-Johnson years; the Israeli share in the past fiscal year was only 45%--not 40%, as Carter claimed. The reason is that, although U.S. arms shipments to Israel have increased in recent years, sales to the Arab countries have risen even faster. Carter erred in saying that when sales to Iran are included, the Israeli share drops to 20%; it is actually 34%. He was also mistaken in saying that Saudi Arabia and Iran are each buying $7.5 billion in U.S. arms; in fact, the Saudis are buying $6.4 billion worth. Said Carter: "There ought to be a clear, unequivocal [U.S.] commitment, without change, to Israel."

The President countered that under his Administration the U.S. has sent Israel more than $4 billion in military hardware, 45% of the total U.S. economic and military aid to the country since it became independent in 1948. Ford was also stung by Carter's claim that the Administration has tacitly accepted the Arab boycott of U.S. firms that have Jewish executives or do business with Israel. He denied the charge, then suddenly announced that the Commerce Department would disclose the names of the U.S. firms that have escaped the boycott by refusing to trade with Israel. The announcement caused consternation both in the board rooms of the companies involved and at the Commerce Department, which was not prepared to release the list.

The Commerce Department, since October 1975, has required U.S. companies to state how they have responded to the boycott; according to the most recent report, 894 firms said they had contacts with the Arabs as of March 31, and most reported they would comply with the boycott. To avoid antagonizing the Arabs or angering the U.S. businessmen involved, the Administration has been notably reluctant to combat the boycott. Ford boasted in the debate that the tax reform bill he signed recently includes tax penalties for firms that observe the boycott, but he did not mention that the Administration had tried to persuade Congress to drop that provision from the bill. The day after the debate Ford went back on the promise to release the list and lamely ordered publication only of the names of firms that go along with the boycott "in the future."

PANAMA

Carter's hardline, almost Reaganite position on the Panama Canal shocked many liberals. Said he: "I would never give up complete control or practical control of the Panama Canal Zone." He would be willing to "share more fully the responsibilities" for the canal with Panama and he might "reduce to some degree our military emplacements" in the zone. Thus Carter seemed to rule out eventually turning over the canal to Panama, the goal toward which the Ford Administration's negotiations are aimed.

Panamanians were furious. Moreover, Carter's position ran counter to his promise to improve U.S. relations with Latin American countries, which, for the most part, regard the zone as a distasteful vestige of U.S. imperialism. At a lunch with Latin American diplomats the next day, Kissinger went out of his way to reassure them that Ford's policy on the canal has not changed.

MAYAGUEZ

Ford vigorously defended his quick and forceful use of the Marines, Air Force and Navy to rescue the U.S. container ship May ague z and her 40-man crew from the Cambodians in May 1975. On the eve of the debate, the General Accounting Office issued a report suggesting that the mission, which cost 41 American lives, was unnecessary because diplomatic efforts might have accomplished the same ends without bloodshed. The President angrily described the report's authors as "grandstand quarterbacks" and said, with considerable justification, that he would have been "criticized very, very severely for sitting back and not moving."

The timing of the report's release by the congressional watchdog agency seemed intended to help Carter, but he ducked the issue--probably wisely, because the rescue mission was highly popular. He faulted Ford only for not releasing all the information that he had about the incident immediately after the ship and crew were rescued. Said Carter: "The President has an obligation to tell the American people the truth and not wait 18 months later for the report to be issued." Actually, there was little in the report that had not already been disclosed by the Administration.

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION

Both candidates oppose the fearsome spread of nuclear weapons. But their discussion degenerated into a petty argument about who had pushed the issue first. Carter said he had this past May when he proposed a moratorium on the testing of nuclear devices. Ford claimed that he had taken the initiative in May 1975 when he called for a conference of nuclear suppliers, which has so far met six times. But Carter's chiding of Ford for not using his influence to stop the sale of nuclear fuel reprocessing plants by Germany and France to Brazil and Pakistan was a point well taken.

Even though the candidates were concerned with scoring debating points, last week's confrontation at least gave the broad outline of an answer to the question that was uppermost in most viewers' minds: How would a Carter Administration's foreign policy differ from Ford's? The answer seemed to be that, aside from some changes in nuance and emphasis--for example, Carter would probably give a higher priority to strengthening relations with traditional allies--U.S. foreign policy would be basically unchanged. Such crucial factors as judgment, temper, coolness under pressure could, of course, only be speculated about. But after the debate, many people now involved in formulating the Ford foreign policy concluded that almost anything they do not like about Carter's views could probably be set right by a little on-the-job experience.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.