Ofh economically in terms the money that they are spending, the debt they are incurring that is bankrupting the country, but also in terms of the destruction of our liberty. I haver the years, mulled over the thought of having a conference. Many of these it many of you know we have written a lot on. He kennedy assassination staff about three years ago, i started mulling over a conference like this and i thought, if i could bring together the speakers that have had a big impact on me and my intellectual development, it would be so exciting. Finally, we decided we are going to do it. So we put this thing together, and this because i invited that you will be hearing today, everybody said yes. And i was so pleasantly surprised and excited because everyone of these people that are speaking today has been heroes to me. Inir work is been heroic terms of what we are going to be examining today. And so, it is exciting to be putting this program together, and i want to thank you for coming. We are videotaping the proceedings. The videotapes will be free on for people to access later on. You provide the audience for the speaker, and you provide the energy for the speaker, so it is great to have you here. I want to especially thank those of you who support us with donations over the years. We cannot put our programs like this without your donations. Have a monthly journal called future freedom. It goes for 25 and you can subscribe at our website. May have a daily publication called fff daily. You put a lot of time, energy, and thought to every morning at 6 00 a. M. That is for free so we invite you to subscribe to that. Of the 25 subscriptions do not Fund Programs like this. It is those of you that help us up in a bigger way that enable us to do that. I want to especially thank the people who funded this conference. As you can imagine, the 99 Registration Fee does not come close the 99 Registration Fee does not come close to covering the conference. There were some people that gave us the fund that enabled us to do this conference. They want to remain anonymous. They know who they are and we know who they are, and we want to say thank you. [applause] as far as the format goes, those of you have attended conferences normal format is we have and our lecture with 45 minutes, and then 15 minutes q a. This is different. We have so many speakers. We have 11 speakers. We did not want you to go home and say, i denied it my moneys worth with my 99. So we have a jampacked schedule. Breaks, so ifsome you need to take a break, fine. The show will go on. And there will no and there will be no q a. Every speaker has been advised that he has to stop exactly at that moment. When you start to get lake, you start pushing things forward we start being late, do have to push things forward and we have to be done by 6 15. So without any further ado, let me introduce our first speaker. Effrey sachs he holds the title of the university professor, the highest right professorship at Columbia University. He is a special advisor to special you and secretary general moon. He has authored three New York Times best sellers. Book is the age of Sustainable Development. At the end of 20 a, he became a full professor at harvard. He was named one of time influentialost person. He authored a book on president john f. Kennedys remarkable speech at American University entitled to move the world, fks quest for peace. An epoch is absolutely fantastic and i cannot recommend it more highly. Please welcome jeffrey sachs. [applause] prof. Sachs jacob, thank you so much. And thank you for bringing us together for this wonderful conference. I feel very privileged to be here and very thankful to have a chance to be together with you this morning. I am not a historian in a room filled with historians. So that is a risky start. Jfks quest or piece is im going to describe it in a moment. And im sure that some of the somerians here can fill in of many of the pieces that i am going to describe this morning. I fell in love with president kennedys speech on peace that he gave in june, 1963. And i will explain why in my remarks. Speech as anat example of the kind of leadership that showed how to inspire people to a better world. And i had a wonderful occasion after reading it, and learning a bit about the history of it, i to say all of the ascus, but i was not an expert on the period. By the bbcs,d several years ago to give lectures. And i spoke about the challenges of Sustainable Development in a world, and i devoted one of the lectures to kennedys piece speech. Have had the pleasure to Theodore Sorensen sitting right in front of me as i gave that lecture at Columbia University. That is a little nerveracking by the way. It is nerveracking enough to have so many historians in the room, but it was nerveracking to have the coauthor of that speech. Sitting directly in front of me. And i gave my interpretation of the speech, and walked down to greet ted sorensen, whom i knew, and afterwards, became Close Friends with. And he said, jeff, you got it. That was a great relief. Theit gave me both confidence and inspiration to learn more, and to try to put kennedys ideas into their historical context. And in fact, i asked ted, who was a neighbor at the time in new york city, and an incredibly, wonderful, wonderful person. One of the greatest wordsmiths in american, political history. And a lovely individual. I asked him whether it would be all right if i try to find a book about the speech . And he went one better and said, we can work on it together. And soon after that, he had a stroke and died. And so, i never had the chance the speech directly with him, and to ask him all the questions that i then cannot get direct answers to about context, and purpose, and some of the choices, ideas and the speech. Ended, i put aside the project a little bit out of the grief and feeling that it wasnt really possible until it became the 50th anniversary until it became the 50th anniversary of the speech. Said, this is the only time. To move theook, world. One of president kennedys speeches to the u. N. About his quest for peace. I think this is a suitable, i hope useful, opening to frame what will be a wonderful discussion of many, many themes around kennedy, and around the National Security state, and around its dangers. And those are themes that this foundation that i agree completely with. I regard our National Security uste as a profound danger to , and a profound infringement of our freedom, and a reckless war maker in this world. And i think kennedy took grave steps to try to overcome those tendencies of the war machine. And that is really the story of his quest for peace, at least in part. So, i will bring us back to those days, starting with his inaugural address on january 29 on january1961 20, 1961. For me, in this remarkable address, when you read and katieso again speeches, this is probably the most iconic of all of them. Speechesntire audience is such a treasure for American People. And for a couple of years, i drove my kids completely crazy because i made them listen over and over again to this speech. And you have to listen to this, and you have to listen to this. The more itre usn, is not only great ideas in my view, and important ideas, but also a kind of poetry and a kind. F deep inspiration but one of the things kennedy said earlier on in his inaugural address, the world is very different now, for manholes and his mortal hands, the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. I quote this almost daily because of my work at the u. N. Involves trying to abolish all forms of human poverty. And i think kennedy was right about this. But it is also important, in my view, to understand president kennedys basic thinking. There is a certain kind of sadness and a some kind of awareness of our danger to ourselves, and of this poignancy almost youimes, could say, and existential reality of modern types an existential reality of modern times that we are advance so proficient that we can accomplish marvelous, positive andin longevity health, and it in poverty that the same time, we have the capacity to completely destroy ourselves and wreck the world. And it is especially poignant in my view because studying tonedys thinking about this his early days, to his days as senator, to his writings of his president ial campaign, to become president in 1961, he thought about this poignancy hard. And he came into office expecting to make the world a better place, and yet, it turned out, and this is a human fate within a year and a half, he had even helped, not by design, but by accident, to bring the world to the brink of annihilation. And i was a shocking truth for him. And it was a shocking fact for the world. But i take this statement to be both true, true for us, true and kennedys time, and very much a framing of his own thinking. Well, his administration, of course, started with a debacle. Americane worst in foreignpolicy history actually because it led on to more more nearand disaster. Ciathat was of course, the inspired and led bay of pigs invasion. And this was something that was a legacy of eisenhower administration. , like most ofnned these operations that the cia concocts to our very day. It was a massive failure. If ithe cia gets were a private company, it would have gone bankrupt 26 times because it is a massive failure of an institution when it comes to the covert war side, and a defensive mistake we made was in 1947 when intelligence was combined with a private army, and this was a profound error that truman knew at the time. In a way, let happen, and it continues to haunt us to this day. Kennedy tried to have it both ways famously in the bay of pigs. He allowed it to go for it, but with deep misgivings. So he said, we will do it, but typical and experienced president could not stop it, doomed to fail in a way, failed of course, it was not only a failure as an operation, but a foreignpolicy debacle. One of the things that i found very interesting and researching the book was reading the compendium correspondence whichn kennedy and , began with a congratulatory note to kennedy when he was president elect. Private,continued in a back channel discussion, which is an interesting thing in terms of our current discussions. Back channels are not all bad. It depends on what they are used for, of course. A backy developed channel which i think saved the world in the end because it gave them a way to communicate with each other, and to build confidence, which turned out to be crucial for the world. Pigs,e day of the bay of there was a cable from to kennedy, saint you may not be aware of this, but your government is involved in international piracy. And kennedy responded on april previously stated, and i repeat now, the United States intends no military intervention in cuba. While refraining from military intervention, the people of the United States not conceal their admiration for cuban patriots who wish to see a democratic system in an independent cuba. O kennedy lied blatantly this was the second time in a short period of time that an american president had lied blatantly and vote for to the soviet leader because eisenhower of done it with the downing a flight must before. T is a bad habit our president should not live this way, or lie in such a blatant, stupid, transparent way could this was a deep, antiblunder in my view that compounded the blunder of the bay of pigs. Khrushchev wrote back in a long letter, saying, are you kidding . [laughter] prof. Sachs dont never right of to me like that again. Numerous facts known to the full world and to the government of the United States, better than to anyone else, speak goesrently, and khrushchev on to tell the truth that this is a u. S. Operation. And dont you ever claim it isnt. And this is a disgrace against International Law. And you have invaded allied you have invaded an allied country of ours and khrushchev was right and he had been right with gary powers. Regardnteresting in this , recently with the death of brzezinski, who i admired for many, many things. It recalled that i recalled an interview which he gave recently before his death about the american support, cia support in afghanistan, the birth of al qaeda. It is another, and my view, complete disaster of cialed operation, and the list is ciabotchedhose foreignpolicy disasters. Case, the soviet claimed they invaded afghanistan because the cia was mucking around to overthrow the afghan regime. And we laughed and mopped at that, look at the soviet paranoia. And burzynski said, of course it is true. We did this well before the soviet invasion. We hoped it which are a soviet invasion and it was a great success. One million deaths. A gave us al qaeda. It did many, many awful things, whathis kind of line is the Security State does for a living. And it is one of our big weaknesses that we are surrounded by lies all the time. And president s speak lies s speak liest relentlessly, but it is the covert cia operations that lead to this over and over again. So, i think the bay of pigs butgered many awful things, this was a very difficult period of the cold war anyway. 1963, was probably the most dangerous moments of the cold war. Could all centered in germany it all centered in germany. Will germany and cuba became the two places were nearly became the end of the more. End of the war. Many things were going on. This was a deep question about there was a deep question about what was really the essence of this conflict between the u. S. And the soviet union, especially at this time, and why was khrushchev pushing so hard in berlin . And i personally take the best interpretation of this, of any by professori know at the university of california, in his remarkable, remarkable series of articles and books, nadine in a book called the constructive peace. He explains that the cold war, to a very significant extent that surrounded the failures to solve the german question from the point of view of the soviet union, and the german question securewhat, how to soviet security in the post world war ii era . Because germany was considered a continuing threat. , the westernrybody argument was, we will make that giving theway by squeeze of friendship and the european community, and in nato, and so germany will become part alliance. Westernled but that was not a great answer from the point of view of the soviet union. And especially, one of eisenhowers ideas is eisenhower one of eisenhowers ids because eisenhower was a very capable man. And a very fiscal conservative, very and eager fiscal conservative. And a very fiscal conservative. One of his ideas was that europe should depend itself with its own Nuclear Weapons. And eisenhower thought that a Nuclear Germany might be the right answer. The u. S. Would not have to have two is in europe. Germany would be able to defend itself. From the soviet point of view, a Nuclear Germany was just not attractive in the immediate aftermath of the nazi era where the server unit had lost her people, and had more destruction, and had more tragedy, and the idea that having once was a war to end up even more vulnerable, was a profound point of distress. Their view of the cold war was, what you doing . You are preventing the legitimate security needs of the soviet people. I find this very plausible, by the way, from everything that i have read. The u. S. Was either not very ratherabout it, or flippant about it. Kennedy came to appreciate those concerns. I will come back to that story. Hot in thewere berlin front from 1958 onward, including the building of the berlin wall, which started to go up in 1961 because of the flood of people. The u. S. Basically thought that this was a reasonable way to avoid outright conflict to go along with this. But it also led to another one of these moments where things gone completely disasters when 10 takes from each side faced off against each other. It was a test of nerves. Cool, and khrushchev was cool in the end. And this was finally resolved after an extraordinarily intense few days. But we were repeatedly probing intoimits, stumbling thermonuclear war. And then, fastforward. Decidede, khrushchev that in view of the invasion of cuba, the alliance that was forming with castro and the soviet union, the u. S. Nuclear weapons in turkey, and not very well protected, exposed dangerous and close to the soviet borders, that he would teach kennedy a lesson to tell them what its like. And do that by installing ive nucleartipped missiles in cuba. Explained, hev said, are you crazy . You are going to cause a nuclear war. And khrushchev laughed. And said, this is not war. This is nothing to do with war. This is to stay getting katies phase to get a taste of their own this is to stick it to kennedys face to get a taste of their own medicine. It was a little bit of quid pro quo, and dont invade again. And the u. S. Was planning on invading again, or killing castro in one way or the other. This was very high on the agenda. And so, khrushchev decided to do this, and we all know the story. And so i wont recount it in any detail. It is for us because of the recordings in the history onehat happened, absolutely of the most important events of modern history to remind us are, how how dont we ,ulnerable we are to ourselves and dont trust your gentleness. Ever. And dont trust your generals. Ever. Maybe about war. But not about peace. If kennedy had listened to the vast majority of his advisers and had lamay in the room who was basically on the verge of insubordinate, rude, abrasive, almost flirting with the overt insubordination, we would have we would not be here. Lets put it that way. We came so close during this. We came so close during this ships thatidental, could have fired under the adviceof their captains , weapons that were already primed to fire and were on order to fire if attacked, were not you ready were not yet ready. Miscalculations and the basic, the basic point that kept us alive with all of the various details and theyll back channels the back channels and the famous genius of listening only to one of the communications from khrushchev and ignoring the second one and Robert Kennedys that channels to back channels to the soviet leadership. Kennedy saved the world. I think it is really true to say profoundlyman, and rational, profoundly careful and ultimately, profoundly moral, in my view. And with the basic idea that he had which went back to that statement and the inaugural feeling of to his humanragic side of history