風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
1963 肯尼迪華盛頓大學畢業典禮致辭
https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-university-19630610
約翰·F·肯尼迪總統，華盛頓特區，1963 年 6 月 10 日
安德森校長、各位教員、董事會成員、尊敬的來賓、我的老同事、參議員鮑勃·伯德（Bob Byrd），他通過多年上夜校法學院獲得了學位，而我將在接下來的 30 分鍾內獲得我的學位，尊敬的來賓 ， 女士們，先生們：
我非常自豪地參加美利堅大學的典禮，該大學由衛理公會教堂讚助，由約翰·弗萊徹·赫斯特主教創立，並由伍德羅·威爾遜總統於 1914 年首次揭牌。這是一所年輕且正在成長的大學，但它 已經實現了赫斯特主教的開明希望，即在一個致力於創造曆史和開展公共事務的城市中研究曆史和公共事務。 通過為所有希望學習的人讚助這所高等教育機構，無論他們的膚色或信仰如何，該地區和國家的衛理公會教徒值得國家的感謝，我讚揚所有今天畢業的人。
伍德羅·威爾遜教授曾經說過，每一個從大學畢業的人都應該是他的國家的人，也是他那個時代的人，我相信從這所大學畢業的男女將繼續 他們用自己的生命和才華，提供了大量的公共服務和公共支持。
約翰·梅斯菲爾德在向英國大學致敬時寫道：“世上沒有什麽比大學更美麗的了”——他的話在今天同樣適用。 他沒有提到尖塔和塔樓，也沒有提到校園的綠地和爬滿常春藤的牆壁。 他說，他很欣賞大學的絢麗之美，因為它是“一個讓那些憎恨無知的人努力求知、讓那些感知真理的人努力讓別人明白的地方”。
因此，我選擇這個時候這個地方來討論一個常常被無知充斥、真相鮮為人知的話題——但它卻是地球上最重要的話題：世界和平。
我所說的平安是什麽意思？ 我們尋求什麽樣的和平？ 這不是靠美國戰爭武器強加給世界的美式治下的和平。 不是墳墓的平安，也不是奴隸的安全。 我說的是真正的和平，這種和平使地球上的生活變得有價值，使人類和國家能夠成長、充滿希望並為他們的孩子建設更美好的生活——不僅是美國人的和平，而且是美國人民的和平。 所有男人和女人——不僅是我們這個時代的和平，而且是永遠的和平。
我之所以談論和平，是因為戰爭出現了新的麵貌。 在大國能夠維持龐大且相對堅不可摧的核力量並且在不訴諸這些力量的情況下拒絕投降的時代，全麵戰爭是沒有意義的。 在一個核武器的爆炸力幾乎是第二次世界大戰中所有盟軍空軍的十倍的時代，這是沒有意義的。 在這樣一個時代，核交換產生的致命毒物將被風、水、土壤和種子帶到地球的各個角落，並傳給尚未出生的後代，這是沒有意義的。
如今，每年花費數十億美元購買武器，以確保我們永遠不需要使用它們，這對於維護和平至關重要。 但可以肯定的是，獲取此類閑置庫存——這隻會摧毀，永遠不會創造——並不是確保和平的唯一手段，更不是最有效的手段。
因此，我將和平視為理性人必要的理性目標。 我意識到，追求和平並不像追求戰爭那樣引人注目——而且追求者的話常常被置若罔聞。 但我們沒有更緊迫的任務。
有人說，談世界和平、世界法、世界裁軍是沒有用的，除非蘇聯領導人采取更加開明的態度，否則這些都是沒有用的。 我希望他們這樣做。 我相信我們可以幫助他們做到這一點。 但我也相信，我們必須重新審視我們自己的態度——作為個人和國家——因為我們的態度和他們的態度一樣重要。 這所學校的每一位畢業生，每一位對戰爭感到絕望、希望實現和平的有思想的公民，都應該從審視自己開始，審視自己對和平可能性、對蘇聯、對冷戰進程的態度。 並在國內爭取自由與和平。
首先：讓我們審視一下我們對和平本身的態度。 我們太多人認為這是不可能的。 太多人認為這不真實。 但這是一種危險的、失敗主義的信念。 它得出這樣的結論：戰爭是不可避免的——人類注定要滅亡——我們被我們無法控製的力量所控製。
我們不必接受這種觀點。 我們的問題是人為的——因此，它們可以由人來解決。 人可以隨心所欲地偉大。 沒有人類設計的問題
微小超出了人類的範圍。 人類的理性和精神經常解決看似無法解決的問題——而且我們相信他們可以再次做到這一點。
我並不是指一些幻想者和狂熱分子所夢想的絕對的、無限的和平與善意的概念。 我並不否認希望和夢想的價值，但我們將其作為我們唯一且直接的目標，隻會招致沮喪和懷疑。
相反，讓我們把重點放在更實際、更容易實現的和平上——不是基於人性的突然革命，而是基於人類製度的逐步演變——基於一係列符合有關各方利益的具體行動和有效協議。 。 這種和平沒有單一、簡單的關鍵，也沒有可供一兩個國家采用的宏大或神奇的公式。 真正的和平必須是許多國家的產物，是許多行動的總和。 它必須是動態的，而不是靜態的，不斷變化，以應對每一代人的挑戰。 因為和平是一個過程——解決問題的一種方式。
即使有了這樣的和平，仍然會有爭吵和利益衝突，就像家庭和國家內部一樣。 世界和平，就像社區和平一樣，並不要求每個人都愛他的鄰居，而隻需要他們相互寬容地生活在一起，將他們的爭端提交給公正和平的解決。 曆史告訴我們，國家之間和個人之間的敵意不會永遠持續下去。 無論我們的好惡看起來多麽固定，時間和事件的潮流往往會給國家和鄰國之間的關係帶來驚人的變化。
所以讓我們堅持下去。 和平不一定是不切實際的，戰爭也不一定是不可避免的。 通過更明確地界定我們的目標，通過使其看起來更易於管理、更不那麽遙遠，我們可以幫助所有人看到它，從中汲取希望，並不可抗拒地朝著它前進。
第二：讓我們重新審視一下我們對蘇聯的態度。 想到他們的領導人可能真的相信他們的宣傳人員所寫的東西，就令人沮喪。 令人沮喪的是，閱讀最近關於軍事戰略的蘇聯權威文本，發現一頁又一頁完全毫無根據和令人難以置信的主張，例如“美帝國主義圈子正準備發動不同類型的戰爭…… 是美帝國主義者對蘇聯發動預防性戰爭的一個非常現實的威脅……[而且]美帝國主義的政治目標是在經濟和政治上奴役歐洲和其他資本主義國家……[和] ……通過侵略戰爭來實現世界統治。”
確實，正如很久以前所寫的那樣：“無人追趕時，惡人就逃跑了。” 然而，讀到這些蘇聯的聲明卻令人悲傷——意識到我們之間的鴻溝有多大。 但這也是一個警告——警告美國人民不要落入蘇聯人的陷阱，不要隻看到對方扭曲和絕望的觀點，不要認為衝突是不可避免的，和解是不可能的， 溝通隻不過是威脅的交換。
沒有一個政府或社會製度邪惡到其人民被認為缺乏道德的程度。 作為美國人，我們對共產主義深惡痛絕，因為它否定了個人自由和尊嚴。 但我們仍然可以讚揚俄羅斯人民在科學和太空、經濟和工業增長、文化和勇氣方麵取得的許多成就。
在我們兩國人民的眾多共同點中，最強烈的莫過於我們對戰爭的共同厭惡。 我們之間從未發生過戰爭，這在世界主要大國中幾乎是絕無僅有的。 在戰爭史上，沒有哪個國家比蘇聯在第二次世界大戰中遭受的苦難還要多。 至少有 2000 萬人喪生。 無數房屋和農場被燒毀或洗劫。 該國三分之一的領土，包括近三分之二的工業基地，變成了荒地——這種損失相當於芝加哥以東的這個國家遭到的破壞。
今天，如果全麵戰爭再次爆發——無論如何——我們兩國都將成為首要目標。 具有諷刺意味但又準確的事實是，兩個最強的國家正是最有可能遭受毀滅的兩個國家。 我們所建造的一切、我們所努力的一切，都將在最初的 24 小時內被摧毀。 即使在給許多國家，包括這個國家最親密的盟友，帶來負擔和危險的冷戰中，我們兩國也承受著最沉重的負擔。 因為我們都投入了大量資金來購買武器，這些武器可以更好地用於對抗無知、貧困和疾病。 我們都陷入了一種惡性和危險的循環，一方的懷疑會引發另一方的懷疑，新武器會產生反武器。
簡而言之，美國及其盟國、蘇聯及其盟國都對公正和真正的和平以及停止軍備競賽有著切身的利益。 A
為此目的達成的條約既符合蘇聯的利益，也符合我們的利益——甚至可以相信，即使是最敵對的國家也會接受並遵守這些條約義務，而且隻接受那些符合其自身利益的條約義務。
因此，我們不要忽視我們的分歧，而應該關注我們的共同利益以及解決這些分歧的方式。 如果我們現在不能結束我們的分歧，至少我們可以幫助世界變得對多樣性來說是安全的。 因為，歸根結底，我們最基本的共同聯係是我們都居住在這個小星球上。 我們都呼吸著同樣的空氣。 我們都珍惜孩子的未來。 我們都是凡人。
第三：讓我們重新審視我們對冷戰的態度，記住我們不是在進行辯論，試圖堆積爭論點。 我們並不是在這裏指責或指責。 我們必須按照世界本來的樣子來對待世界，而不是按照過去 18 年的曆史不同的方式來對待世界。
因此，我們必須堅持不懈地尋求和平，希望共產主義集團內部的建設性變革能夠帶來我們現在看來無法實現的解決方案。 我們處理事務的方式必須符合共產黨人的利益，就真正的和平達成一致。 最重要的是，在捍衛我們自己的切身利益的同時，核大國必須避免那些導致對手選擇羞辱性撤退或核戰爭的對抗。 在核時代采取這種做法隻能證明我們的政策破產，或者表明我們對世界抱有集體死亡的願望。
為了實現這些目標，美國的武器是非挑釁性的、嚴格控製的、旨在威懾的，並且能夠有選擇地使用。 我們的軍隊致力於和平並嚴守紀律。 我們的外交官被指示避免不必要的刺激和純粹的言辭敵意。
因為我們可以在不放鬆警惕的情況下尋求緊張的緩解。 而我們也不需要用威脅來證明我們的決心。 我們不需要因為擔心我們的信仰受到侵蝕而幹擾外國廣播。 我們不願意把我們的製度強加給任何不情願的人，但我們願意並且能夠與地球上任何人進行和平競爭。
與此同時，我們尋求加強聯合國，幫助解決其財政問題，使其成為更有效的和平工具，將其發展成為一個真正的世界安全體係——一個能夠在法律基礎上解決爭端的體係， 確保大小國家的安全，並為最終廢除武器創造條件。
與此同時，我們力求維護非共產主義世界內部的和平，在這些世界中，許多國家（它們都是我們的朋友）在削弱西方團結、招致共產主義幹預或威脅爆發戰爭的問題上存在分歧。 盡管受到雙方的批評，我們在西新幾內亞、剛果、中東和印度次大陸的努力一直堅持不懈、耐心等待。 我們還試圖為其他國家樹立榜樣，努力調整與我們最近的鄰國墨西哥和加拿大之間微小但重大的差異。
說到其他國家，我想澄清一點。 我們與許多國家結盟。 這些聯盟的存在是因為我們的關注點和他們的關注點有很大的重疊。 例如，由於我們的切身利益相同，我們對保衛西歐和西柏林的承諾並未減弱。 美國不會以犧牲其他國家和人民的利益為代價與蘇聯達成協議，這不僅因為他們是我們的夥伴，而且因為他們的利益與我們的利益是一致的。
然而，我們的利益一致，不僅在於捍衛自由的邊界，而且在於追求和平的道路。 我們的希望——也是盟國政策的目的——讓蘇聯相信，她也應該讓每個國家選擇自己的未來，隻要這個選擇不幹擾其他國家的選擇。 共產黨將自己的政治和經濟製度強加於人的行為是當今世界緊張局勢的主要原因。 因為毫無疑問，如果所有國家都能不幹涉別國的自決，和平就會更有保障。
這將需要新的努力來實現世界法——為世界討論提供新的背景。 這需要蘇聯和我們之間加強了解。 增加了解需要增加接觸和溝通。 朝這個方向邁出的一步是提議安排莫斯科和華盛頓之間的直達線路，以避免雙方在危機時刻可能發生的危險的延誤、誤解和誤讀對方行動。
我們還在日內瓦討論了設計的其他軍控第一步措施
限製軍備競賽的強度並減少意外戰爭的風險。 然而，我們在日內瓦的主要長期利益是全麵徹底裁軍——旨在分階段進行，允許平行的政治發展，以建立新的和平機構來取代武器。 自 1920 年代以來，本屆政府一直致力於實現裁軍。 過去三屆政府一直在迫切尋求這一目標。 無論今天的前景多麽黯淡，我們都打算繼續這一努力，繼續努力，以便包括我國在內的所有國家能夠更好地認識裁軍的問題和可能性。
這些談判即將結束但又急需重新開始的一個主要領域是製定一項禁止核試驗的條約。 這樣一項條約的締結，如此之近卻又如此遙遠，將遏製其最危險地區之一不斷升級的軍備競賽。 它將使核大國能夠更有效地應對 1963 年人類麵臨的最大危險之一，即核武器的進一步擴散。 它將增強我們的安全——它將減少戰爭的可能性。 當然，這一目標非常重要，需要我們堅定不移地追求，既不屈服於放棄全部努力的誘惑，也不屈服於放棄我們對重要和負責任的保障措施的堅持的誘惑。
因此，我借此機會宣布這方麵的兩項重要決定。
第一：赫魯曉夫主席、麥克米倫總理和我同意，高層討論將很快在莫斯科開始，尋求早日就全麵禁止核試驗條約達成一致。 我們的希望必須以曆史的警示來調和——但隨著我們的希望，全人類的希望也隨之而去。
第二：為了表明我們在這個問題上的誠意和莊嚴信念，我現在聲明，隻要其他國家不這樣做，美國就不打算進行大氣層核試驗。 我們不會是第一個恢複的。 這樣的聲明並不能取代正式的具有約束力的條約，但我希望它將幫助我們實現這一目標。 這樣的條約也不能取代裁軍，但我希望它將幫助我們實現這一目標。
最後，我的美國同胞們，讓我們審視一下我們對國內和平與自由的態度。 我們自己社會的品質和精神必須證明並支持我們在國外的努力。 我們必須通過自己的奉獻來體現這一點——就像今天畢業的你們中的許多人將有一個獨特的機會一樣，可以在國外的和平隊或在國內擬議的國民服役隊中無償服役。
但無論我們身在何處，我們都必須在日常生活中恪守和平與自由並存的古老信念。 今天，在我們太多的城市中，和平並不穩定，因為自由是不完全的。
各級政府（地方、州和國家）的行政部門有責任在其職權範圍內采取一切手段為我們所有公民提供和保護這種自由。 各級立法部門有責任在現有權力不夠充分的地方予以補充。 這個國家所有地區的所有公民都有責任尊重所有其他人的權利並尊重國家的法律。
這一切都與世界和平不無關係。 聖經告訴我們：“人所行的若蒙耶和華喜悅，耶和華就連他的仇敵也與他和好。” 歸根結底，和平本質上不就是一個人權問題嗎——我們有權過上自己的生活而不用擔心遭到破壞——呼吸大自然提供的空氣的權利——子孫後代享有健康的權利。 存在？
我們在維護國家利益的同時，也維護人類利益。 消除戰爭和武器顯然符合雙方的利益。 任何條約，無論它對所有人有多麽有利，無論措辭多麽嚴格，都不能提供絕對的安全保障，防止欺騙和逃避的風險。 但如果它的執行足夠有效，並且充分符合簽署者的利益，那麽它可以比有增無減、不受控製、不可預測的軍備競賽提供更多的安全性和更少的風險。
眾所周知，美國永遠不會發動戰爭。 我們不想要戰爭。 我們現在預計不會發生戰爭。 這一代美國人已經受夠了——而且已經受夠了——戰爭、仇恨和壓迫。 如果其他人願意，我們將做好準備。 我們要保持警惕，盡力阻止它。 但我們也應盡自己的一份力量，建設一個弱者安全、強者正義的和平世界。 麵對這項任務，我們並非束手無策，也並非對其成功無望。 我們充滿信心、無所畏懼，繼續努力——不是走向殲滅戰略，而是走向和平戰略。
Commencement Address at American University, Washington, D.C.
Listen to the speech. 
View related documents. 
President John F. Kennedy
Washington, D.C.
June 10, 1963
President Anderson, members of the faculty, board of trustees, distinguished guests, my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree through many years of attending night law school, while I am earning mine in the next 30 minutes, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:
It is with great pride that I participate in this ceremony of the American University, sponsored by the Methodist Church, founded by Bishop John Fletcher Hurst, and first opened by President Woodrow Wilson in 1914. This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst's enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted to the making of history and the conduct of the public's business. By sponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and the Nation deserve the Nation's thanks, and I commend all those who are today graduating.
Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university should be a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confident that the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institution will continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measure of public service and public support.
"There are few earthly things more beautiful than a university," wrote John Masefield in his tribute to English universities--and his words are equally true today. He did not refer to spires and towers, to campus greens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the university, he said, because it was "a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to make others see."
I have, therefore, chosen this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived--yet it is the most important topic on earth: world peace.
What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children--not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women--not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclear forces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makes no sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all the allied air forces in the Second World War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons produced by a nuclear exchange would be carried by wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations yet unborn.
Today the expenditure of billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purpose of making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace. But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles--which can only destroy and never create--is not the only, much less the most efficient, means of assuring peace.
I speak of peace, therefore, as the necessary rational end of rational men. I realize that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war--and frequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of world peace or world law or world disarmament--and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help them do it. But I also believe that we must reexamine our own attitude--as individuals and as a Nation--for our attitude is as essential as theirs. And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairs of war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward--by examining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the cold war and toward freedom and peace here at home.
First: Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is a dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable--that mankind is doomed--that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.
We need not accept that view. Our problems are manmade--therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable--and we believe they can do it again.
I am not referring to the absolute, infinite concept of peace and good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the value of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulity by making that our only and immediate goal.
Let us focus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace-- based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions--on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements which are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simple key to this peace--no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one or two powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. For peace is a process--a way of solving problems.
With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor--it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. However fixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.
So let us persevere. Peace need not be impracticable, and war need not be inevitable. By defining our goal more clearly, by making it seem more manageable and less remote, we can help all peoples to see it, to draw hope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.
Second: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It is discouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategy and find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims--such as the allegation that "American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of wars . . . that there is a very real threat of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union . . . [and that] the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economically and politically the European and other capitalist countries . . . [and] to achieve world domination . . . by means of aggressive wars."
Truly, as it was written long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yet it is sad to read these Soviet statements--to realize the extent of the gulf between us. But it is also a warning--a warning to the American people not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see only a distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than an exchange of threats.
No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.
Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.
Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.
In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.
So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.
Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.
We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists' interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy--or of a collective death-wish for the world.
To secure these ends, America's weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Our military forces are committed to peace and disciplined in self- restraint. Our diplomats are instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.
For we can seek a relaxation of tension without relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove that we are resolute. We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people--but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition with any people on earth.
Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system--a system capable of resolving disputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large and the small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally be abolished.
At the same time we seek to keep peace inside the non-Communist world, where many nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weaken Western unity, which invite Communist intervention or which threaten to erupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the Middle East, and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patient despite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an example for others--by seeking to adjust small but significant differences with our own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada.
Speaking of other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to many nations by alliances. Those alliances exist because our concern and theirs substantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and West Berlin, for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of our vital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Union at the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge.
Our interests converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope-- and the purpose of allied policies--to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, should let each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does not interfere with the choices of others. The Communist drive to impose their political and economic system on others is the primary cause of world tension today. For there can be no doubt that, if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, the peace would be much more assured.
This will require a new effort to achieve world law--a new context for world discussions. It will require increased understanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contact and communication. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangement for a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each side the dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other's actions which might occur at a time of crisis.
We have also been talking in Geneva about the other first-step measures of arms control designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks of accidental war. Our primary long range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament-- designed to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions of peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this Government since the 1920's. It has been urgently sought by the past three administrations. And however dim the prospects may be today, we intend to continue this effort--to continue it in order that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what the problems and possibilities of disarmament are.
The one major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight, yet where a fresh start is badly needed, is in a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests. The conclusion of such a treaty, so near and yet so far, would check the spiraling arms race in one of its most dangerous areas. It would place the nuclear powers in a position to deal more effectively with one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the further spread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security--it would decrease the prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to require our steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up the whole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital and responsible safeguards.
I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard.
First: Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan, and I have agreed that high-level discussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with the caution of history--but with our hopes go the hopes of all mankind.
Second: To make clear our good faith and solemn convictions on the matter, I now declare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not be the first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formal binding treaty, but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would such a treaty be a substitute for disarmament, but I hope it will help us achieve it.
Finally, my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedom here at home. The quality and spirit of our own society must justify and support our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our own lives--as many of you who are graduating today will have a unique opportunity to do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposed National Service Corps here at home.
But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-old faith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our cities today, the peace is not secure because the freedom is incomplete.
It is the responsibility of the executive branch at all levels of government--local, State, and National--to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizens by all means within their authority. It is the responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, to make it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in all sections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to respect the law of the land.
All this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man's ways please the Lord," the Scriptures tell us, "he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights--the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation--the right to breathe air as nature provided it--the right of future generations to a healthy existence?
While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both. No treaty, however much it may be to the advantage of all, however tightly it may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deception and evasion. But it can--if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement and if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers--offer far more security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictable arms race.
The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough--more than enough--of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. Confident and unafraid, we labor on--not toward a strategy of annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.
