风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
1963 肯尼迪华盛顿大学毕业典礼致辞
https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-speeches/american-university-19630610
约翰·F·肯尼迪总统，华盛顿特区，1963 年 6 月 10 日
安德森校长、各位教员、董事会成员、尊敬的来宾、我的老同事、参议员鲍勃·伯德（Bob Byrd），他通过多年上夜校法学院获得了学位，而我将在接下来的 30 分钟内获得我的学位，尊敬的来宾 ， 女士们，先生们：
我非常自豪地参加美利坚大学的典礼，该大学由卫理公会教堂赞助，由约翰·弗莱彻·赫斯特主教创立，并由伍德罗·威尔逊总统于 1914 年首次揭牌。这是一所年轻且正在成长的大学，但它 已经实现了赫斯特主教的开明希望，即在一个致力于创造历史和开展公共事务的城市中研究历史和公共事务。 通过为所有希望学习的人赞助这所高等教育机构，无论他们的肤色或信仰如何，该地区和国家的卫理公会教徒值得国家的感谢，我赞扬所有今天毕业的人。
伍德罗·威尔逊教授曾经说过，每一个从大学毕业的人都应该是他的国家的人，也是他那个时代的人，我相信从这所大学毕业的男女将继续 他们用自己的生命和才华，提供了大量的公共服务和公共支持。
约翰·梅斯菲尔德在向英国大学致敬时写道：“世上没有什么比大学更美丽的了”——他的话在今天同样适用。 他没有提到尖塔和塔楼，也没有提到校园的绿地和爬满常春藤的墙壁。 他说，他很欣赏大学的绚丽之美，因为它是“一个让那些憎恨无知的人努力求知、让那些感知真理的人努力让别人明白的地方”。
因此，我选择这个时候这个地方来讨论一个常常被无知充斥、真相鲜为人知的话题——但它却是地球上最重要的话题：世界和平。
我所说的平安是什么意思？ 我们寻求什么样的和平？ 这不是靠美国战争武器强加给世界的美式治下的和平。 不是坟墓的平安，也不是奴隶的安全。 我说的是真正的和平，这种和平使地球上的生活变得有价值，使人类和国家能够成长、充满希望并为他们的孩子建设更美好的生活——不仅是美国人的和平，而且是美国人民的和平。 所有男人和女人——不仅是我们这个时代的和平，而且是永远的和平。
我之所以谈论和平，是因为战争出现了新的面貌。 在大国能够维持庞大且相对坚不可摧的核力量并且在不诉诸这些力量的情况下拒绝投降的时代，全面战争是没有意义的。 在一个核武器的爆炸力几乎是第二次世界大战中所有盟军空军的十倍的时代，这是没有意义的。 在这样一个时代，核交换产生的致命毒物将被风、水、土壤和种子带到地球的各个角落，并传给尚未出生的后代，这是没有意义的。
如今，每年花费数十亿美元购买武器，以确保我们永远不需要使用它们，这对于维护和平至关重要。 但可以肯定的是，获取此类闲置库存——这只会摧毁，永远不会创造——并不是确保和平的唯一手段，更不是最有效的手段。
因此，我将和平视为理性人必要的理性目标。 我意识到，追求和平并不像追求战争那样引人注目——而且追求者的话常常被置若罔闻。 但我们没有更紧迫的任务。
有人说，谈世界和平、世界法、世界裁军是没有用的，除非苏联领导人采取更加开明的态度，否则这些都是没有用的。 我希望他们这样做。 我相信我们可以帮助他们做到这一点。 但我也相信，我们必须重新审视我们自己的态度——作为个人和国家——因为我们的态度和他们的态度一样重要。 这所学校的每一位毕业生，每一位对战争感到绝望、希望实现和平的有思想的公民，都应该从审视自己开始，审视自己对和平可能性、对苏联、对冷战进程的态度。 并在国内争取自由与和平。
首先：让我们审视一下我们对和平本身的态度。 我们太多人认为这是不可能的。 太多人认为这不真实。 但这是一种危险的、失败主义的信念。 它得出这样的结论：战争是不可避免的——人类注定要灭亡——我们被我们无法控制的力量所控制。
我们不必接受这种观点。 我们的问题是人为的——因此，它们可以由人来解决。 人可以随心所欲地伟大。 没有人类设计的问题
微小超出了人类的范围。 人类的理性和精神经常解决看似无法解决的问题——而且我们相信他们可以再次做到这一点。
我并不是指一些幻想者和狂热分子所梦想的绝对的、无限的和平与善意的概念。 我并不否认希望和梦想的价值，但我们将其作为我们唯一且直接的目标，只会招致沮丧和怀疑。
相反，让我们把重点放在更实际、更容易实现的和平上——不是基于人性的突然革命，而是基于人类制度的逐步演变——基于一系列符合有关各方利益的具体行动和有效协议。 。 这种和平没有单一、简单的关键，也没有可供一两个国家采用的宏大或神奇的公式。 真正的和平必须是许多国家的产物，是许多行动的总和。 它必须是动态的，而不是静态的，不断变化，以应对每一代人的挑战。 因为和平是一个过程——解决问题的一种方式。
即使有了这样的和平，仍然会有争吵和利益冲突，就像家庭和国家内部一样。 世界和平，就像社区和平一样，并不要求每个人都爱他的邻居，而只需要他们相互宽容地生活在一起，将他们的争端提交给公正和平的解决。 历史告诉我们，国家之间和个人之间的敌意不会永远持续下去。 无论我们的好恶看起来多么固定，时间和事件的潮流往往会给国家和邻国之间的关系带来惊人的变化。
所以让我们坚持下去。 和平不一定是不切实际的，战争也不一定是不可避免的。 通过更明确地界定我们的目标，通过使其看起来更易于管理、更不那么遥远，我们可以帮助所有人看到它，从中汲取希望，并不可抗拒地朝着它前进。
第二：让我们重新审视一下我们对苏联的态度。 想到他们的领导人可能真的相信他们的宣传人员所写的东西，就令人沮丧。 令人沮丧的是，阅读最近关于军事战略的苏联权威文本，发现一页又一页完全毫无根据和令人难以置信的主张，例如“美帝国主义圈子正准备发动不同类型的战争…… 是美帝国主义者对苏联发动预防性战争的一个非常现实的威胁……[而且]美帝国主义的政治目标是在经济和政治上奴役欧洲和其他资本主义国家……[和] ……通过侵略战争来实现世界统治。”
确实，正如很久以前所写的那样：“无人追赶时，恶人就逃跑了。” 然而，读到这些苏联的声明却令人悲伤——意识到我们之间的鸿沟有多大。 但这也是一个警告——警告美国人民不要落入苏联人的陷阱，不要只看到对方扭曲和绝望的观点，不要认为冲突是不可避免的，和解是不可能的， 沟通只不过是威胁的交换。
没有一个政府或社会制度邪恶到其人民被认为缺乏道德的程度。 作为美国人，我们对共产主义深恶痛绝，因为它否定了个人自由和尊严。 但我们仍然可以赞扬俄罗斯人民在科学和太空、经济和工业增长、文化和勇气方面取得的许多成就。
在我们两国人民的众多共同点中，最强烈的莫过于我们对战争的共同厌恶。 我们之间从未发生过战争，这在世界主要大国中几乎是绝无仅有的。 在战争史上，没有哪个国家比苏联在第二次世界大战中遭受的苦难还要多。 至少有 2000 万人丧生。 无数房屋和农场被烧毁或洗劫。 该国三分之一的领土，包括近三分之二的工业基地，变成了荒地——这种损失相当于芝加哥以东的这个国家遭到的破坏。
今天，如果全面战争再次爆发——无论如何——我们两国都将成为首要目标。 具有讽刺意味但又准确的事实是，两个最强的国家正是最有可能遭受毁灭的两个国家。 我们所建造的一切、我们所努力的一切，都将在最初的 24 小时内被摧毁。 即使在给许多国家，包括这个国家最亲密的盟友，带来负担和危险的冷战中，我们两国也承受着最沉重的负担。 因为我们都投入了大量资金来购买武器，这些武器可以更好地用于对抗无知、贫困和疾病。 我们都陷入了一种恶性和危险的循环，一方的怀疑会引发另一方的怀疑，新武器会产生反武器。
简而言之，美国及其盟国、苏联及其盟国都对公正和真正的和平以及停止军备竞赛有着切身的利益。 A
为此目的达成的条约既符合苏联的利益，也符合我们的利益——甚至可以相信，即使是最敌对的国家也会接受并遵守这些条约义务，而且只接受那些符合其自身利益的条约义务。
因此，我们不要忽视我们的分歧，而应该关注我们的共同利益以及解决这些分歧的方式。 如果我们现在不能结束我们的分歧，至少我们可以帮助世界变得对多样性来说是安全的。 因为，归根结底，我们最基本的共同联系是我们都居住在这个小星球上。 我们都呼吸着同样的空气。 我们都珍惜孩子的未来。 我们都是凡人。
第三：让我们重新审视我们对冷战的态度，记住我们不是在进行辩论，试图堆积争论点。 我们并不是在这里指责或指责。 我们必须按照世界本来的样子来对待世界，而不是按照过去 18 年的历史不同的方式来对待世界。
因此，我们必须坚持不懈地寻求和平，希望共产主义集团内部的建设性变革能够带来我们现在看来无法实现的解决方案。 我们处理事务的方式必须符合共产党人的利益，就真正的和平达成一致。 最重要的是，在捍卫我们自己的切身利益的同时，核大国必须避免那些导致对手选择羞辱性撤退或核战争的对抗。 在核时代采取这种做法只能证明我们的政策破产，或者表明我们对世界抱有集体死亡的愿望。
为了实现这些目标，美国的武器是非挑衅性的、严格控制的、旨在威慑的，并且能够有选择地使用。 我们的军队致力于和平并严守纪律。 我们的外交官被指示避免不必要的刺激和纯粹的言辞敌意。
因为我们可以在不放松警惕的情况下寻求紧张的缓解。 而我们也不需要用威胁来证明我们的决心。 我们不需要因为担心我们的信仰受到侵蚀而干扰外国广播。 我们不愿意把我们的制度强加给任何不情愿的人，但我们愿意并且能够与地球上任何人进行和平竞争。
与此同时，我们寻求加强联合国，帮助解决其财政问题，使其成为更有效的和平工具，将其发展成为一个真正的世界安全体系——一个能够在法律基础上解决争端的体系， 确保大小国家的安全，并为最终废除武器创造条件。
与此同时，我们力求维护非共产主义世界内部的和平，在这些世界中，许多国家（它们都是我们的朋友）在削弱西方团结、招致共产主义干预或威胁爆发战争的问题上存在分歧。 尽管受到双方的批评，我们在西新几内亚、刚果、中东和印度次大陆的努力一直坚持不懈、耐心等待。 我们还试图为其他国家树立榜样，努力调整与我们最近的邻国墨西哥和加拿大之间微小但重大的差异。
说到其他国家，我想澄清一点。 我们与许多国家结盟。 这些联盟的存在是因为我们的关注点和他们的关注点有很大的重叠。 例如，由于我们的切身利益相同，我们对保卫西欧和西柏林的承诺并未减弱。 美国不会以牺牲其他国家和人民的利益为代价与苏联达成协议，这不仅因为他们是我们的伙伴，而且因为他们的利益与我们的利益是一致的。
然而，我们的利益一致，不仅在于捍卫自由的边界，而且在于追求和平的道路。 我们的希望——也是盟国政策的目的——让苏联相信，她也应该让每个国家选择自己的未来，只要这个选择不干扰其他国家的选择。 共产党将自己的政治和经济制度强加于人的行为是当今世界紧张局势的主要原因。 因为毫无疑问，如果所有国家都能不干涉别国的自决，和平就会更有保障。
这将需要新的努力来实现世界法——为世界讨论提供新的背景。 这需要苏联和我们之间加强了解。 增加了解需要增加接触和沟通。 朝这个方向迈出的一步是提议安排莫斯科和华盛顿之间的直达线路，以避免双方在危机时刻可能发生的危险的延误、误解和误读对方行动。
我们还在日内瓦讨论了设计的其他军控第一步措施
限制军备竞赛的强度并减少意外战争的风险。 然而，我们在日内瓦的主要长期利益是全面彻底裁军——旨在分阶段进行，允许平行的政治发展，以建立新的和平机构来取代武器。 自 1920 年代以来，本届政府一直致力于实现裁军。 过去三届政府一直在迫切寻求这一目标。 无论今天的前景多么黯淡，我们都打算继续这一努力，继续努力，以便包括我国在内的所有国家能够更好地认识裁军的问题和可能性。
这些谈判即将结束但又急需重新开始的一个主要领域是制定一项禁止核试验的条约。 这样一项条约的缔结，如此之近却又如此遥远，将遏制其最危险地区之一不断升级的军备竞赛。 它将使核大国能够更有效地应对 1963 年人类面临的最大危险之一，即核武器的进一步扩散。 它将增强我们的安全——它将减少战争的可能性。 当然，这一目标非常重要，需要我们坚定不移地追求，既不屈服于放弃全部努力的诱惑，也不屈服于放弃我们对重要和负责任的保障措施的坚持的诱惑。
因此，我借此机会宣布这方面的两项重要决定。
第一：赫鲁晓夫主席、麦克米伦总理和我同意，高层讨论将很快在莫斯科开始，寻求早日就全面禁止核试验条约达成一致。 我们的希望必须以历史的警示来调和——但随着我们的希望，全人类的希望也随之而去。
第二：为了表明我们在这个问题上的诚意和庄严信念，我现在声明，只要其他国家不这样做，美国就不打算进行大气层核试验。 我们不会是第一个恢复的。 这样的声明并不能取代正式的具有约束力的条约，但我希望它将帮助我们实现这一目标。 这样的条约也不能取代裁军，但我希望它将帮助我们实现这一目标。
最后，我的美国同胞们，让我们审视一下我们对国内和平与自由的态度。 我们自己社会的品质和精神必须证明并支持我们在国外的努力。 我们必须通过自己的奉献来体现这一点——就像今天毕业的你们中的许多人将有一个独特的机会一样，可以在国外的和平队或在国内拟议的国民服役队中无偿服役。
但无论我们身在何处，我们都必须在日常生活中恪守和平与自由并存的古老信念。 今天，在我们太多的城市中，和平并不稳定，因为自由是不完全的。
各级政府（地方、州和国家）的行政部门有责任在其职权范围内采取一切手段为我们所有公民提供和保护这种自由。 各级立法部门有责任在现有权力不够充分的地方予以补充。 这个国家所有地区的所有公民都有责任尊重所有其他人的权利并尊重国家的法律。
这一切都与世界和平不无关系。 圣经告诉我们：“人所行的若蒙耶和华喜悦，耶和华就连他的仇敌也与他和好。” 归根结底，和平本质上不就是一个人权问题吗——我们有权过上自己的生活而不用担心遭到破坏——呼吸大自然提供的空气的权利——子孙后代享有健康的权利。 存在？
我们在维护国家利益的同时，也维护人类利益。 消除战争和武器显然符合双方的利益。 任何条约，无论它对所有人有多么有利，无论措辞多么严格，都不能提供绝对的安全保障，防止欺骗和逃避的风险。 但如果它的执行足够有效，并且充分符合签署者的利益，那么它可以比有增无减、不受控制、不可预测的军备竞赛提供更多的安全性和更少的风险。
众所周知，美国永远不会发动战争。 我们不想要战争。 我们现在预计不会发生战争。 这一代美国人已经受够了——而且已经受够了——战争、仇恨和压迫。 如果其他人愿意，我们将做好准备。 我们要保持警惕，尽力阻止它。 但我们也应尽自己的一份力量，建设一个弱者安全、强者正义的和平世界。 面对这项任务，我们并非束手无策，也并非对其成功无望。 我们充满信心、无所畏惧，继续努力——不是走向歼灭战略，而是走向和平战略。
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.
