President John
F. Kennedy
June
10, 1963
|
|
President Kennedy spoke at American University's Spring Commencement
on June 10, 1963. In this speech Kennedy called on the Soviet Union
to work with the United States to achieve a nuclear
test ban treaty and help reduce the considerable international tensions and the specter
of nuclear war at that time.
|
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, 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 to 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 the English Universities - - and his words
are equally true here. 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, chose this time and this place to discuss a topic on which
ignorance too often abounds and the truth is to 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 man and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better
life for their children - - not merely peace for Americans by 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 of 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 the wind and water and soil
and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations 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 re-examine 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 of us think it is unreal. But that is 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 universal peace and
good will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny the
values 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 re-examine
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.
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, accommodations 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 ironical 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 countries, 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 counter-weapons.
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 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 planet. We all breathe the
same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.
Third:
Let us re-examine 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 history
of the last eighteen years been different.
We must,
therefore, preserve 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 vital interest, 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 non-provocative, carefully controlled,
designed to deter and capable of selective use. Our military forces are
committed to peace and disciplines in self-restraint. Our diplomats are
instructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.
For we
can seek a relaxation of tensions 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 of 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. These 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, then 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 communications. 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 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 won 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 graduation 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 duties
today, the peace is not secure because 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 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.
|