螺旋送料:President Kennedy Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Speech, American University 1963 Commencement

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.

PresidentAnderson, members of the faculty, Board of Trustees, distinguished guests,my old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree throughmany years of attending night law school, while I am earning mine in thenext 30 minutes, ladies and gentlemen:

It iswith 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 youngand growing university, but it has already fulfilled Bishop Hurst's enlightenedhope for the study of history and public affairs in a city devoted tothe making of history and to the conduct of the public's business. Bysponsoring this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learnwhatever their color or their creed, the Methodists of this area and thenation deserve the nation's thanks, and I commend all those who are todaygraduating.

ProfessorWoodrow Wilson once said that every man sent out from a university shouldbe a man of his nation as well as a man of his time, and I am confidentthat the men and women who carry the honor of graduating from this institutionwill continue to give from their lives, from their talents, a high measureof public service and public support.

"Thereare few earthly things more beautiful than a University," wrote JohnMasefield, in his tribute to the English Universities - - and his wordsare equally true here. He did not refer to spires and towers, to campusgreens and ivied walls. He admired the splendid beauty of the University,he said, because it was " a place where those who hate ignorancemay strive to know, where those who perceive truth may strive to makeothers see."

I have,therefore, chose this time and this place to discuss a topic on whichignorance too often abounds and the truth is to rarely perceived - - yetit is the most important topic on earth : world peace.

Whatkind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americanaenforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of thegrave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace -- the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living -- the kindthat enables man and nations to grow and to hope and to build a betterlife for their children - - not merely peace for Americans by peace forall men and women - - not merely peace in our time but peace for all time.

I speakof peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in anage when great powers can maintain large and relatively invulnerable nuclearforces and refuse to surrender without resort to those forces. It makesno sense in an age when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten timesthe explosive force delivered by all of the allied air forces in the SecondWorld War. It makes no sense in an age when the deadly poisons producedby a nuclear exchange would be carried by the wind and water and soiland seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations unborn.

Today the expenditureof billions of dollars every year on weapons acquired for the purposeof making sure we never need to use them is essential to keeping the peace.But surely the acquisition of such idle stockpiles - - which can onlydestroy 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 thatthe pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war - - andfrequently the words of the pursuer fall on deaf ears. But we have nomore urgent task.

Some say that itis 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 adopta more enlightened attitude. I hope they do. I believe we can help themdo it. But I also believe that we must re-examine our own attitude - asindividuals and as a Nation - - for our attitude is as essential as theirs.And every graduate of this school, every thoughtful citizen who despairsof war and wishes to bring peace, should begin by looking inward - - byexamining his own attitude toward the possibilities of peace, toward theSoviet Union, toward the course of the Cold War and toward freedom andpeace here at home.

First:Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us thinkit 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 neednot accept that view. Our problems are manmade - - therefore, they canbe solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of humandestiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solvedthe seemingly unsolvable - - and we believe they can do it again.

I amnot referring to the absolute, infinite concept of universal peace andgood will of which some fantasies and fanatics dream. I do not deny thevalues of hopes and dreams but we merely invite discouragement and incredulityby making that our only and immediate goal.

Let usfocus instead on a more practical, more attainable peace - - based noton a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in humaninstitutions - -on a series of concrete actions and effective agreementswhich are in the interest of all concerned. There is no single, simplekey to this peace - - no grand or magic formula to be adopted by one ortwo powers. Genuine peace must be the product of many nations, the sumof many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challengeof each new generation. For peace is a process - - a way of solving problems.

Withsuch a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests,as there are within families and nations. World peace, like communitypeace, does not require that each man love his neighbor - - it requiresonly that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputesto a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmitiesbetween nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. Howeverfixed our likes and dislikes may seem the tide of time and events willoften bring surprising changes in the relations between nations and neighbors.

So letus persevere. Peace need not be impracticable - - and war need not beinevitable. By defining our goal more clearly - - by making it seem moremanageable and less remote - - we can help all peoples to see it, to drawhope from it, and to move irresistibly toward it.

Second: Let us re-examineour attitude toward the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to think thattheir leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It isdiscouraging to read a recent authoritative Soviet text on Military Strategyand find, on page after page, wholly baseless and incredible claims - -such as the allegation that " American imperialist circles are preparing to unleashdifferent types of wars…that there is a very real threat of a preventivewar being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union…(andthat) the political aims of the American imperialists are to enslave economicallyand politically the European and other capitalist countries…(and)to achieve world domination.

Truly, as it waswritten long ago: "The wicked flee when no man pursueth." Yetit is sad to read these Soviet statements - - to realize the extent ofthe gulf between us. But it is also a warning - - a warning to the Americanpeople not to fall into the same trap as the Soviets, not to see onlya distorted and desperate view of the other side, not to see conflictas inevitable, accommodations as impossible and communication as nothingmore than an exchange of threats.

No government or social system is so evil that its people must be consideredas lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnantas a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail theRussian people for their many achievements - - in science and space, ineconomic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Amongthe many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, noneis stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique, among themajor world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And nonation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Unionsuffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million losttheir lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked.A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of itsindustrial base, was turned into a wasteland - - a loss equivalent tothe devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today,should total war ever break out again - - no matter how - - our two countrieswould become the primary targets. It is an ironical but accurate factthat 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 first24 hours. And even in the Cold War, which brings burdens and dangers toso many countries, including this Nation's closest allies - - our twocountries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massivesums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance,poverty and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerouscycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, andnew 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 haltingthe arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the SovietUnion as well as ours -- and even the most hostile nations can be reliedupon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treatyobligations, which are in their own interest.

So, letus not be blind to our differences - - but let us also direct attentionto our common interests and to means by which those differences can beresolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can helpmake the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our mostbasic common link is that we all inhabit this planet. We all breathe thesame 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 weare not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We arenot here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We mustdeal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had historyof the last eighteen years been different.

We must,therefore, preserve in the search for peace in the hope that constructivechanges within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions whichnow seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that itbecomes in the Communists' interest to agree on a genuine peace. Aboveall, while defending our vital interest, nuclear powers must avert thoseconfrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliatingretreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclearage would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy - - or of acollective death-wish for the world.

To securethese ends, America's weapons are non-provocative, carefully controlled,designed to deter and capable of selective use. Our military forces arecommitted to peace and disciplines in self-restraint. Our diplomats areinstructed to avoid unnecessary irritants and purely rhetorical hostility.

For wecan seek a relaxation of tensions without relaxing our guard. And, forour 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 beeroded. We are unwilling to impose our system on any unwilling people- - but we are willing and able to engage in peaceful competition withany people on earth.

Meanwhile,we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financialproblems, to make it a more effective instrument of peace, to developit into a genuine world security system - - a system capable of resolvingdisputes on the basis of law, of insuring the security of the large andthe small, and of creating conditions under which arms can finally beabolished.

At thesame time we seek to keep peace inside the non-communist world, wheremany nations, all of them our friends, are divided over issues which weakenwestern unity, which invite communist intervention or which threaten toerupt into war. Our efforts in West New Guinea, in the Congo, in the MiddleEast and in the Indian subcontinent, have been persistent and patientdespite criticism from both sides. We have also tried to set an examplefor others - - by seeking to adjust small but significant differenceswith our own closest neighbors in Mexico and in Canada.

Speakingof other nations, I wish to make one point clear. We are bound to manynations by alliances. These alliances exist because our concern and theirssubstantially overlap. Our commitment to defend Western Europe and WestBerlin for example, stands undiminished because of the identity of ourvital interests. The United States will make no deal with the Soviet Unionat the expense of other nations and other peoples, not merely becausethey are our partners, but also because their interests and ours converge.

Our interestsconverge, however not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, butin pursuing the paths of peace. It is our hope - - and the purpose ofAllied policies - - to convince the Soviet Union that she, too, shouldlet each nation choose its own future, so long as that choice does notinterfere with the choices of others. The communist drive to impose theirpolitical and economic system on others is the primary cause of worldtension today. For there can be no doubt that if all nations could refrainfrom interfering in the self-determination of others, then peace wouldbe much more assured.

Thiswill require a new effort to achieve world law - - a new context for worlddiscussions. It will require increased understanding between the Sovietsand ourselves. And increased understanding will require increased contactand communications. One step in this direction is the proposed arrangementfor a direct line between Moscow and Washington, to avoid on each sidethe dangerous delays, misunderstandings, and misreadings of the other'sactions which might occur at a time of crisis.

We havealso 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 risksof 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 institutionsof peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmamenthas been an effort of this Government since the 1920's. It has been urgentlysought by the past three Administrations. And however dim the prospectsmay be today, we intend to continue this effort - - to continue it inorder that all countries, including our own, can better grasp what theproblems and possibilities of disarmament are.

Theone major area of these negotiations where the end is in sight- - yetwhere a fresh start is badly needed - - is in a treaty to outlaw nucleartests. 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 effectivelywith one of the greatest hazards which man faces in 1963, the furtherspread of nuclear arms. It would increase our security - - it would decreasethe prospects of war. Surely this goal is sufficiently important to requireour steady pursuit, yielding neither to the temptation to give up thewhole effort nor the temptation to give up our insistence on vital andresponsible safeguards.

I amtaking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisionsin this regard.

First:Chairman Khrushchev, Prime Minister Macmillan and I have agreed that high-leveldiscussions will shortly begin in Moscow looking toward early agreementon a comprehensive test ban treaty. Our hopes must be tempered with thecaution 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 nowdeclare that the United States does not propose to conduct nuclear testsin the atmosphere so long as other states do not do so. We will not bethe first to resume. Such a declaration is no substitute for a formalbinding treaty - - but I hope it will help us achieve one. Nor would sucha treaty be a substitute for disarmament - - but I hope it will help usachieve it.

Finally,my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace and freedomhere at home. The quality and spirit of our won society must justify andsupport our efforts abroad. We must show it in the dedication of our ownlives - - as many of you who are graduation today will have a unique opportunityto do, by serving without pay in the Peace Corps abroad or in the proposedNational Service Corps here at home.

But wherever we are, we must all, in our daily lives, live up to the age-oldfaith that peace and freedom walk together. In too many of our dutiestoday, the peace is not secure because freedom is incomplete.

It is the responsibilityof the Executive Branch at all levels of government - - local, state andnational - - to provide and protect that freedom for all of our citizensby all means within their authority. It is the responsibility of the LegislativeBranch at all levels, wherever that authority is not now adequate, tomake it adequate. And it is the responsibility of all citizens in allsections of this country to respect the rights of all others and to respectthe law of the land.

All this is not unrelatedto world peace. "When a man's ways please the Lord," the Scripturestell us, "he maketh even his enemies to be at peace with him." Andis not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter human rights -- the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation - - theright to breathe air as nature provided it - - the right of future generationsto a healthy existence?

While we proceed tosafeguard 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 tightlyit may be worded, can provide absolute security against the risks of deceptionand evasion. But it can - - if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcementand if it is sufficiently in the interests of its signers - - offer farmore security and far fewer risks than an unabated, uncontrolled, unpredictablearms race.

The United States,as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We donot now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough- - more than enough - - of war and hate and oppression. We shall be preparedif others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall alsodo our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and thestrong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of itssuccess. Confident and unafraid, we labor on - - not toward a strategyof annihilation but toward a strategy of peace.