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'm 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 towers or to campuses.
He admired the splendid beauty of a university, because
it was, he said, "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 place to discuss
a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the
truth too rarely perceived -- and that is the most important
topic on earth: peace.
What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a 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 -- and the kind that enables men and nations
to grow and to hope and 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 in all time.
I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total
war makes no sense in an age where 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 where 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 them is essential to the keeping of 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 the pursuit of peace
is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war -- and frequently
the words of the pursuers fall on deaf ears. But we
have no more urgent task.
Some say that it is useless to speak of 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
attitudes -- 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 towards the
possibilities of peace, towards the Soviet Union, towards
the course of the cold war and towards freedom and peace
here at home.
First: Examine our attitude towards peace itself. Too
many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it
is 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 man-made.
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 concepts
of universal peace and goodwill 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 agreement
which are in the interests 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 with 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 people to see it, to
draw hope from it and to move irresistibly towards it.
And second: Let us re-examine our attitude towards
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 war... that
there is a very real threat of a preventative war being
unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet
Union... (and that) the political aims," and I
quote, "of the American imperialists are to enslave
economically and politically the European and other
capitalist countries... (and) achieve world domination...
by means of aggressive war."
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, 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 in the second world war. At least 20 million
lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and families
were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory,
including two-thirds of its industrial base, was turned
into a wasteland -- a loss equivalent to the destruction
of this country east of Chicago.
Today, should total war ever break out again -- no
matter how -- our two countries will be 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 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 better be devoted to combat ignorance, poverty,
and disease.
We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle
with suspicion on one side breeding suspicion on the
other, and new weapons begetting 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
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 futures. And
we are all mortal.
Third: Let us re-examine our attitude towards 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 eighteen 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. And 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 non-provocative,
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 tensions without relaxing
our guard. And for our part, we do not need to use threats
to prove 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 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 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, 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, misunderstanding,
and misreadings of the other's actions which might occur
at a time of crisis.
We have also been talking in Geneva about our first-step
measures of arms control, designed to limit the intensity
of the arms race and reduce the risk 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 are 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 the possibilities of disarmament are.
The only 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 towards 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 this 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
towards peace and freedom here at home. The quality
and spirit of our own society must justify and support
our efforts abroad. We must show in the dedication of
our own lives -- as many of you who are graduating today
will have an 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 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 our authority. It is the
responsibility of the legislative branch at all levels,
whenever the 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 others and respect the laws 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 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 must labor on
-- not towards a strategy of annihilation but towards
a strategy of peace. Thank you. |
