President John Fitzgerald Kennedy – American University Speech: On Peace and America

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 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
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 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
than 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 to
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 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 this 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 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 with 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 see, 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 unlease 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 achivements – 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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.