American-University-Commencement-Address肯尼迪在美国大学毕业典礼上的演说.doc

在美国大学毕业典礼上的演说American University Commencement Address肯尼迪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 Hursts enlightened hope for the study of history andpublicaffairs in a city devoted to the making of history and to the conduct of thepublics 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 Nations 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 highmeasureofpublicservice andpublicsupport. 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 themostimportant topic on earth: peace. What kind of peace do I mean and what kind of a peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americanaenforced 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 almostten 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 theacquisitionof such idlestockpiles - which can onlydestroyand never create - is not the only, much less themostefficient, 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, andfrequently 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 reexamine 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. Ourproblemsare 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. Mans 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 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 aseriesof concrete actions and effectiveagreements 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 solvingproblems.With such a peace, there will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, as there are within families and nations. World peace, likecommunitypeace, does not require that each man love hisneighbor, it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting theirdisputes to a just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. Howeverfixed our likes and dislikes may seem, the tide of time and events will often bring surprising changes in the relations between nations andneighbors. 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 reexamine our attitude towards the Soviet Union. It isdiscouragingto think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write. It isdiscouragingto read a recent, authoritative Soviet text onmilitarystrategy 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 preventive 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 to achieve world domination by means of aggressive war.Truly, as it was written long ago: The wickedfleewhen 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.Nogovernmentorsocialsystem 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. Almostunique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history ofbattleever 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 nationsterritory, including two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland - a loss equivalent to the destruction of this countryeastof Chicago.Today, should total war ever break out again - no matter how - our two countries will be the primary target. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in themostdanger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would bedestroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many countries, including this Nations 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 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 themosthostile 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 leastwe can help make the world safe for diversity. For in the final analysis, ourmostbasic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our childrens futures. And we are all mortal.Third, let us reexamine our attitude towards the cold war, remembering were 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. 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 beevidenceonly of the bankruptcy of ourpolicy- or of a collective death-wish for the world.To secure these ends, Americas weapons are nonprovocative, carefully controlled, designed to deter, and capable of selective use. Ourmilitaryforces 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 oftensionswithout relaxing our guard. And, for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove we are resolute. We do not need to jamforeignbroadcasts 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 financialproblems, to make it a more effective instrument for peace, to develop it into a genuine world security system - a system capable of resolvingdisputes 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. Ourefforts 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 butsignificantdifferences with our own closestneighbors 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 theirssubstantially overlap. Ourcommitmentto 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 alliedpolicy, toconvincethe 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 neweffortto achieve world law, a new context for world discussions. It will require increasedunderstanding between the Soviets and ourselves. And increasedunderstanding 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 others actions which might occur at a time ofcrisis.We have also been talking in Geneva about our first-stepmeasures of arms controls 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