肯尼迪于1963年在美國大學畢業(yè)典禮上的演講

肯尼迪于1963年在美國大學畢業(yè)典禮上的演講 英文版

delivered 10 June 1963

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 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 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 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 target. 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 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 reexamine our attitude towards the cold war, remembering we're 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 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 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. 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 policy, 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 others' actions which might occur at a time of crisis.

We have also been talking in Geneva about our first-step measures of arm[s] 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 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 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'm 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 hope must be tempered—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—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 it 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, wherever 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 law of the land.

All this—All this is not unrelated to world peace. "When a man's way 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.

肯尼迪于1963年在美國大學畢業(yè)典禮上的演講 中文版

1963年6月10日

安德森校長、員工們、董事會、我的老同事鮑勃·伯德參議員(伯德參議員上了多年法律夜校才取得學位，而我將在隨后的30分鐘取得學位)、貴賓們、女士們、先生們：

我為出席這次典禮而感到非常自豪。美國大學是衛(wèi)理公會贊助、約翰·弗萊徹·赫斯特主教創(chuàng)辦、伍德羅·威爾遜總統(tǒng)于1914年揭幕的學校。這是一所正在成長的年輕大學，卻已經實現了赫斯特主教的開明夙愿，即在致力于創(chuàng)造歷史和處理公共事務的城市研究歷史和公共事務。本地和全國的衛(wèi)理公會派信徒們?yōu)樗杏兄緦W習者贊助了這所高等學府，不論其膚色和信仰，他們?yōu)榇藨數玫絿业母兄x。我向今天畢業(yè)的全體學生表示祝賀。

伍德羅·威爾遜教授曾經說過，大學送出的每個人都應當是國家的人，也應當是其時代的人。我相信，從這所學府光榮畢業(yè)的男生和女生會繼續(xù)奉獻其年華和才智，努力服務和扶助大眾。

約翰·梅斯菲爾德在其對英國大學的贊美之辭中寫道：“塵世間很少有事物能與大學媲美。”他的話在今天同樣千真萬確。他指的不是高聳的塔尖和雄偉的大廈，也不是綠樹成蔭的校園和攀滿藤蔓的墻壁。他說，他贊賞大學的輝煌之美是因為“在這里，憎恨無知者可孜孜求學，諳悉真理者可解惑于人”。

因此，我選擇此時此地來討論一個話題。關于此話題，常常是無知者多而識真理者寡，但這恰恰是世上最重要的話題，這就是世界和平。

那么我指的是哪種和平呢?我們尋求的是哪種和平呢?不是靠美國戰(zhàn)爭武器強加給世界的美式和平，也不是墳墓般的平靜或奴隸式的安全。我所說的是名副其實的和平，是那種使世人生活有意義的和平，是那種讓人類和國家能夠興旺發(fā)達和充滿希望并且能夠為其子孫創(chuàng)造更美好生活的和平。這不僅是美國人的和平，而是全人類的和平;不僅是我們這個時代的和平，而是永世的和平。

我之所以談到和平，是因為戰(zhàn)爭有了新面孔。在當今時代，全面戰(zhàn)爭毫無意義，因為世界強國能夠保有龐大且相對牢不可破的核力量，并且拒絕對投降者訴諸核力量。因為一件核武器的爆炸力幾乎10倍于二戰(zhàn)期間所有盟國空軍所投放的爆炸力。因為核交戰(zhàn)產生的致命毒素會通過風、水、土壤和種子傳播到世界每個角落，傳給尚未出生的世世代代。

今天，我們每年要在武器上花費數十億美元，而這恰恰是為了確保我們永遠不需要使用武器，這對于保衛(wèi)和平是必要的。但肯定的是，采購這種只會毀滅不會創(chuàng)造的閑置軍備不是保障和平的唯一手段，更不是最有效的手段。

因此，我是將和平作為每一個理性的人所必需的理性終極目標來談論。我知道追求和平沒有追求戰(zhàn)爭那么引人注目，況且追求和平者之詞常常被當成耳旁風。但這是我們緊迫無比的任務。

有人說，談論世界和平、世界法或世界裁軍毫無用處，除非蘇聯(lián)領導人采取更為開明的態(tài)度。但愿他們這樣做。我認為我們可以幫助他們這樣做。但我還認為，我們作為個人和作為一個國家，必須檢討自己的態(tài)度，因為我們的態(tài)度與他們的態(tài)度同樣至關重要。本校的每位畢業(yè)生，每位對戰(zhàn)爭失望而希望實現和平的深思熟慮的公民，都應當從自省做起，都應當從檢討自己的態(tài)度做起，檢討自己對和平的可能性、對蘇聯(lián)、對冷戰(zhàn)路線以及對本國之自由與和平的態(tài)度。

第一，我們要檢討自己對和平本身的態(tài)度。我們當中有很多人認為和平是不可能的。很多人認為這是不現實的。然而，這是一種危險的失敗主義觀念。這種觀念得出的結論是，戰(zhàn)爭不可避免，人類在劫難逃，我們受制于我們無法控制的力量。

我們并非一定要接受這種觀點。我們的問題是人造成的，因此可以由人來解決。而人的心有多大，其能力就有多大。涉及人類命運的問題無一超出人類的能力。人的理性和精神經常使貌似無解的問題得到解決，我們相信人的理性和精神可以再次奏效。

我指的不是某些幻想家和狂熱派所夢想的那種絕對的、無限的和平與親善的概念。我不否認希望與夢想的價值，但是，我們如果將其作為唯一的近期目標，則只會導致氣餒和疑慮。

我們要將精力轉而投向一種更實際、更可能實現的和平，這種和平的實現不是依靠人類本性的突然巨變，而是依靠人類習慣的逐漸演化，是依靠符合有關各方利益的一系列具體行動和有效協(xié)定。不存在可實現這種和平的簡單的不二之法，也沒有可供一兩個強國采納的萬全之策或萬靈之策。真正的和平必須是多國合作和多方行動的產物，必須有動態(tài)而非靜態(tài)的變革才能應對一代又一代的挑戰(zhàn)，因為和平是一個過程，是一條解決問題之路。

即使有了這種和平，也依然會存在爭執(zhí)和利益沖突，正如家庭和國家內部存在爭執(zhí)和利益沖突。世界和平猶如社區(qū)和平，并不要求人人都愛自己的鄰居，而只是要求大家相互包容地同處在一起，將其分歧訴諸于公正而平和的解決方案。歷史告訴我們，國與國之仇和人與人之怨一樣，不會永世長存。無論我們的好惡看似多么根深蒂固，國間關系與鄰里關系往往都會在時間與事件大潮的沖擊下發(fā)生驚人的變化。所以，我們要堅持不懈。和平不一定不切實際，戰(zhàn)爭不一定不可避免。只要更明確地確定我們的最終目標，只要讓我們的最終目標看起來更切實可行而非那么遙不可及，我們就能夠幫助所有人看清這個目標，讓他們寄希望于這個目標并且義無反顧地向這個目標邁進。

第二，我們要檢討自己對蘇聯(lián)的態(tài)度。如果想到蘇聯(lián)領導人可能確實相信其宣傳者之言，就會讓人心灰意冷。如果閱讀蘇聯(lián)官方最近發(fā)表的一篇關于軍事戰(zhàn)略的文章，也會讓人心灰意冷，因為該文章通篇充斥著毫無根據的荒誕主張。例如，該文章聲稱“美國帝國主義陣營正在籌劃發(fā)動各種類型的戰(zhàn)爭……非?，F實的威脅是美國帝國主義者正在發(fā)動一場針對蘇聯(lián)的先發(fā)制人的戰(zhàn)爭……美國帝國主義者的政治目的是用侵略戰(zhàn)爭的手段在經濟和政治上奴役歐洲及其他資本主義國家，進而統(tǒng)治全世界……。”

誠然，如古言云，“惡人雖無人追趕也逃跑”。

然而，閱讀蘇聯(lián)人的這些陳述，從而看到美蘇之間的鴻溝，不免讓人神傷。但這也是一種警告，警告美國人民不要像蘇聯(lián)人一樣落入陷阱，不要只看到對方那種扭曲的激烈觀點，不要以為沖突不可避免而和解不能實現，不要以為交往只不過是互相威脅。

沒有哪國政府或哪種社會制度邪惡到我們必須將其人民看成一無是處。作為美國人，我們對共產主義深惡痛絕，將其看成是對個人自由與尊嚴的否定。但我們仍然可以為蘇聯(lián)人民在許多方面的成就喝彩，為他們在科學與太空技術、經濟與工業(yè)增長、文化以及敢作敢為諸方面所取得的成就喝彩。

在我們兩國人民的諸多共性當中，最顯著的莫過于我們對戰(zhàn)爭的共同憎惡。我們兩國從未交戰(zhàn)，這在世界各強國當中幾乎當屬絕無僅有。而在戰(zhàn)爭的歷史中，沒有哪個國家曾經遭受過比蘇聯(lián)在第二次世界大戰(zhàn)中所遭受的更為深重的苦難——至少有兩千萬人失去了生命;數不盡的家庭和農場慘遭焚毀或洗劫;三分之一國土(包括近三分之二工業(yè)基地)化成了廢墟，其損失相當于我國芝加哥以東的全部國土遭到毀滅。

今天，假如全面戰(zhàn)爭再次暴發(fā)，無論是以何種方式暴發(fā)，我們兩國都將成為首要目標。面臨最嚴重滅頂危險的恰恰是這兩個最強大的國家，這是具有諷刺意味卻又千真萬確的事實。不出24小時，我們所建造的一切，我們?yōu)橹燎趧谧鞯囊磺卸紩еM。即便是冷戰(zhàn)，也給包括我國最親密盟國在內的諸多國家造成負擔和危險，而我們兩國則承受著最沉重的負擔，因為我們都在為置備武器而投入巨額資金，而這些資金本可以用來抗擊愚昧、貧困和疾病。我們兩國都陷入了危險的惡性循環(huán)，在這種循環(huán)中，一方的猜疑招來對方的猜疑，而新型武器則招來新型對抗性武器。

總而言之，對于實現正義的真正和平以及停止軍備競賽，美國及其盟國與蘇聯(lián)及其盟國兩方面具有共同的濃厚興趣。就此目的而達成的協(xié)定符合蘇聯(lián)和我們的利益。我們可以相信，甚至最敵對的國家也會接受和遵守符合其本身利益的條約義務(僅限于符合其本身利益的條約義務)。

因此，我們既不能對我們之間的分歧視而不見，也應當著眼于我們的共同利益以及可以解決這些分歧的方法。而且，我們即便現在不能消除分歧，至少也可以幫助世界在存在多樣性的條件下保持安全。因為我們畢竟都是居住在這個小小的星球上，這是我們最基本的共同利益關系。我們都呼吸著同樣的空氣，都珍視我們子女的未來，而且我們最終都會離開這個世界。

第三，我們要檢討自己對冷戰(zhàn)的態(tài)度。要記住我們不是在參加一場辯論，因此沒有必要羅列論點。我們不要在這里歸咎于人或指手劃腳地進行評判。我們必須正視現實的世界，而不要面對假想改寫過去18年歷史之后的世界。

因此，我們必須不懈地尋求和平，寄希望于共產主義集團內部的建設性變革使現在看來我們力所不及的解決方案變得我們力所能及。我們必須以適當的方式處理事務，使為實現真正和平而達成一致的做法符合共產主義者的利益。最重要的是，核大國在捍衛(wèi)自己的切身利益時，必須避免那些逼迫對方在忍辱退卻與核戰(zhàn)爭之間進行抉擇的針鋒相對的沖突。在核時代采取這種方針，只能證明我們政策的徹底失敗，或者證明我們希望全世界同歸于盡。

為了確保達到這些目的，美國的武器是非挑釁性的，是謹慎控制的，是用于威懾的，并且是可以有選擇使用的。我們的軍隊旨在維護和平，具有自我克制的嚴明紀律性。我們的外交官受命避免不必要的刺激性言論和純修飾性的敵意言辭。

因此，我們可以在不放松防衛(wèi)的情況下尋求緩和緊張局勢。而且，對我們來說，我們不需要用威脅手段來證明我們多么堅定。我們不需要因懼怕我們的信仰受到侵蝕而干擾外國廣播。我們無意將自己的制度強加于任何不情愿者，但我們樂于并且能夠與世界上任何國家進行和平競爭。

同時，我們謀求加強聯(lián)合國，幫助其解決財政問題，使其成為更有效的和平工具，將其發(fā)展成真正的世界安全系統(tǒng).該系統(tǒng)有能力依據法律解決爭端，有能力保障大小國家的安全，并且有能力為最終解除武裝創(chuàng)造條件。

我們同時謀求維護非共產主義世界的內部和平，這其中許多國家都是我們的朋友，卻在各種問題上存在分歧，這些問題削弱西方國家的團結，招致共產主義者干預，或者造成爆發(fā)戰(zhàn)爭的危險。盡管有來自兩方面的批評，但我們在西新幾內亞、剛果、中東和印度次大陸的努力卻始終是矢志不渝和富有耐心。我們設法調整了與最近鄰邦墨西哥和加拿大之間的雖小卻顯著的分歧，以此嘗試為其他國家樹立榜樣。

說到其他國家，我想闡明一點。我們與許多國家有聯(lián)盟關系。這些聯(lián)盟之所以存在，是因為我們雙方具有大體上相同的關注點。例如，因為我們具有共同的切身利益，所以我們保衛(wèi)西歐和西柏林的承諾經久不衰。美國不會以其他國家和人民為代價與蘇聯(lián)做任何交易，不僅因為這些國家是我們的盟友，還因為這些國家的利益與我們的利益相契合。不過，我們利益的契合不僅體現在保衛(wèi)自由世界的前沿陣地，還體現在追求和平之路。

我們的希望和我們相關政策的目的是促使蘇聯(lián)認識到其本身也應當讓各國選擇其自己的未來，只要這種選擇不妨礙別國的選擇。共產主義國家將其政治和經濟制度強加于他國的企圖是當今世界緊張局勢的主要原因。因為，如果所有國家都能避免干涉別國的自主權，則和平無疑會更有保障。

這就需要我們做出新的努力以實現世界法，從而為世界性大討論提供新的環(huán)境。這需要蘇聯(lián)與我們之間加深理解，而加深理解則需要加強接觸與溝通。朝此方向發(fā)展的一個步驟就是在莫斯科與華盛頓之間開通直接對話線路的建議方案，以避免在危機時刻可能發(fā)生一方對另一方行動的危險延遲、誤解和誤讀。

另外，我們一直在日內瓦就其他的一級軍控措施進行談判，以限制軍備競賽的緊張度和減少突發(fā)戰(zhàn)爭的風險。不過，我們對內瓦談判的首要的長遠期盼是全面徹底裁軍，這種裁軍可以分階段實現，允許在政治上并行發(fā)展，以建立可取代武力的新型和平體系。自20世紀20年代以來，美國政府一直在努力追求裁軍。這也是前三屆政府一直在迫切追求的目標。無論今天看來前景多么黯淡，我們都要繼續(xù)努力，為了讓包括我國在內的所有國家能夠更好地把握裁軍方面存在的問題和可能性而繼續(xù)努力。

這些談判的最主要內容就是禁止核試驗條約，但談判即將結束，卻仍然沒有一個迫切需要的新開端。這樣一個既近在咫尺又遠在天涯的條約，如果能締結將遏制最危險地區(qū)之一的螺旋式軍備競賽。該條約將促使核大國更有效地應對人類在1963年面臨的最大隱患之一，即核武器的進一步擴散。該條約將降低爆發(fā)戰(zhàn)爭的可能性，從而提高我們的安全性。此目標無疑非常重要，足以讓我們不懈地追求，要求我們既不屈服于誘惑而放棄全部努力，也不屈服于誘惑而放棄我們采取必要且合理的防衛(wèi)措施的堅決主張。

因此，我借此機會宣布兩項有關此方面的重要決定。

第一，赫魯曉夫主席、麥克米倫首相和我已經同意近期將在莫斯科舉行高級別會談，旨在就全面禁止核試驗條約達成前期一致意見。歷史的告誡必然會挫傷我們的希望，但是我們的希望寄托著全人類的希望。

第二，為了闡明我們對禁止核試驗問題的誠意和嚴肅信念，我現在聲明，只要其他國家不提出在大氣層進行核試驗，美國就不會這樣做。我們不會首先恢復大氣層核試驗。這樣一則聲明并不能替代具有約束力的正式條約，但我希望此聲明可以幫助我們實現正式條約。這樣一個條約也不能替代裁軍，但我希望此條約可以幫助我們實現裁軍。

最后，美國同胞們，我們要檢討自己對國內和平與自由的態(tài)度。我們自己社會的素質與精神必須能夠為我們的海外行動提供充分依據與支持。我們必須通過自我獻身來表明我們的態(tài)度，正如今天畢業(yè)的許多人將有難得的機會去奉獻你們的年華，到國外和平工作隊或擬建的國內國民服務隊去無償服役。

但無論在何處，我們都必須在日常生活中厲行“和平與自由同在”這條古老信念。今天，在我們的很多城市，不健全的自由使和平得不到保障。

地方、州和國家各級政府行政機構有責任在其職權范圍內盡一切辦法為全體公民提供和保護自由。在這種職權不健全的地方，各級立法機構有責任使其健全。而全國各地的全體公民則有責任尊重他人權利和當地法律。

這一切都與世界和平不無關系。圣經云：“若人之行使上帝滿意，甚至敵人也會與之和平相處。”而歸根結底，和平基本上不就是人權問題嗎?所謂人權就是我們不用擔心慘遭涂炭而平安一生的權利，就是我們自由呼吸大自然所賜空氣的權利，就是我們子孫后代健康生存的權利。

我們在捍衛(wèi)國家的利益時，也要捍衛(wèi)人的利益。而消除戰(zhàn)爭和武器顯然符合這兩者的利益。任何條約，無論如何兼顧各方的利益，也無論措辭多么嚴謹，都不能絕對杜絕弄虛作假和規(guī)避責任的風險。但是，如果條約得到充分有效的執(zhí)行并且充分符合各簽約方的利益，那么與經久不衰、難以控制和不可預知的軍備競賽相比，條約提供的安全性要高得多而風險則小得多。

眾所周知，美國永遠不會挑起戰(zhàn)爭。我們不需要戰(zhàn)爭。我們現在不希望發(fā)生戰(zhàn)爭。這一代美國人已經受夠了太多的戰(zhàn)爭、仇恨和壓迫。

如果別國想發(fā)動戰(zhàn)爭，我們應當有所準備。我們應當提高警惕，設法制止戰(zhàn)爭。但我們也應當盡自己的責任去締造一個弱者安全而強者正義的和平世界。我們面對這項任務不是無可奈何，我們對成功完成這項任務也不是一無所望。我們滿懷信心、無所畏懼地繼續(xù)挺進，不是走向毀滅戰(zhàn)略，而是走向和平戰(zhàn)略。