President Anderson, members of the Faculague Board of Trustees. Distinguished Guests by old colleague, Senator Bob Byrd, who has earned his degree for many years of attending night Law School while I am earning mine in the next thirty 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 Woodwell Wilson in nineteen fourteen. This is a young and growing university, but it has already fulfilled. Bishop Hearst enlightened hope for the study of history and public affairs being devoted
to the making of history and to the conduct of the public's business. By consering this institution of higher learning for all who wish to learn, whatever their color or their creed. The Methodists of this area in the nation deserve the nation's thanks, and I commend all those who are today graduating. Professor Woodrow Wilson once said that every man set 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 Maysfield and his tribute English universities, and his words are
equally true today. He did not refer to towers or the campuses. He admired the splendid duty of a university because it was, he said, a place where those who hate ignorance may strive to know, where those who perceive truth they 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 a peace do I mean? And what kind of a peace do we seek? Not to 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, kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living. They've the kind that enables men and nations to grow and the 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 the 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 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 disharmonment, 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, defetous 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 of 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 stir it 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 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 are only an 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 interests of all concerned. There is no single simple key to this piece, 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 enmity 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 and the relations between nations and neighbors. So let us persevere. Peace need not be impractical and war needs 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 him. And Second that us re examine our attitude towards the Soviet Union. It is discouraging to
think that their leaders may actually believe but their propagandist's right. It is discouraging to read a recent a foreignatant Soviet text on misary strategy and find on page after page wholly dateless and incredible claims, such is the allegation that American imperialist circles are preparing to unleash different types of war, that there is a very real strand of a preventive war being unleashed by American imperialists against the Soviet Union,
and that the political aims that I quote are the American imperialists not 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 Here. 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 has 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 the negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements in science and stays, and economic and industrial growth, in culture,
and 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, our most 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 twenty 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, and loss equivalent to the destruction of this country of Chicago today. Should total war ever break out again, no matter how r 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 twenty four hours. And even in the Cold War, which brings burdens and dangers to so many countries, including this nation's closest allies, r two countries bear the heaviest burdens all We are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons
that could be better devoted to combat ignorance, comedy, 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 be getting counter weapons. In short, both the United States and its allies and the Soviet Union and it's allies have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in
holding 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 length is that we all inhabit this small planet, We all breathe the same area, we all cherish our children's futures, and we are all mortal. Third, let us re examine 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 here 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 block might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the communist's interests to agree on a genuine peace, and above all,
for defending our own vital interests. Lucy of powers must avert those confrontrations 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 with the 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 instructured to avoid unnecessary irridance and purely rhetorical hostility. For we can seek a relaxing of tensions without relaxing our God. And for our part, we do not need to use threats to prove we are resolute. We do not need to jam forar and 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 ensuring the security of the lodge 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 are friends, are divided over His queues which we can rest in humity, which invite Communist intervention, always threaten to erupt in the 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 nighbors 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 our nations and other peoples, not merely because they are our partners, but also because their interest and ours converge.
Our in trast converge, however, not only in defending the frontiers of freedom, but in pursuing the past 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 for the choices of others. The Communists 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. An increased understanding will require increased
contact and communication. One step from 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 armed controls, design to limit the intensity of the armed race and reduce the
risk of accidental war. Our primary long range interest in Geneva, however, is general and complete disarmament design to take place by stages, permitting parallel political developments to build the new institutions peace which would take the place of arms. The pursuit of disarmament has been an effort of this government since the nineteen twenties.
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 at 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 fases. In nineteen sixty three 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 Khrushars, 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 tempt with the caution of history, but with our hopes for 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 tasks 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 nationals 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 the 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 lost analysis basically a matter of human rights. The right to live out our lives without fear of devastation, the right to breathe there as nature provided it, the right of future generations to a healthy existence.
While we proceed to safe God our national interests, let us also safe God human interests, and the elimination of war in arms is clearly in the interests 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 of asion. But it can, if it is sufficiently effective in its enforcement, and it is sufficiently in the interest 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 adjuste. 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 the strategy of peace.