英语演讲 学英语,练听力,上听力课堂! 注册 登录
> 英语演讲 > 英语演讲稿范文 >  内容

肯尼迪于1963年在美国大学毕业典礼上的演讲

所属教程:英语演讲稿范文

浏览:

2018年07月03日

手机版
扫描二维码方便学习和分享

肯尼迪于1963年在美国大学毕业典礼上的演讲 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年在美国大学毕业典礼上的演讲 中文版

1963年6月10日

安德森校长、员工们、董事会、我的老同事鲍勃·伯德参议员(伯德参议员上了多年法律夜校才取得学位,而我将在随后的30分钟取得学位)、贵宾们、女士们、先生们:

我为出席这次典礼而感到非常自豪。美国大学是卫理公会赞助、约翰·弗莱彻·赫斯特主教创办、伍德罗·威尔逊总统于1914年揭幕的学校。这是一所正在成长的年轻大学,却已经实现了赫斯特主教的开明夙愿,即在致力于创造历史和处理公共事务的城市研究历史和公共事务。本地和全国的卫理公会派信徒们为所有有志学习者赞助了这所高等学府,不论其肤色和信仰,他们为此应当得到国家的感谢。我向今天毕业的全体学生表示祝贺。

伍德罗·威尔逊教授曾经说过,大学送出的每个人都应当是国家的人,也应当是其时代的人。我相信,从这所学府光荣毕业的男生和女生会继续奉献其年华和才智,努力服务和扶助大众。

约翰·梅斯菲尔德在其对英国大学的赞美之辞中写道:“尘世间很少有事物能与大学媲美。”他的话在今天同样千真万确。他指的不是高耸的塔尖和雄伟的大厦,也不是绿树成荫的校园和攀满藤蔓的墙壁。他说,他赞赏大学的辉煌之美是因为“在这里,憎恨无知者可孜孜求学,谙悉真理者可解惑于人”。

因此,我选择此时此地来讨论一个话题。关于此话题,常常是无知者多而识真理者寡,但这恰恰是世上最重要的话题,这就是世界和平。

那么我指的是哪种和平呢?我们寻求的是哪种和平呢?不是靠美国战争武器强加给世界的美式和平,也不是坟墓般的平静或奴隶式的安全。我所说的是名副其实的和平,是那种使世人生活有意义的和平,是那种让人类和国家能够兴旺发达和充满希望并且能够为其子孙创造更美好生活的和平。这不仅是美国人的和平,而是全人类的和平;不仅是我们这个时代的和平,而是永世的和平。

我之所以谈到和平,是因为战争有了新面孔。在当今时代,全面战争毫无意义,因为世界强国能够保有庞大且相对牢不可破的核力量,并且拒绝对投降者诉诸核力量。因为一件核武器的爆炸力几乎10倍于二战期间所有盟国空军所投放的爆炸力。因为核交战产生的致命毒素会通过风、水、土壤和种子传播到世界每个角落,传给尚未出生的世世代代。

今天,我们每年要在武器上花费数十亿美元,而这恰恰是为了确保我们永远不需要使用武器,这对于保卫和平是必要的。但肯定的是,采购这种只会毁灭不会创造的闲置军备不是保障和平的唯一手段,更不是最有效的手段。

因此,我是将和平作为每一个理性的人所必需的理性终极目标来谈论。我知道追求和平没有追求战争那么引人注目,况且追求和平者之词常常被当成耳旁风。但这是我们紧迫无比的任务。

有人说,谈论世界和平、世界法或世界裁军毫无用处,除非苏联领导人采取更为开明的态度。但愿他们这样做。我认为我们可以帮助他们这样做。但我还认为,我们作为个人和作为一个国家,必须检讨自己的态度,因为我们的态度与他们的态度同样至关重要。本校的每位毕业生,每位对战争失望而希望实现和平的深思熟虑的公民,都应当从自省做起,都应当从检讨自己的态度做起,检讨自己对和平的可能性、对苏联、对冷战路线以及对本国之自由与和平的态度。

第一,我们要检讨自己对和平本身的态度。我们当中有很多人认为和平是不可能的。很多人认为这是不现实的。然而,这是一种危险的失败主义观念。这种观念得出的结论是,战争不可避免,人类在劫难逃,我们受制于我们无法控制的力量。

我们并非一定要接受这种观点。我们的问题是人造成的,因此可以由人来解决。而人的心有多大,其能力就有多大。涉及人类命运的问题无一超出人类的能力。人的理性和精神经常使貌似无解的问题得到解决,我们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热派所梦想的那种绝对的、无限的和平与亲善的概念。我不否认希望与梦想的价值,但是,我们如果将其作为唯一的近期目标,则只会导致气馁和疑虑。

我们要将精力转而投向一种更实际、更可能实现的和平,这种和平的实现不是依靠人类本性的突然巨变,而是依靠人类习惯的逐渐演化,是依靠符合有关各方利益的一系列具体行动和有效协定。不存在可实现这种和平的简单的不二之法,也没有可供一两个强国采纳的万全之策或万灵之策。真正的和平必须是多国合作和多方行动的产物,必须有动态而非静态的变革才能应对一代又一代的挑战,因为和平是一个过程,是一条解决问题之路。

即使有了这种和平,也依然会存在争执和利益冲突,正如家庭和国家内部存在争执和利益冲突。世界和平犹如社区和平,并不要求人人都爱自己的邻居,而只是要求大家相互包容地同处在一起,将其分歧诉诸于公正而平和的解决方案。历史告诉我们,国与国之仇和人与人之怨一样,不会永世长存。无论我们的好恶看似多么根深蒂固,国间关系与邻里关系往往都会在时间与事件大潮的冲击下发生惊人的变化。所以,我们要坚持不懈。和平不一定不切实际,战争不一定不可避免。只要更明确地确定我们的最终目标,只要让我们的最终目标看起来更切实可行而非那么遥不可及,我们就能够帮助所有人看清这个目标,让他们寄希望于这个目标并且义无反顾地向这个目标迈进。

第二,我们要检讨自己对苏联的态度。如果想到苏联领导人可能确实相信其宣传者之言,就会让人心灰意冷。如果阅读苏联官方最近发表的一篇关于军事战略的文章,也会让人心灰意冷,因为该文章通篇充斥着毫无根据的荒诞主张。例如,该文章声称“美国帝国主义阵营正在筹划发动各种类型的战争……非常现实的威胁是美国帝国主义者正在发动一场针对苏联的先发制人的战争……美国帝国主义者的政治目的是用侵略战争的手段在经济和政治上奴役欧洲及其他资本主义国家,进而统治全世界……。”

诚然,如古言云,“恶人虽无人追赶也逃跑”。

然而,阅读苏联人的这些陈述,从而看到美苏之间的鸿沟,不免让人神伤。但这也是一种警告,警告美国人民不要像苏联人一样落入陷阱,不要只看到对方那种扭曲的激烈观点,不要以为冲突不可避免而和解不能实现,不要以为交往只不过是互相威胁。

没有哪国政府或哪种社会制度邪恶到我们必须将其人民看成一无是处。作为美国人,我们对共产主义深恶痛绝,将其看成是对个人自由与尊严的否定。但我们仍然可以为苏联人民在许多方面的成就喝彩,为他们在科学与太空技术、经济与工业增长、文化以及敢作敢为诸方面所取得的成就喝彩。

在我们两国人民的诸多共性当中,最显著的莫过于我们对战争的共同憎恶。我们两国从未交战,这在世界各强国当中几乎当属绝无仅有。而在战争的历史中,没有哪个国家曾经遭受过比苏联在第二次世界大战中所遭受的更为深重的苦难——至少有两千万人失去了生命;数不尽的家庭和农场惨遭焚毁或洗劫;三分之一国土(包括近三分之二工业基地)化成了废墟,其损失相当于我国芝加哥以东的全部国土遭到毁灭。

今天,假如全面战争再次暴发,无论是以何种方式暴发,我们两国都将成为首要目标。面临最严重灭顶危险的恰恰是这两个最强大的国家,这是具有讽刺意味却又千真万确的事实。不出24小时,我们所建造的一切,我们为之辛勤劳作的一切都会毁之殆尽。即便是冷战,也给包括我国最亲密盟国在内的诸多国家造成负担和危险,而我们两国则承受着最沉重的负担,因为我们都在为置备武器而投入巨额资金,而这些资金本可以用来抗击愚昧、贫困和疾病。我们两国都陷入了危险的恶性循环,在这种循环中,一方的猜疑招来对方的猜疑,而新型武器则招来新型对抗性武器。

总而言之,对于实现正义的真正和平以及停止军备竞赛,美国及其盟国与苏联及其盟国两方面具有共同的浓厚兴趣。就此目的而达成的协定符合苏联和我们的利益。我们可以相信,甚至最敌对的国家也会接受和遵守符合其本身利益的条约义务(仅限于符合其本身利益的条约义务)。

因此,我们既不能对我们之间的分歧视而不见,也应当着眼于我们的共同利益以及可以解决这些分歧的方法。而且,我们即便现在不能消除分歧,至少也可以帮助世界在存在多样性的条件下保持安全。因为我们毕竟都是居住在这个小小的星球上,这是我们最基本的共同利益关系。我们都呼吸着同样的空气,都珍视我们子女的未来,而且我们最终都会离开这个世界。

第三,我们要检讨自己对冷战的态度。要记住我们不是在参加一场辩论,因此没有必要罗列论点。我们不要在这里归咎于人或指手划脚地进行评判。我们必须正视现实的世界,而不要面对假想改写过去18年历史之后的世界。

因此,我们必须不懈地寻求和平,寄希望于共产主义集团内部的建设性变革使现在看来我们力所不及的解决方案变得我们力所能及。我们必须以适当的方式处理事务,使为实现真正和平而达成一致的做法符合共产主义者的利益。最重要的是,核大国在捍卫自己的切身利益时,必须避免那些逼迫对方在忍辱退却与核战争之间进行抉择的针锋相对的冲突。在核时代采取这种方针,只能证明我们政策的彻底失败,或者证明我们希望全世界同归于尽。

为了确保达到这些目的,美国的武器是非挑衅性的,是谨慎控制的,是用于威慑的,并且是可以有选择使用的。我们的军队旨在维护和平,具有自我克制的严明纪律性。我们的外交官受命避免不必要的刺激性言论和纯修饰性的敌意言辞。

因此,我们可以在不放松防卫的情况下寻求缓和紧张局势。而且,对我们来说,我们不需要用威胁手段来证明我们多么坚定。我们不需要因惧怕我们的信仰受到侵蚀而干扰外国广播。我们无意将自己的制度强加于任何不情愿者,但我们乐于并且能够与世界上任何国家进行和平竞争。

同时,我们谋求加强联合国,帮助其解决财政问题,使其成为更有效的和平工具,将其发展成真正的世界安全系统.该系统有能力依据法律解决争端,有能力保障大小国家的安全,并且有能力为最终解除武装创造条件。

我们同时谋求维护非共产主义世界的内部和平,这其中许多国家都是我们的朋友,却在各种问题上存在分歧,这些问题削弱西方国家的团结,招致共产主义者干预,或者造成爆发战争的危险。尽管有来自两方面的批评,但我们在西新几内亚、刚果、中东和印度次大陆的努力却始终是矢志不渝和富有耐心。我们设法调整了与最近邻邦墨西哥和加拿大之间的虽小却显著的分歧,以此尝试为其他国家树立榜样。

说到其他国家,我想阐明一点。我们与许多国家有联盟关系。这些联盟之所以存在,是因为我们双方具有大体上相同的关注点。例如,因为我们具有共同的切身利益,所以我们保卫西欧和西柏林的承诺经久不衰。美国不会以其他国家和人民为代价与苏联做任何交易,不仅因为这些国家是我们的盟友,还因为这些国家的利益与我们的利益相契合。不过,我们利益的契合不仅体现在保卫自由世界的前沿阵地,还体现在追求和平之路。

我们的希望和我们相关政策的目的是促使苏联认识到其本身也应当让各国选择其自己的未来,只要这种选择不妨碍别国的选择。共产主义国家将其政治和经济制度强加于他国的企图是当今世界紧张局势的主要原因。因为,如果所有国家都能避免干涉别国的自主权,则和平无疑会更有保障。

这就需要我们做出新的努力以实现世界法,从而为世界性大讨论提供新的环境。这需要苏联与我们之间加深理解,而加深理解则需要加强接触与沟通。朝此方向发展的一个步骤就是在莫斯科与华盛顿之间开通直接对话线路的建议方案,以避免在危机时刻可能发生一方对另一方行动的危险延迟、误解和误读。

另外,我们一直在日内瓦就其他的一级军控措施进行谈判,以限制军备竞赛的紧张度和减少突发战争的风险。不过,我们对内瓦谈判的首要的长远期盼是全面彻底裁军,这种裁军可以分阶段实现,允许在政治上并行发展,以建立可取代武力的新型和平体系。自20世纪20年代以来,美国政府一直在努力追求裁军。这也是前三届政府一直在迫切追求的目标。无论今天看来前景多么黯淡,我们都要继续努力,为了让包括我国在内的所有国家能够更好地把握裁军方面存在的问题和可能性而继续努力。

这些谈判的最主要内容就是禁止核试验条约,但谈判即将结束,却仍然没有一个迫切需要的新开端。这样一个既近在咫尺又远在天涯的条约,如果能缔结将遏制最危险地区之一的螺旋式军备竞赛。该条约将促使核大国更有效地应对人类在1963年面临的最大隐患之一,即核武器的进一步扩散。该条约将降低爆发战争的可能性,从而提高我们的安全性。此目标无疑非常重要,足以让我们不懈地追求,要求我们既不屈服于诱惑而放弃全部努力,也不屈服于诱惑而放弃我们采取必要且合理的防卫措施的坚决主张。

因此,我借此机会宣布两项有关此方面的重要决定。

第一,赫鲁晓夫主席、麦克米伦首相和我已经同意近期将在莫斯科举行高级别会谈,旨在就全面禁止核试验条约达成前期一致意见。历史的告诫必然会挫伤我们的希望,但是我们的希望寄托着全人类的希望。

第二,为了阐明我们对禁止核试验问题的诚意和严肃信念,我现在声明,只要其他国家不提出在大气层进行核试验,美国就不会这样做。我们不会首先恢复大气层核试验。这样一则声明并不能替代具有约束力的正式条约,但我希望此声明可以帮助我们实现正式条约。这样一个条约也不能替代裁军,但我希望此条约可以帮助我们实现裁军。

最后,美国同胞们,我们要检讨自己对国内和平与自由的态度。我们自己社会的素质与精神必须能够为我们的海外行动提供充分依据与支持。我们必须通过自我献身来表明我们的态度,正如今天毕业的许多人将有难得的机会去奉献你们的年华,到国外和平工作队或拟建的国内国民服务队去无偿服役。

但无论在何处,我们都必须在日常生活中厉行“和平与自由同在”这条古老信念。今天,在我们的很多城市,不健全的自由使和平得不到保障。

地方、州和国家各级政府行政机构有责任在其职权范围内尽一切办法为全体公民提供和保护自由。在这种职权不健全的地方,各级立法机构有责任使其健全。而全国各地的全体公民则有责任尊重他人权利和当地法律。

这一切都与世界和平不无关系。圣经云:“若人之行使上帝满意,甚至敌人也会与之和平相处。”而归根结底,和平基本上不就是人权问题吗?所谓人权就是我们不用担心惨遭涂炭而平安一生的权利,就是我们自由呼吸大自然所赐空气的权利,就是我们子孙后代健康生存的权利。

我们在捍卫国家的利益时,也要捍卫人的利益。而消除战争和武器显然符合这两者的利益。任何条约,无论如何兼顾各方的利益,也无论措辞多么严谨,都不能绝对杜绝弄虚作假和规避责任的风险。但是,如果条约得到充分有效的执行并且充分符合各签约方的利益,那么与经久不衰、难以控制和不可预知的军备竞赛相比,条约提供的安全性要高得多而风险则小得多。

众所周知,美国永远不会挑起战争。我们不需要战争。我们现在不希望发生战争。这一代美国人已经受够了太多的战争、仇恨和压迫。

如果别国想发动战争,我们应当有所准备。我们应当提高警惕,设法制止战争。但我们也应当尽自己的责任去缔造一个弱者安全而强者正义的和平世界。我们面对这项任务不是无可奈何,我们对成功完成这项任务也不是一无所望。我们满怀信心、无所畏惧地继续挺进,不是走向毁灭战略,而是走向和平战略。


用户搜索

疯狂英语 英语语法 新概念英语 走遍美国 四级听力 英语音标 英语入门 发音 美语 四级 新东方 七年级 赖世雄 zero是什么意思蚌埠市裕华大厦英语学习交流群

  • 频道推荐
  • |
  • 全站推荐
  • 推荐下载
  • 网站推荐