What must be made clear and unmistakable for all the world to see is that free peoples can compete with and surpass totalitarian nations in producing economic progress. No people in the world today should be forced to choose between bread and freedom.
To shape the world of tomorrow in a pattern compatible with freedom and human rights we must all take our part in a great offensive against the evils of poverty, disease and misery. We cannot, for example, afford to allow the free government of India to fail in its heroic effort to produce economic progress and retain freedom at the same time.
We need to apply in this field the same determination, willingness and cooperation which enabled us to build the military strength which deters aggression today.
We must not be miserly, small-minded and negative in our approach to this problem. And while it is wrong to favor change solely because it is change, it is worse blindly to insist that we have nothing better to offer than maintaining the status quo.
We must associate ourselves with the decent aspirations of people everywhere for the better life to which they are entitled.
Just a few weeks ago, Premier Khrushchev promised his people a revolution in living standards within the next twelve years. He claimed that the Communist system would overtake and surpass the economies of the Western World.
We should be happy that such claims have been made. We would be eager to match the Soviet leaders in putting less emphasis upon armies, military research and the costly lethal weapons of modern warfare and more stress upon better housing, food, clothing and the other necessities for a good life.
If Mr. Khrushchev wishes to consider these steps as a form of competition or contest, I am sure that all of us would be delighted to accept the challenge. In such a contest no one could really lose. The world would be infinitely better off if man’s energies were used for the welfare of families rather than the building of armies.
But our answer to the Soviet challenge should not stop here. We say—broaden this competition and include the spiritual and cultural values that have distinguished our civilization.
Material achievements, while necessary, do not meet the deeper needs of mankind. Man needs the higher freedoms, freedom to know, to debate freely, to write and express his views.
He needs the freedom that law and justice guarantee to every individual so that neither privilege nor power may make any man subservient before the law.
He wants the freedom to travel and to learn from other peoples and cultures.
He wants freedom of worship.
To us, these are the most precious aspects of our civilization. We would be happy if others were to compete in this sphere and try to surpass our achievements.
The Free World is too often made to appear to be relying on our superior military power and economic strength. It is not worthy of those with the heritage of freedom we share to appear to be resting our case on materialism alone.
I know of no better example to illustrate the point I am trying to make than through an analysis of that much-maligned institution—British Colonialism. It is understandable in view of the surging rise of nationalism that we have heard all that is bad and little that is good about colonialism in the past few years.
Colonialism has had its faults, but it also has had its virtues. I speak from some knowledge on this subject. I have visited twelve countries which at one time or another have passed through the status of British Colonialism.
I have known personally and admired the dedicated and effective work of your superb colonial administrators. You can indeed be proud of the contributions that have been made by men like Grantham in Hong Kong, Templer in Kuala Lumpur, MacDonald in Singapore, Crawford in Uganda, and Arden-Clark in Ghana.
Let us examine some of the benefits British colonial policy has produced in the areas in which it has operated. It brought the military strength which provided the security from external attack. It brought in many areas the technical training which assured economic progress.
But more important than either of these, it brought the great ideas which provided the basis for progress in the future—ideas which will live on for generations after the nations concerned have acquired the independent status for which an enlightened policy has prepared them.
The common law, the parliament, the English language, freedom of speech, assembly, press and religion—these are the institutions which are the proud legacy of the British people in lands throughout the world.
And so today let us never forget that in the momentous struggle in which we are engaged our major advantage is not in the strength of our arms or even the productivity of our factories. It is in the quality and power of the great ideals of freedom which have inspired men through the ages.
Our responsibility then is clear. Here is a cause worthy of the descendants of brave men and women who crossed boundless oceans and settled in every area of the globe.
Once again we must venture forth not to seek untilled lands, but rather to bring encouragement, aid, guidance and partnership to those peoples who want to live in freedom and decent prosperity.
We come to them as friends, as brothers in a shrinking world. We do not seek to impose upon them our economic system or our culture. It is theirs to choose the path to the future. But it is our responsibility to see that this choice is an informed one and a free one.
Let it never be said that because of our failure to present adequately the aims and ideals of freedom others chose the often irreversible path of dictatorship.
Let us speak less of the threat of Communism and more of the promise of freedom.
Let us adopt as our primary objective not the defeat of Communism but the victory of plenty over want, of health over disease, of freedom over tyranny.
With such a goal we shall give the lie to those who proclaim that we are witnessing the twilight of a dying western civilization. Rather we shall see the onset of a glorious dawn of a new world based on the immortal ideals for which men have sacrificed their lives through the ages.
In this very hall, a century and a half ago an English Prime Minister gave a brief address that has been ranked by Lord Curzon as one of the indisputable masterpieces of English eloquence. After the news of Nelson’s glorious victory at Trafalgar, William Pitt was toasted as “the saviour of Europe.” He responded in these words: “I return you many thanks for the honor you have done me. But Europe is not to be saved by any single man. England has saved herself by her exertions and will as I trust save Europe by her example.”
Here is a challenge worthy of the brave men we honored today. May we, the English-speaking peoples, proud in the heritage we share, join with the friends of freedom everywhere and by our example save the cause of peace and freedom for the world.
RADIO-TELEVISION ADDRESS FROM MOSCOW
August 1, 1959
I first want to express my appreciation to the government of the USSR for giving me an opportunity to speak to the people of this country by radio and television just as Mr. Kozlov and Mr. Mikoyan spoke to the American people on their visits to my country.
I realize that nine days is much too brief a time for a visitor to spend in this great country. But in that period I have had the opportunity of having extended and frank discussions with Mr. Khrushchev and other leaders of your government. I have visited Leningrad, Siberia and the Urals and I have had the privilege of meeting thousands of people in all walks of life.
What I would like to do tonight is to answer for the millions of people who are listening to this program some of the questions which were asked me over and over again on this trip so that you may get a true picture of the policies of the American government and people.
I should like to begin by answering a question which I often heard: What are my impressions of this country and its people?
While my visit was brief I did have a chance in addition to visiting this great capital city of Moscow to see the beauty and culture of Leningrad whose brave people won the admiration of the world for their
heroic defense of their city during the war; to savor the inspiring pioneer spirit of Novosibirsk; to witness firsthand the thriving productivity of the factory complex of the Urals. I was greatly impressed by the efficient modern equipment of your factories; your magnificent ballets in Leningrad and Novosibirsk; by the competitive drive for progress which is evident on every side.
But most of all I was impressed by your people; after all, the greatest asset of a country is not its forests, its factories or its farms but its people.
These are some of the characteristics of the Soviet people which I particularly noted on this trip.
First, their capacity for hard work, their vitality; their intense desire to improve their lot, to get ahead, is evident everywhere.
There was another feature about the Soviet people which I noted that may surprise you and that is in how many respects you are like us Americans. We are similar in our love of humor—we laugh at the same jokes. The people of your frontier East have much the same spirit of what was our frontier West. We have a common love of sports; the name of Vasily Kuznetsov, your great decathlon champion, is known in the United States as well as it is in the Soviet Union. We are both a hospitable, friendly people. When we meet each other we tend to like each other personally, as so many of our soldiers who met during the last great war can attest.
Above all, the American people and the Soviet people are as one in their desire for peace. And our desire for peace is not because either of us is weak. On the contrary, each of us is strong and respects the strength the other possesses.
This means that if we are to have peace it must be a just peace based on mutual respect rather than the peace of surrender or dictation by either side. Putting it bluntly, both of our peoples want peace but both of us also possess great strength and much as we want peace neither of us can or will tolerate being pushed around.
That is why I was so surprised at a question that was asked me by a worker on the new scientific center outside of Novosibirsk. My heart went out to him as he told me that he had been wounded in World War II and that his father and mother had been killed by bombs. But then he said, “I don’t believe you when you say America is for peace.”
Nothing he could have said could have astonished or saddened me more.
And so to the millions of Soviet people who suffered or lost their loved ones in war, and to all of those in this great country who want peace, I say tonight, if you doubt that the American government and the American people are as dedicated to peace as you are, look at our record, examine our policies and you can reach only one conclusion—only aggressor nations have anything to fear from the United States of America.
We have fought in two World Wars and have demanded and received not an acre of territory or a cent in reparations. We enjoy the highest standard of living of any people in the world’s history, and there is nothing whatever that we want from any other people in the world except to live in peace and friendship with them. No leader in the world today could be more dedicated to peace than our President. As his brother, who has honored us by making this visit with us, can tell you, President Eisenhower’s whole life is proof of the stark but simple truth—that no one hates war more than one who has seen a lot of it.
We know as do you that in this age of nuclear weapons it is impossible for either of our nations to launch an attack which would not bring terrible destruction to itself.
In this age any leader who is so insane even to think of starting a war should well heed your proverb—“Do not dig a pit for another; you may fall into it yourself.”
Why then is there any doubt that the American government and people are just as dedicated to peace as the people of the USSR? I think part of the answer is to be found in another question which was often asked of me on this trip and which Mr. Khrushchev, himself, raised in this manner in his speech on July 28 at Dnepropetrovsk. “If you believe in the peaceful intentions of our country, why do you continue the arms race, why do you construct new military bases around our borders?”
In answering this question, let me first point out that these bases are not maintained for purposes of attacking you but for purposes of defending ourselves and our allies.
Why did we think it was necessary to set up bases? Let us look at the record. We disarmed rapidly after World War II. Then came a series of events which threatened our friends abroad as well as ourselves. The Berlin blockade and the war in Korea are typical of the actions which led the United States and our allies to rearm so that we could defend ourselves against aggression.
We must also remember that these events occurred before the 20th Party Congress changed the line to the one Mr. Khrushchev enunciated again in his speech at Dnepropetrovsk—that Communism will now try to achieve its international objectives by peaceful means rather than by force. I could cite statement after statement made by previous leaders of the USSR which advocated and threatened the use of force against non-Communist countries in order to achieve Communist objectives.
A striking illustration of why we maintain bases and strong military forces is the fact that one-fourth of the entire production of the USSR goes into armaments. This, in effect, means that every worker in the Soviet Union works one day out of four for armaments. And we in our country are also bearing a heavy burden of armaments. Think what it could mean to both of our countries if we could lift this burden from the backs of our people.
Some may ask, why don’t we get rid of the bases since the Soviet Government declares today that it has only peaceful intentions? The answer is that whenever the fear and suspicion that caused us and our allies to take measures for collective self-defense are removed, the reason for our maintaining bases will be removed. In other words, the only possible solution of this problem lies in mutual rather than unilateral action leading toward disarmament.
Another question which was often asked was—why won’t the United States agree to stop the tests of atomic weapons? The answer in a nutshell is that the question is not whether we both should enter into an agreement to stop tests but whether that agreement is one which will make sure that the tests actually are stopped.
That is why we say that if both sides honestly want to stop tests, we must first agree to set up inspection procedures in both of our countries which will make certain that the agreement is not violated. We believe this position is the only one that gives assurance of accomplishing the objective of stopping tests rather than just signing an agreement to do so.
We are encouraged by the fact that at least in this area we are presently engaged in serious negotiations which have made some progress. I know that I express the sentiments of the people of both of our countries when I say that I am hopeful that these negotiations will finally end in agreement.
Another question that has often been asked me went something like this: “The United States says it is for peace, but what the world wants are deeds not words, and the United States is short on deeds and long on words.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is possible that many of you listening to me are not aware of the positive programs the United States has proposed which were designed to contribute to peace. Let me tell you about just a few of them and what happened to them:
We had a monopoly on the atomic bomb when on June 14, 1946, we submitted the Baruch plan for international control of atomic energy. What happened? It was rejected by the USSR.
Under Article 43 of the United Nations Charter, provision was made for the establishment of the United Nations Armed Forces to keep the peace. On June 4, 1947, we made the first of many requests that agreement be reached. What happened? All have been rejected by the USSR.
At the Summit Conference in Geneva on July 21, 1955, President Eisenhower made his offer of open skies aerial inspection. What happened? It was rejected by the USSR.
On May 1, 1958, the United States offered an Arctic aerial inspection plan to protect both nations from surprise attack. What happened? It was rejected by the USSR.
I rea
lize that your government has indicated reasons for its rejection of each of these proposals. I do not list these proposals for the purpose of warming over past history but simply to demonstrate the initiative that our government has taken to reduce tensions and to find peaceful solutions for differences between us.
I realize that my answers to these questions indicate that there are some very basic differences between us. But let me emphasize at the same time that the very fact that we have not made as much progress as we would like in the past in settling our differences is the strongest reason for us to redouble our efforts to create better understanding between our two countries; to remove fear, suspicion and misconception where they exist, and thereby, to pave the way for discussions and eventual settlement by agreement of some of the basic conflicts between us.
We should both frankly recognize that we have some very real differences; that they are not easily settled: But two men who are friends can settle an argument between them without using their fists and two nations who want to be friends can do so without war.
I should like to suggest tonight some practical steps which will contribute to the cause of peace to which we are both dedicated.
First there are some positive things we can do which will create better understanding between us.
We can start by removing the language barrier. Here is one place where you are ahead of us. I was amazed at the number of people I met on this trip who were studying English. What we need are millions of American students who understand Russian and millions of Soviet students who understand English.
Both the exchange of persons and the cultural exchange programs should not only be continued but sharply expanded. The more Americans who visit and get to know firsthand the people of the Soviet Union and the more Soviet citizens who do the same in the United States, the better understanding we shall have.
Six Crises Page 57