Six Crises (74 page)

What is the unfinished work they leave for our generation? I believe that two American Presidents speaking in this same Guildhall have simply, but eloquently, answered that question.

Woodrow Wilson on December 28, 1918 said: “The peoples of the world want peace and they want it now, not merely by conquest of arms, but by agreement of mind.”

And Dwight D. Eisenhower, twenty-seven years later on July 12, 1945 said: “To preserve his freedom of worship, his equality before law, his liberty to speak and act as he sees fit subject only to provisions that he trespass not upon similar rights of others, a Londoner will fight. So will a citizen of Abilene.”

To preserve freedom, to keep the peace, not only for themselves but for all people—this, then, is the cause for which the brave men we honored today gave their lives. It is the challenge and opportunity of our generation to further the ultimate realization of this noblest goal of mankind.

Let us examine the policies we should follow if this goal is to be attained. We begin by recognizing that the Free World must be militarily stronger than any potential aggressor. The existence of our military strength and our determination and ability to maintain it are the basic elements without which the objectives we seek would be impossible to realize.

But we recognize that military strength in and of itself will not keep peace unless it is combined with a wise and judicious diplomatic policy. Let us see what some of the guidelines for our policy should be.

We must retain the armed strength needed for security in a troubled world, but we should speak with the calm assurance of those who are not afraid.

We know that to the extent the law of the jungle prevails in any area of the world, weakness and indecision lead to disaster. Yet, firmness is not and should not be arrogance.

We will shun assurances based merely upon naive hope or even self-deception. But we must never tire in our search for enforceable agreements which will reduce tension.

We know that little is lost by discussion but that all may be lost by war. Yet, even in our tireless striving for peace, we must always be prepared to say that freedom and the rights of man are even more ultimate values.

Above all, our policies must represent the best thinking the Free World can produce. We are indeed fortunate in the fact that in men like Macmillan and De Gaulle, Adenauer and Spaak, Fanfani and Eisenhower we have the kind of dedicated and experienced leadership which is superbly
qualified for the difficult task of keeping the peace with honor for the Free World.

In this connection, I wish to pay special tribute to your Prime Minister for his initiative in developing the enlightened concept of interdependence which has proved so useful in bringing about closer understanding between our two nations and which points the way for improving consultation and cooperation among all the countries in the Free World.

If the struggles for peace and freedom were to be decided solely by the adequacy of our military strength and by the quality of our diplomacy, we could look to the future with justifiable confidence as to the prospects for our eventual success. But we must recognize that this is only one phase of the struggle.

Our military strength and our diplomatic policies are designed to avoid a war we might otherwise have to fight in the future. We must not overlook the fact that other policies must be designed to avoid losing the non-military battle which has already begun and which is being waged in many areas of the world today.

Let us examine the battleground where this conflict is taking place—in Asia, in the Near East, in Africa, and in parts of Latin America. A great revolution is taking place among the people in these areas of the world. What I refer to is not a military or political revolt, but the revolution of peoples' expectations—the assertion of all peoples of their claim to a greater share of this world's goods.

Millions of people in these newly-developing nations are determined to break the bonds of wretchedness and poverty that have enslaved them through the centuries. They wish to achieve in this very generation a decisive breakthrough in the struggle against misery and disease.

They would prefer to attain these objectives and retain their freedom. But we must make no mistake about it—if they believe they are offered no other choice, they will choose progress even without freedom.

What is their choice? On the one hand, they have the example of the Soviet Union and the Communist satellites. Here is a pattern that promises quick results. Thousands of leaders of these countries are being invited to visit the Soviet Union to see the very real changes accomplished in the forty years since the Communist Revolution.

It is not an adequate answer to this challenge to cite the far higher material standards in most Western nations. To the newly-developing nations of the world, this is not the point. They are not particularly impressed by achievements primarily accomplished in the century of the Industrial Revolution. They are far more interested in what can be accomplished in the last half of the Twentieth Century.

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.