John F. Kennedy’s Courageous Effort for Peace

[Time for change]

John F. Kennedy did not come to the Presidency of the United States as a noted peace advocate. Like virtually all American leaders since the onset of the Cold War shortly following World War II, he was caught up in the fear and antipathy towards Communism and the tough hawkish rhetoric of the times. In fact, Kennedy may even have outdone Nixon in that regard during the 1960 Presidential campaign.

But he grew tremendously in office. The Berlin crisis of 1961 was a time when we appeared to be on the verge of a nuclear war. So again with the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, in which Kennedy steadfastly resisted demands from his military and other advisors to take actions that almost certainly would have resulted in a nuclear war.

All that set the stage for his deciding that world peace had to be a major priority of his Presidency. His efforts in that direction first became evident in a peace speech at American University on June 10th 1963. According to James Carroll in “House of War – The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power”, this speech was unprecedented in its emphasis on peace by a major U.S. political figure since the onset of the Cold War. Few people knew about the speech before he gave it, and he didn’t discuss it at all with his military because he knew that they would lobby against it. It is inconceivable that this speech was intended to win votes. To the contrary, it posed grave political risks. He began:

… I have, therefore, chose this time and this place to discuss a topic on which ignorance too often abounds and the truth is too rarely perceived -- yet it is the most important topic on earth : world peace.

What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war… I am talking about genuine peace -- the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living -- the kind that enables man and nations to grow and to hope and to 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 for all time.

He talked about how the presence of nuclear weapons meant that that we MUST make peace a priority:

I speak of peace because of the new face of war. Total war makes no sense in an age when 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 when a single nuclear weapon contains almost ten times the explosive force delivered by all of 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 the wind and water and soil and seed to the far corners of the globe and to generations unborn.

In marked contrast to the prevailing tough anti-Communist rhetoric of the day, Kennedy spoke of the need for Americans to examine their own attitudes:

Some say that it is useless to speak of world 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 re-examine our own attitude -- 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 toward the possibilities of peace, toward the Soviet Union, toward the course of the Cold War and toward freedom and peace here at home.

First let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many of us think it is unreal. But that is 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…

He noted that a change in institutional arrangements would be needed to ensure a lasting peace:

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.

He even sought to humanize, rather than demonize, our adversary:

Let us re-examine our attitude toward the Soviet Union… It is discouraging to think that their leaders may actually believe what their propagandists write… 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, accommodations 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 and 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… And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland…

We are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counter-weapons…

So, let us not be blind to our differences -- but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to 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 planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal…

He spoke of the need for international cooperation and institutions:

Meanwhile, we seek to strengthen the United Nations, to help solve its financial problems, to make it a more effective instrument of 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.

There can be no doubt that if all nations could refrain from interfering in the self-determination of others, then 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 communications….

And then he came to the practical matters – the topic that the hawks and arms merchants so hated – detailing numerous concrete steps that he intended to take to put his peace plans into action:

We have also been talking in Geneva about other first-step measures of arms control, designed to limit the intensity of the arms race and to reduce the risks 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 one 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…. I am taking this opportunity, therefore, to announce two important decisions in this regard….

The aftermath of Kennedy’s speech

Khrushchev declared Kennedy’s speech the greatest of any American President since Roosevelt. And for the first time he allowed an American Presidential speech to be rebroadcast in the Soviet Union.

Six weeks later, Kennedy announced to the American people the first nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. With an extensive public campaign and help from his Secretary of Defense and General Maxwell Taylor, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Kennedy prevailed upon the Senate to ratify the treaty.

Kennedy then undertook secret negotiations with Fidel Castro in an attempt to come to an accommodation with him.

Then, two months following the ratification of the nuclear test ban treaty, Kennedy stated in a November 22nd campaign speech in Texas that “the chances of peace are better than they have been in the past”.

Our history would probably have been very different had Kennedy been able to continue his Presidency for another five years. But the next day he was killed with a bullet through the FRONT of his head.


A brief comparison with our current pResident

Today we see in George W. Bush a complete role reversal compared with John F. Kennedy. John F. Kennedy was a war hero, whereas George W. Bush used his father’s connections to avoid a war that he claimed to support, and then he failed to follow through on his commitment to the National Guard; instead of a President who defies his own military advisors to courageously take a stand for peace, George Bush the “War President” (as he loves to call himself) makes every effort to start wars that horrify the whole world, including even his own top military advisors; instead of a President who pledges to forego a “Pax Americana enforced on the rest of the world by American weapons of war”, that is precisely one of the major goals of the George Bush pResidency; and instead of a President who speaks of the courage to work for peace we have a pResident who seeks war at all cost and who denigrates peace advocates by calling them cowards.

I just wish that we had more Congresspersons who had the courage and sense of responsibility that John F. Kennedy did.

[Top Lizard]

1. This is Timely and Appropriate

In light of recent news about the carrier John F. Kennedy's impending mothballing and Arthur Schlesinger's passing, this reminder seems especially timely. As a historian, I'd have to suggest that you include the Bay of Pigs in all this (unfortunate as it was, JFK did draw some lessons from that misadventure, and I think it marked the real beginning of his skepticism towards the CIA and/or Joint Chiefs).

To be fair, Kennedy himself was not always known for his "sense of responsibility," especially as a Congressman. Although I generally like (and voted for) Barack Obama, I'm sometimes reminded of the remark aimed at JFK, that he should show "less profile and more courage." That said, however, I think Obama is improving--as Kennedy did once in office.

You speak of George III's "complete role reversal," but I wonder if his lack of personal/intellectual/moral growth is really the crux of the matter. At home and abroad, President Kennedy's development proceeded in fits and starts, but I agree that by the summer of 1963 he was a much more thoughtful leader than he had been in January 1961. Like Eisenhower, his experience on the inside prompted some serious reassessment, and one wonders what would have happened if not for the shooting in Dallas.

There's a reason Oliver Stone chose the American University speech for his opening sequence in JFK. More than anything else, it crystallizes the potential promise of the late Kennedy years. While the film overidealizes Kennedy to a certain extent, by the time of his death he was certainly the most open-minded American politician when it came to Soviet-American relations and an energetic exploration of Cold War detente.

You should get a side job republishing the Kennedy papers, since you transcribed so much of this speech! ;)

If I spent less time lurking, and more time replying, I'd have enough posts to officially recommend this thread. Nevertheless, I'm happy to boost its count in honor of JFK and the late Dr. Schlesinger. :patriot:

[Time for change]

2. Thank you lizard

I thought about discussing the Bay of Pigs in this post, but I left it out because in order to do it justice I would have had to spend a fair amount of space talking about it, and I wanted to get right to JFK's peace advocacy without making the post longer.

I think that he matured a lot from that single episode. It was a bad mistake -- but hey, he was young and inexperienced in the job, and he inherited a situation where there was a lot of pressure on him to go through with it. He ended up in a lose-lose situation, and he decided to "cut and run" rather than risk World War III -- I can't blame him for that. He took full responsibility for it, he learned from it, and he never repeated the mistake.

I agree with you that W's lack of growth is the crux of the issue. In fact I believe he's totally incapable of ANY growth. Perhaps 'role reversal' wasn't the best word to use for that -- what I meant by that was a diametrically opposite personality to JFK.