In foreign affairs Peking has suffered an instructive series of reverses. Its response to conspicuous failure abroad and at home is to heap more invective on other nations, including the Soviet Union, and to clamp tighter controls on its people.

But eventually mainland China may have leaders who realize that aggression is a losing game and that they have more to gain from joining in cooperative endeavors with their neighbors of Asia and the Pacific. As President Johnson emphasized in his speech of July 12, a peaceful China is essential to lasting peace in Asia, and the United States is seeking ways to breach the wall of hostility which now separates the American people from our historic friends, the people of mainland China.

On the other side of the world the nations of the Atlantic constitute, as they have for so many years, the center of world industrial and military power. Power of such magnitude has a vast potential for good or evil. Where great powers live closely together there is always danger of conflict, and it is no accident that the two great wars of modern times have begun in Europe. Today, 20 years after the war, Europe remains divided, and it is an urgent piece of unfinished business to end the division of Europe and, in particular, to secure the reunification of Germany.

These tasks must remain highpriority items on the agenda of free nations. Until they can be accomplished, world stability will not be finally secured.

Yet to bring about an end to this dangerous division, the Western nations must remain strong and cohesive. During the last 20 years great strides have been made to achieve this. Six of the Western European nations have gone very far toward the integration of their economies. This has enabled them to take advantage of the benefits of a mass market, and, as a result, their peoples are today enjoying a standard of living they have never known before.

Our own attitude is-and will continue to be-to encourage the development of unity in Europe to encompass not only the present members of the European Communities but Great Britain and other nations as well.

4 Cited in footnote 30, above.

of equality. It must be willingly accepted. It must give to all peoples concerned the assurance that their vital interests are protected.

A lasting settlement will require changes in the attitude of the Soviet Government. Such changes as have already occurred have not come through the independent action of individual Western states. They have occurred in part because of internal shifts and movements within the Soviet system. But equally as important, they have occurred because the Western Powers have created conditions to which the Soviet Union has found it necessary to adjust.

We must continue, therefore, to work for the conditions that will make it possible for Europe to be reunited, with neither the Atlantic powers nor the nations of the Warsaw Pact seeing in that happy event any threat to themselves. For this reason the United States has committed itself to a policy of peaceful exploration of better relations with the countries of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Ours is not an effort to subvert the Eastern European governments nor to make those states hostile to the Soviet Union or to each other. No one would benefit from an Eastern Europe that is again balkanized. We wish to build bridges to the East so that the Soviet Union and the Eastern European states can begin to see a genuine interest for themselves in moving toward better relations with the West and toward ending the partition of Europe and Germany.

This is a good policy for everyone. For all of us-Americans, Russians, Europeans can benefit from drawing closer together. In that way we can reduce the risks of war, minimize the bitter legacies of national conflict, and increase the tangible fruits of economic cooperation. In that way we can make it possible for the wealth and talent which Europe, the United States, and the Soviet Union have in such abundance to serve the cause of humanity. What we thus desire for Europe, we firmly believe, is what Europeans want. And that is why America and Europe remain so relevant to each other's future.

In the Western Hemisphere the Alliance for Progress celebrated its fifth birthday last week. We have been working closely with our Latin American partners in this great experiment aimed at accelerating economic and

social development and strengthening democratic institutions. All of us are much encouraged by the substantial forward movement achieved during the past half decade. As the President noted in his anniversary address last Wednesday: "Today, the Alliance is a revolution at work-it is creating, building, transforming, reaching forward; it is touching the lives of hundreds of millions. "38 The charter

of the Alliance set 22 percent as the minimum annual per capita growth rate for each Latin American country. Last year, the average growth rate for the region exceeded that goal for the first time. This is a remarkable attainment, considering that the annual rate of population increase in Latin America averages almost 3 percent.

For every dollar that the United States has contributed, our Alliance partners have invested almost five in their programs for economic and social progress. The Alliance, then, is a true partnership, with self-help by our Latin American friends playing the primary role. Most important, the Alliance offers the prospect of peaceful change through constructive, democratic processes as an alternative to change through the destructive extremism offered by the Communists. With the Alliance, the people of this hemisphere have rejected the Castro alternative, and communism has lost much of its appeal. Castro's Cuba is mired in an economic morass, despite large-scale aid from the Soviet Union.

With few exceptions the nations of the region now have freely elected governments. We cooperated with the OAS [Organization of American States] in preventing chaos and a possible Communist takeover in the Dominican Republic, and that country now enjoys a government freely chosen by its own people.

Within a few months, the Presidents of the American Republics will meet to chart new courses and set priorities for the years ahead. In this second phase of the Alliance for Progress we believe that higher goals must be set. We hope for more progress toward Latin American economic integration and for more effective programs in the fields of agriculture and education.

In Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia, economic progress has been uneven. Some nations have done

38 Post, doc. III-48.

extremely well, others moderately well, and some poorly. Progress in some countries has been hampered by disputes with their neighbors. In Africa the Organization of African Unity has worked diligently, and with some success, to damp down troubles and find African solutions to African problems.

We hope very much that India and Pakistan will resolve their difficulties otherwise the large-scale aid we are giving both cannot achieve its purpose.

At President Johnson's direction, our AID [Agency for International Development] program is putting more emphasis on food production, health, and education.

The world is on the edge of a foodpopulation problem which will become critical within a few years unless more food is produced and the rate of population growth declines.

Four years ago I spoke of the changes within the Communist world being brought about by yearnings for national independence, better living standards, and more freedom for the individual. These desires and pressures already had produced sharp differences within the Communist world over doctrine, organization, tactics, and priorities. In the last 4 years these differences have sharpened and widened.

We have improved, not as rapidly as we should like, our relations with Eastern European nations and have been glad to see reductions of tension in Europe as a whole. At the same time, we have searched patiently for points of common interest and agreement with the Soviet Union, especially on measures which may lessen the danger of a great war.

There are serious problems, especially the preoccupation of Soviet leaders with secrecy and their refusal to accept arrangements for international inspection to verify agreements.

But these obstacles have not prevented us from continuing to search for agreement. Since I last appeared before you, the limited test ban treaty was negotiated." Ninety-two nations now subscribe to it, although some conspicuous exceptions remain. We hope that its provisions can be ex

37 Text in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1963, pp. 1032-1034.

panded into a comprehensive test ban, adequately inspected. We are encouraged by the progress that has been made, under United Nations auspices, in negotiating a treaty on the peaceful uses of outer space. And we will continue to search urgently for an agreement on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons.

We favor more normal and closer contacts between the Soviet people and our own. For we should like to see the development of a more open society in the Soviet Union.

A Secretary of State cannot afford to indulge in easy optimism. The world is turbulent, and we must deal with many problems and some grave dangers. But during the last several years, the free world has gained in overall strength, both absolutely and in relation to the Communist states. And, when the militant Communists of Peking and Hanoi recognize that aggression is unprofitable and dangerous as sooner or later they will be compelled to do then, I believe, the world can move further toward the goal of a reliable peace.

remembered all of these speeches that I have made. However, as a onetime schoolteacher, I am aware of the fact that one cannot count on universal enthusiasm for even the greatest literature. So I am not very optimistic.

But the United States, as we are fond of reminding ourselves, is a very large and important force in the world in which we live. Our dealings with other countries are deeply important to ourselves; they have a deep and important bearing on the lives of the peoples of other lands. They bear heavily on the greatest of all man's tasks in our time-our search for peace.

Democracy has no meaning unless leaders can convey their understanding of their task to the people they serve. Only then can the people respond, whether in informed support or sometimes in informed dissent.

Today, I am not going to speak of particular countries or particular policies or of the particular problems of conflict and negotiation which now engage our attention. Instead, I am going to suggest some of the rules or principles which, as President, I believe should control our conduct of the foreign policy of this country. This will help us to understand better how we react and how we should react to the endless succession of problems which daily pour in upon Washington from all of the six continents and across all the many seas.

The overriding rule which I want to affirm today is this: that our foreign policy must always be an extension of this nation's domestic policy. Our safest guide to what we do abroad is always to take a good look at what we are doing at home.

The great creative periods of American foreign policy have been the great periods of our domestic achievement. Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin D. Roosevelt, to mention but three, projected their image of concern and accomplishment to the entire world. I would mistrust any expert on foreign affairs, however deeply he might be informed, if he confessed ignorance of the politics of the United States of America.

The reason for this is quite simple. Politics are the means by which men give their collective voice to their hopes and aspirations. Can we sup

have physicians to visit them when they are sick. They have warm houses to which to return when it is cold and cool ones when it is hot.

And our visitor will observe that, in general and except perhaps in election years in the United States, this is a zone of political tranquillity. Governments are stable. Revolutions are rare. Even as between nations, he will notice that, while there is not complete peace, the wars for the last 20 years have at least been conducted largely in words. Words wound. But as a veteran of more than 12 years in the United States Senate, I happily attest that words do not kill.

But our tourist from Mars will soon notice that there is another part of the world where governments are insecure; where people take readily to the streets; where guerrillas lurk in the jungles; where armies eye each other across unstable frontiers and all too frequently they exchange shots; and where, on frequent occasions, landless peasants or unemployed workers rise up in strong protest.

And this world, our traveler, I think, by then will have noticed, is a very poor one. He will form his own conclusions as to what makes for tranquillity within a country and as between countries. And he will not be wrong. I may ask this gentleman to stay on in a high position in my administration.

Let me give you a second application of this rule.

Here in the United States we do not like violence. We know that otherwise peaceful men can sometimes be driven to its use. We regard it as a manifestation of failure. When it occurs, whether it occurs in an urban slum during a demonstration or whether it occurs on a picket line, we count it a manifestation of failure. We seek to reestablish the rule of law. We try to get negotiations going again. To negotiate is never to admit failure. To negotiate is to show good sense. We believe that collective bargaining is working as long as policies stay in the negotiation stage. Only when bargaining breaks off do we speak of failure.

And so also is it in foreign policy. There, too, violence is one face of failure. There, too, the rule of law and the resort to the bargaining table are the hallmarks of success. The man