The Fourth Debate (Richard Nixon&John F. Kennedy)

The Fourth Debate
(Richard Nixon&John F. Kennedy)
Oct. 21, 1960.
第 四 次 辩 论
1960.10.21.
（理查德·尼克松&约翰·肯尼迪）

The fourth debate
In 1960, both Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice-President Richard M. Nixon ran strong campaigns for the presidency, but the　former's impressive performance in four televised debates helped make the difference. Kennedy, 43, became the youngest person and the first Roman Catholic elected to the presidency with his narrow victory over Nixon.

Mr. Howe, Senator Kennedy, my fellow Americans,

Since this campaign began, I have had a very rare privilege: I have traveled to 48 of the 50 states, and in my travels, I've learned what the people of the United States are thinking about. There is one issue that stands out above all the rest, one in which every American is concerned, regardless of what group he may be a member and regardless of where he may live. And that issue very simply stated is this: how can we keep the peace? Keep it without surrender. How can we extend freedom? Extend it without war

Now in determining how we deal with this issue, we must find the answer to a very important, but simple question: who threatens the peace? Who threatens freedom in the world? There is only one threat to peace, and one threat to freedom that which is presented by the international Communist movement. And therefore, if we are to have peace, if we are to keep our own freedom and extend it to others without war, we must know how to deal with the Communists and their leaders. I know Mr. Khruchev I also have had the opportunity of knowing and meeting other Communist leaders in the world, I believe there are certain principles we must find in dealing with him and his colleagues, principles if followed, will keep the peace and that also can extend freedom.

First, we have to learn from the past, because we cannot afford to make the mistakes of the past. In the seven years before this administration came into power in Washington, we found that six hundred million people went behind the Iron Curtain, and at the end of that seven years, we were engaged in a war in Korea, which caused over thirty thousand American lives. In the past seven years, in President Eisenhower's administration, this situation has been reversed. We ended the Korean War. By strong, firm leadership, we have kept out of other wars, and we have avoided surrender of principle or territory at the conference table.

Now why were we successful, as our predecessors were not successful? I think there are severa1 reasons. In the first place, they made a fatal error in misjudging the Communists, in trying to applying to them the same rules of conduct that you would app1y to the 1eaders of the free world. One of the major errors they made was the one that led to the Korean War. In ruling out the defense of Korea, they invited aggression in that area, they thought they were going to have peace, it brought war

We learned from their mistakes, and so in our seven years, we find that we have been firm in our diplomacy We have never made concessions without getting concessions in return. We have always been willing to go the extra mile to negotiate for disarmament or in any other area, but we have never been willing to do anything that in effect surrender freedom anyplace in the world. That is why President Eisenhower was correct in not apologizing or expressing regrets to Mr. Khruchev at the Paris conference, as Senator Kennedy suggested he could have done, that is why President Eisenhower was also correct in his policy in the Formosa Straits where he declined and refused to follow the recommendations, recommendations which Senator Kennedy voted for in 1955, again made in 1959, again repeated in his debates that you have heard, recommendations with regard to again slicing off a piece of free territory and abandoning it, if in effect, to the Communists.

Why did the President feel that this was wrong, and why was the President right and his critics wrong? Because again, this showed a lack of understanding of dictators, a lack of understanding particularly of Communists, because every time you make such a concession, it does not lead to peace, it only encourages them to blackmail you, it encourages them to begin a war And so I say, that the records show that we know how to keep the peace, to keep it without surrender Let us move now to the future.

It's not enough to stand on this record, because we are dealing with the most ruthless, fanatical leaders that the world has ever seen. That is why I say that in this period of the Sixties, America must move forward in every area. First of all, although we are today as Senator Kennedy has admitted, the strongest nation in the world militarily we must increase our strength, increase it so that we will always have enough strength that regardless of what our potential opponents have, if they should Iaunch a surprise attack, we will be able to destroy their war-making capabilities. They must know in other words, that it's national suicide if they begin anything. We need this kind of strength because we are the guardians of the peace.

In addition to military strength, we need to see that the economy of this country continues to grow It has grown in the past seven years. It can, and will grow even more in the next four And the reason that it must grow even more is because we have things to do at home, and also because we are in a race for survival, a race in which it isn't enough to be ahead, it isn't
enough simply to be complacent, we have to move ahead in order to stay ahead. And that is why in this field, I have made recommendations which I am confident will move the American economy ahead, move it firmly and soundly so that there will never be a time when the Soviet Union will be able to challenge our superiority in this field.

And so we need military strength, we need economic strength, we also need the right diplomatic policies. What are they? Again, we turn to the past f firmness, but no belligerence, and by no belligerence I mean that we do not answer insult by insult. When you are proud and confident of your strength, you do not get down to the level of Mr. Anruchev and his colleagues,
and that example that President Eisenhower has set, we will continue to follow

But all this by itself is not enough. It's not enough for us simply to be the strongest nation militarily the strongest economically and also to have firm diplomacy we must have a great goal, and that is not just to keep freedom for ourselves, but to extend it to all the world. To extend it to all the world because that is America's destiny To extend it to all the world because the Communist aim is not to hold their own, but to extend Communism. And you cannot fight a victory for Communism or a strategy of victory for Communism with a strategy simply of holding the line. And so I say that we believe that our po1icies of military strength, of economic strength, of diplomatic firmness first will keep the peace, and keep it without surrender. We also be1ieve that in the great field of ideals, that we can lead America to the victory for freedom, victory in the new1y developing countries, victory also in the capita1ist countries, provided we have faith in ourselves, and faith in our principles.

**************

(John F. Kennedy)

Mr. Howe, Mr. Vice President. First, let me again try to correct the record on the matter of Keen W1liam Matchship. I voted for the Formosa resolution in 1955, I've sustained it since .then, I've said that I agreed with the Administration policies. Mr. Nixon earlier indicated that he would defend Keen William Matchship even if the attacks on these islands, two miles of the coast of China, would not be part of a general attack on the Formosa in the Prescadories. I indicated that I would defend those islands if the attack were directed against Prescadories and Formosa, which is part of the Eisenhower policy I've supported that policy In the last week, as a member of the Senate Formulations Committee, I've re-read the testimony of General Twinning, representing the Administration in 1959, and the Assistant Secretary of State before the Formulations Committee in 1958, and I've accurately described the Administration policy and I support it wholeheartedly So that really isn't an issue in this campaign. It isn't an issue if Mr. Nixon, who now says that he also supports the Eisenhower policy nor is the question that all Americans want peace and security an issue in this campaign.

The question is: are we moving in the direction of peace and security? Is our relative strength growing? Is, as Mr. Nixon said, our prestige at an all time high, as he said a week ago, and that of the Communist at an all time low? I don't believe that it is. I don't believe that our relative strength is increasing. And I say that not as a Democratic standard-bearer, but as a citizen of the United States who is concerned about the United States. I look at Cuba, ninety miles off the coast of the United States. In 1957, I was in Havana, I talked to the American ambassador there, he said that he was the second most powerful man in Cuba. And yet, even though Ambassador Smith and Ambassador Gardner, both Republican ambassadors, both warned of Castro, the Marxist influences around' Castro, the Communist influences around Castro, both of them have testified in the last six weeks that in spite of their warnings to the American government, nothing was done.

Our security depends upon Latin America. Can any American looking at the situation in Latin America feel content with what's happening today? When a candidate for the Presidency of Brazil feels it's necessary to call, not on Washington during the campaign, but on Castro and Havana, in order to pick up the support of the Castro supporters in Brazil? At the American conference and Intra-Americas conference this summer, when we wanted them to join together in the denunciation of Castro and the Cuban Communists, we couldn't even get the Intra-American group to join together in denouncing Castro. It was rather a vague statement that they finally made. Do you know today that the Russians broadcast ten times as many programs in Spanish to Latin America as we do? Do you know we don't have a single program sponsored by our government to Cuba? To tell them our story to tell them that we are their friends, that we want them to be free again.

Africa is now the emerging area of the world. It contains twenty-five percent of all the members of the General Assembly We didn't even have a bureau of African Affairs until 1957. In the Africa south of the Sahara, which is the major new section, we have less students from all of Africa in that area studying under government auspices today than from the country of Thailand? If it's one thing that African countries needs, it's technical assistance, and yet last year, we gave them less than five per cent of all the technical assistance funds that we distributed around the world. We relied in the Middle East on the Baghdad Pact, and yet when the Iraqi government was changed, the Baghdad Pact broke down. We relied on the Eisenhower Doctrine for the Middle East which passed the Senate. There isn't one country in the Middle East that now endorses the Eisenhower Doctrine.

We look to Asia, because the struggles in the under-developed world, which system, Communism or Freedom, will triumph in the next five or ten years. That's what should concern us, not the history of ten or fifteen or twenty years ago, but are we doing enough in these areas? What are freedom's chances in those areas. By 1965, 1970, will there be other Cubas in Latin America? Will Guinea and Ghana, which have now voted with the Communists Ghana, which have now voted with the Communists frequently as newly independently countries of Africa, will there be others? Will the Congo government? Will other countries? Are we doing enough in that area? And what about Asia? Is India going to win the economic struggle, or is China going to win it? Who will dominate Asia in the next five or ten years: Communism, the Chinese, or will freedom? The question which we have to decide as Americans: are we doing enough today? Is our strength and prestige rising? Do people want to be identified with us? Do they want to follow the United States' leadership? I don't think they do enough, and that's what concerns me.

In Africa, the countries that have newly joined the United Nations, on the question of the admission of Red China, only two countries, in all of Africa, voted with usf Liberia and the
Union of South Africa. The rest either abstained or voted against us. More countries in Asia voted against us on that question than voted with us. I believed that this struggle is going to go on and it might well be decided in the next decade. I've seen Cuba go to the Communists, I've seen Communism influence and Castro influence rise in Latin America, I've seen us ignored in Africa. There are six countries in Africa that are members of the United Nations, there isn't a single American diplomatic representative in any one of those six. When Guinea became independent, the Soviet ambassador showed up that very day we didn't recognize them for two months, the American ambassador didn't show up for nearly eight months.

I believe that the world is changing fast, and I don't think this Administration has shown the foresight, has shown the knowledge, has been identified with the great fight which these people are waging to be free, to get a better standard of living, to live better The average income in some of those countries is 25 dollars a year The Communists say come with us, look what we have done. And we've been, on the whole, uninterested. I think we are going to have to do better. Mr. Nixon talks about us being the strongest country in the world, I think we are today But we were far stronger relative to the Communists five years ago, and what is of great concern is that the balance of power is in danger of moving with them. They made a break-through in missiles, and by 1961, 2, and 3, they will be out-numbering us in missiles. I am not as confident as he is that we will be the strongest military power by 1963. He talks about economic growth as a great indicator for freedom, I agree with him. What we do in this country the kind of society that we build, that will te1l whether freedom wil1 be sustained around the world, and yet in the last nine months of this year, we've had a drop in our economic growth rather than a gain. We had the lowest rate of increase in economic growth in the last nine months of any major industrialized society in the world.

I look up and see the Soviet flag on the moon. The fact is that the State Department polls on our prestige and influence around the world has shown such a sharp drop that up until now the State Department has been unwilling to release them, and yet they were polled by the USA. The point of all this ist this is a struggle in which we are engaged. We want peace, we want freedom, we want security we want to be stronger, we want freedom to gain. But I don't believe that in these changing and revolutionary times, this Administration has known that the world is changing, has identified itself with that change. I think the Communist has been moving with vigor Laos, Africa, Cuba, all around the world, they are on the move. I think we have to revitalize our society I think we have to demonstrate to the people of the world that we are determined in this free country of ours to be first, not first if, not first but, not first when, but first. And when we are strong, and we are first, then freedom gains, then the prospect for peace increase, and the prospect for our prosperity gain.