The attitude above all others which I feel sure is no
longer valid is the arrogance of power, the tendency of great nations to equate
power with virtue and major responsibilities with a universal mission. The
dilemmas involved are pre-eminently American dilemmas, not because America has
weaknesses that others do not have but because America is powerful as no nation
has ever been before and the discrepancy between its power and the power of
others appears to be increasing....
We are now engaged in a war to "defend freedom"
in South Vietnam. Unlike the Republic of Korea, South Vietnam has an army which
[is] without notable success and a weak, dictatorial government which does not
command the loyalty of the South Vietnamese people. The official war aims of the
United States Government, as I understand them, are to defeat what is regarded
as North Vietnamese aggression, to demonstrate the futility of what the
communists call "wars of national liberation," and to create
conditions under which the South Vietnamese people will be able freely to
determine their own future. I have not the slightest doubt of the sincerity of
the President and the Vice President and the Secretaries of State and Defense in
propounding these aims. What I do doubt - and doubt very much - is the ability
of the United States to achieve these aims by the means being used. I do not
question the power of our weapons and the efficiency of our logistics; I cannot
say these things delight me as the y seem to delight some of our officials, but
they are certainly impressive. What I do question is the ability of the United
States, or France or any other Western nation, to go into a small, alien,
undeveloped Asian nation and create stability where there is chaos, the will to
fight where there is defeatism, democracy racy where there is no tradition of it
and honest government where corruption is almost a way of life. Our handicap is
well expressed in the pungent Chinese proverb: "In shallow waters dragons
become the sport of shrimps."
Early last month demonstrators in Saigon burned
American jeeps, tried to assault American soldiers, and marched through the
streets shouting "Down with the American imperialists," while one of
the Buddhist leaders made a speech equating the Unit ed States with the
communists as a threat to South Vietnamese independence. Most Americans are
understandably shocked ant angered to encounter such hostility from people who
by now would be under the rule of the Viet Cong but for the sacrifice of
American lives and money. Why, we may ask, are they so shockingly ungrateful?
Surely they must know that their very right to parade and protest and
demonstrate depends on the Americans who are defending them.
The answer, I think, is that "fatal impact"
of the rich and strong on the poor and weak. Dependent on it though the
Vietnamese are, our very strength is a reproach to their weakness, our wealth a
mockery of their poverty, our success a reminder of their failures. What they
resent is the disruptive effect of our strong culture upon their fragile one, an
effect which we can no more avoid than a man can help being bigger than a child.
What they fear, I think rightly, is that traditional Vietnamese society cannot
survive the American economic and cultural impact....
The cause of our difficulties in southeast Asia is not
a deficiency of power but an excess of the wrong kind of power which results in
a feeling of impotence when it fails to achieve its desired ends. We are still
acting like boy scouts dragging reluctant old ladies across the streets they do
not want to cross. We are trying to remake Vietnamese society, a task which
certainly cannot be accomplished by force and which probably cannot be
accomplished by any means available to outsiders. The objective may b e
desirable, but it is not feasible....
If America has a service to perform in the world - and
I believe it has - it is in large part the service of its own example. In our
excessive involvement in the affairs of other countries, we are not only living
off our assets and denying our own people the proper enjoyment of their
resources; we are also denying the world the example of a free society enjoying
its freedom to the fullest. This is regrettable indeed for a nation that aspires
to teach democracy to other nations, because, as Burke said! "Example is
the school of mankind, and they will learn at no other." . . .
There are many respects in which America, if it can
bring itself to act with the magnanimity and the empathy appropriate to its size
and power, can be an intelligent example to the world. We have the opportunity
to set an example of generous understanding in our relations with China, of
practical cooperation for peace in our relations with Russia, of reliable and
respectful partnership in our relations with Western Europe, of material
helpfulness without moral presumption in our relations with the develop ing
nations, of abstention from the temptations of hegemony in our relations with
Latin America, and of the all- around advantages of minding one's own business
in our relations with everybody. Most of all, we have the opportunity to serve
as an example o f democracy to the world by the way in which we run our own
society; America, in the words of John Quincy Adams, should be "the
well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all" but "the champion
and vindicator only of her own." . . .
If we can bring ourselves so to act, we will have
overcome the dangers of the arrogance of power. It will involve, no doubt, the
loss of certain glories, but that seems a price worth paying for the probable
rewards, which are the happiness of America and the peace of the world.
THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE