64
Press Releases, vol. XIV, p. 11
Address Delivered by President
Roosevelt Before the Congress, January 3, 1936
[Extract ]
We are about to enter upon another year of
the responsibility which the electorate of the United States has placed in our
hands. Having come so far, it is fitting that we should pause to survey the
ground which we have covered and the path which lies ahead.
On the 4th day of March 1933, on the occasion
of taking the oath of office as President of the United States, I addressed the
people of our country. Need I recall either the scene or the national
circumstances attending the occasion? The crisis of that moment was almost
exclusively a national one. In recognition of that fact, so obvious to the
millions in the streets and in the homes of America, I devoted by far the
greater part of that address to what I called, and the Nation called, critical
days within our own borders.
You will remember that on that 4th of March
1933, the world picture was an image of substantial peace. International
consultation and wide-spread hope for the bettering of relations between the
nations gave to all of us a reasonable expectation that the barriers to mutual
confidence, to increased trade, and to the peaceful settlement of disputes
could be progressively removed. In fact, my only reference to the field of
world policy in that address was in these words: "I would dedicate this
Nation to the policy of the good neighbor—the neighbor who resolutely respects
himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others—the neighbor who
respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and
with a world of neighbors."
In the years that have followed, that sentiment
has remained the dedication of this Nation. Among the nations of the great
Western Hemisphere the policy of the "good neighbor" has happily
prevailed. At no time in the 4 1/2 centuries of modern civilization in the
Americas has there existed—in any year, any decade, or any generation in all
that time—a greater spirit of mutual understanding, of common helpfulness, and
of devotion to the ideals of self-government than exists today in the 21
American republics and their neighbor, the Dominion of Canada. This policy of
the "good neighbor" among the Americas is no longer a hope—no longer
an objective remaining to be accomplished—it is a fact, active, present,
pertinent, and effective.
304
DOCUMENTS
In this achievement, every American nation takes an understanding part.
There is neither war, nor rumor of war, nor desire for war. The inhabitants of
this vast area, 250 million strong, spreading more than 8,000 miles from the
Arctic to the Antarctic, believe in, and propose to follow, the policy of the
"good neighbor". They wish with all their heart that the rest of the
world might do likewise.
The rest of the world—ah ! there is the rub.
Were I today to deliver an inaugural address
to the people of the United States, I could not limit my comments on world
affairs to one paragraph. With much regret I should be compelled to devote the
greater part to world affairs. Since the summer of that same year of 1933, the
temper and the purposes of the rulers of many of the great populations in
Europe and in Asia have not pointed the way either to peace or to good will
among men. Not only have peace and good will among men grown more remote in
those areas of the earth during this period, but a point has been reached where
the people of the Americas must take cognizance of growing ill will, of marked
trends toward aggression, of increasing armaments, of shortened tempers—a
situation which has in it many of the elements that lead to the tragedy of
general war.
On those other continents many nations,
principally the smaller ones, if left to themselves, would be content with
their boundaries and willing to solve within themselves and in cooperation with
their neighbors their individual problems, both economic and social. The rulers
of those nations, deep in their hearts, follow these peaceful and reasonable
aspirations of their peoples. These rulers must remain ever vigilant against
the possibility today or tomorrow of invasion or attack by the rulers of other
peoples who fail to subscribe to the principles of bettering the human race by
peaceful means.
Within those other nations—those which today
must bear the primary, definite responsibility for jeopardizing world
peace—what hope lies? To say the least, there are grounds for pessimism. It is
idle for us or for others to preach that the masses of the people who
constitute those nations which are dominated by the twin spirits of autocracy
and aggression, are out of sympathy with their rulers, that they are allowed no
opportunity to express themselves, that they would change things if they could.
That unfortunately, is not so clear. It might
be true that the masses of the people in those nations would change the
policies of their governments if they could be allowed full freedom and full
access to the processes of democratic government as we understand
305
DOCUMENTS
them. But they do not have that access: lacking it, they follow blindly
and fervently the lead of those who seek autocratic power.
Nations seeking expansion, seeking the
rectification of injustices springing from former wars, or seeking outlets for
trade, for population, or even for their own peaceful contributions to the
progress of civilization, fail to demonstrate that patience necessary to attain
reasonable and legitimate objectives by peaceful negotiation or by an appeal to
the finer instincts of world justice. They have therefore impatiently reverted
to the old belief in the law of the sword, or to the fantastic conception that
they, and they alone, are chosen to fulfill a mission and that all the others
among the billion and a half of human beings must and shall learn from and be
subject to them.
I recognize that these words which I have
chosen with deliberation will not prove popular in any nation that chooses to
fit this shoe to its foot. Such sentiments, however, will find sympathy and
understanding in those nations where the people themselves are honestly
desirous of peace but must constantly aline themselves on one side or the other
in the kaleidoscopic jockeying for position characteristic of European and
Asiatic relations today. For the peace-loving nations, and there are many of
them, find that their very identity depends on their moving and moving again on
the chessboard of international politics.
I suggested in the spring of 1933 that 85 or
90 percent of all the people in the world were content with the territorial
limits of their respective nations and were willing further to reduce their
armed forces if every other nation in the world would agree to do likewise.
That is equally true today, and it is even
more true today that world peace and world good will are blocked by only 10 or
15 percent of the world's population. That is why efforts to reduce armies have
thus far not only failed but have been met by vastly increased armaments on
land and in the air. That is why even efforts to continue the existing limits
on naval armaments into the years to come show such little current success.
But the policy of the United States has been
clear and consistent. We have sought with earnestness in every possible way to
limit world armaments and to attain the peaceful solution of disputes among all
nations.
We have sought by every legitimate means to
exert our moral influence against repression, discrimination, intolerance, and
autocracy and in favor of freedom of expression, equality before the law,
religious tolerance, and popular rule.
306
DOCUMENTS
In the field of commerce we have undertaken
to encourage a more reasonable interchange of the world's goods. In the field
of international finance we have, so far as we are concerned, put an end to
"dollar diplomacy", money grabbing, and speculation for the benefit
of the powerful and rich, at the expense of the small and the poor.
As a consistent part of a clear policy, the
United States is following a twofold neutrality toward any and all nations
which engage in wars not of immediate concern to the Americas: First, we
decline to encourage the prosecution of war by permitting belligerents to
obtain arms, ammunition, or implements of war from the United States; second,
we seek to discourage the use by belligerent nations of any and all American
products calculated to facilitate the prosecution of a war in quantities over
and above our normal exports to them in time of peace. [26]
I trust that these objectives, thus clearly
and unequivocally stated, will be carried forward by cooperation between this
Congress and the President.
I realize that I have emphasized to you the
gravity of the situation which confronts the people of the world. This emphasis
is justified because of its importance to civilization and therefore to the
Unite States. Peace is jeopardized by the few and not by the Peace is
threatened by those who seek selfish power. The has witnessed similar eras—as
in the days when petty kings and feudal barons were changing the map of Europe
every fortnight, or when great emperors and great kings were engaged in a mad
scramble for colonial empire.
We hope that we are not again at the
threshold of such an era. But if face it we must, then the United States and
the rest of the Americas can play but one role: through a well-ordered to do
naught to encourage the contest; through adequate defense, to save ourselves
from embroilment and attack; and through example and all legitimate encouragement
and assistance, to persuade other nations to return to the ways of peace and
good will.
[26] In line with the policy enunciated in this sentence a "neutrality" bill containing such a provision was introduced in Congress in January 1936. proposal was supported by Secretary Hull in testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. (Neutrality, Hearings before the Committee Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 74th Cong., 2d sess., 19 to February 5, 1936.)
307