鐵幕演說

1946年1月，英國前首相丘吉爾應邀訪美。3月5日，他在美國總統杜魯門陪同下抵達密蘇里州富爾頓，在杜魯門的母校威斯敏斯特學院發表了題為“和平砥柱”的演說。

丘吉爾在演說中公開攻擊蘇聯“擴張”，宣稱“從波羅的海的斯德丁到亞得里亞海邊的里雅斯特，一幅橫貫歐洲大陸的鐵幕已經降落下來”，蘇聯對“鐵幕”以東的中歐、東歐國家進行日益增強的高壓控制。對蘇聯的擴張，不能採取“綏靖政策”。美國正高踞於世界權力的頂峰，應擔負起未來的責任。主張英、美結成同盟，英語民族聯合起來，制止蘇聯的“侵略”。

富爾頓演說后不到10天，斯大林發表談話，嚴厲譴責丘吉爾和他的朋友非常像希特勒及其同伴，演說是杜魯門借他人之口發表的“冷戰”宣言，是美國發動“冷戰”的前奏曲。

第二次世界大戰後，美國經濟、軍事實力急劇膨脹，成為世界頭號資本主義強國。與此同時，蘇聯力量也逐漸強大，國際地位大大提高，東歐一些國家在蘇聯的影響下走上了社會主義道路，再加上蘇聯推行大國沙文主義，在歐洲極力擴張自己的勢力，美蘇之間的矛盾日益加深。西方國家提出了用除直接武裝進攻以外的一切手段和行動來遏制共產主義，一場“冷戰”(Cold War)在以美國為首的資本主義國家和以蘇聯為首的社會主義國家之間展開。

1946年3月5日，英國前首相丘吉爾在應邀訪問美國期間在密蘇里州富爾敦城的威斯敏斯特學院發表了題為《和平砥柱》的演講。

在演講中，丘吉爾對蘇聯大加攻擊。他說：“從波羅的海邊的什切青到亞得里亞海邊的的里雅斯特，已經拉下了橫貫歐洲大陸的鐵幕。這張鐵幕後面坐落著所有中歐、東歐古老國家的首都——華沙、柏林、布拉格、維也納、布達佩斯、貝爾格萊德、布加勒斯特和索菲亞。這些著名的都市和周圍的人口全都位於蘇聯勢力範圍之內，全都以這種或那種方式，不僅落入蘇聯影響之下，而且越來越強烈地為莫斯科所控制。”“幾乎在每一處都是警察政府佔了上風。到目前為止，除了捷克斯洛伐克以外，根本沒有真正的民主。”

丘吉爾還指出，在鐵幕外面，共產黨的“第五縱隊”遍布各國，“到處構成對基督教文明的日益嚴重的挑釁和危險”。丘吉爾呼籲英美聯合起來，建立“特殊關係”，推動西方民主國家“團結一致”。

這一演講和所使用的“鐵幕”一詞，立即引起了國際社會的關注。

蘇聯方面反應強烈，斯大林說，丘吉爾“現在採取了戰爭販子的立場”；美國朝野也受到強烈震撼，杜魯門很高興。但在美國國會中出現了若干激烈的敵對言論，認為丘吉爾是想把美國引向“最恐怖的戰爭”，讓英國漁翁得利。

丘吉爾的鐵幕演說是第二次世界大戰之後西方政界一位最有身份的人對蘇聯進行的最公開、最大膽的指責，這也是以美國為首的西方世界對以蘇聯為首的社會主義陣營開始“冷戰”所發出的最初信號。有不少專家認為，丘吉爾的鐵幕演說揭開了長達40多年冷戰的序幕。

“鐵幕”一詞儘管不是丘吉爾的首創，但經他這麼一用，從此便成為戰後國際關係中有關東西方對抗的專有名詞。

當然，丘吉爾發表如此言辭激烈的演說，並非一時心血來潮，而是當時國際形勢、英國的利益和丘吉爾的反共情結使然。

第二次世界大戰結束前後，新的世界格局已見分曉，大英帝國風光不再，淪為二流強國；美國取代英國，轉而成為世界第一強國，力主在全世界發號施令；蘇聯作為社會主義國家不僅成為歐洲最強大的國家，而且在世界範圍內也只有它有實力向美國叫板。儘管美、英、蘇在二戰中曾經是一致對敵的盟友，但隨著戰爭的結束，由於彼此間利益的衝突，它們之間的摩擦不斷升溫。

在東歐、中東、希臘、土耳其等地，美國、英國和蘇聯更是爭鬥得異常激烈。美國在戰後世界新格局中的一舉一動總是受到另一強國蘇聯的制約，以蘇聯為首的社會主義陣營也在形成之中。因而，美國政府正在制定著如何對付蘇聯的決策。此時英國惟有的希望是爭取美國輿論，尋求美國支持，重建歐洲均勢。

丘吉爾的富爾頓演說是當時美國總統杜魯門精心安排的傑作。杜氏意在利用丘吉爾這位著名的“反共鬥士”投石問路。丘吉爾在演說中不僅充分表達了英國的意願，同時也道出了美國想說而不便公開說的主張，適應了杜魯門政府的需要。經過輿論界的一番哄炒之後，美國當權集團儘管感到同蘇聯公開決裂的時機尚未成熟，民眾還沒有足夠的思想準備，即使政界領導人也有意見分歧，但是，散布蘇聯擴張和威脅的論調開始在美國輿論界佔據了上風。

“美國此刻正高踞於世界權力的頂峰。對美國民主來說，這是一個莊嚴的時刻。擁有最大的力量，也就是對未來負有令人敬畏的責任。放眼四顧，你不但覺得已經盡了應盡的責任，也感到憂慮，恐怕以後的成就未必能達到這樣高的水平。對你我兩國來說，現在都有一個機會在這裡，一個明確的、光彩奪目的機會。如果拒絕、忽視、或浪費這個機會，我們將受到後世長期的責備。……

“當美國的軍事人員在立場嚴重的局勢時，他們習慣於在他們的指令的頭上寫上‘全面戰略概念’字樣。這種做法是明智的，因為它能使思想明朗化。那麼，什麼是我們為今天所應題寫的全面戰略概念呢？它不應該低於在一切地方的所有男女的所有家庭的安全和幸福以及自由和進步。

“為了使這些無數的家庭得到安全，必須保護他們，使他們不受兩個可怕的掠奪者——戰爭和暴政——的侵犯。……

“……為了防止戰爭這一主要目的，已經建立了一個世界組織。……我們必須使這一切得到肯定：它的工作是有成果的，它是一種現實而不是一種假象，它是一種行動力量而不僅只是語言的空談，它是一種真正的和平之宮而不僅只是紛紛擾擾爭吵的場所……

“然而，我有一個明確而實際的行動建議要提出來。宮廷和地方行政長官沒有縣吏和皂吏就不能辦事。因此，必須馬上著手給聯合國配備一支國際武裝力量。在這個問題上，只能一步一步來，但我們必須從現在開始著手做。我建議，應邀請每一個大國和其它成員國派出一定數量的空軍中隊，為這個世界性組織服役。這些中隊將由本國訓練和籌備，但在各國輪流駐紮。他們身著本國的軍服，佩戴不同的徽章。不能要求他們對自己的國家作戰，但在其它方面將受這世界性組織的指揮。這個辦法可以小規模地實行起來，讓它隨著我們信心的增長而擴大。第一次世界大戰後我曾夢想做到這一步，相信現在會立即辦到。

“不過，如果把美國、英國和加拿大現在所共同掌握的製造原子彈的秘密知識和經驗託付給這個仍處於嬰兒時代的世界性組織，那是錯誤的和輕率的。如果任憑這種秘密知識在這依然騷動和不團結的世界上自然發展，那是罪惡的發狂。……

“現在我講到威脅著郊區農夫和城市平民的第二個危險，即暴政。我們不能無視一個事實，就是美國和大英帝國的個別公民到處都可以享受的自由，在許多的國家裡是不存在的，其中一些是十分強大的國家。在這些國家裡，各種包羅萬象的警察政府對民眾強加控制，達到了壓倒和違背一切民主原則的程度。或是一些獨裁者，或是組織嚴密的寡頭集團，他們通過一個享有特權的黨和一支政治警察隊伍，毫無節制地行使著國家的大權。在這多難的歲月，我們的責任不是用武力去干預那些我們不曾征服的國家的內部事務。但是，我們絕不能放棄以大無畏的聲調宣揚自由的偉大原則和基本人權。這些英語世界的共同遺產，繼大憲章、人權法案、人身保護法、陪審團審訊制、以及英國習慣法之後，它們又在美國獨立宣言中得到舉世聞名的表現。

“到此為止，我們顯然是完全一致的。現在，當仍然奉行這個實現我們全面戰略概念的方法的時候，我要講一講此行要談的關鍵問題。沒有我所稱之為各英語民族同胞手足一樣的聯合，有效地防止戰爭和繼續發展世界組織都是辦不到的。這種聯合就是以英聯邦與帝國為一方和以美利堅合眾國為另一方建立特殊的關係。現在不是泛泛空談的時候，我要明確地談談。

“兄弟般的聯合不僅要求我們兩個龐大的、有血緣關係的社會制度之間存在著日益增長的友誼和相互諒解，而且要求雙方軍事顧問繼續保持密切的聯繫，以便共同研究潛在的危險。武器的異同，訓練的教材，以及在軍事院校互換軍官和學員的問題。它還應包括聯合使用兩國在世界各地掌握的所有海空基地，使現有的設施繼續用於共同安全的目的。……

“不久剛被盟國的勝利所照亮的大地，已經罩上了陰影。沒有人知道，蘇俄和它的共產主義國際組織打算在最近的將來幹些什麼，以及它們擴張和傳教傾向的止境在哪裡，如果還有止境的話。對於英勇的俄羅斯人民和我的戰時夥伴斯大林元帥，我十分欽佩和尊敬。在英國——我毫不懷疑，在這裡也是一樣——人們對俄國各族人民懷有同情和善意，決心經受種種分歧和挫折，建立起持久的友誼。

“我們理解，俄國需要它西部邊界的安全，以免再次遭受德國的侵略。我們歡迎它佔有它在世界大國中有權佔有的地位。我們特別歡迎的是，在俄國人民和大西洋兩岸的我方人民之間保持經常不斷的、頻繁的和日益增多的接觸。但是，我有責任把有關當前歐洲形勢的某些事實擺在你們面前。

“從波羅的海的斯德丁〔什切青〕到亞得里亞海邊的的里雅斯特，一幅橫貫歐洲大陸的鐵幕已經降落下來。在這條線的後面，坐落著中歐與東歐古國的都城。華沙、柏林、布拉格、維也納、布達佩斯、貝爾格萊德、布加勒斯特和索菲亞——所有這些飽經滄桑的城市及其居民無一不處在蘇聯的勢力範圍之內，不僅以這種或那種形式屈服於蘇聯的勢力影響，而且還受到莫斯科日益增強的高壓控制。只有雅典，放射著它不朽的光輝，在英格蘭、美利堅、法蘭西三國每一個人的眼下，自由地決定它的前途。

“受俄國支配的波蘭政府被慫恿對德國領土實行大片的、不義的侵佔，正在以可悲的、想象不到的規模把數以百萬計的德國人成群地驅逐出境。在所有這些東歐國家原來都很弱小的共產黨，已經上升到同它們黨員人數遠不相稱的主導的、掌權的地位，到處爭取極權主義的控制。幾乎在每一處，都是警察政府佔了上風。到目前為之，除了捷克斯洛伐克，根本沒有真正的民主。

“土耳其和波斯〔伊朗〕都為莫斯科政府向它們提出的要求和對它們施加的壓力而感到驚惶萬分。駐在柏林的俄國人正試圖通過對各左翼領導集團的袒護，在他們的德國佔領區建立一個準共產黨。去年6月戰鬥結束時，美國和英國軍隊按照先前的協議，從一條將近四百英里寬的戰線上西撤，在某些地方深達一百五十英里。這樣就讓俄國人佔領了西方民主國家所攻打下來的遼闊的土地。

“現在，如果蘇聯政府試圖單獨行動，在他們的地區建立一個親共的德國，就將給英美兩國佔領區製造嚴重的困難，授予了戰敗的德國人以在蘇聯和西方民主國家之間拍賣抬價的權力。這些都是事實。不論我們從中得到什麼結論，這肯定不是我們進行武裝鬥爭所要建立的解放的歐洲，也不是一個具有永久和平必要條件的歐洲。

“在橫跨歐洲的鐵幕前面，還有其它令人焦慮的因素。義大利共產黨由於不得不支持共產黨訓練的鐵托元帥對亞得里亞海頂端的前義大利領土的要求，受到嚴重的牽制。儘管如此，義大利還是前途未卜。再一點，歐洲的復興，如無一個強大的法國，這是不可思議的。在我的全部公職生活中，我總是為使法國強大而工作著。甚至在最黑暗的日子裡，我也不曾對它的命運喪失信心。現在也不會喪失信心。

“不過，在遠離俄國邊界、遍布世界各地的許多國家裡，共產黨第五縱隊已經建立。它絕對服從來自共產主義中心的指令，完全協調地工作著。除了在英聯邦和美國——那裡的共產主義運動還在嬰兒時代——共產黨，即第五縱隊到處構成對基督教文明的日益嚴重的挑釁和危險。這是任何人在取得勝利的次日都應該記誦的一些黯淡的事實。這一勝利是通過在戰鬥中以及在自由和民主的事業中結成情誼深厚的戰友關係取得的。如果我們不趁還來得及的時候正視這些事實，那就太不明智了。

“……我不相信蘇俄希望戰爭。他們所希望的是得到戰爭的果實，以及他們的權力和主義的無限擴張。因此，趁今天還為時未晚，我們在這裡要考慮的是永久制止戰爭和儘速在一切國家為自由和民主創造條件的問題。

“對於困難和危險視而不見，不能解決問題；袖手旁觀，也不解決問題；採取綏靖政策，也無濟於事。現在需要的是作出解決問題的安排。拖得越久，就越困難，對我們的危險也就越大。大戰期間，我對我們俄國朋友和盟友的觀察所得的印象使我堅信，他們所欽佩的莫過於實力，而他們最瞧不起的是軍事上的虛弱。由於這個緣故，勢力均衡的舊理論不適用了。如果可以避免的話，我們再也經不起在只留有狹小餘地的情況下進行工作，從而提供了進行較量的誘惑。假使西方民主國家團結一致，嚴守聯合國憲章的原則，那麼，它們推行這些原則的影響力將是巨大的，沒有人會來冒犯它們。不過，假使它們四分五裂，在自己執行職責時手軟，假使讓這緊要關頭的幾年白白混過去，那麼，我們大家確實都要在浩劫中被毀滅了。

“上一次，我曾目睹大戰來臨，對自己本國同胞和全世界大聲疾呼，但是人們都聽不進。近至1933年，甚至1935年，或許還能把德國從後來落到它頭上的可怕命運中拯救出來，使我們大家都免遭希特勒強加於人類的苦難。

“在全部歷史中，沒有一次戰爭比前不久使地球上這麼多廣大地區淪為廢墟的這次大戰，更容易同及時的行動加以制止。它本來可以不發一槍就被制止住，而德國本來可以至今是一個強大、繁榮、受尊敬的國家。但是，誰也聽不進。於是所有我們這些國家，一個接一個都被捲入可怕的漩渦中了。

“我們肯定地不能讓那種事重演。這隻有這樣做才能達到：在現時，即一九四六年，在聯合國普遍權威之下，就所有問題同俄國達成良好的諒解；並且通過這個世界性組織，在講英語的世界及其一切聯繫地區的全力支持下，使上述良好的諒解在許多和平的年份中維持下去。

“請不要把不列顛帝國和美國的堅持的能力加以低估。……如果在美國的人口之外，再加上英語聯邦的人口，再加上這種合作關係所涉及的在空中、海上、科學和工業各方面的合作，那就不會出現不穩定的、靠不住的力量均衡，致使野心家和冒險家情不自禁。……倘若英國所有道義上、物質上的力量和信念，都同你們的力量和信念兄弟般的聯合在一起，那麼，就將不僅為我們、為我們的時代，而且也將為所有的人，為未來的世紀，帶來一個廣闊的前程，這是明確無疑的。”

I am glad to come to Westminster College this afternoon, and am complimented that you should give me a degree. The name "Westminster" is somehow familiar to me.

I seem to have heard of it before. Indeed, it was at Westminster that I received a very large part of my education in politics, dialectic, rhetoric, and one or two other things. In fact we have both been educated at the same, or similar, or, at any rate, kindred establishments.

It is also an honour, perhaps almost unique, for a private visitor to be introduced to an academic audience by the President of the United States. Amid his heavy burdens, duties, and responsibilities-unsought but not recoiled from-the President has travelled a thousand miles to dignify and magnify our meeting here to-day and to give me an opportunity of addressing this kindred nation, as well as my own countrymen across the ocean, and perhaps some other countries too. The President has told you that it is his wish, as I am sure it is yours, that I should have full liberty to give my true and faithful counsel in these anxious and baffling times. I shall certainly avail myself of this freedom, and feel the more right to do so because any private ambitions I may have cherished in my younger days have been satisfied beyond my wildest dreams. Let me, however, make it clear that I have no official mission or status of any kind, and that I speak only for myself. There is nothing here but what you see.

I can therefore allow my mind, with the experience of a lifetime, to play over the problems which beset us on the morrow of our absolute victory in arms, and to try to make sure with what strength I have that what has been gained with so much sacrifice and suffering shall be preserved for the future glory and safety of mankind.

The United States stands at this time at the pinnacle of world power. It is a solemn moment for the American Democracy. For with primacy in power is also joined an awe inspiring accountability to the future. If you look around you, you must feel not only the sense of duty done but also you must feel anxiety lest you fall below the level of achievement. Opportunity is here now, clear and shining for both our countries. To reject it or ignore it or fritter it away will bring upon us all the long reproaches of the after-time. It is necessary that constancy of mind, persistency of purpose, and the grand simplicity of decision shall guide and rule the conduct of the English-speaking peoples in peace as they did in war. We must, and I believe we shall, prove ourselves equal to this severe requirement.

When American military men approach some serious situation they are wont to write at the head of their directive the words "over-all strategic concept." There is wisdom in this, as it leads to clarity of thought. What then is the over-all strategic concept which we should inscribe today? It is nothing less than the safety and welfare, the freedom and progress, of all the homes and families of all the men and women in all the lands. And here I speak particularly of the myriad cottage or apartment homes where the wage-earner strives amid the accidents and difficulties of life to guard his wife and children from privation and bring the family up in the fear of the Lord, or upon ethical conceptions which often play their potent part.

To give security to these countless homes, they must be shielded from the two giant marauders, war and tyranny. We all know the frightful disturbances in which the ordinary family is plunged when the curse of war swoops down upon the bread-winner and those for whom he works and contrives. The awful ruin of Europe, with all its vanished glories, and of large parts of Asia glares us in the eyes. When the designs of wicked men or the aggressive urge of mighty States dissolve over large areas the frame of civilised society, humble folk are confronted with difficulties with which they cannot cope. For them all is distorted, all is broken, even ground to pulp.

When I stand here this quiet afternoon I shudder to visualise what is actually happening to millions now and what is going to happen in this period when famine stalks the earth. None can compute what has been called "the unestimated sum of human pain." Our supreme task and duty is to guard the homes of the common people from the horrors and miseries of another war. We are all agreed on that.

Our American military colleagues, after having proclaimed their "over-all strategic concept" and computed available resources, always proceed to the next step-namely, the method. Here again there is widespread agreement. A world organisation has already been erected for the prime purpose of preventing war, UNO, the successor of the League of Nations, with the decisive addition of the United States and all that that means, is already at work. We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel. Before we cast away the solid assurances of national armaments for self-preservation we must be certain that our temple is built, not upon shifting sands or quagmires, but upon the rock. Anyone can see with his eyes open that our path will be difficult and also long, but if we persevere together as we did in the two world wars-though not, alas, in the interval between them-I cannot doubt that we shall achieve our common purpose in the end.

I have, however, a definite and practical proposal to make for action. Courts and magistrates may be set up but they cannot function without sheriffs and constables. The United Nations Organisation must immediately begin to be equipped with an international armed force. In such a matter we can only go step by step, but we must begin now. I propose that each of the Powers and States should be invited to delegate a certain number of air squadrons to the service of the world organisation. These squadrons would be trained and prepared in their own countries, but would move around in rotation from one country to another. They would wear the uniform of their own countries but with different badges. They would not be required to act against their own nation, but in other respects they would be directed by the world organisation. This might be started on a modest scale and would grow as confidence grew. I wished to see this done after the First World War, and I devoutly trust it may be done forthwith.

It would nevertheless be wrong and imprudent to entrust the secret knowledge or experience of the atomic bomb, which the United States, Great Britain, and Canada now share, to the world organisation, while it is still in its infancy. It would be criminal madness to cast it adrift in this still agitated and un-united world. No one in any country has slept less well in their beds because this knowledge and the method and the raw materials to apply it, are at present largely retained in American hands. I do not believe we should all have slept so soundly had the positions been reversed and if some Communist or neo-Fascist State monopolised for the time being these dread agencies. The fear of them alone might easily have been used to enforce totalitarian systems upon the free democratic world, with consequences appalling to human imagination. God has willed that this shall not be and we have at least a breathing space to set our house in order before this peril has to be encountered: and even then, if no effort is spared, we should still possess So formidable a superiority as to impose effective deterrents upon its employment, or threat of employment, by others. Ultimately, when the essential brotherhood of man is truly embodied and expressed in a world organisation with all the necessary practical safeguards to make it effective, these powers would naturally be confided to that world organisation.

Now I come to the second danger of these two marauders which threatens the cottage, the home, and the ordinary people-namely, tyranny. We cannot be blind to the fact that the liberties enjoyed by individual citizens throughout the British Empire are not valid in a considerable number of countries, some of which are very powerful. In these States control is enforced upon the common people by various kinds of all-embracing police governments. The power of the State is exercised without restraint, either by dictators or by compact oligarchies operating through a privileged party and a political police. It is not our duty at this time when difficulties are so numerous to interfere forcibly in the internal affairs of countries which we have not conquered in war. But we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.

All this means that the people of any country have the right, and should have the power by constitutional action, by free unfettered elections, with secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they dwell; that freedom of speech and thought should reign; that courts of justice, independent of the executive, unbiased by any party, should administer laws which have received the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated by time and custom. Here are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home. Here is the message of the British and American peoples to mankind. Let us preach what we practise - let us practise what we preach.

I have now stated the two great dangers which menace the homes of the people: War and Tyranny. I have not yet spoken of poverty and privation which are in many cases the prevailing anxiety. But if the dangers of war and tyranny are removed, there is no doubt that science and co-operation can bring in the next few years to the world, certainly in the next few decades newly taught in the sharpening school of war, an expansion of material well-being beyond anything that has yet occurred in human experience. Now, at this sad and breathless moment, we are plunged in the hunger and distress which are the aftermath of our stupendous struggle; but this will pass and may pass quickly, and there is no reason except human folly or sub-human crime which should deny to all the nations the inauguration and enjoyment of an age of plenty. I have often used words which I learned fifty years ago from a great Irish-American orator, a friend of mine, Mr. Bourke Cockran. "There is enough for all. The earth is a generous mother; she will provide in plentiful abundance food for all her children if they will but cultivate her soil in justice and in peace." So far I feel that we are in full agreement.

Now, while still pursuing the method of realising our overall strategic concept, I come to the crux of what I have travelled here to Say. Neither the sure prevention of war, nor the continuous rise of world organisation will be gained without what I have called the fraternal association of the English-speaking peoples. This means a special relationship between the British Commonwealth and Empire and the United States. This is no time for generalities, and I will venture to be precise. Fraternal association requires not only the growing friendship and mutual understanding between our two vast but kindred Systems of society, but the continuance of the intimate relationship between our military advisers, leading to common study of potential dangers, the similarity of weapons and manuals of instructions, and to the interchange of officers and cadets at technical colleges. It should carry with it the continuance of the present facilities for mutual security by the joint use of all Naval and Air Force bases in the possession of either country all over the world. This would perhaps double the mobility of the American Navy and Air Force. It would greatly expand that of the British Empire Forces and it might well lead, if and as the world calms down, to important financial savings. Already we use together a large number of islands; more may well be entrusted to our joint care in the near future.

The United States has already a Permanent Defence Agreement with the Do-minion of Canada, which is so devotedly attached to the British Commonwealth and Empire. This Agreement is more effective than many of those which have often been made under formal alliances. This principle should be extended to all British Commonwealths with full reciprocity. Thus, whatever happens, and thus only, shall we be secure ourselves and able to work together for the high and simple causes that are dear to us and bode no ill to any. Eventually there may come-I feel eventually there will come-the principle of common citizenship, but that we may be content to leave to destiny, whose outstretched arm many of us can already clearly see.

There is however an important question we must ask ourselves. Would a special relationship between the United States and the British Commonwealth be inconsistent with our over-riding loyalties to the World Organisation? I reply that, on the contrary, it is probably the only means by which that organisation will achieve its full stature and strength. There are already the special United States relations with Canada which I have just mentioned, and there are the special relations between the United States and the South American Republics. We British have our twenty years Treaty of Collaboration and Mutual Assistance with Soviet Russia. I agree with Mr. Bevin, the Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, that it might well be a fifty years Treaty so far as we are concerned. We aim at nothing but mutual assistance and collaboration. The British have an alliance with Portugal unbroken since 1384, and which produced fruitful results at critical moments in the late war. None of these clash with the general interest of a world agreement, or a world organisation; on the contrary they help it. "In my father's house are many mansions." Special associations between members of the United Nations which have no aggressive point against any other country, which harbour no design incompatible with the Charter of the United Nations, far from being harmful, are beneficial and, as I believe, indispensable.

I spoke earlier of the Temple of Peace. Workmen from all countries must build that temple. If two of the workmen know each other particularly well and are old friends, if their families are inter-mingled, and if they have "faith in each other's purpose, hope in each other's future and charity towards each other's shortcomings"-to quote some good words I read here the other day-why cannot they work together at the common task as friends and partners? Why cannot they share their tools and thus increase each other's working powers? Indeed they must do so or else the temple may not be built, or, being built, it may collapse, and we shall all be proved again unteachable and have to go and try to learn again for a third time in a school of war, incomparably more rigorous than that from which we have just been released. The dark ages may return, the Stone Age may return on the gleaming wings of science, and what might now shower immeasurable material blessings upon mankind, may even bring about its total destruction. Beware, I say; time may be short. Do not let us take the course of allowing events to drift along until it is too late. If there is to be a fraternal association of the kind I have described, with all the extra strength and security which both our countries can derive from it, let us make sure that that great fact is known to the world, and that it plays its part in steadying and stabilising the foundations of peace. There is the path of wisdom. Prevention is better than cure.

A shadow has fallen upon the scenes so lately lighted by the Allied victory. Nobody knows what Soviet Russia and its Communist international organisation intends to do in the immediate future, or what are the limits, if any, to their expansive and proselytising tendencies. I have a strong admiration and regard for the valiant Russian people and for my wartime comrade, Marshal Stalin. There is deep sympathy and goodwill in Britain-and I doubt not here also-towards the peoples of all the Russias and a resolve to persevere through many differences and rebuffs in establishing lasting friendships. We understand the Russian need to be secure on her western frontiers by the removal of all possibility of German aggression. We welcome Russia to her rightful place among the leading nations of the world. We welcome her flag upon the seas. Above all, we welcome constant, frequent and growing contacts between the Russian people and our own people on both sides of the Atlantic. It is my duty however, for I am sure you would wish me to state the facts as I see them to you, to place before you certain facts about the present position in Europe.

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia, all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and, in many cases, increasing measure of control from Moscow. Athens alone-Greece with its immortal glories-is free to decide its future at an election under British, American and French observation. The Russian-dominated Polish Government has been encouraged to make enormous and wrongful inroads upon Germany, and mass expulsions of millions of Germans on a scale grievous and undreamed-of are now taking place. The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments are prevailing in nearly every case, and so far, except in Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy.

Turkey and Persia are both profoundly alarmed and disturbed at the claims which are being made upon them and at the pressure being exerted by the Moscow Government. An attempt is being made by the Russians in Berlin to build up a quasi-Communist party in their zone of Occupied Germany by showing special favours to groups of left-wing German leaders. At the end of the fighting last June, the American and British Armies withdrew westwards, in accordance with an earlier agreement, to a depth at some points of 150 miles upon a front of nearly four hundred miles, in order to allow our Russian allies to occupy this vast expanse of territory which the Western Democracies had conquered.

If now the Soviet Government tries, by separate action, to build up a pro-Communist Germany in their areas, this will cause new serious difficulties in the British and American zones, and will give the defeated Germans the power of putting themselves up to auction between the Soviets and the Western Democracies. Whatever conclusions may be drawn from these facts-and facts they are-this is certainly not the Liberated Europe we fought to build up. Nor is it one which contains the essentials of permanent peace.

The safety of the world requires a new unity in Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast. It is from the quarrels of the strong parent races in Europe that the world wars we have witnessed, or which occurred in former times, have sprung. Twice in our own lifetime we have seen the United States, against their wishes and their traditions, against arguments, the force of which it is impossible not to comprehend, drawn by irresistible forces, into these wars in time to secure the victory of the good cause, but only after frightful slaughter and devastation had occurred. Twice the United States has had to send several millions of its young men across the Atlantic to find the war; but now war can find any nation, wherever it may dwell between dusk and dawn. Surely we should work with conscious purpose for a grand pacification of Europe, within the structure of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter. That I feel is an open cause of policy of very great importance.

In front of the iron curtain which lies across Europe are other causes for anxiety. In Italy the Communist Party is seriously hampered by having to Support the Communist-trained Marshal Tito's claims to former Italian territory at the head of the Adriatic. Nevertheless the future of Italy hangs in the balance. Again one cannot imagine a regenerated Europe without a strong France. All my public life I have worked for a Strong France and I never lost faith in her destiny, even in the darkest hours. I will not lose faith now. However, in a great number of countries, far from the Russian frontiers and throughout the world, Communist fifth columns are established and work in complete unity and absolute obedience to the directions they receive from the Communist centre. Except in the British Commonwealth and in the United States where Communism is in its infancy, the Communist parties or fifth columns constitute a growing challenge and peril to Christian civilisation. These are sombre facts for anyone to have to recite on the morrow of a victory gained by so much splendid comradeship in arms and in the cause of freedom and democracy; but we should be most unwise not to face them squarely while time remains.

The outlook is also anxious in the Far East and especially in Manchuria. The Agreement which was made at Yalta, to which I was a party, was extremely favourable to Soviet Russia, but it was made at a time when no one could say that the German war might not extend all through the summer and autumn of 1945 and when the Japanese war was expected to last for a further 18 months from the end of the German war. In this country you are all so well-informed about the Far East, and such devoted friends of China, that I do not need to expatiate on the situation there.

I have felt bound to portray the shadow which, alike in the west and in the east, falls upon the world. I was a high minister at the time of the Versailles Treaty and a close friend of Mr. Lloyd-George, who was the head of the British delegation at Versailles. I did not myself agree with many things that were done, but I have a very Strong impression in my mind of that situation, and I find it painful to contrast it with that which prevails now. In those days there were high hopes and unbounded confidence that the wars were over, and that the League of Nations would become all-powerful. I do not see or feel that same confidence or even the same hopes in the haggard world at the present time.

On the other hand I repulse the idea that a new war is inevitable; still more that it is imminent. It is because I am sure that our fortunes are still in our own hands and that we hold the power to save the future, that I feel the duty to speak out now that I have the occasion and the opportunity to do so. I do not believe that Soviet Russia desires war. What they desire is the fruits of war and the indefinite expansion of their power and doctrines. But what we have to consider here to-day while time remains, is the permanent prevention of war and the establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries. Our difficulties and dangers will not be removed by closing our eyes to them. They will not be removed by mere waiting to see what happens; nor will they be removed by a policy of appeasement. What is needed is a settlement, and the longer this is delayed, the more difficult it will be and the greater our dangers will become.

From what I have seen of our Russian friends and Allies during the war, I am convinced that there is nothing they admire so much as strength, and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness, especially military weakness. For that reason the old doctrine of a balance of power is unsound. We cannot afford, if we can help it, to work on narrow margins, offering temptations to a trial of strength. If the Western Democracies stand together in strict adherence to the principles of the United Nations Charter, their influence for furthering those principles will be immense and no one is likely to molest them. If however they become divided or falter in their duty and if these all-important years are allowed to slip away then indeed catastrophe may overwhelm us all.

Last time I saw it all coming and cried aloud to my own fellow-countrymen and to the world, but no one paid any attention. Up till the year 1933 or even 1935, Germany might have been saved from the awful fate which has overtaken her and we might all have been spared the miseries Hitler let loose upon mankind. There never was a war in all history easier to prevent by timely action than the one which has just desolated such great areas of the globe. It could have been prevented in my belief without the firing of a single shot, and Germany might be powerful, prosperous and honoured to-day; but no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool. We surely must not let that happen again. This can only be achieved by reaching now, in 1946, a good understanding on all points with Russia under the general authority of the United Nations Organisation and by the maintenance of that good understanding through many peaceful years, by the world instrument, supported by the whole strength of the English-speaking world and all its connections. There is the solution which I respectfully offer to you in this Address to which I have given the title "The Sinews of Peace."

Let no man underrate the abiding power of the British Empire and Commonwealth. Because you see the 46 millions in our island harassed about their food supply, of which they only grow one half, even in war-time, or because we have difficulty in restarting our industries and export trade after six years of passionate war effort, do not suppose that we shall not come through these dark years of privation as we have come through the glorious years of agony, or that half a century from now, you will not see 70 or 80 millions of Britons spread about the world and united in defence of our traditions, our way of life, and of the world causes which you and we espouse. If the population of the English-speaking Commonwealths be added to that of the United States with all that such co-operation implies in the air, on the sea, all over the globe and in science and in industry, and in moral force, there will be no quivering, precarious balance of power to offer its temptation to ambition or adventure. On the contrary, there will be an overwhelming assurance of security. If we adhere faithfully to the Charter of the United Nations and walk forward in sedate and sober strength seeking no one's land or treasure, seeking to lay no arbitrary control upon the thoughts of men; if all British moral and material forces and convictions are joined with your own in fraternal association, the high-roads of the future will be clear, not only for us but for all, not only for our time, but for a century to come.

現實主義國際關係理論興起於30年代, 並在第二次世界大戰後成為西方國際關係研究中的主要流派, 與理想主義者對國際合作與協調的希望相反, 傳統現實主義者使人們注意國際社會中存在的衝突和無政府狀態的現實。他們認為國際關係應以“權力”和“實力”為中心, 處在國際社會裡的每一個主權國家都是受自己國家利益支配的, 為了追求自己的國家利益和權力, 可以不受一般的社會道德和倫理規範的約束, 可以採取一切必要的手段以實現國家利益。現實主義理論適應了美國戰後冷戰政策的需要。因此, 丘吉爾的“鐵幕演說”中的思想在一定程度上契合和體現了現實主義國際關係理論也是一個必然。

現實主義理論主要觀點有:第一, 國家是國際體系中主要的行為體。儘管在國際政治體系中還存在著大量非國家行為體, 但它們的地位是次要的, 國際政治的主導行為體是國家, 尤其是大國。在“鐵幕演說”中, 這種思想得到了體現。丘吉爾在演講中強化了國家, 尤其是美英蘇等大國在國際政治中的作用。首先, 丘吉爾指出了美國的霸主地位。同時, 他也指出了包括英國在內的其他西方國家在國際政治中的作用, 丘吉爾主張“各英語民族同胞手足一樣的聯合”, “這種聯合就是以英聯邦與帝國為一方和以美利堅合眾國為另一方建立特殊的關係”。其次, 他強調了共產主義制度的發展給西方帶來的“威脅”, 強調了與美英等西方資本主義陣營相對立的以蘇聯為首的社會主義國家的威脅, 他把這些社會主義國家, 尤其是蘇聯作為美英等國家在國際政治中相對立的行為體。

現實主義理論的第二個觀點是, 國際政治的本質是衝突, 即無政府狀態下爭奪權力的鬥爭。由於國家之間的利益不甚相同, 而且有很多是衝突的, 所以國家之間的衝突不可避免。國家之間的利益衝突最終還要通過權力較量來解決。在這樣一個無政府的國際體系中, 各國擁有合法主權, 但因實力大小不同而有強國和弱國之分。在國家間實力等級結構中, 最重要的國家是大國和強國。在“鐵幕演說”中, 無論是從政治﹑經濟﹑軍事角度, 還是從意識形態角度出發, 丘吉爾都強化了美英等西方國家與蘇聯的衝突, “共產黨第五縱隊已經建立。它絕對服從來自共產主義的指令, 完全協調地工作著。第五縱隊到處構成對基督文明的日益嚴重的挑釁和危險”。

現實主義理論的第三個觀點是, 在無政府狀態下, 國家的安全無人保護, 所以國家的生存和安全成為首要問題。在諸多國際問題的排列次序中, 國家安全通常處於最高的位置, 軍事和相關的政治問題支配著世界政治, 而經濟和社會問題是次要的或低政治問題。丘吉爾在“鐵幕演說”中, 關注的一個重要問題就是國家的生存與安全, 即他所謂的“民主﹑文明國家”面對“暴政”國家威脅如何獲得生存與安全。他講到, “趁今天還為時未晚, 我們在這裡要考慮的是永久制止戰爭和儘速在一切國家為自由和民主製造條件的問題。現在需要的是作出解決問題的安排。拖得越久, 就越困難, 對我們的危險也就越大”。

丘吉爾的“鐵幕演說”也體現了現實主義理論的第四個主要觀點, 即國家本質上是追求其國家利益的單一的﹑理性的行為體。“單一”是指一個國家具有一致的目標利益和行為, 可以採取集體行動。“理性”是指國家知道自己的目標和利益, 並能清醒的運用自己認為合理的手段去實現這些目標和利益。面對蘇聯的威脅, 丘吉爾號召美歐等國家集中各自力量, 為實現自己的利益採取自己認為合理的方式。丘吉爾的演講在字裡行間充分體現了國家在國際政治行為中的所具有單一性和理性的特點。