演讲稿之尼克松

第一篇：演讲稿之尼克松

演讲题目：理查德·尼克松

理查德·尼克松，出生于1913年9月。1946年，尼克松当选美国众议员，其政治观点保守，素有反共斗士之称，与参议员约瑟夫·雷芒德·麦卡锡齐名，是麦卡锡主义的拥护者和极力倡导者。他在1952年与1956年两度与德怀特·D·艾森豪威尔搭档参选并获得胜利，在1953年到1961年间，担任了两届副总统职务。1960年尼克松竞选总统，以微弱票差被约翰·肯尼迪击败，又在1962年竞选加利福尼亚州州长时落败而暂时离开国家权力中枢。1968年尼克松重返政坛，在当年的美国大选中顺利当选为美国总统。1971年，发起了举世闻名，影响美国刑事司法制度深远至今的“向毒品宣战（英语：War on Drugs）”。

尼克松生性多疑，在美国政坛有“难以捉摸的迪克”（Tricky Dick）绰号。尼克松在1959年7月莫斯科举行的美国国家展览会（American National Exhibition）开幕式上，与时任苏联部长会议主席的赫鲁晓夫之间展开过一场关于东西方意识形态和核战争的论战，史称“厨房辩论”。在任期内，将美国军队撤出了越南，逐渐结束了那场使国家陷入危机的战争。透过乒乓球活动尝试与中华人民共和国建立外交关系，并支持其进入联合国，史称“乒乓外交”，改善了中国大陆与美国的关系。尼克松于1972年2月访问中国大陆，是美国总统第一次访问一个与美国没有正式外交关系的国家，对中国大陆的7天访问被称为“改变世界的一周”。当时，尼克松率团访问了北京、杭州、上海三个城市，在北京与中共中央主席毛泽东会面，并在杭州西湖边的园林中与中国国务院总理周恩来草签了轰动世界的《中美联合公报》。中华人民共和国与美国两国关系正常化，美中苏三角外交的态势开始形成，在很长一段时间里成为决定国际形势发展的重要因素之一。

他平生有两大事迹而闻名全球。第一，尼克松访华，这是当时轰动世界的举动，他这个人确实有远见卓识的本领。在冷战时期的人们会认为美苏的对立是意识形态的对立，而尼克松却图谋与社会主义中国建立正常的外交关系，这一举动石破天惊。一波惊起万层浪，也为我国改革开放补充了一个重要的外部条件。这一点，我们在感谢邓小平的同时，也要称赞尼克松的聪明之举。所以我们的历史老师会一针见血的说，国际关系的决定关系是国家利益。

另外我还想说的是，尼克松访华肯定有国家领导人的接待？那么接待尼克松是谁呢？毛泽东。对于毛泽东的晚年问题，有诸多的非议。什么发动大跃进，人民公社化运动啊，还有最恨的是发动了文化大革命，这个老家伙是晚节不保啊，恐怕是得了老年痴呆，但这只是我中学时的想法，如果大家还这样想，说明大家的思想还很年轻。事实上，毛泽东文革时期得罪了最不应该得罪的群体：知识分子。我觉得要不是邓小平的正确看待毛泽东同志的功与过这句话，恐怕毛泽东的袁世凯形象就要写在历史教科书上了。大家应该相信教科书的力量，它能把黑变白，也能把白变黑。所以我希望大家对待某一事件，能有自己的意见和想法，千万不要随波逐流。

那么话题重新回到尼克松，他的另一著名事件就是水门事件，相信大家都对水门事件有所了解，在这里就不多说了。不过我是挺佩服那位把总统拉下马的女性。这里可以看出美国的太多，比如美国人的性格，不屈的精神。但是大家反过来想，尼克松第二任总统新上任没多久就被拉下来，他有那个勇气下来，这是中国领导人所不能及的。在中国，好像有为他人遮羞的义务，所以中国不会出现斯诺登，但这正是中国的价值观，没有对错。谢谢

第二篇：尼克松总统英文演讲稿

晚上好!亲爱的同胞们：

Tonight I want to talk to you on a subject of deep concern to all Americans and to many people in all parts of the world, the war in Vietnam.今晚，我想与各位探讨一个问题，这是所有美国人和全球无数人所深切关注的一个问题——越南战争。

I believe that one of the reasons for the deep division about Vietnam is that many Americans have lost confidence in what their Government has told them about our policy.The American people cannot and should not be asked to support a policy which involves the overriding issues of war and peace unless they know the truth about that policy.我认为，在关于越南战争一事上，大家的观点出现了严重分歧的一个重要原因在于：很多美国民众对我们的政府所宣扬的政策已失去了信心。当前情况下，除非美国人民真正认清政策本质，否则不能也不应该被要求去支持涉及战争与和平等重大问题的政策。

Tonight, therefore, I would like to answer some of the questions that I know are on the minds of many of you listening to me.所以，今晚，我想借此机会回答一些问题，一些萦绕在你们许多人脑海中的问题。

How and why did America get involved in Vietnam in the first place?

How has this administration changed the policy of the previous Administration?

What has really happened in the negotiations in Paris and on the battlefront in Vietnam?

What choices do we have if we are to end the war?

What are the prospects for peace?

Now let me begin by describing the situation I found when I was inaugurated on January 20: The war had been going on for four years.Thirty-one thousand Americans had been killed in action.The training program for the South Vietnamese was beyond [behind] schedule.Five hundred and forty-thousand Americans were in Vietnam with no plans to reduce the number.No progress had been made at the negotiations in Paris and the United States had not put forth a comprehensive peace proposal.The war was causing deep division at home and criticism from many of our friends, as well as our enemies, abroad.In view of these circumstances, there were some who urged that I end the war at once by ordering the immediate withdrawal of all American forces.From a political standpoint, this would have been a popular and easy course to follow.After all, we became involved in the war while my predecessor was in office.I could blame the defeat, which would be the result of my action, on him--and come out as the peacemaker.Some put it to me quite bluntly: This was the only way to avoid allowing Johnson’s war to become Nixon’s war.But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my Administration, and of the next election.I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation, and on the future of peace and freedom in America, and in the world.Let us all understand that the question before us is not whether some Americans are for peace and some Americans are against peace.The question at issue is not whether Johnson’s war becomes Nixon’s war.The great question is: How can we win America’s peace?

Well, let us turn now to the fundamental issue: Why and how did the United States become involved in Vietnam in the first place? Fifteen years ago North Vietnam, with the logistical support of Communist China and the Soviet Union, launched a campaign to impose a

supporting a revolution.In response to the request of the Government of South Vietnam, President Eisenhower sent economic aid and military equipment to assist the people of South Vietnam in their efforts to prevent a Communist takeover.Seven years ago, President Kennedy sent 16,000 military personnel to Vietnam as combat advisers.Four years ago, President Johnson sent American combat forces to South Vietnam.Now many believe that President Johnson’s decision to send American combat forces to South Vietnam was wrong.And many others, I among them, have been strongly critical of the way the war has been conducted.But the question facing us today is: Now that we are in the war, what is the best way to end it?

In January I could only conclude that the precipitate withdrawal of all American forces from Vietnam would be a disaster not only for South Vietnam but for the United States and for the cause of peace.For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before.They then murdered more

camps.We saw a prelude of what would happen in South Vietnam when the Communists entered the city of Hue last year.During their brief rule there, there was a bloody reign of terror in which 3,000 civilians were clubbed, shot to death, and buried in mass graves.With the sudden collapse of our support, these atrocities at Hue would become the nightmare of the entire nation and particularly for the million-and-a half Catholic refugees who fled to South Vietnam when the Communists took over in the North.For the United States this first defeat in our nation’s history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership not only in Asia but throughout the world.Three American Presidents have recognized the great stakes involved in Vietnam and understood what had to be done.In 1963 President Kennedy with his characteristic eloquence and clarity said，“We want to see a stable Government there,” carrying on the [a] struggle to maintain its national independence.“ We believe strongly in

to withdraw from that effort would mean a collapse not only of South Vietnam but Southeast Asia.So we’re going to stay there.”

President Eisenhower and President Johnson expressed the same conclusion during their terms of office.For the future of peace, precipitate withdrawal would be a disaster of immense magnitude.A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends.Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have not yet abandoned their goals of worlds conquest.This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace--in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere.Ultimately, this would cost more lives.It would not bring peace.It would bring more war.For these reasons I rejected the recommendation that I should end the war by immediately withdrawing all of our forces.I chose instead to change American policy on both the negotiating front and the battle front in order to end the war fought on many fronts.I initiated a pursuit for peace on many fronts.In a television speech on May 14, in a speech before the United Nations, on a number of other occasions, I set forth our peace proposals in great detail.We have offered the complete withdrawal of all outside forces within one year.We have proposed a cease fire under international supervision.We have offered free elections under international supervision with the Communists participating in the organization and conduct of the elections as an organized political force.And the Saigon government has pledged to accept the result of the election.We have not put forth our proposals on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.We have indicated that we’re willing to discuss the proposals that have been put forth by the other side.We have declared that anything is negotiable, except the right of the people of South Vietnam to determine their own future.At the Paris peace conference Ambassador Lodge has demonstrated our flexibility and good faith in 40 public meetings.Hanoi has refused even to discuss our proposals.They demand our unconditional acceptance of their terms which are that we withdraw all American forces immediately and unconditionally and that we overthrow the government of South Vietnam as we leave.We have not limited our peace initiatives to public forums and public statements.I recognized in January that a long and bitter war like this usually cannot be settled in a public forum.That is why in addition to the

private avenue that might lead to a settlement.Tonight, I am taking the unprecedented step of disclosing to you some of our other initiatives for peace, initiatives we undertook privately and secretly because we thought we thereby might open a door which publicly would be closed.I did not wait for my inauguration to begin my quest for peace.Soon after my election, through an individual who was directly in contact on a personal basis with the leaders of North Vietnam, I made two private offers for a rapid, comprehensive settlement.Hanoi’s replies called in effect for our surrender before negotiations.Since the Soviet Union furnishes most of the military equipment for North Vietnam, Secretary of State Rogers, my assistant for national security affairs, Dr.Kissinger, Ambassador Lodge and I personally have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the Soviet Government to enlist their assistance in getting meaningful negotiations started.In addition, we have had extended discussions directed toward that same end with representatives of other governments which have diplomatic relations with North Vietnam.None of these initiatives have to date produced results.In mid-July I became convinced that it was necessary to make a major move to break

’m now sitting, with an individual who had known Ho Chi Minh on a personal basis for 25 years.Through him I sent a letter to Ho Chi Minh.I did this outside of the usual diplomatic channels with the hope that with the necessity of making statements for propaganda removed, there might be constructive progress toward bringing the war to an end.Let me read from that letter to you now:

I realize that it is difficult to communicate meaningfully across the gulf of four years of war.But precisely because of this gulf I wanted to take this opportunity to reaffirm in all solemnity my desire to work for a just peace.I deeply believe that the war in Vietnam has gone on too long and delay in bringing it to an end can benefit no one, least of all the people of Vietnam.The time has come to move forward at the conference table toward an early resolution of this tragic war.You will find us forthcoming and open-minded in a common effort to bring the blessings of peace to the brave people of Vietnam.Let history record that at this critical juncture both sides turned their face toward peace rather than toward conflict and war."

I received Ho Chi Minh’s reply on August 30, three days before his death.It simply reiterated the public position North Vietnam had taken

being released to the press.In addition to the public meetings that I have referred to, Ambassador Lodge has met with Vietnam’s chief negotiator in Paris in 11 private sessions.And we have taken other significant initiatives which must remain secret to keep open some channels of communications which may still prove to be productive.But the effect of all the public, private, and secret negotiations which have been undertaken since the bombing halt a year ago, and since this Administration came into office on January 20th, can be summed up in one sentence: No progress whatever has been made except agreement on the shape of the bargaining table.Well, now, who’s at fault? It’s become clear that the obstacle in negotiating an end to the war is not the President of the United States.It is not the South Vietnamese Government.The obstacle is the other side’s absolute refusal to show the least willingness to join us in seeking a just peace.And it will not do so while it is convinced that all it has to do is to wait for our next concession, and our next concession after that one, until it gets everything it wants.There can now be no longer any question that progress in negotiation depends only on Hanoi ’s deciding to negotiate--to negotiate seriously.I realize that this report on our efforts on the diplomatic front is discouraging to the American people, but the American people are entitled to know the truth--the bad news as well as the good news--where the lives of our young men are involved.Now let me turn, however, to a more encouraging report on another front.At the time we launched our search for peace, I recognized we might not succeed in bringing an end to the war through negotiations.I therefore put into effect another plan to bring peace--a plan which will bring the war to an end regardless of what happens on the negotiating front.It is in line with the major shift in U.S.foreign policy which I described in my press conference at Guam on July 25.Let me briefly explain what has been described as the Nixon Doctrine--a policy which not only will help end the war in Vietnam but which is an essential element of our program to prevent future Vietnams.We Americans are a do-it-yourself people--we’re an impatient people.Instead of teaching someone else to do a job, we like to do it ourselves.And this trait has been carried over into our foreign policy.In Korea, and again in Vietnam, the United States furnished most of the

those countries defend their freedom against Communist aggression.Before any American troops were committed to Vietnam, a leader of another Asian country expressed this opinion to me when I was traveling in Asia as a private citizen.He said: “When you are trying to assist another nation defend its freedom, U.S.policy should be to help them fight the war, but not to fight the war for them.”

Well in accordance with this wise counsel, I laid down in Guam three principles as guidelines for future American policy toward Asia.First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us, or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.Third, in cases involving other types of aggression we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments.But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.After I announced this policy, I found that the leaders of the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea, other nations which might be threatened by Communist aggression, welcomed this new direction in American foreign policy.The defense of freedom is everybody’s business--not just America’s business.And it is particularly the responsibility of the people whose freedom is threatened.In the previous Administration, we Americanized the war in Vietnam.In this Administration, we are Vietnamizing the search for peace.The policy of the previous Administration not only resulted in our assuming the primary responsibility for fighting the war, but even more significant did not adequately stress the goal of strengthening the South Vietnamese so that they could defend themselves when we left.The Vietnamization plan was launched following Secretary Laird’s visit to Vietnam in March.Under the plan, I ordered first a substantial increase in the training and equipment of South Vietnamese forces.In July, on my visit to Vietnam, I changed General Abrams’s orders, so that they were consistent with the objectives of our new policies.Under the new orders, the primary mission of our troops is to enable the South Vietnamese forces to assume the full responsibility for the security of South Vietnam.Our air operations have been reduced by over 20 per cent.And now we have begun to see the results of this long-overdue change in American policy in Vietnam.After five years of Americans going into Vietnam we are finally bringing American men home.By

Vietnam, including 20 percent of all of our combat forces.The South Vietnamese have continued to gain in strength.As a result, they've been able to take over combat responsibilities from our American troops.Two other significant developments have occurred since this Administration took office.Enemy infiltration, infiltration which is essential if they are to launch a major attack over the last three months, is less than 20 percent of what it was over the same period last year.And most important, United States casualties have declined during the last two months to the lowest point in three years.Let me now turn to our program for the future.We have adopted a plan which we have worked out in cooperation with the South Vietnamese for the complete withdrawal of all U.S.combat ground forces and their replacement by South Vietnamese forces on an orderly scheduled timetable.This withdrawal will be made from strength and not from weakness.As South Vietnamese forces become stronger, the rate of American withdrawal can become greater.I have not, and do not, intend to announce the timetable for our program, and there are obvious reasons for this decision which I’m sure you will understand.As I’ve indicated on several occasions, the rate of withdrawal will depend on developments on three fronts.One of these is

announcement of a fixed timetable for our withdrawal would completely remove any incentive for the enemy to negotiate an agreement.They would simply wait until our forces had withdrawn and then move in.The other two factors on which we will base our withdrawal decisions are the level of enemy activity and the progress of the training programs of the South Vietnamese forces.And I am glad to be able to report tonight progress on both of these fronts has been greater than we anticipated when we started the program in June for withdrawal.As a result, our timetable for withdrawal is more optimistic now than when we made our first estimates in June.Now this clearly demonstrates why it is not wise to be frozen in on a fixed timetable.We must retain the flexibility to base each withdrawal decision on the situation as it is at that time, rather than on estimates that are no longer valid.Along with this optimistic estimate, I must in all candor leave one note of caution.If the level of enemy activity significantly increases, we might have to adjust our timetable accordingly.However, I want the record to be completely clear on one point.At the time of the bombing halt just a year ago there was some confusion as to whether there was an understanding on the part of the enemy that

shelling of cities in South Vietnam.I want to be sure that there is no misunderstanding on the part of the enemy with regard to our withdrawal program.We have noted the reduced level of infiltration, the reduction of our casualties and are basing our withdrawal decisions partially on those factors.If the level of infiltration or our casualties increase while we are trying to scale down the fighting, it will be the result of a conscious decision by the enemy.Hanoi could make no greater mistake than to assume that an increase in violence will be to its advantage.If I conclude that increased enemy action jeopardizes our remaining forces in Vietnam, I shall not hesitate to take strong and effective measures to deal with that situation.This is not a threat.This is a statement of policy which as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces I am making and meeting my responsibility for the protection of American fighting men wherever they may be.My fellow Americans, I am sure you can recognize from what I have said that we really only have two choices open to us if we want to end this war.I can order an immediate precipitate withdrawal of all Americans from Vietnam without regard to the effects of that action.Or we can persist in our search for a just peace through a negotiated

for Vietnamization, if necessary--a plan in which we will withdraw all of our forces from Vietnam on a schedule in accordance with our program as the South Vietnamese become strong enough to defend their own freedom.I have chosen this second course.It is not the easy way.It is the right way.It is a plan which will end the war and serve the cause of peace, not just in Vietnam but in the Pacific and in the world.In speaking of the consequences of a precipitous withdrawal, I mentioned that our allies would lose confidence in America.Far more dangerous, we would lose confidence in ourselves.Oh, the immediate reaction would be a sense of relief that our men were coming home.But as we saw the consequences of what we had done, inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.We have faced other crises in our history and we have become stronger by rejecting the easy way out and taking the right way in meeting our challenges.Our greatness as a nation has been our capacity to do what has to be done when we knew our course was right.I recognize that some of my fellow citizens disagree with the plan for peace I have chosen.Honest and patriotic Americans have reached different conclusions as to how peace should be achieved.In San

“Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home.” Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view.But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the nation by mounting demonstrations in the street.For almost 200 years, the policy of this nation has been made under our Constitution by those leaders in the Congress and the White House elected by all the people.If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this nation has no future as a free society.And now, I would like to address a word, if I may, to the young people of this nation who are particularly concerned, and I understand why they are concerned, about this war.I respect your idealism.I share your concern for peace.I want peace as much as you do.There are powerful personal reasons I want to end this war.This week I will have to sign 83 letters to mothers, fathers, wives, and loved ones of men who have given their lives for America in Vietnam.It's very little satisfaction to me that this is only one-third as many letters as I signed the first week in

not have to write any of those letters.那么，现在，我想说几句话，如果可以的话，请允许我对生活在这个国家，并且对这次战争尤为关注的年轻人说几句，我也能够理解他们为什么会如此关注这场战争。我尊重你们的理想主义，我和你们一样关心和平，我和你们一样盼望和平。不仅如此，还有一些强烈的个人原因促使我想结束这场战争。这周我将签署83封信件。这些信件将寄给为了祖国在越南失去生命的战士们的母亲、父亲、妻子和他们所爱的人。让我感到稍微满意的是，这些信件仅仅只占我执政第一周所要签署信件的三分之一。

I want to end the war to save the lives of those brave young men in Vietnam.But I want to end it in a way which will increase the chance that their younger brothers and their sons will not have to fight in some future Vietnam some place in the world.And I want to end the war for another reason.I want to end it so that the energy and dedication of you, our young people, now too often directed into bitter hatred against those responsible for the war, can be turned to the great challenges of peace, a better life for all Americans, a better life for all people on this earth.I have chosen a plan for peace.I believe it will succeed.If it does not succeed, what the critics say now won’t matter.Or if it does succeed，’t matter.If it does not succeed, anything I say then won’t matter.I know it may not be fashionable to speak of patriotism or national destiny these days, but I feel it is appropriate to do so on this occasion.Two hundred years ago this nation was weak and poor.But even then, America was the hope of millions in the world.Today we have become the strongest and richest nation in the world, and the wheel of destiny has turned so that any hope the world has for the survival of peace and freedom will be determined by whether the American people have the moral stamina and the courage to meet the challenge of free-world leadership.Let historians not record that, when America was the most powerful nation in the world, we passed on the other side of the road and allowed the last hopes for peace and freedom of millions of people to be suffocated by the forces of totalitarianism.So tonight, to you, the great silent majority of my fellow Americans, I ask for your support.I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to end the war in a way that we could win the peace.I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge.The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that pledge can be

enemy is to negotiate at Paris.Let us be united for peace.Let us also be united against defeat.Because let us understand--North Vietnam cannot defeat or humiliate the United States.Only Americans can do that.Fifty years ago, in this room, and at this very desk, President Woodrow Wilson spoke words which caught the imagination of a war-weary world.He said: “This is the war to end wars.” His dream for peace after World War I was shattered on the hard reality of great power politics.And Woodrow Wilson died a broken man.Tonight, I do not tell you that the war in Vietnam is the war to end wars, but I do say this: I have initiated a plan which will end this war in a way that will bring us closer to that great goal to which--to which Woodrow Wilson and every American President in our history has been dedicated--the goal of a just and lasting peace.As President I hold the responsibility for choosing the best path for that goal and then leading the nation along it.I pledge to you tonight that I shall meet this responsibility with all of the strength and wisdom I can command, in accordance with your hopes, mindful of your concerns, sustained by your prayers.Thank you and good night.

第三篇：尼克松答谢词

1972年2月21日，美国总统尼克松应周恩来总理的邀请访问中国，当晚，周总理在人民大会堂举行了盛大宴会，欢迎尼克松总统一行。总理和总统都发表了热情洋溢的讲会，回顾他们的讲话，再看整整四十年之后中美关系互相提防的现状，让人不胜感慨。周恩来总理的欢迎词如下：

总统先生,尼克松夫人,女士们,先生们,同志们,朋友们: 首先,我高兴的代表毛泽东主席和中国政府向尼克松总统及夫人,以及其他的客人们

表示欢迎.同时,我也想利用这个机会代表中国人民向远在大洋彼岸的美国人民致以亲切的问候.克松总统应中国政府的邀请，前来我国访问，使两国领导人有机会直接会晤,谋

求两国关系正常化,并对共同关心的问题交换意见,这是符合中美两国人民愿望的积极行

动,这在中美两国关系史上是一个创举.美国人民是伟大的人民,中国人民是伟大的人民.我们两国人民一向是友好的.由于大

家都知道的原因,两国人民之间往来中断了二十多年.现在经过中美双方的共同努力，友

好往来的大门终于打开了.目前促使两国关系正常化,争取和缓紧张趋势，已经成为中美

两国人民强烈的愿望，人民,只有人民,才是创造这个世界历

史的动力.我们相信,我们两

国人民的这种共同愿望,总有一天要实现的.中美两国的社会制度根本不同，在中美两国政府之间存在极大分歧.但是这种分歧不应

当妨碍中美两国在相互尊重主权和领土完整,互不侵犯,互不干涉内政,平等互利和和平共 处五项原则的基础上建立正常的国际关系，更不应该导致战争.中国政府早在1955年就公

开声明,中国人民不想同美国人民打仗，中国政府愿意坐下来同美国政府谈判，这是我们

一贯奉行的方针,我们注意到尼克松总统在来华前的讲话中也说到:“我们必须做的事情是 寻找某种办法使我们可以有分歧而又不能成为战争中的敌人.”我们希望通过双方坦率的 交换意见，弄清彼此之间的分歧，努力寻找共同点，使我们两国关系能够有一个新的开

始.最后,我建议为尼克松总统和夫人的健康,为其他美国客人们的健康,为在座的所有朋

友和同志们的健康,为中美两国之间的友谊,干杯！!

尼克松总统的答谢词如下：

总理先生，中华人民共和国和美利坚合众国的我们十分尊贵的客人们：

我们能有机会在贵国做客期间欢迎你和今晚在座的诸位中国客人，感到十分荣幸。

我要代表尼克松夫人和同行的全体正式成员，对你们给予我们的无限盛情的款待，表示深切的感谢。

大家知道，按照我国的习惯，我们的新闻界人士有权代表他们自己讲话，而政府中的人谁也不能代表他们讲话。但是我相信，今晚在座的全体美国新闻界人士都会授予我这一少有的特权来代表他们感谢你和贵国政府给予他们的种种礼遇。

你们已使全世界空前之多的人们得以读到、看到、听到这一历史性访问的情景。

昨天，我们同几亿电视观众一起，看到了名副其实的世界奇迹之一———中国的长城。当我在城墙上漫步时，我想到为了建筑这座城墙而付出的牺牲；我想到它所显示的在悠久的历史上始终保持独立的中国人民的决心；我想到这样一个事实，就是，长城告诉我们，中国有伟大的历史，建造这个世界奇迹的人民也有伟大的未来。

长城已不再是一道把中国和世界其他地区隔开的城墙。但是，它使人们想起，世界上仍然存在着许多把各个国家和人民隔开的城墙。

长城还使人们想起，在几乎一代的岁月里，中华人民共和国和美国之间存在着一道城墙。

四天以来，我们已经开始了拆除我们之间这座城墙的长期过程；我们开始会谈时就承认我们之间有巨大的分歧，但是我们决心不让这些分歧阻碍我们和平相处。

你们深信你们的制度，我们同样深信我们的制度。我们在这里聚会，并不是由于我们有共同的信仰，而是由于我们有共同的利益和共同的希望。我们每一方都有这样的利益，就是维护我们的独立和我们人民的安全；我们每一方都有这样的希望，就是建立一种新的世界秩序。具有不同制度和不同价值标准的国家和人民可以在其中和平相处，互有分歧但互相尊重，让历史而不是让战场对他们的不同思想作出判断。总理先生，你已注意到送我们到这里来的飞机名为“七六年精神号”。就在这个星期，我们美国庆祝了我们的国父乔治·华盛顿的生日，是他领导美国在我们的革命中取得了独立，并担任了我们的第一届总统。

在他任期届满时，他用下面的话向他的同胞告别：“对一切国家恪守信用和正义。同所有的人和平与和睦相处。”就是本着这种精神——七六年精神，我请大家站起来和我一起举杯，为毛主席，为周总理，为我们两国人民，为我们的孩子们的希望，即我们这一代能给他们留下和平与和睦的遗产，干杯!

第四篇：辞职演讲(尼克松

Resignation Speech

辞职演讲（尼克松）

This is the 37th time I have spoken to you from this office where so many decisions have been made that shape the history of this nation.Each time I have done so to discuss with you some matters that I believe affected the national interest.And all the decisions I have made in my public life I have always tried to do what was best for the nation.Throughout the long and difficult period of Watergate, I have felt it was my duty to persevere, to make every possible effort to complete the term of office to which you elected me.In the past few days, however, it has become evident to me that I no longer have a strong enough political base in the Congress to justify continuing that effort.As long as there was such a base, I felt strongly that it was necessary to see the constitutional process through to its conclusion, that to do otherwise would be unfaithful to the spirit of that deliberately difficult process, and a dangerously destabilizing precedent for the future.But with the disappearance of that base, I now believe that the constitutional purpose has been served.And there is no longer a need for the process to be prolonged.I would have preferred to carry through to the finish whatever the personal agony it would have involved, and my family unanimously urged me to do so.But the interests of the nation must always come before any personal considerations.From the discussions I have had with Congressional and other leaders I have concluded that because of the Watergate matter I might not have the support of the Congress that I would consider necessary to back the very difficult decisions and carry out the duties of this office in the way the interests of the nation will require.I have never been a quitter.To leave office before my term is completed is opposed to every instinct in my body.But as President I must put the interests of America first.America needs a full-time President and a full-time Congress, particularly at this time with problems we face at home and abroad.To continue to fight through the months ahead for my personal vindication would almost totally absorb the time and attention of both the President and the Congress in a period when our entire focus should be on the great issues of peace abroad and prosperity without inflation at home.Therefore, I shall resign the Presidency effective at noon tomorrow.Vice President Ford will be sworn in as President at that hour in this office.注释：

注释：

Watergate水门事件agonyn.苦恼，极大的痛苦

Unanimously全体一致地,无异议地

Quittern.轻易停止的人, 懦夫

Vindicationn.辩护, 辩明, 拥护

中文对照

(晚上好！)这是我第37次在这里对你们讲话。我曾在这里作过一些对我们这个国家有影响的决定。每次我都与你们讨论一些有关影响国民利益之事。我所做出的这些决定，都

力图为国家最高利益服务。

经过漫长而艰难的水门事件，我感觉到，我不得不辞职，尽力尽快结束我的总统工作。在过去几年里，很明显，我在国会已不再拥有强大的政治基础。只要这种基础还存在，我便会坚决澄清这件事。但现在再做努力已非必要，这样只会使程序更加艰难，也是对继任者的刁难。

由于已经失去政治基础，我没必要拖延这件事。

不管我个人的痛苦有多大，我也宁愿结束它，我家人也这样黯然催促我。但是，国家利益总是要高于个人利益，通过我与国会及其他领导的商议，由于水门事件后，我已经失去了国会的支持，我不得不做出这个艰难的决定，市民也有这个要求，国家利益也要求我这么做。我从来就不是一个半途而废的人。

在我到任之前便离任，我感到浑身的不自在。但作为总统应把国家利益放在首位。美国需要一位全心全意的总统和全心全意国会，特别是现在我们处于国内外的各种困难时期。

继续几个月前的个人辩护将占去总统和国会几乎所有的时间，而这时我们应该做的却是致力于世界和平及无通货膨胀的国家繁荣。

因此，我决定明天中午正式辞去总统职务，副总统福特将同时在这里宣誓就职。

第五篇：尼克松访华祝酒词

Toast Speech by Richard Nixon 尼克松访华祝酒词

Mr.Prime Minister and all of your distinguished guests this evening:

On behalf of all of your American-guests, I wish to thank you for the incomparably hospitality for which the Chinese people are justly famous throughout the world.I particularly want to pay tribute, not only to those who prepared the magnificent dinner, but also to those who have provided the splendid music.Never have I heard American music played better in a foreign land.Mr.Prime Minister, I wish to thank you for your very gracious and eloquent remarks.At this very moment, through the wonder of telecommunications, more people are seeing and hearing what we say than on any other such occasion in the whole history of the world.Yet, what we say here will not be long remembered.What we do here can change the world.As you said in your toast, the Chinese people are a great people, the American people are a great people.If our two peoples are enemies the future of this world we share, together is dark indeed.But if we can find common ground to work together, the chance for world peace is immeasurably increased.In the spirit of frankness which I hope will characterize our talks this week, let us recognize at the outset these points: We have at times in the past been enemies.We have great differences today.What brings us together is that we have common interests which transcend those differences.As we discuss our differences, neither of us will compromise our principles.But while we cannot close the gulf between us, we can try to bridge it so that we may be able to talk across it.So, let us, in these next five days, start a long march together, not in lockstep, but on different roads leading to the same goal, the goal of building a world structure of peace and justice in which all may stand together with equal dignity and in which each nation, large or small, has a right to determine its own form of government, free of outside interference or domination.The world watches.The world listens.The world waits to see what we will do.What is the world? In a personal sense, I think of my eldest daughter whose birthday is today.As I think of her, I think of all the children in the world, in Asia, in Africa, in Europe, in the Americas, most of whom were born since the date of the foundation of the People's Republic of China.What legacy shall we leave our children? Are they destined to die for the hatreds which have plagued the old world, or are they destined to live because we had the vision to build a new world?

There is no reason for us to be enemies.Neither of us seeks the territory of the other;neither of us seeks domination over the other;neither of us seeks to stretch out our hands and rule the world.Chairman Mao has written, "So many deeds cry out to be done, and always urgently;The world rolls on, Time presses.Ten thousand years are too long, Seize the day, seize the hour!”

This is the hour.This is the day for our two peoples to rise to the heights of greatness which can build a better world.In that spirit, I ask all of you present to join me in raising your glasses to Chairman Mao, to Prime Minister Chou, and to the friendship of the Chinese and American people which can lead to friendship and peace for all people in the world.(A toast given by president Nixon on his first visit to China in 1972)总理先生，在座的各位贵宾：

我谨代表你们的所有美国客人向你们表示感谢，感谢你们的无可比拟的盛情款待。中国人民以这种盛情款待而闻名世界。我不仅要特别赞扬那些准备了这次盛大晚宴的人，而且还要赞扬那些给我们演奏这样美好的音乐的人。我在外国从来没有听到过演奏得这么好的美国音乐。

总理先生，我要感谢你热情洋溢而又令人信服的讲话。就在这个时刻，通过电讯的奇迹，看到和听到我们讲话的人比在整个世界历史上任何其他这样的场合都要多。不过，我在这里讲的话，人们不会长久记住。我们在这里所做的事却能改变世界。

正如你在祝酒时讲的那样，中国人民是伟大的人民，美国人民是伟大的人民。我们两国人民不是敌人，否则我们共同居住的这个世界的前途就的确是黑暗的了。如果我们能够找到进行合作的共同点，那么实现世界和平的机会就无可估量地大大增加。

我希望我们这个星期的会谈将是坦率的。本着这种坦率的精神，我们一开始就认识到这样几点：过去的一些时期我们曾是敌人。今天我们有巨大的分歧．使我们走到一起的，是我们有超过这些分歧的共同利益。在我们讨论我们的分歧的时候，我们哪一方都不会在我们的原则上妥协。但是，虽然我们不能弥合我们之间的鸿沟，我们却能够设法搭一座桥，以便我们能够越过它进行会谈。

因此，让我们在今后的五天里在一起开始一次长征吧，不是在一起迈步，而是在不同的道路上向同一目标前进。这个目标就是建立一个和平和正义的世界结构，在这个世界结构中，所有的人都可以在一起享有同等的尊严；每个国家，不论大小，都有权利决定它自己的政府形式，而不受外来的干涉或统治。全世界在注视着，全世界在倾听着，全世界在等待着看我们将做些什么。这个世界是什么呢?就个人来讲，我想到我的大女儿，因为今天是她的生日。当我想到她的时候，我就想到全世界的儿童。亚洲、非洲、欧洲以及美洲的儿童，他们大多数都是在中华人民共和国成立以后出生的。

我们将给我们的孩子们留下什么遗产呢?他们的命运是要为那些使旧世界受苦受难的仇恨而死去呢，还是他们的命运是由我们有缔造一个新世界的远见而活下去呢？

我们没有理由要成为敌人。我们哪一方都不企图取得对方的领土，我们哪一方都不企图统治对方，我们哪一方都不企图伸出手去统治世界。

毛主席写过：“多少事，从来急；天地转，光阴迫。一万年太久，只争朝夕。”

现在就是只争朝夕的时候了，是我们两国人民攀登那种可以缔造—个新的、更美好的世界的伟大境界的高峰的时候了。

本着这种精神，我请求诸位同我一起举杯，为毛主席，为周总理，为能够导致全世界所有人民的友谊与和平的中国人民和美国人民之间的友谊，干杯。

（美国尼克松总统1972年访华时的一次祝酒词)