Chapter 14 8. New leaders in a new era of world change-1

Wendell Wilkie, who lost the presidential election to Roosevelt in 1940 and hoped to run again in 1944, published a book in 1943 called "A World."Since then, most of the content of the book has been forgotten by people, but the title is still fresh in memory.This book sums up in two words a fundamental reality of the modern age, that for the first time we are truly living in "one world."There is no longer any part of the world that is so remote from the disturbances of other parts. In the forty years since Wilkie wrote One World, the world has changed more dramatically than at any other time in history.Today, if we make another generalization of the world, we can call it "a brand new world".

This new world we live in is a world of new people.Today, seventy percent of the population was born after World War II. This is a world of emerging nations. When the United Nations was created in 1945, there were only fifty-one member states.Now, it has more than 150 member states.Twenty-six member states have smaller populations than San Jose, California. This is a world of new ideas.For much of the postwar period, there was a tendency to oversimplify the world into two parts: the communist world and the free world.Today, the communist world is no longer a solid bloc, due to a severe split between the Soviets and the Chinese.So is the free world.Various types of political, economic and religious beliefs are competing for the hearts and minds of emerging countries.

This is a world in which the nature of warfare has been changed by the advent of nuclear weapons.All-out war between great powers is practically obsolete as a tool for national policy.Even the notion of world war itself, and the concomitant idea of ​​winning or losing such wars, became almost unimaginable. But as the danger of world war diminishes, the danger of small wars increases.It is no longer possible for one major power to safely warn another that if it engages in external aggression, it will at the same time risk nuclear retaliation. The leaders profiled so prominently in this book belonged to a specific and unprecedented period.World War II is one of the most dramatic events in modern history.It unleashed energies that would forever change the world, ushering in the nuclear age.It ended the domination of Western European states over the rest of the globe, facilitated the disintegration of the old colonial empires, brought Eastern Europe under the tight control of the Soviet Union, and turned predatory Russia into the world's two superpowers one.Today we inaccurately label various ideas rooted in Western European culture and totalitarian regimes created in Moscow as "West" and "East".The Second World War provided the stage for the great struggle between these two laws of value.

Before the war, Churchill was alone in the opposition, and he was dismissed as an eccentric; de Gaulle was also trying to win the masses, but it was also in vain and no one responded.Adenauer was a fugitive in his own country.They had the same qualities, which enabled them to serve their country well afterwards.However, these qualities were either not recognized or desired by the world at the time.For each of them, it was because of the timing. Leaders like Churchill, de Gaulle, and Adenauer are rare.Not only because they were exceptional characters, but because the circumstances that pushed them forward were rare.The circumstances of World War II and its aftermath not only called for extraordinary leaders, but also provided them with a stage for great plays.

In addition to these postwar greats, hundreds of other leaders played their part in shaping the new world.Little is known about them, and little research has been done on their lives.But in many ways, they are equally important.Among the revolutionaries against sub-colonial countries, Nkrumah, Suka and Nehru are all outstanding examples.Ramon Magsaysay of the Philippines might have been the brightest star in the Far East had he not passed away untimely.David Ben Gurion and Golda Meir were pioneers who founded a new nation in the ancient desert of Palestine.Four other leaders in the Middle East - the Shah of Iran and Faisal, and the Egyptians of Nasser and Sadat - also fought to bring their country into the new world without being conquered by the old powers. The leader of the struggle.

There are also some leaders who, under other circumstances, would have been famous in history.But their names are not known today because they took leadership roles in quiet times, or at the head of less powerful states.For example: Lee Kuan Yew and Robert Menzies would be on par with Gladstone and Disraeli had they both been prime ministers of the United Kingdom instead of Singapore and Australia respectively.Looking at their lives, it really makes people imagine: if Nehru understood the economic situation as well as Lee Kuan Yew, how different India's post-war history would be!How different the course of European history would have been if Menzies had also been a prime minister of England after the war!

Finally, there are leaders who should have been remembered, but who were forgotten because they led in obscurity despite their commissioned events.We often remember the flamboyant and misleading politicians, but we tend to forget the obscure mediators or conscientious builders. De Gasperi - the "good guy" who saved Italy Of the last leaders mentioned above, the most impressive one, and the first I saw, was Italy's postwar Prime Minister Archide de Gasperi. After World War II, Italy was extremely poor, much poorer than many other parts of Europe.Although the magnificent and magnificent palaces of the Italian Renaissance have been preserved, people need food more.A bit of pasta, a slice of bread, were precious in postwar Italy.

People often resort to extreme measures in desperation.The impoverished state of Italy provided Stalin with an opportunity.Moscow poured money into the safes of the Communist Party of Italy in an attempt to strengthen the party and make it an instrument for the seizure of Italy.For a time Moscow came close to winning.But the lean man of Archide de Gasperi blocked Moscow's path to victory. In 1947, I met de Gaspery.At that time I visited Italy as a member of the Herter Commission to see what was needed to rebuild Western Europe.It was less than a year before Italy's most important postwar election.Since the Italian Communist Party was the largest and best-funded party outside the Soviet bloc, many European and American commentators predicted victory.The nobles of Italy planned to flee the country if the Communists came to power.In every sense of the word, this election will be a decisive turning point.We know it, de Gaspery knows it, the Soviets know it too.

De Gaspery had been prime minister since December 1945.His energy, intelligence and determination impressed everyone on our committee.But none of the adjectives "brilliant," "perceptive," "sophisticated," which are so often attached to great men, were used to describe de Gaspery.There was something bookish about him.In fact, he is a scholar.During the period of fascist rule, he spent most of his time either as a political prisoner in prison, or as an administrator in the Vatican Library after his release, he spent most of his time in copying.He was tall and thin, with a broad forehead and round spectacles over eager blue eyes: a wide mouth, thin even when his eyes were alive and telling people he wasn't unhappy at all. His lips also seemed to be slightly puckered and slightly melancholy.Until his death in 1954 at the age of seventy-three, his hair remained thick with only a hint of gray.

During my visit in 1947, I met two of the main Italian leaders, De Gasperi and Giuseppe ti Vittorio.The difference between them is astonishing.Ti Vittorio was a Communist and served as General Secretary of the Italian Confederation of Labor.He was also one of the country's most influential postwar leaders.I visited him in his office.The office was lavishly decorated with fashionable furniture, luxurious red curtains, and thick red carpets.When I came to his office, he greeted me.He is full of energy, exuberant, and hospitable.He was smiling, joking, and very lighthearted.At first, he was enthusiastic; when the subject turned to the United States and the Soviet Union, his geniality disappeared and he became frosty and argumentative.There is also a small red flag pinned to the lapel of his coat.No matter in terms of speech or attitude, people have no doubt that he is a person who is loyal to Russia and completely hostile to the United States.

In contrast, de Gasperi's office, while comfortable, was not overly ostentatious.When meeting with members of our committee, he was polite but quiet and reserved.Just as Ti Vittorio was a quintessential extrovert, de Gasperi was a quintessential introvert.I can't imagine him patting people on the back, talking loudly, or saying something with a strong sense of humor.That day, his eyes showed an almost melancholy look.This is not an unusual trait among leaders.De Gaulle and Adolfo Ross Cortinez, Mexico's greatest postwar president, often wore this look. Hydroxy watchers might bet on the sport that Ti Vittorio will beat De Gasperi because Ti Vittorio can project a cheerful disposition when necessary, which makes for a sympathetic pair. Italians are contagious, De Gasperi can't.But after a few minutes, all of us, even the die-hards on our committee and the politically pro-isolationists, were struck by his ineffable, unanimous quality. De Gaspery exudes an inner strength.The calmer he speaks, the stronger the appeal.One could sense that he was deeply committed to his people, his country and his religion. In political election campaigns, flashy showmen often win.For this quiet, unpretentious man and mediocre orator, he lacked the extraordinary charisma of a leader, which is not easy to win political confidence, but he has all the qualities of a great leader. A certain kind of energy, wit, and character.Fortunately, the Italian people are able to perceive the value of these qualities.If this had not been the case, today's Italy would probably be ruled by the Communist Party; what Churchill often called "the soft underbelly of Europe" would have been fatally pierced. For all his humility, de Gaspery was sure of himself and his abilities.He has been known to be willing to compromise with his political opponents; however, he can also be counted on to uphold basic moral and political standards.Therefore, he has been called "the most ordinary extraordinary figure of our time".Yet he was the greatest Italian leader elected by the people since the fall of the Roman Republic two thousand years ago. Rebuilding a defeated nation after a war is probably the most difficult task a leader can face.But the upheavals wrought by war and defeat have frequently thrust to prominence leaders of eminent ability.Just as MacArthur and Shigeru Yoshida were indispensable to postwar Japan and Adenauer to Germany, de Gasperi was as indispensable to rebuilding a defeated Italy. Like Adenauer in West Germany, De Gasperi could bring Italy back into the family of nations.Because the rest of the world sees it clearly—as one Italian put it: "He's a good man. He means what he says." His quiet, unpretentious demeanor is not unlike that of Italian politics in the Fascist era. The stark contrast to this posturing and grandstanding approach has given people in their own country and the rest of the world a sense of relief. Mussolini subjugated Italians to a pompous regime, whose rhetoric was as gorgeous as de Gasperi's plain language.De Gasperi recognized his limitations as a speaker; but he also realized that the Italian people, after twenty-three years of preaching by their leaders, would now rather listen to professors Lectures are over.His speech is loose and sometimes a bit confusing.He never waved his arms dramatically and dramatically, but only made slight gestures; in his speech, he did not use flowery metaphors, but carefully considered and impeccable reasoning.At the podium, he sometimes paused to scour manuscripts for exact numbers to cite his arguments. If he couldn't find it after a while, he would sigh and murmur, "Oh, that's all right, let's get on with this." De Gaspery made up for his weakness in oratory with his magician talent for elections.As one of his colleagues said in the days of parliamentary crisis and government uncertainty in the first postwar years, "a vote of confidence is worth more than a hundred warnings".De Gaspery managed to secure a vote of confidence that would bring his successive governments together. The post-war situation has also tempered the Italian government's tenacity.In West Germany and Japan at that time, the final decision rested in the hands of the occupying forces of the allies. Later, the occupying forces gradually handed over sovereignty to democratically elected governments.Officials in both countries can thus be assisted in dealing with food shortages, labor unrest and the machinations of political extremists.When the people are dissatisfied, they still have at least one "foreign devil" that can be used as a shield. Unlike these countries, Italy moved freely almost immediately.From 1945 to 1953, de Gaspery remained in power despite dire economic problems and often murderous tactics by the Communists.During this period he formed eight consecutive cabinets based on his Christian Democrats' dominant coalition. One of the reasons for his success is that he is so easily unswayed by political crises.One day he was working in a reception room next to the House of Representatives when a panicked picket interrupted him to say that the debate in the room had grown out of hand.The prime minister, however, continued to take notes with aplomb. At first, de Gaspery's cabinet included communists.He has earned a reputation as a mediator and a seasoned parliamentary expert.But at last it became apparent to him that the purpose of the Communists was to dismantle the government from within.So he formed a new cabinet in 1947 without communists. It was a jaw-dropping, brave move.To this end, the stability of his government is also at great risk.De Gaspery was a vigorous climber until he was fifty-four years old.At the age of fifty-four, he unfortunately had an accident while climbing a Dolomite mountain, and was suspended by a single rope over a deep valley for twenty minutes.But he clung to it and finally swung to safety.After he drove the Communists out of the government, he held on with the same tenacity.As a result, in the general elections in the autumn of 1948, the Italian people gave his Christian Democrats, and thus his anti-communist coalition government, two million votes, enabling him to win a landslide victory in this crucial election. After 1948, he held his government together through the flexible use of coalitions in which all but neo-fascists and communists could join.Therefore, the interests of people from all walks of life, from farmers to industrialists, can be directly reflected in the government. A key factor in the elections of 1948 was Pope Pius XII's decision to mobilize all 24,000 dioceses in Italy for voluntary Catholic action in support of de Gasperi against Communism. I met Pius twice, in 1947 and 1957, and found him, like de Gaspery, to combine a strong sympathy for humanity with a realistic knowledge of secular political affairs.Many blasted his decision to use the Vatican's authority to support de Gaspery's anti-communist coalition government. But Pius believed that he was acting in accordance with the duties of the Pope.I could see that he considered Communism to be as serious a threat to the Holy See as it was to Italian political liberty. However, such a large-scale victory in the 1948 general election cannot be explained simply by the intervention of the Holy See.The Christian Democrats would have easily lost the election without the participation of de Gaspery, an honest, progressive, advocate for democracy and freedom.Thus the West would lose Italy; Italy would lose its liberty. De Gaspery knows his people.When we visited Italy, he spoke to us movingly of their plight, especially of their desperate need for food. The Communists seldom spoke for the Italian people, except for the issue of food.But De Gasperi believes his country needs something more.La Scala Opera House in Milan This great building, an important symbol of Italian cultural tradition, was partially destroyed during the war.While the Italian government could have spent its entire fund or more on food, it has pulled enough money to restore La Scala. De Gaspery spoke of the project with pride.He knew that at such a critical moment, the Italian people needed nourishment not only physically, but also spiritually.We saw a show at La Scala during our visit to Italy.The American flag hangs above our box.The spotlights were on us, and the band blared "The Star-Spangled Banner."At this time, the whole theater burst into loud and exciting applause and cheers.At this moment, I understood that de Gaspery understood his people correctly and that the Communists did not understand them.At the same time, I had new evidence that de Gaspery would win next year's elections. Even as Prime Minister, de Gaspery lived an austere and dedicated life.When he first came to power, he had to take his salary in advance to make enough money to buy a new suit. Like many other leaders, de Gaspery started his day with a walk.He always took his press secretary with him for briefings on his walks in the foothills of Rome, and he carried pockets full of sweets to give to the children he met along the way.He worked until nine-thirty every night, often turning off the lights in government buildings himself.For several years after he took power, he still lived with his wife, Francesca, and their four daughters in the small apartment that he made home when he was an administrator at the Vatican.The furniture in the house was purchased by installment payment.In his bedroom, the only decorations are a crucifix and a portrait of the Virgin Mary. During de Gaspery's first years as Prime Minister, his neighbor across the door was an elderly countess.She blamed de Gasperi personally for the downfall of the Italian monarchy. (He had been a leading proponent of republicanism in the 1946 referendum in which the Italian people chose their own form of government.) She put her litter box in the aisle and tried to trip him up In addition, she often played the piano vigorously until late at night, trying to use these methods to vent her anger at the Prime Minister.De Gaspery endured these troubles with indifferent good-nature. De Gaspery's power brought him and his family ease, but never prosperity.When I visited Italy after de Gasperi's death, I visited his widow and found her still living in a modest apartment on the outskirts of Rome. De Gasperi, a fervent Catholic, founded the Christian Democratic Party of Italy while working in the Vatican library.He was sometimes accused of following the Pope's orders, especially after the Church supported him against the Communist Party in 1948.To this, his colleagues usually replied: "His thinking has been saturated with Catholicism from an early age. So there is no need for Tickane to remind him to adhere to Christian teachings." The leaders who emerged after the war in Italy and West Germany held high the banner of Christian democracy and were determined to devote themselves to the cause of restoring and maintaining individual freedom above all else.For de Gaspery and Adenauer, the Christian platform was essentially centrist.According to this program, limited intervention by the state in society is not only permissible but required, as long as it does not interfere with people's individual liberties in thought, action, and prayer. De Gaspery said Mass every day.He often went to the chapel early in the morning so as not to attract attention.His Catholic teaching has always been a doctrine of dedication in every respect, both public and private. In every way, de Gaspery showed his independence from the Church. In 1952, in order not to allow the Communists to take over the city government of Rome, the Church endorsed a coalition government between the Christian Democrats and all other non-communist parties, including the neo-fascists.In this case, Gasperi blatantly defies the Pope's will and excludes the neo-fascists. De Gaspery shared Adenauer's passionate devotion to European ideals. He was from the border provinces, and so was Adenauer.They all had an equally strong sense of their common European heritage and agreed that a united Europe was the only way to protect the liberties of their peoples from the communist enemies of the East and to reduce the need for peace within Europe. The only way to threaten.This threat comes from nationalism and terrorism. De Gaspery is a staunch supporter of the European Economic Community and NATO.He did a lot for the European Defense Bloc Treaty.According to this treaty, Western European countries can form a joint European army. In August 1954, the seventy-three-year-old de Gasperi, who had been out of office for a year, suddenly burst into tears during a telephone conversation, and asked his former interior minister and Mario Shcherba wanted to keep Italy loyal to the idea of ​​a European defense bloc.When he died of a heart attack a few days later, some thought he had been stabbed in the heart by France's still reluctance to endorse the plan. He succeeded in placing Italy firmly in the Western European Community, a feat that will survive his death.Since he left office, I have made several trips to Europe, including one in 1969 when I was president.I found that the Italians were consistently among the most loyal Europeans on several occasions when there were differences of opinion within NATO.It should come as no surprise that Italy's Manlio Brosio has been shown to be one of NATO's most effective secretary generals.Had he not been a member of the smaller party, he might well have been another great Italian prime minister long ago. De Gasperi doesn't look like a hero, and he doesn't sound like one.Yet he is one of the heroes of the postwar world.His deeds show that: politicians do not need posturing, bombast, or even eloquence, leaders can work in obscurity, there is no need to shout; kind people can also succeed. At the end of the war, Italy faced a dangerous period of political vacuum. In 1922, the Fascists took power.Other forms of peacetime government were unknown to Italy's inexperienced adults at the time.De Gasperi finally gave the Italian people what they needed most: a moderate and firm government based on pragmatism and liberty, not on freedom.Despite the machinations of the best organized communist parties in the West, de Gasperi established and consolidated a republic in Italy. When de Gaspery came to power in 1945, industrial and agricultural production had fallen to dangerous levels, and unemployment was widespread.For a while there was only enough food left in Italian warehouses to last two weeks.Yet under his leadership, six years later, Italian agriculture had almost completely recovered, and industrial output exceeded pre-war levels. He also fully restored Italy's reputation among the nations and established permanent ties with the United States and the nations of Western Europe.It was largely thanks to de Gasperi that the Italian National Government remained under the control of the Christian Democrats and its relations with the rest of the free world remained friendly.In fact, Italy remains one of the most reliable members of a (Western) alliance that has become very messy. The Polish crisis of early 1982 tested the character of Western leaders.Faced with the Soviet-led repression of the Polish liberty agitation, it is inconceivable that if Churchill, Adenauer or de Gaspery were alive, they would be like some of the current political and intellectual leaders in Europe. people react that way.They leave no room for dodging issues, for playing tricks, ambiguity, or downplaying.A trivial attitude.Unfortunately, this attitude has become more and more characteristic of European politics in general and Western Europe in particular in its response to the Soviet threat.De Gaulle could have been imperious and domineering, and his stubborn insistence on independence was often a thorn in the side of America.But at the outbreak of the Cuban missile crisis, he sent a telegram to President Kennedy saying: "In case of war, I will stand with you..." De Gaulle, Adenauer and de Gaspery were all Leaders whose political principles are deeply rooted in their religious beliefs.They are all characters who can't be scared. Recently, the United States has been very concerned about the nature of the Western Alliance, internal unity, and whether it is reliable or not; rather than risking the risk of relying on unreliable branch countries, the idea of ​​doing it alone is also growing.Europeans increasingly portrayed the United States as belligerent, emotional, or alarmist, finding excuse after excuse to avoid taking any action against the Soviet threat.Chillingly, in this respect, the 1980s resembled Europe in the 1930s. The question is whether the lessons of the 1930s will be learned in the 1980s - and in time for the anti-colonial revolutionaries: Nkrumah, Sukarno, Nehru. This period marked the end of the age of empire; for many of these countries' former colonies, the sudden and capricious situation towards independence, and for the leaders of these colonies Is a very severe test, some people will pass this test, some people may not pass this test.Among them, the three that have attracted worldwide attention are: Ghana's Skrumah, Indonesia's Sukarno and India's Minzhangchang? Both were charismatic leaders, both were successful in their escape from colonial rule, and both had ambitious forays into the maelstrom of international Third World politics.The similarities and differences in their stories show that what it takes to lead a revolution is very different from what it takes to build a nation. When I visited Europe in 1947 as a member of the Herter Commission, I found leaders struggling to recover their countries from ruins so devastated as to be unimaginable.They need help to rebuild their homes; food to keep millions from starving.However, they did not create new nations in the jungle.They can turn to the accumulated wisdom of centuries of advanced civilizations and can rely on the spiritual strength that has lifted them from crisis after crisis in the past.Beneath the ruins lies a highly competent workforce experienced in managing a modern industrial economy.What should be done at that time is just to give them tools.With the tools, they are fully capable of this task themselves. Ten years later, I visited Ghana to represent the United States at the country's independence celebrations.Although Ghana lacks a trained workforce and an industrial base like European countries, the brief presentations I heard suggest that it had a good chance of success when it embarked on the road to self-government. Ghana was the first black African colony to win independence.It gained its independence through peaceful revolution, not through violent revolution.Independence leader Kwame Nkrumah was educated at Lincoln University and the University of Pennsylvania.At the time, Ghana was hailed as a model for Britain's policy of "creative concessions".To their credit, the British prepared the country for independence as carefully and meticulously as they had done in other colonies, by training Ghanaian civil servants and promoting them to responsible positions. Ghana has a vibrant economy and an educated workforce.Because of its cocoa harvest is second to none in the world, Ghana also has sufficient foreign exchange reserves and trade surplus. Today, Ghana has become an economic and political disaster zone.One of the roots of this tragedy is Kwame Skrumah himself.There are men who lead revolutions to brilliant victories and who subsequently fail utterly in nation-building.Nkrumah is a prominent example. Delegations from all over the world participated in the independence celebrations.We spent an unforgettable first night in a new hotel built to accommodate a visiting delegation and the tourists that would come with it.I still remember it vividly.At that time, the people sang and danced in the streets, dancing "Hey, Life" all day long, which almost kept us up all night. The Duchess of Kent attended the ceremony representing the British royal family.She arrived in a Rolls-Royce and, despite the heat, she looked impeccably calm and dignified.Ghanaian ministers, as well as representatives of the then-opposition party, wore white British wigs when she delivered a speech on behalf of the royal family at the opening of Parliament.The whole celebration was carried out in an extremely solemn atmosphere. A reception by British Governor General Charles Arden-Clark was a grand celebration.Da Gong nobles from all over the world have joined the long queue of audiences.An hour had passed by the time my wife and I got to the front.I feel sorry for Arden-Clark.He was a heavy, heavy-looking man, sweating profusely in the thick woolen uniform that the British required their diplomats to wear in the tropics.As we shook hands, he said, "It's time for a nap." He escorted us into an air-conditioned reception room.We were served ice cold lemonade.Arden-Clark had overseen much of the preparations for this independence, so I asked him whether the Ghanaian experiment would work.He thought for a moment, shrugged his shoulders, and replied: "The chance of success is about 50%. We try to prepare them as well as possible. However, don't forget, since we were in the jungle It is only sixty years since the district was set off where the tribes are at war. The men you saw dancing in the street last night may have won their independence too soon. But we are in the world They were forced to do so under the pressure of public opinion." Winston Churchill once said to me that he believed that Franklin Roosevelt, driven by his zeal against colonialism, forced Britain, France, and other colonial powers to withdraw prematurely from Africa and Asia.Self-government, he believed, was after all the right of every nation, but he added: "A democratic system of government is the most difficult form of government to administer. It requires years of preparation for the people so that they can handle it themselves." problems faced in a free, democratic society." In 1957, like all other Americans who attended the independence celebrations, I was really infected by the optimistic atmosphere of the time.This is also the first time I met Martin Luther King.一天晚上，我们就加纳未来的前景谈论了一个多小时。他那极为明智、冷静客观的估价，给我留下了深刻的印象。他双眼闪闪发光，深情地对我说，"加纳只能这样做。 全世界正在注视着它，看看赢得独立的第一个黑非洲国家是否能成功地管理自己。 " 我当时认为，加纳一起步就这样顺利，恐怕只有精灵才能把它毁掉。我根本没有意料到，恩克鲁玛居然发展到成为这种精灵的地步。事实上，当时他在举止和言谈方面还是给我留下了良好的印象的。 恩克鲁玛声称，他对美国的民主和它所取得的一切成就都深为钦佩。当我在赠礼仪式上宣布，美国政府将赠送给他一份官方礼物——一所全套的技术图书馆时，他看来很高兴，说，这将帮助他把西方文明中先进的科学成果在非洲推广。他还告诉我，亚伯拉罕·林肯是他心目中的英雄之一，他决心按照适合于加纳的政治、经济和社会条件的方式来实行林肯的原则。 恩克鲁玛于1909年出生在英属西非的一个偏僻地区。他的父亲是村里的金匠。他本人在天主教会办的学校和黄金海岸著名的阿契莫塔学校求学。由于他非常聪颖，他的叔父——一个金刚石的勘探者——决定把他送到美国去学习。他在林肯大学获得了神学学士的学位。之后，又在美国和英国进一步深造。1947年，获得两个大学学位的恩克鲁玛怀着对社会主义和泛非主义的强烈兴趣，回到了黄金海岸。不久，他组织了自己的政党——人民大会党，后来，他象萨达特和尼赫鲁一样，由于参与赞成独立的各种活动，终于被捕了，入狱服刑。1951年，人民大会党在大选中赢得压倒多数的胜利，阿登一克拉克释放了他。翌年，他当了总理。 自青年时代起，恩克鲁玛就显露出公开演讲的才华，他那宏亮的声音和深思的漂亮外表对群众很有吸引力。我看到过他使那些聚集在一起参加1957年独立庆典的人们入迷的情景。 尽管他在私下谈话时语调温和，但当他来到人民中间并向他们讲话时，就判若两人了。他只要说上几句话，就能使他们激动得发狂。很明显，他的人民是忠于他的。我与他交谈时，发现他看起来也是忠于他的人民的。 但是，在独立庆典火热的激情消逝之后，加纳又慢慢地从一个灾难倒向另一个灾难了。恩克鲁玛恣意挥霍，把大量钱财花费在落后国家视为现代化象征的那些工程上，如，搞一座大坝，开辟一条航线，建一个机场。他决心使加纳在经济上独立，企图通过在本国生产加纳所需的一切的办法来取消进口。 这对恩克鲁玛来说，就是意味着由政府来进行生产——不管政府是否能胜任，也不管当地生产的物品比进口的还要昂贵。他对工业企业、种植园和商店实行了国有化，得到的却是灾难性的后果。他不仅把自己看作加纳的国父，而且看作非洲独立之父。他白白地为非洲统一组织总部耗费了大量资金，该组织的总部最后却设在埃塞俄比亚。他还把加纳的钱财源源不断地倾注在非洲其他地方的独立运动上。 加纳本可以从与西方工业化国家进行紧密的联系中大受其益。但在这一时期中，恩克鲁玛的反西方的偏执狂和咄逼人的泛非主义却逐步升级了。他大搞个人迷信，肆意挥霍政府正在迅速减少的资金，为自己建造了精致的纪念碑。 六十年代中期，仍然是加纳主要出口物品的可可的价格暴跌。加纳再也没有任何储备可以依靠了。 当经济情况恶化时，恩克鲁玛不仅没有集中全力采取必要的强硬措施来扭转局面，反而把自己的痛苦转嫁给别人。加纳北方的几内亚是一个得天独厚的、拥有丰富自然资源、包括黄金和金刚石的国家。几内亚的领导人塞古·杜尔1960年来华盛顿访问时，我陪他去白宫。他走了过来，看样子很热情、英浚不过，他是一位虔诚的马克思主义者。他试图把马克思主义的原则强加于几内亚，并希望能够取得预期的效果。这两个国家如果说有什么区别的话，那就是几内亚尽管自然资源丰富，其境况甚至比加纳更糟。恩克鲁玛像印度尼西亚的苏加诺和埃及的纳赛尔一样，虽然无法应付国内的问题，却滋生了贪得无厌的、在国外进行冒险的欲望。他试图把加纳和几内亚合并起来，但未获成功。 随着岁月的流逝，恩克鲁玛越来越脱离人民了。他自称为"救世主"，从戒备森严的官邸中，向全国发号施令。1964年，所有的反对党都被宣布为非法，许多抨击思克鲁玛的人被投入监狱。两年后，加纳的经济形势由于可可价格的波动和耗资巨大的发展项目所带来的后果而变得更加动荡了。于是，军方在恩克鲁玛访问北京期间，把他推翻了。1972年，他在几内亚流亡之时去世。 加纳在独立以后的头二十五年中，发生过五次军事政变，有过三届民选政府。可可现在仍然是加纳经济中的主要产品，但其产量仅及独立前的一半。它的黄金产量下降了三分之二。 国营种植园的烟草产量只为八年前的十分之一。粮食生产也下降了。在领取工资的劳力中，有百分之八十五是由政府支付工资的。 思克鲁玛留下来的遗产是：他为自己建造的纪念碑，贪污腐化盛行的政府机构，以及破产了的经济。思克鲁玛所造成的破坏，需要由国家的建设者（而不是破坏者）进行多年的努力才能够恢复过来。 就某种意义而言，加纳是一个好心办了坏事的悲剧。恩克鲁玛在争取独立的热情的驱使下，可能相信他自己能创造出奇迹。但他掌权之后却被权迷心窍的自大狂所吞噬了。西方那些施加压力以加快非殖民化进度的人之所以那样做，是出于理想主义的；追思往昔，当时那些比较慎重的人，恐怕才是比较现实的。 在世界目前正在经历的这个阶段中，数以十计的殖民地前哨地区的人民，已经可以任凭那些损人利己的新领导人宰割了。旧殖民结构的瓦解为一场新的争权夺利的斗争开辟了道路——在大多数情况下，是为那些夺得权力的人争夺巨额财富开辟了道路。这些以前的殖民地中，有许多人是在对民主毫无体验的情况下获得独立的。所以，他们只了解民主的皮毛。结果，他们得到的只是专制或穷困，或是两种兼而有之。 对加纳来说，更加可悲的是：已经出现的这种境况本来是可以避免的。最好的实证之一，是加纳的邻国——象牙海岸，它与加纳和几内亚形成了鲜明的对照。现在，象牙海岸由于近海石油矿藏的开发，显然已经处于新繁荣的边缘。然而，在此之前，它既缺乏几内亚所拥有的矿藏资源，独立前的经济又不象几内亚那样富裕。但是，象牙海岸有费利克斯·乌弗埃·博瓦尼这样一位对现实有着深切了解的领导人。乌弗埃·博瓦尼在法国内阁中担任过好几个职务，包括在戴高乐手下担任过国务部长。尽管他极力把人民要求成立一个国家的愿望当作自己的意愿，但他坚持认为，骤然建立起来的"绝对的独立"——用他自己的话讲——将使这个新兴国家陷入混乱之中。象牙海岸干1960年从法国独立出来时，虽然割断了它与法国的一些联系，但没有割断主要的联系。他不但没有驱逐法国人和其他欧洲人，反而把他们请进来。他不但没有推行国有化，反之，给予私人企业以基本的信任。结果，象牙海岸成为西非最繁荣的国家，每年的增长率为百分之八，人均收入为加纳的三倍和马克思主义的几内亚的九倍。 象牙海岸在政治上向民主社会过渡所取得的进展，还没有象许多人原来所希望的那样巨大和迅速。但是，它也没有掉进操之过急、要求过多、结果一无所获的陷饼。可以肯定的是：在黑非洲的所有国家中，象牙海岸与别国相比，是可资利用的国相比，是可资利用的?[book自然资源较少，但获得进步较大的国家。 乌弗埃·博瓦尼坚持说，在他的领导下，他的国家在经济方面所取得的进步，也为将来政治上的进步奠定了基础。只有时间才能证实这一点。不过，在一个方面取得进步，总比在两个方面都失败要好得多。谁要是就非洲的未来打赌的话，都将不得不承认：象牙海岸的前景比它的邻国都要光明。 世界上正在就富裕的、工业化的北方是否需要向不发达的、贫困的南方大量进行资助的问题进行热烈的辩论。赞成这种想法的热情鼓吹者说，我们需要有一项帮助非洲、拉丁美洲和亚洲贫穷国家的"马歇尔计划"，这种想法的意图是良好的，但它完全是幼稚的。按照马歇尔计划，美国仅向西欧各国提供了总额为一百二十亿美元的经济援助；美国向日本也只提供了二十三亿美元。由于这些先进国家都具有自己的工业能力，如果它们没有外界援助的话，自己也是可以恢复过来的。 外界的援助，仅仅是加速复兴进程的一种手段。 第三世界经济不发达国家的情况就不同了。第二次大战以来，美国已向这些国家提供了将近九百亿美元的经济援助。这笔钱中，有一部分是被用在刀刃上了，但大多是浪费了。总的说来，其成果是令人失望的，与欧洲和日本相比，则尤为令人沮丧。恩克鲁玛的加纳所发生的悲剧证明，未来应记取的教训是：为了取得经济上的进步，必须仰仗于技术知识和一个鼓励私人投资的、稳定的政府。