Chapter 15 8. New leaders in a new era of world change-2

Like Ghana's Nkrumah, Indonesia's Sukarno was a charismatic leader who successfully led a struggle for independence. However, Sukarno, like Nkrumah, became a disaster once independence was consolidated.Both men can only destroy, not build. Sukarno was very handsome.He was aware of it himself, and he was arrogant to the point of self-importance; he also had an exciting, crowd-fascinating demeanor.However, he was also a revolutionary leader who allowed the revolution to develop into a religion.This revolution is not a means to an end.Rather, it is a goal in itself. During the 1930s, Sukarno was repeatedly imprisoned and exiled by the Dutch.This experience made him very angry and resentful.Even after the Republic of Indonesia was established and firmly established, he continued his own revolution against the former colonial masters by creating chaos in Dutch New Guinea.

In 1953, I met Sukarno for the first time.For most of our meeting, he talked not about his own vexing problems but about his territorial claim to Dutch New Guinea, or West Ilian, as the Indonesians call it.I am not surprised by this.Sukarno's bitterness towards Irian is well known.Just a few days before this meeting, Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies warned me in Canberra that I should prepare to learn a lesson on this issue when I arrive in Indonesia. I always wanted to bring my conversation with Sukarno back to his own country's political and economic issues, but he just didn't talk about it, but wanted to teach me a lesson on the Vietnam issue and the injustice of the French.When I asked him what we should do in Vietnam, he replied bluntly: "Nothing needs to be done. You have ruined the event because you don't support Ho Chi Minh."

In the early 1960s, Sukarno ordered a raid on Dutch New Guinea and finally captured it.But his "brilliant victory" was one that cost too much.Within a few years, he stepped down.While he rants and scrambles about the Illian issue, the Indonesian communists are getting stronger.The communists were encouraged by domestic poverty and unrest, by the development of friendly relations between Indonesia and mainland China, and by Sukarno's willingness to accept communists into his government. Sukarno once claimed that he himself was anti-communist.He also boasted to me during a visit to Washington in the mid-1950s: "I'm not worried about the communists. I'm strong enough to deal with them." However, the Indonesian communists staged a coup in 1965 The attempt was brutally suppressed by the military.The military wrested full power from Sukarno and placed him under house arrest in 1966.Four years later, he died.

Sukarno is the best example of a revolutionary leader I know who can deftly destroy a system but fail to focus on rebuilding the country.The plain truth is this: Indonesia is the most populous country in the non-communist world after India and the United States, and has more natural resources than any other country in Southeast Asia, yet it lacks proper leadership.Sukarno temporarily charmed his people into ignoring their own problems; he himself never set out to solve them. Despite the fertile land in Indonesia, the people of Sukarno were very poor.He propped up his people not with material prosperity but with what he called "symbolic utopian affluence".His 5,100-page economic plan, which was never realized, was divided into eight volumes, seventeen chapters, and nine hundred and forty-five articles.But it was only enacted to commemorate Indonesia's independence from the Netherlands on August 17, 1945.

In addition, like Nkrumah, he squandered state money recklessly and stupidly. As a result, Indonesia had the highest inflation rate in the post-war world. Political passion and physical indulgence exhausted Sukarno. When I visited him in 1953, he talked about the revolution as nastyly as he would about the beauties that filled his palace in Jakarta.He sees revolutions as a national spasm of emotion, which, in spite of the damage it may cause, is an entirely good thing in itself; he also thinks that revolutions should be repeated endlessly.He once said: The revolution made me swoon.Revolution fascinates me strongly.Romanticism drives me crazy, mesmerized.The revolution is like a wave, spreading to almost every corner of the earth.

Come on, brothers and sisters, let us keep fanning the flames of joy!Let us become firewood, so that the flames of revolution will burn even more vigorously! During my visit to Indonesia, I saw Sukarno speak at a mass meeting attended by several thousand people.He captivated his audience for over an hour.Finally, he ended his speech by chanting "mandaga" repeatedly as if performing a ceremony-this word is the battle cry of the revolution in Nicaea and a symbol of freedom, dignity and independence.The crowd echoed loudly again and again: "Mandaga!" caught in an almost unbelievable frenzy.I glanced at Sukarno: his excitement was palpable, his face glowing with contentment.

Sukarno was a very handsome man who knew himself to be a magnet for people.Some of the most provocative political orators I have ever met were quiet-spoken, even shy in private conversation, so I have the feeling that their touching, charismatic presence was only there for the need. It exists on occasions of this quality.However, Sukarno was the same on the outside, and there was no shadow of sophistication or thoughtfulness on his body.For him, the passion of the masses is the pillar of his survival, as important as food and water.This revolution unleashed the passion of the people, and made the people act recklessly and willfully, and Sukarno wanted to continue his revolution in a supreme way.I mentioned in Zhang Xiaofu's memoirs that when Indonesia first began to ask for aid from the Soviet Union, Sukarno immediately asked Zhang Xiaofu for funds to build a large movement. I was not surprised by this.At that time, the Prime Minister of the Soviet Union was puzzled. He originally estimated that Sukarno would ask for food or provide weapons.What Sukarno wanted, however, was a venue where he could continue to hold mass rallies.

One of the major problems facing third world countries is the lack of a large middle class.Hence, affluence and extreme poverty often go hand in hand.Nowhere else have I seen the disparity between rich and poor as wide as Sukarno's Jakarta, though. When we drove through the city from the airport in 1953, we saw open sewers and miles of dilapidated shacks.Sukarno himself lived in a palace set among hundreds of acres of lush gardens.When we arrived at the gates of his mansion, he greeted us on the front steps, dressed in a crisp white suit that was perfectly tailored.His palace is also pure white, glistening in the bright sunlight.If we look directly at it, it will sting our eyes.

Sukarno was a dignified host, with none of the flattery that so many leaders of smaller states welcome representatives of larger states.Unlike them, he has no inferiority complex under any circumstances.Instead, he gave the impression that he was not only expected to be equal to others, but even superior.He spoke perfect English and even exuded a sense of self-absorbed superiority as he escorted us around his palace filled with priceless treasures of Indonesian art and beautiful Indonesian women.The banquet that night was also very elegant.We dined by a wide artificial lake, surrounded by more than a thousand torches, and the sparkling lake was covered with white lotus flowers.All the tableware for this dinner was of gold.

Sukarno, however, was also concerned with smaller matters.In the guest bathroom, he told me, there was a mix of a new-style shower and an old-fashioned bucket. He said he prefers the latter.Despite his extravagant life, he still maintains a "telepathic" connection with the poorest people.Throughout his political career, he has enjoyed pulling over cars to shake hands and strike up conversations.Some of the leaders I've met in other countries, and many of our missions abroad -- especially in Asia -- think it's demeaning.However, Sukarno did not see it that way.When we visited rural Indonesia, the villages were poorer than what we saw in the Jakarta area.We stopped at a farmer's house and watched him fry sweet potatoes for lunch.We also visited a rural cafe and chatted with the owner.People seemed surprised to see an American vice president with them, but they showed no signs of surprise when they saw their own president.Sukarno made regular tours of the countryside, mingling with his people and spending the night in dilapidated cottages.

Sukarno's moving, charismatic presence captivated not only Indonesians but Americans as well. In 1956, I accompanied him on his state visit to the United States.As part of the welcome ceremony, we went to the special district building of the capital city hall, where Sukarno received the keys to the city, wearing a khaki uniform, a Muslim skullcap and holding a studded A light walking stick in ivory, courteous, cheerful, and feigning high spirits.Suddenly, to the horror of our security unit, but to the delight of the crowd, he squeezed his way through the cordon, shook hands with the men, chatted animatedly with the children, and kissed the women, making most of them Most screamed with delight. As much as he was politically self-indulgent, Sukarno was also carnal. I recently mentioned Sukarno to President Habib Bourguiba of Tunisia.Bourguiba himself was a contemporary revolutionary leader and a nation-builder.When I said Sukarno was a great revolutionary leader, he frowned, shook his head, and said: No.First, he insisted that Sukarno was brought to power by the Japanese.He had conspired with the Japanese during World War II as a means of driving the Dutch out of Indonesia.Then, Bourguiba added another reason against my view, saying: "I remember very clearly that when Sukarno came to Tunisia, we had many important things to discuss, and he asked me to do it." The first thing he did was to ask me to find him a woman." Sukarno was married at least six times.His sexual prowess and desire were the subject of countless legends and stories throughout his time in power.The briefing I received from the State Department prior to my trip in 1953 emphasized this aspect of his character and pointed out that he liked being flattered in this regard.Clearly, sex and revolution satisfied his need to be admired and sacrificed for him.Unfortunately, the qualities needed to be a competent leader of a developing country are precisely the opposite of his.For Sukarno, the supreme thing should be the massive and urgent needs of the people, not his own needs. Yet he used government as a place to flaunt his manhood, politically and physically.Dutch colonialism had personally humiliated and challenged his manliness.Sukarno displayed this mettle during his two decades in power, with an unfettered private life and threats to yell at Dutch New Guinea.These fanaticisms finally swallowed him up. The cases of Sukarno and Nkrumah also demonstrate a lamentable truth about leadership: those who are best at emotionally approaching the people often have the worst programs. "Ping Jian recites the male male form, it is effective.Because such a person lacks a sense of responsibility, he can speak freely and choose the most contagious words in order to touch the most basic functions of the audience's sense organs.Fear and hatred are powerful forces.Demagogues can harness these forces; hope is also a powerful force.Therefore, demagogues are good at throwing out false hopes, deceiving those who are very willing to believe in such hopes, and making them pin their hopes for the future on fantasy. Sukarno had a program - freedom from colonial rule.He built his image around this program.Otherwise, his rule meant nothing but disaster for the Indonesian people.However, he still holds them in his hands.The reasons are, firstly, because the slogan of "Mandaga" has exciting power; secondly, because he himself has a kind of vigorous attractiveness and temperament of an orator; Heroes are very susceptible to infection. It may not be a coincidence that so many new leaders in emerging countries at the end of colonialism were basically demagogues.Getting rid of colonial rule is a one-on-one sport.It provides a suitable venue for demagoguery; and demagoguery is especially suitable for this kind of movement.It requires considerable power to arouse people's emotions.In effect, it turns a country into a state of all soldiers, or at least creates the threat of a possible all-soldier situation.It requires no deliberate, intricate balancing act.And this balance is the basic factor for the success of democratic politics.Such a movement requires only that the people be twisted into a force so menacing to the motherland that it will feel that it would be dangerous and futile to maintain control, and that is all. Unlike Nkrumah and Sukarno, India's Jawahar Nehru was both a moving and charismatic revolutionary leader and a nation-builder.However, like them—especially Sukarno—he also had a fatal flaw.Nehru was entangled in the Kashmir issue, just as Sukarno was entangled in the West Irian issue.His concern for India's needs pales if not pales in comparison to his concern for his own role in Third World politics. Brilliant and haughty, Nehru was a man of aristocratic airs, short-tempered and terribly conceited.He was passionately dedicated to India and the ideals of independence and unity. Unfortunately for India, he, like many intellectuals at the time, was increasingly attracted to the theory of socialism, which he and his daughter decided to force in India, which cost India a huge the price.Millions of people live hand to mouth in a country with a centuries-old tradition of resistance to foreign powers. In 1889, Minzhang was established in Allahabad - it is now part of Palestine.His father was a wealthy Kashmiri Brahmin and one of India's most prominent lawyers.Nehru's ancestral connection with Kashmir is probably one of the reasons why he was so enthusiastic about the Kashmir issue later on. He was determined to make Kashmir a part of India and desperately opposed the issue of letting the Kashmiri people decide for themselves.This right to self-determination is almost certainly beneficial to Pakistan and not to India. Nehru himself was educated as an English gentleman at Harrow and Cambridge, and was admitted to the English Bar in 1912.After returning to India, he worked as a lawyer for a period.However, the British massacre of Indian troops at Amritsar in 1919 made him extremely angry, and since then he has devoted himself to the cause of Indian independence. He is a follower of Mahatma Gandhi.However, he leaned to Gandhi's left politically and did not believe in non-violence like Gandhi.He preached non-violence to others; yet he was not afraid to use force when it served his own or India's ends. Nehru seemed to be a tireless campaigner. Before the 1937 general election, he campaigned as Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Congress Party, covering 22 months, traveling 110,000 miles and giving 150 speeches in a week. During the 1930s, Nehru was repeatedly imprisoned for his involvement in the resistance.In World War II he opposed aid to Great Britain—unless India was immediately independent—and was sent back to prison.He wrote his best books in prison, including his autobiography and a history of the world in letters to his daughter.At the end of the war, he participated in the negotiations to partition the subcontinent and make India and Pakistan independent states. In 1947, he became India's first prime minister, a post he held until his death in 1964. Nehru was of medium build, about five feet ten inches tall.He had good features, with an aquiline nose and dark brown expressive eyes.He also had an aristocratic air.His English, both written and spoken, is also impeccable and rigorous.He may also have been an impressive and charismatic speaker.Although I never had the opportunity to hear him speak to a crowd, his ability to captivate large audiences is legendary.It is said that he once fascinated a million people.As long as he is present, hundreds of thousands of people will be attracted by him even if they can't hear him. Among the world leaders I have met, Nehru must be among the most talented.He can also be arrogant, difficult, and unbearably self-righteous.He also possesses a distinct sense of superiority which he does not conceal. Nehru also faced challenges that would make the little ones vacillate. The last time I saw the Shah of Iran in 1979 in Konaivaja, Mexico, he was talking about some of the problems facing Nehru and other Indian leaders.Contrasting India with China, he said: "China is one nation. They may speak different dialects, but their written language is common. Whether they live at home or abroad, there is a common sense of community. This unites them. On political issues, they may have sharp differences with each other, but at the end of the day, they all consider themselves Chinese and are proud of their Chinese heritage," he added : "India is a hodgepodge of races, religions and languages. There is no basic Indian language. The only language that Indians can communicate in parliament is English." He pointed out that the people of the Indian subcontinent profess six major religions, speak fifteen widely spoken languages ​​and thousands of minor languages ​​and dialects; India's history is so intricate that it is impossible to calculate how many races and minorities it has nationality.India, he said, was not a country until the British pinched it together and brought it under British colonial rule.In his view, India is a country with too much population and too few resources; in contrast, China, despite its large population, has abundant resources and the potential to provide itself with food and clothing. ∫ Hang Shi 醯 Mu Zhang 闶 Qianhe "Burning Negative Seedlings u Fu Chen Yue Hai Who can successfully put India together? This person must be a political genius.Nehru did this.To his credit, despite India's enormous economic and social problems and the attendant tendency to lure India towards dictatorship, Nehru insisted that India should preserve and develop democracy. In 1953, I met Min Zhangchang in India. Before that, some people told me that he was anti-American; some people said that he was anti-British; .There may be some truth to these accusations.But from my own impressions from talking to him, I agree with the late Paul Hoffman.He said to me: Min Zhang still has a deep love for India. Although Min Zhangche spent many years in the struggle against British rule, and he was imprisoned in British prisons, he still had a great appreciation for British poetry and sometimes went to England for holidays.He distinguished himself as the spokesperson of the third world and the founder of the "Non-Aligned Movement".But he has also shown everywhere that he wants people to take India seriously as a big country.The proud man was outraged at the treatment of Indians by the British rulers as second-class people.The superiority and arrogance with which he later addressed the rest of the world also seemed to come from the heart.The flattery of the Indian people intensified his attitude.As his popularity grew in the mid-thirties, his wife and daughters sometimes teased him with, "Hey, India darling, what time is it?" Avatar, pass me the bread, please." When I met Nehru in 1953, he spent at least a quarter of the time talking about US-India relations, and spent more than two and a half of the time talking to me about his so-called India is facing problems from poor soldiers. The dangerous question of a ransomized Pakistan.Although he spoke in this speech of a hypothetical Pakistani threat to India, his demeanor heralded the moment when, eighteen years later, the Soviet-supplied Indian army, led by his daughter, dismembered Pakistan, and threatened to destroy it - a goal I have tried to negate under the US policy of "favoring" Pakistan in this conflict. Looking back, I think it was one of his major weaknesses that he devoted too much of his indisputable, prodigious talent and energy to the India-Pakistan conflict.If Nehru was still alive, he would have the possibility and strength to seize the bullet that was about to be fired on Pakistan and resolve the dispute between the two countries peacefully.Unfortunately, he was not able to bring himself to do so while he was alive.The India-Pakistan conflict is one of the most tragic examples of the foolish spending of military power in postwar history.For decades, the two poorest countries in the world have spent billions of dollars each year on weapons, although hundreds of millions of people live in abject poverty, the basic purpose of which is not to defend against the threat of aggression from the North , but to kill each other. However, during our talks Nehru also made a point which I think is worthwhile.India, with a population of 400 million, is trying to achieve prosperity, progress and justice through democratic means, he said.China, with a population of 600 million, tries to achieve these goals through authoritarian means.Therefore, he insisted, it is in the interests of the United States and the West to do everything possible to ensure India's success.In this way, the rest of the Third World, as they embark on the road to self-government, will see that the democratic approach works; the Communist experiment failed.This argument is in the service of Minzhang Chena, who needs more assistance.But it's also quite true. One of the reasons for India's continuing economic disaster was Nehru's own stubborn belief in socialism.He has said that the experiments conducted by China and India represent a competition between totalitarianism and democracy.While this statement is true, what is going on in India is not an experiment in the establishment of free enterprise.Nehru read Marx in prison, and in the mid-thirties he preached socialism and urged his followers to organize unions of workers and peasants.It is not surprising that he was attracted from the beginning by the teachings of socialism.Nehru was born in a privileged class and grew up under the influence of social morality.The country he grew up in was not an industrial democracy, not even an agricultural democracy.India has a strict hierarchical system, and a large amount of wealth is concentrated in a few people, making them surprisingly rich. Looking ahead, millions of other people see unbearable poverty, and early death even becomes a way out of poverty. India needs to increase productivity from the bottom up.On the economic side, on the contrary, it has adopted the method of feeding ideas from top to bottom.Bureaucracy, like layers of flypaper, keeps people from moving an inch.Since India's independence, the United States alone has provided it with more than nine billion dollars in aid.However, this money was not used to establish an independent and self-sufficient economic base, but only to remedy the losses caused by the failure of the socialist experiment. Unfortunately, Nehru's romanticism towards socialism and his obsession with Pakistan became part of a prejudice he passed on to his daughter Indira Gandhi. When I met Nehru in 1953, she was an enthusiastic spectator and listener.She acted as hostess, entertaining my wife and me.She was courteous and considerate during our visit.Years later, she was prime minister and I was president.When I saw her again, I found that she really resembled her father.If anything, she was even more hostile to Pakistan than her father. Jawahar Nehru was undoubtedly a great revolutionary leader.In my conversation with him, I can feel why he has such a great appeal to the Indian people.He had an almost otherworldly, mystical air about him.At the same time, I could also see that he combined this temperament with an incisive knowledge of the elements of power and a willingness to exercise it.When necessary, he will use this right without reserve. His legacy is the nation of India and its continuing suffering from the India-Pakistan conflict. In those critical early years of Indian independence, only very powerful people were able to hold India together, keep it as a single state, and prevent other forces from tearing India apart.As the Shah of Iran said, it is not easier or more logical to make the whole of India into one country than it is to make all of Europe into one country.Linguistically, ethnically and culturally, India is even more diverse than Europe.Whether such unification would benefit the Indian people, however, is another question.Unity is sometimes more important to the unifier than to the united.If less energy had been expended in dealing with the inherent centrifugal forces of this country, perhaps more could have been done to improve the living conditions of the people. "Yan Cheng is the most populous democratic country in the world", which has become a kind of Chen Shimu.Whether India would be better off if it were divided into several countries is irrelevant here.Nehru has merged it into a democratic country, and it continues to maintain the nature of a democratic country.His daughters have at times relied on authoritarian means to retain power, or to regain it.Would Nehru do this if he were alive?I doubt it very much.He struck me as one of staunch devotion to the cause of preserving and extending democratic institutions and their processes.Because of the enormity of the tasks he faced, his successes in these areas are arguably one of the most outstanding achievements of the postwar period. "Builder of Poppin' Nation: Magsaysay History is full of provocative questions such as "what if... would be..." and "what if...".For me, the saddest of these questions is what would have happened if the forty-nine-year-old Philippine president, Ramon Magsaysay, hadn't been killed in a plane crash in 1957 Woolen cloth? Among the leaders of emerging nations that emerged after the Second World War, Magsaysay was one of the most conspicuous.Unlike Skrumah, Sukarno and Nehru, he did not lead his country's independence movement.The Philippines was granted independence by the United States in 1946 at no cost. Magsaysay became president of the Philippines in 1953.On the eve of his death, he almost won another general election with an overwhelming majority. One reason for his success may be that he was never a revolutionary leader.He has neither the psychological nor the political need to make a constant revolution, or to venture abroad to cause a revolution.He devoted all of his extraordinary talents to the cause of bringing security, stability and progress to the Filipino people. In pursuing these goals, Magsaysay also faced an uphill battle as any postwar leader would have faced.MacArthur liberated the Philippines from the Japanese, but did not bring it out of the ashes of war.Both the war and the Japanese occupation have severely damaged the economy and spirit of the Philippines.Immediately after gaining independence in 1946, the Philippines embarked on a struggle for survival that was as difficult as those lost in World War II.The free trade agreement between the United States and the Philippines and the more than $800 million in aid from the United States between 1945 and 1955 both played a role.But the Philippine government needs to grapple not only with a collapsing economy but also with a country riven by violently clashing political dissent. In some major respects, postwar Philippines was remarkably similar to postwar Italy.Both countries were devastated by the war, both mentally and economically.They all faced Communist threats—threats that were substantially more dangerous than those in Japan, West Germany, and other European countries.After the war, both countries were largely on their own.Therefore, they must deal with the Communist threat by themselves and cannot resort to the supreme power of the occupying power.However, both countries also had their own leaders at critical moments - from 1945 to 1953, Italy had de Gasperi, and from 1950 to 1957, the Philippines had Magsaysay. leadership.First as Secretary of Defense and later as President, he rose to every challenge with courage, imagination, and forthrightness. At a time when the Communist Party is promising to save the Italian people from poverty and despair, de Gasperi cannot do what Adenauer did: simply point across the border and tell his people, you want See what happened to the promises of the Communists?Well, please see what East Germany looks like!Gasperi must outshine the Communists in tact and cunning; at the same time, he must show the Italian people that his path is one of prosperity and freedom.His tasks are both interrelated and distinct: he not only has to attack the Communists, but also has to solve the problems of food and clothing for his people and encourage them. When Magsaysay's opportunity in the Philippines came, he also waged a two-pronged fight against Communism.Emotionally, his country was devastated by war and Japanese occupation, just as Italy was devastated by war and fascism.MacArthur once pointed out to me that, in fact, a greater percentage of Filipinos died in the Pacific War than any other nation.De Gasperi had to fight a well-organized and well-financed Communist Party; Magsaysay also had to fight the mighty Communist insurgents of the Philippine People's Anti-Japanese Army.At the same time, he must inspire an exhausted people and, like de Gaspery, give them a bountiful product instead of listening to the seductive siren song of communism.Although he died before completing the aforementioned tasks, he made great progress in a short period of time.His example is like a lighthouse, reflecting the whole of free Asia. Magsaysay was a rare leader who combined great appeal to his people, boundless energy, and a simple conscience. When I first met him in 1953, he was a president-elect.I was immediately impressed by his size, he was nearly six feet tall.That's pretty high for a Filipino.He was natural in his bearing and possessed a tremendous charisma and physical appeal.This attraction is more clearly revealed when he appears in front of the crowd.During that visit in 1953, I was speaking to 20,000 members of the Philippine Junior Chamber of Commerce one afternoon in Manila.When the crowd saw Magsaysay stepping into the hall, or even just sitting on the podium, they immediately went into a frenzy.The fiery communication between him and the crowd before us was as strong as lightning. Magsaysay was active in the Resistance during World War II.Throughout the Japanese occupation of the Philippines, he was a guerrilla leader who attracted MacArthur's attention. In 1945, the general appointed him military commander of the province of Zembals.But it was his successful victory over another enemy - the Philippine People's Anti-Japanese Army - that made him a national hero. 战后几年里，菲律宾人民抗日军发展成为一支非常强大的队伍，他们甚至能在马尼拉公开保持一个司令部。到1950年，菲律宾人民抗日军有一万六千名战士。在菲律宾的有些地方，他们实际上还收取税收，用以支付他们自办学校和工厂的费用。 当时，菲律宾军队的士气非常低落，无法对菲律宾人民抗日军进行有效的防御。农村的情况更糟。麦克阿瑟曾经说过，如果他是一个菲律宾农民的话，他也可能会参加菲律宾人民抗日军。菲律宾人民抗日军力量的来源之一，就是答应进行土地改革。当时，耕种土地的农民平均得把他们微薄的收成中的百分之七十交给世袭的地主。 麦格塞塞当时是菲律宾国会的议员，1950年被任命为国防部长。他迅速而有力地采取了从两个方面来反对菲律宾人民抗日军的行动。首先，他重整部队，在分散的军营之间来回奔波，突击巡视，并解除了失职军官的职务。他俘获了共产党的高级领导人，同时又实行了一项雄心勃勃的重新安置农民的计划。这场政治上的钳形攻势，摧毁了菲律宾人民抗日军的实力基础。他曾骄傲他说："我真不知道该把投降的菲律宾人民抗日军安置在什么地方了。" 1953年，当我见到他时，他向我介绍了他对菲律宾人民抗日军的办法，说："不能光用枪炮对付他们。我们必须使年轻人抱有希望，使他们相信衣、食和住宿的条件一定会改善。如果我们做到这一点，激进分子就蔫了。"然而，尽管他相信光是枪炮不能解决问题，他也不是一位认为在反对极权主义侵略时根本不需要枪炮的幼稚的理想主义者。他强烈地支持我们在共同防务方面所作出的努力，他在战斗中打败了菲律宾人民抗日军的恐怖分子。在必要时，他会坚定不移地用武力来与共产党人作战。他说："在我们的生活方式与共产主义之间，不可能有和平，不可能有使人麻痹瓦解的和平共处，也不可能有灰色的中立主义，只可能有冲突——全面的冲突，毫无妥协余地的冲突。" 我第一次见到麦格塞塞时，他刚以压倒多数的选票赢得了总统职位。他在被国民党提名之前，把党内一些领导人的建议撇在一边，领导了一次军事政变。在接受提名时，他发表了记录在案的演讲中最为简明扼要的一次演说，以此开始他的竞选活动。当时他站了起来，说："我是一个实干的人。因此，我不是一位演说家。"讲完，他就坐下了。1956年我第二次访问菲律宾时，又看见了他。这一次，他则是一位正在实干的演说家：当时，五十万人在马尼拉的卢内塔公园集会，熳７坡杀?独立十周年。我首先代表美国讲了话。接着，正当麦格塞塞走向讲台时，热带的大雨撕裂了灰色的天空，倾盆而下。助手们拿着雨伞匆匆来到他身边。他把他们推开了，把事先准备好的讲稿铺在面前的讲台上。然而，大雨把讲稿淋透了，使它变得毫无用处。麦格塞塞干脆把它推在一边。所以他的整篇演说实际上是即席讲的。刚下大雨时，我估计群众会四散离去。结果，虽然许多人走了，但是更多的人仍站在原地，目不转晴地看着麦格塞塞，对大雨毫不理会。他的声音、他的音调和他的话语，响彻了整个会场，到处都可以感到他的存在。当他的讲话结束时，人们仍然置热带豪雨于不顾，欣喜若狂，鼓掌欢呼。这是我在演说方面所见到的、最令人惊叹不已的壮举之一。 麦格塞塞破除了菲律宾政治的清规戒律。在一个贪污腐化盛行的国度中，他顽强地抗拒着腐蚀。在1951年的选举中，为了缩小地方财主们和军人在政治中的影响，他这位国防部长进行了斗争（在城镇里，警方当时甚至可以肆无忌惮地谋杀反对党的选民），并取得了胜利：那一年的选举是廉洁的。作为总统，他把他在马尼拉的宫殿向每个人开放，而且耐心地听取农民和工人们的控诉。他不相信所谓的专家们对一些问题的意见，宁愿亲自去郊区和农村巡视，了解人们的感觉和需要。他在驱车出巡时，还时常伸出手来，和涌上街头看他驾车驶过的菲律宾人握手。》坡杀鑫大的政治家、作家和教育家卡洛斯·罗慕洛经常对他的国家的政治作出敏锐而古怪的评论。在我对马尼拉的一次访问中，菲律宾参议院的一位议员对美国进行了一次恶意的攻击。我向罗慕洛问起这位议员的情况。他回答说："他是美国的一位伟大的朋友。"我说："喔，那他肯定是用一种奇特的方式来表达这种友谊的罗。"罗慕洛眨眨眼睛，答道："您不懂菲律宾的政治。在这里，政治家成功的诀窍是：使美国人受不了，又恳求他们别离开。"另一次，他告诉我："你们美国人把我们教育得太妙了。我们把美国政治制度中过了头的东西全盘接了过来，而且把它们发展了。" 麦格塞塞不在此例。这可能因为他具有强烈的自信心。但我认为，这也是因为他把自己的一切都奉献给他的国家和人民的缘故。在他寻求取得成功的这一方面，他是一个理想主义者。但是，他亲眼见过战争，亲自战胜过日本入侵者和共产党恐怖分子这两个敌人。他了解要在秩序和自由之间保持平衡是多么困难。他识破了新极权主义者的面具，也认定他们在菲律宾不会取得胜利。因此，他又是一位现实主义者，知道路程还很漫长，途中还会有许多艰难险阻和令人失望的事情。但是，他迫使他的国家朝前走，小心翼翼地沿着一条介于既不要使人民感到希望渺茫、又不要对他们作过分承诺这两者之间的航道前进。他深切地感到，他正肩负着让菲律宾广大人民群众有一个正直的、进步的政府的使命。 1956年我访问菲律宾期间，麦格塞塞陪我作了一次神秘而可怕的旅行：参观柯里矶多岛上黑暗的隧道，当年麦克阿瑟被围困在巴丹时，曾与他的家人居住在这个岛上。麦格塞塞虽然与日本人打过仗，但他具有一种政治家的见解，仍然认为日本人肯定还会在亚洲再次发挥重要的作用。他对我说，日本是一个伟大的民族；他相信，在日本人手中遭受过比其他国家更多苦难的菲律宾人民，是会接受日本人参加亚洲大家庭的。 他用他的总统快艇带我到柯里矶多岛去。白天很长。我们俩人下到舱里，在两个床铺上舒展了一下。他累了，但看起来精神还很松快。他双手交叉，垫着脑后，凝神看着天花板，若有所思地谈论起他所取得的成功及招致的失败。当时，土地改革正在进行。许多农民已从拥挤的吕宋岛上迁走，在其他岛屿上给他们分了土地和房屋。他已着手进行一次雄心勃勃的计划，旨在清除政府中的不良现象。这一切都需要时间。但他仍然有使不完的精力，对未来充满乐观情绪。 他也懂得，他正在从事的事业的重要性已超出菲律宾的范围。他说："在亚洲的每个角落，人们都在注视着菲律宾，而且认识到美国的价值正在这里受到检验。我觉得，我们在这里如果能够成功地给我们的人民带来繁荣、自由和公正的话，那么，我们的榜样，以及通过我们所表现出来的美国的榜样，对这个地区和世界其他地方的人们将具有强大的吸引力。" 翌年，他在一次飞机失事中遇难去世了。许多人认为，这次失事不一定是一次意外事故。他的去世，对菲律宾人民和对亚洲所有的人民都是一个悲剧。他是一位具有感人的超凡魅力的人，他了解建设国家这门艺术的艰深。他的国家需要他的领导，世界也需要他的榜样。 以色列的先驱者：本·古里安和梅厄 在二十世纪的这些岁月里，老殖民帝国瓦解了，相互竞争的核超级大国涌现了，全球的距离也缩短到了一日的旅行或一次直拨电话即可到达的程度。在这些岁月中，中东有时也发生急遂的巨变。在那里，新兴的国家纷纷出现：古老的国家重新获得了完全的独立；旷日持久的对抗也点燃起来了。失去耐心的、向往现代化的人们，与拼命维护旧习惯的人们在互相摩擦，各种文化在互相冲突；被压抑的愤怒情绪一触即发，时而平息下去，时而又爆发出来。 中东是世界的十字路口，是文明的摇篮。它的圣地对三大宗教来说都是神圣的。今天，中东是游牧部落与学者、杂货铺与实验室、油田与以色列聚居区、议会和阿亚杜拉等杂处并存的地区。在这些地方，农民们耕种着几世纪前他们的祖先照料过的、多石的田地，在另一些地方，衣着时髦的妇女则在去现代化办公室的途中阅读着来自开罗或伦敦的最新杂志。中东是动荡不定的、脆弱的、对东西方之间的冲突至关紧要的地区。 它还深深地陷入了不断变化着的漩流之中，比世界其他地方更富有爆炸性，更牵动人们的感情。 在中东剧烈变动的年月里，这个地区也产生了一些非凡的领袖人物。 最卓越的领导人之一是戴维·本·古里安——以色列建国之父和第一任总理。他把他的一生献给了震动中东、并以其特殊而十分重要的方式改变着世界的事业。 艾森豪威尔总统过去常常把约翰·福斯特·杜勒斯和本·古里安说成是"《旧约全书》中的预言家"。我发现，这种说法对两者而言都有点令人啼笑皆非。杜勒斯是一位虔诚的美国新教徒，他把《新约全书》的教义镌刻在自己的心灵之中，本·古里安则是一位谙熟基督教《圣经》的学者。不过，他把自己说成是世俗的，而不是宗教的。他有一次解释道："虽然我经常援引基督教《圣经·旧约全书》开头的五篇，但请允许我声明一下，我个人并不相信它所假定的上帝。我的意思是说，我不能求助于上帝，或者向一位住在天上的、超人的上帝祈祷……然而，尽管我的哲学是世俗的，我却深深地相信那利米和以利亚这两位神灵。我确实认为这是犹太遗产的一部分。我不是笃信宗教的人。以色列早期的建设者们大多数也如此。但他们对这个国家的热情，还是来自子《圣经》一书。"他把《圣经》说成是"我一生唯一的、最重要的书"。 艾森豪威尔的说法尽管颇为令人啼笑皆非，但还是恰当的。杜勒斯和本·古里安都从《圣经》中得到一种使命感。这种使命感都是他们个人最突出的特征。杜勒斯的使命是保护自由，使其免受极权主义的危害；本·古里安的使命是使犹太人在巴勒斯坦的故土上重新定居下来。"尽古里安是一个身材矮小的人，只有?英尺三英寸高。 但是，他给人以一种庞然大物之感。这一方面是因为他骨架宽阔，脑袋很大，脸色红润，还有着满头银发，另一方面是因为他那突出的下唇，刚毅的下巴，以及疾步如风的步态使他显得更有风采，给人以深刻的印象。有的人是兴风作浪的。本·古里安则是一位息事宁人的人。 1906年，本·古里安从波兰迁冒以色列。也就是在这一年，戈尔达·梅厄从俄国移民去美国。作为一名二十岁的非法入境的移民，古里安刚抵达雅法，就在塞杰拉的加利利村当农民，从事劳动。如果犹太复国主义运动是他的生命，那么，他坚持认为耕种——使沙漠开花——是他最大的乐趣。后来他退休时，又回到了沙漠地带，在这块土地上度过自己的余生。"尽古里安一生中也贪婪地阅读书刊，而且撰写了大量著作。他在五十开外时，又学习了希腊文，这样他就能够阅读柏拉图的原著了。他还研究过印度教和佛教。本·古里安能讲九种语言。1966年，我、我的夫人以及我们的女儿特蕾西娅和朱莉一起去他家里拜访他，当时他住在特拉维夫的郊区。他把我带进他的书房，只见四面墙边摆满了杂乱的书籍，多到快要溢出来的程度。我1972年和1976年拜访毛泽东时，不禁联想起这间书房。毛泽东的房间里也堆满了书籍和手稿，有的还散落到地上。很明显，他们俩的这种情况说明，这些书并不是一种摆设，而是他们在日常生活中经常使用的东西，这与我在很多时髦的府第中的正式藏书室里见到的情况不一样。那些藏书室里的书籍经常满积灰尘，很少打开。 从本·古里安在雅法上岸之日起，到1948年5月他站在特拉维夫博物馆的话筒前向全世界宣读以色列独立文件之时上，四十多年过去了。在这些岁月里，他在土耳其、英国的统治下和国际共管的情况下，为了把自己的梦想变为现实而斗争着。 然而，与其他革命领导人不同，以色列独立之时，却不是本·古里安庆祝和平之日。就在他宣布独立后的一天之内，埃及、叙利亚、黎巴嫩、约旦和伊拉克就向这个新兴国家发动了战争。 在军事上，以色列最艰巨的战斗并非发生于独立之前，而是在独立之后。从这个意义上讲，以色列进行的是一场继续不断的革命——首先是反抗英国的统治：接着，又是反抗它的阿拉伯邻国的敌对行动。以色列幸而有本·古里安这样一位领导人。事实表明，他不仅有能力领导一场不管是和平的还是暴力的革命，使之取得成功，而且能够在革命成功之后建设国家。 "尽古里安是一位理想主义者。八十年来，他一直为实现犹太人的?想而奋斗。他又是一位现实主义者。他了解，由于敌对势力包围着以色列，使以色列不能在地域上进行扩张；他也相信，以色列会一如既往地充分发挥自己的力量，并为此而感到自豪。就其信念而言，他又是一位空想家。他认为，以色列南部的沙漠地区内吉夫总有一天会繁荣起来，发展成为一个既不完全象城市，也不完全象农村的地区，成为犹太人的家当时和后来的以色列其他领导人，一直妄想得到更多的地盘。本·古里安却不是这样的人。他把自己称作"狂热的内吉夫分子"，还争辩说，以色列的使命是开垦沙漠地带。他说，沙漠地带如果不改良的话，这对"人类是一种耻辱"，对："不能供养其全部人口的世界也是一种可耻的浪费"。他说，如果沙漠地区得到改良，就能为以色列提供它所需要的全部空间。他常以尖刻的口吻谈论想以武力扩展以色列领土的恐怖分子和其他扩张主义分子，并争辩说，除非以色列既是一个犹太国家，又是一个民主国家，否则它就没有理由存在。他说：那些主张兼并阿拉伯土地的"极端分子"将会剥夺以色列的使命；"他们如果取得成功，以色列就将不是犹太国家，也不是民主国家。阿拉伯人在数量上超过我们。为了控制他们，到时就只好采取不民主的镇压措施了。 " 1967年的六天战争之后，他建议，除了东耶路撒冷和戈兰高地外，从埃及和叙利亚手中夺得的其他土地应该归还给阿拉伯人，因为这些土地"只不过是不动产"。他的建议使许多以色列人大为吃惊和恼火。他说："对以色列最大的考验，不是在它的疆界之外与敌对势力进行战斗，而是在于能否成功地从占以色列领土百分之六十的荒地上收获更多的东西。""尽古里安是以色列的托?斯·杰斐逊、乔治·华盛顿和亚历山大·汉密尔顿，他对以色列和以色列的生活的影响渗透到各个角落。他撰写了以色列的独立宣言。他组织了第一支地下的犹太人军队。1948年以后，他担任了总理和国防部长，在四条战线上开展反对阿拉伯人和保卫以色列的斗争。在残忍的独立战争之后，他制订了先发制人以减少以色列仿亡的防卫战略。这种战略时至今日仍在应用。他赞同对纳粹战犯阿道夫·艾希曼进行公开审判：同时又不顾他的同胞们的强烈反对，与西德打开了非官方的关系，接受康拉德·阿登纳的战争赔偿。 他的国内政策是建立在他对平等的梦想的基础之上的，这就是：保持民族的统一，为了发展和保卫现代化的犹太国家这个共同目标而共同劳动。 "尽古里安与许多只把生命献给单一事业的人不同，他并不是狭隘的。我发现，他不仅在观察以美关系方面，而且在观察一般性的世界事务方面，都是坚定的、清醒的和果断的。他对待各种事物比较公允。1967年的六天战争以后，戴高乐公开抨击了以色列，由于当时正在火头上，所以他也发表了一些略有轻视犹太人的言论。戈尔达·梅厄从未就此宽恕过他。本·古里安后来则说："我认为我们对戴高乐是很不公正的。问题并不在于他是否喜欢犹太人，而在于他拯救了法国。 " 在待人方面，他和蔼并有耐性。1959年他在美国进行官方访问时，访问了我们在华盛顿的家。那一年，特蕾西娅正在公谊会学校七年级研习犹太教。她次日要参加一次考试，因此向古里安问个不休。在向她解释为什么犹太教的安息日是星期六而不是星期日，以及什么是大分枝烛台的问题时，他还就犹太教和基督教共同的传统作了半个小时的讲解。结果，特蕾西娅在考试中得了个"优"。自此以后，她一直很珍惜这次令人难以忘怀的会面。 戴维·本·古里安是一位无与伦比的杰出人材，是推动历史的一个基本力量。他有激情、有信仰、有信心，是一个勇于探索和独辟蹊径的人，而且知道自己的脚步正改变着世界。也许有人会争辩说，以色列的创建是天经地义的。但是，要使这种天经地义的事情变成现实，还需要耗费一个人非凡的精力。 美国和以色列一直都是分犹太移民的两大目的地和犹太难民的主要避难所。这种共同的特性象一种强有力的纽带，把这两个国家紧紧地联系在一起了。各地犹太人对以色列有一种精神上和感情上强烈的依恋，这使以色列各届总理和美国各届总统之间形成了一种特殊的关系。许多人认为，这种关系仅仅是一种政治关系。诚然，这种关系中包含着政治方面的因素，有着共同的理想和战略上的考虑。但最根本的原因是，以色列对美国有一种独特的重要性，因为以色列对大量的美国人具有独特的重要性。每位美国总统都意识到这一点，而且会有相应的表现。对他们来说，其他国家永远不能与以色列相提并论。 对我来说，戈尔达·梅厄与其他领导人也是不可同日而语的。我们两人都是在1969年执政的，而且同在1974年辞职。 她在我就职后两个月担任总理，一直到我辞职前两个月才辞职。实际上，她是"我的"以色列总理！我是"她的"美国总统。 就我们两国而言，我们当政的那些岁月是艰难的，有时甚至是无情的。我们关系中的紧张状态时而还很严重。她的要求经常超过我的预计。有时，我采取的一些行动或提出的一些条件则是她认为难以接受、或不能接受的。我们两人都知道，我们都在进行着巨大的赌博；东西方之间的平衡、工业化国家的生命线以及以色列的生存，则都维系于中东这场爆炸性的冲突之上。我们都在警惕地互相注视着对方，深知任何一方的失策对双方都可能是致命的。由于还没有完全明确的解决办法，因此，在如何解决这些冲突的问题上，当然也存在极为不同的看法。 但是，风雨同舟亦能使彼此的联系更为紧密。人们从观察一位领导人如何经受考验的过程中，可以清楚地看出他或她的为人。