Chapter 17 8. New leaders in a new era of world change-4

Faisal ibn Abdul Aziz Al Saud was King of Saudi Arabia from 1964 to 1975.Like the Shah of Iran, this absolute monarch set out to reform a country filled with old social norms and customs.Yet Faisal did not fall into the trap of offending powerful Muslim fundamentalists.It is evident that he himself was deeply religious and lived a life of impeccable simplicity.He enforces Islamic law as strictly as his predecessors.At the same time, he reformed and modernized his country.Faisal's life showed that it is possible for human society to reconcile the best of the modern world with the belief in Islam's God.Shortly after taking the throne, Faisal said: "Whether you like it or not, we must join the ranks of the modern world and find a respectable place in it.  … Just as revolutions can be waged from the basements of conspirators , or from the royal throne.” Like Shigeru Yoshida of Japan, Faisal encouraged beneficial Western influences while being careful not to allow them to undermine his country’s traditions—in Faisal’s case, that is, not Destroy Islam, the foundation of the country.

I first met Faisal at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York in the early sixties.At that time he was the crown prince under his older brother, the King of Saud.What impressed me most was that he was a seasoned and above-average diplomat who felt completely at home in the Western environment.He speaks perfect English. At the time, Saudi Arabia was desperate for U.S. support to oppose Nasser-backed rebels on its southern flank—Yemen.Faisal's demeanor, though not at all flattering, was low profile and friendly. Years later, in 1974, I visited Saudi Arabia as president. By then Faisal was king, and marked changes had taken place on the international scene.Nasser was dead, Sadat, Faisal's friend, ruled Egypt, and it was just emerging that oil from Saudi Arabia and its Middle Eastern allies could be used as an economic tool to put pressure on the West.He dealt with me in his own way, on his own terms.He greeted me at the airport, dressed in layers of traditional black-and-white robes despite the temperature exceeding 100 degrees, surrounded by a retinue of chiefs and guards from Arab nomadic tribes.The long bayonets of the guards gleamed in the hot sun.His modest private office in Jeddah was a stark contrast to the elegant hotel suite when I first met him.

When we met in 1974, Faisal spoke no English at all.Obviously, he has clearly realized that he now holds great power, and he must fully exercise his power to achieve his goals.This meeting proved that he is a skilled negotiator.He relayed requests for U.S. weapons from some of his Middle Eastern and Muslim allies.But when I asked oil producers to take action to stem the recent oil price spike, he was diplomatic and noncommittal.Nevertheless, he honored me at the farewell ceremony, breaking with tradition and decorum, and treating my government's opposition at home as an indirect but unmistakable attack.

Under Faisal and his successors, Saudi Arabia has been a stable center of gravity in the troubled region of the Middle East.In my meetings with him, I also discovered that while he has a solid understanding of other aspects of foreign policy, he also has one glaring weakness.This is his stubborn belief that communism and Zionism are fundamentally the same.He was like this on every occasion and on every subject. When we met in 1974, the first thing he talked about was the conspiracy of the Communists in the Arabian Peninsula and the relationship between these plots and the Zionist movement as he saw them.It was almost impossible for him to give up this obsessive, strange idea.I assure him: Although we in the United States firmly support Israel, we have no illusions about the Soviet Union's intentions.In the end, I managed to turn the conversation the other way, saying that we wanted to encourage more moderate and responsible governments in the Middle East.In this regard, we expect the best from Faisal.In the Middle East, he has the airs of a true state activist.He had helped alienate his friend Sadat from the Soviet Union and was a quiet but staunch supporter of our diplomacy in the region.In addition to having an obsessive idea of ​​the link between Zionism and Communism, Faisal viewed other events on the international scene wisely and openly. After the 1974 talks, I am convinced that he was one of the most visible statesmen in power in the world at the time.

Faisal spoke calmly and politely.He kept his words laconic when he spoke to me and to his advisors.He was also an attentive listener.He likes to say: "Allah has given us two ears and one tongue. Therefore, we can listen twice and speak once." Like de Gaulle, Feisal, by speaking Arabic and using interpreters, had a great understanding of the world. My questions and speeches can be heard twice.In this way, he can spend twice as long thinking about his answer. There is another similarity between Guisar and de Gaulle: they are both soldiers and politicians.He governed on his own terms and had a vision for his country and its mission in the world.

Ibn Saud, the founding father of Saudi Arabia, once said of his most talented son, "I only wish there were three Faisals." Faisals were almost born to be in power.At the age of fourteen, he was sent abroad for his first diplomatic mission.Before long, he became a heroic and experienced desert rider, and was appointed commander of a troop by his father. In 1933, Ibn Saud, with the assistance of his son, unified a group of desert nomadic tribes into a new country. After Ibn Saud died, his eldest son, Saud, succeeded him as king.Saudi Arabia's unrestrained behavior has almost bankrupted this oppressive country.He profligately spends for his own pleasure, and throws ill-planned public works projects upon his people like heaven-given manna.Legend has it that when Crown Prince Faisal took over the day-to-day work of the government in 1958, he found that the treasury had less than a hundred dollars in spare cash.He took drastic measures to reduce royal spending and put the kingdom on the path to a balanced budget.The Saudi king's jealousy of his brother's administrative prowess has created growing tensions. The tensions came to a head when the elders of Saudi Arabia deposed the kingdom in 1964.

As king, Faisal began programs to educate women, abolished slavery, and built roads, schools, and hospitals.He spent huge oil revenues on new industrial construction and invested abroad so that he could continue to provide financial resources should the oil dry up. Faisal rarely smiled.When he laughed, it was, as one observer said, like taking a bite of a lemon and finding it sweet.His face was haggard and wrinkled, his eyes were tired and dull, and his eyelids were drooping.He worked sixteen hours a day, and even his young assistants said it was hard to keep up with him.Like Italy's de Gasperi, he was often the one to turn off the lights in government offices at the end of the day.

Faisal suffers from ulcer disease and can only eat mildly pungent foods.At the state dinner he gave us in 1974, his guests were all served delicious roast lamb, and he ate nothing but rice, peas and broad beans.He mashed them up with a fork and ate them with a spoon.His busy work schedule and ascetic nature kept him from recreational activities.The burden of leadership for nine million Saudis and the spiritual duty to millions of other Muslims weighed heavily on his shoulders. Other conservative Arab states established legislatures: Faisal had absolute authority, ruling through a network of several thousand princes scattered throughout the kingdom.He gathered around him capable advisors, listened carefully to their opinions, and then made his own choice.Even many Saudis who agree with his agenda have blasted him for his refusal to decentralize power.

Although Faisal refused to practice democracy, he remained close to the people he ruled.Soon after he took the throne, his wife accompanied him on a tour of a refurbished palace in Al Masa.When he saw the extravagant royal bedroom, he couldn't help asking her: "Whose room is this? To me, it's really luxurious." He chose a narrow room in the downstairs hall, and in it Only one single bed is accommodated.He didn't like people kissing his hand or calling him "Your Majesty" but rather being called "Brother" or even "Faisal".Saudi Arabia's traditional parliament is an integral part of his government.When the king received his subjects every week, he listened patiently to their complaints about stolen livestock or property disputes.

Faisal's death was particularly unexpected.During our conversation in 1974, he expressed deep concern about the loyalty of some of the younger officers in his Air Force.They are trained in the United States.He worried that they might be infected by the poison of the revolutionary left.Iran was later infected with the toxin.To Faisal's surprise, his mortal danger came from the right, not the left.One of his most controversial reforms was the opening up of television in his kingdom - despite his determination to keep a tight rein on television programming. In 1985, a dissident prince led an unsuccessful raid on Riyadh radio stations, believing that television was spreading nefarious influence.The prince retreated to his palace, where he was killed by security forces.Ten years later, Faisal was assassinated by the prince's brother in what many believed was an act of revenge.In conversations with me, Faisal once said that he considered television and news tools in general to be, at best, necessary "evil" things in the modern world.He is the only leader whose life was lost due to television.

When Faisal was assassinated, a weekly said, while his power passed peacefully and peacefully to his brother Khalid - the fourth king of Saudi Arabia since 1932 - the murder again "Shows the instability of the petro-states in the Middle East".Similarly, when President Sadat was assassinated in the fall of 1981, many also said that the United States should not have sold arms to the Middle East: "unstable" governments, even if power passed to Sadat quietly and peacefully Hand-picked successor - Egypt's third president since 1956.But in none of these events was the transition of power worse than the transition of power following the murder of President Kennedy in 1963. Many governments in the Middle East are indeed "unstable" by American standards.Egypt's constitution contains provisions for an orderly transfer of power; Saudi Arabia does not.However, relatively speaking, very few countries in the world have reliable legal procedures for succession of rights.There are no communist countries.Most of those who think that the political situation in Saudi Arabia is unstable are doing this to vent their hatred of the autocratic monarchy veiledly.Since Western democracy has a long history, their above attitude is understandable.But they ignore the reality in Saudi Arabia: The country has historically had no democracy.Monarchy is also a form of government, and Saudi Arabians have gotten used to it and are still content with it.Jordan and Morocco are also monarchies.Under King Hussein and King Hassan, they both became the best governed states in the Arab world.In Tunisia, Habib Bourguiba appointed himself president for life.While his moderately authoritarian leadership has also come under fire, it is doubtful whether Western-style democracy will bring Tunisia the kind of progress and stability that Bourguiba has already brought. As more and more educated Saudi Arabians inevitably clamor for a Western-style government.But even if they don't, this development will be an inevitable consequence of the reform of Saudi Arabia's monarchy.While the monarchy would eventually be replaced by a new form of government, it would also accomplish what Faisal wanted it to do: the gradual and peaceful transformation of Saudi Arabia into a modern state. Democracy is not all good for Saudi Arabia, just as monarchy is not all bad. In June 1982, King Fahad, who succeeded to the throne, said bluntly that his country was not prepared to establish a republican government.He said: "We want to use the outstanding people of our country. But we are convinced that if there is no further popularization of education, even if there are elections, outstanding people will not be pushed to positions of power." As Faisal said: "As far as a regime What matters is not its name, but its actions. There are corrupt republics and wise monarchies, and there are wise republics and corrupt monarchies. What a regime is depends on what it does. by what it does and the integrity of its rulers, not by its name." Nasser and Sadat were revolutionaries; the Shah of Iran and Faisal were reforming kings.Psychologically, the two Egyptians had the upper hand over the other two. For successful revolutionary leaders have an innate charisma that monarchs cannot match.A revolutionist is a shooting star, a force in motion; a monarch is a force at rest.The former are considered active, the latter static.Even if the prince has better ideas than the revolutionist, he must overcome the terrible force of habit in order to achieve his object. From the perspective of the revolution, the traditions and customs of the past are but fuel for the revolutionary machine.He can discard them, or modify them, at will.However, the monarch relies on tradition to maintain his power and authority.So when tradition gets in the way of his future plans, he either has to modify his plans, or he can combine his plans and traditions into a whole in a way that preserves his culture and authority intact.This is a difficult task.It is also one of the most difficult tasks for politicians. When Nasser was in power, he started from scratch.When he deposed and ousted King Farouk in 1952, he also cleaned Egypt of all its unpleasant past and present — British, Turkish, Roman, Greek and Persian rule.For the first time in centuries, he gave his people a government elected by and for Egyptians.He also tried hard to unite Egypt with its Arab brethren.This is a whole revolutionary idea.It's both attractive and impractical. Nasser had absolute political power, but he ruled through the semblance of a republican structure.He was known as "President," Nasser, not as "Egypt's Strongman" or "Egypt's Dictator." His government was a harsh authoritarian regime, but because Nasser was a A beloved revolutionary leader, the rigor seems to have softened. Nasser's goals were supranational, and part of his appeal was that he gave his people a sense of purpose beyond Egypt's borders: Arab nationalism.A bastion of communist aggression.He wanted to make Iran an economic and military power, and thus concentrated most of his energies on those tasks that Nasser had neglected.Consequently, the work of the Shah of Iran lacks drama.He doesn't have a Suez Canal to nationalize.He didn't pull his troops to charge a crowd of Zionists.Nor did he rise to power on a wave of revolutionary frenzy against colonialism.In fact, he was just one of a series of Iranian shahs—indeed, one of a handful who died of natural causes.Once, when he was asked why many people did not trust him, he smiled and answered candidly, "How many Shahs of Iran are trusted?" The achievements at home were considerable.He brought progress with stability, Nasser brought instability without progress.But the Shah of Iran did not tug at the emotional chords of his people the way Nasser did.Things are overwhelmed and swallowed up.Another tyrant, Faisal, subdued the old. Faisal inherited the throne for personal and institutional reasons.Saudi Arabia has had five kings.One was Ibn Saud, the founder of Saudi Arabia.The other four are his sons.Of the five, only the King of Saud is corrupt.Even so, his corruption was based on forgiveness of the people, not on oppression.In fact, some of the reforms already initiated by the Saudi king were later completed by Faisal. As a modernizing monarch, Faisal has even better conditions.His power was both spiritual and temporal; and it seemed to flow continuously from the people.The King of Saudi Arabia is one of the few heads of state in the world that any citizen can approach and talk to.His country is more homogeneous than the Shah's, and the tensions brought about by the rapid industrialization and urbanization that brought down the shah are not present in Saudi Arabia. Faisal accomplished a great deal in Saudi Arabia that the Shah wanted to accomplish in Iran.He doesn't have to fight stubbornly antagonistic clerics because Saudi Arabia is not a secular church.As he reformed, he watched closely the impact of reforms on his country.He allows only those influences that are appropriate to Saudi Arabia and that do not disrupt its cultural fabric. As the tragedy in Iran demonstrates, vast oil wealth alone cannot buy security or prosperity for Saudi Arabia.Faisal's task is to set Saudi Arabia on a path to modernity without undermining the very essence of the god-worshiping state.The country he and his father had built out of the Arabian desert.During his eleven years in power, he fulfilled his mission conscientiously and prudently. Big names on Xiao Wu: Lee Kuan Yew, Menzies Of all the leaders I have met, two of the most capable were the prime ministers of the tiny metropolitan state of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, and the late Australian prime minister, Robert Menzies.They all have the characteristic of a big man on a small stage.In other times and places, they could have become world leaders like Churchill, Disraeli or Gladstone. The characteristics of the two men are very different.Oddly enough, their backgrounds and perspectives are remarkably similar.Both were leaders of former British colonies, and both were eminent lawyers.They could have made a fortune practicing law, but they all found the law to be mentally and intellectually restrictive.They were also both energetic, well-spoken and talented people.Although they were constrained by historical contingencies to assume leadership positions in small countries, they did not view the world from a narrow or partial perspective.Since their view of the world is wide-ranging and comprehensive, the conversations I have with them are the most interesting ones I have. Although both were essentially pro-Western in their views, they, like MacArthur, recognized that the balance of power in the world was steadily shifting in favor of their region.Both men seek to ensure that their country can become the most prosperous, safest and most influential in the Western Pacific. In terms of personal conditions, Lee Kuan Yew and Menzies are very different.Menzies was as big in stature as any Australian, and like all Australians in spirit and outlook.He was six feet two inches tall and weighed two hundred and fifty pounds; he was imposing, with a broad face, thick curly hair, bushy John Lewis eyebrows, and charming eyes.His air of blank superiority, useful against irritating MPs and journalists, also offended many of his colleagues in government; it made him, like Churchill, admired by the people but Not loved by them. Lee Kuan Yew was solid, strong, like a first-rate professional boxer.His eyes were sharp and never dimmed.I found Menzies gregarious and quite witty, while Lee Kuan Yew was shrewd, opportunistic, calculating and tactful.Menzies liked useful conversation—indeed, though he was good at outmaneuvering councils, he did not enjoy it, preferring congenial conversation.He is also a connoisseur of gourmet food and martinis.Lee Kuan Yew believed that entertainment was mostly a waste of time. When I met Menzies, he usually smoked a good cigar and gave me some political insights that interested me, some brilliant remarks on foreign affairs, and some ironic remarks on Australian politics. Comment.Our conversations are always lively and pleasant.In contrast, when I first met Lee Kuan Yew in 1967, he was pacing up and down the floor like a caged lion, talking at length.His every move shows that he seems to feel that his body and mind are imprisoned in his simple office, and he is eager to break out of this cage and find a wider space.He doesn't engage in small talk. The most similar thing between the two of them is the goal they seek.Neither of these men were dreamers.Menzies was a British-style parliamentary democrat.His deepest pledge was to pledge support for the Queen's Government and the unity of the Commonwealth in times of crisis.His economic conservatism only became apparent after his first term in office.At the time, he saw himself as an ally of the middle class in their quest for comfort and security.Lee Kuan Yew was a most practical man.He was indifferent to political theory and contemptuous of everything that did not directly contribute to the strengthening and enrichment of Singapore.To these two men?, nothing is more important than keeping their people safe and prosperous. Because of their non-ideological views, Lee Kuan Yew and Menzies have been ridiculed as "materialists".They are so interested in the material needs of the people that they neglect their spiritual needs.The domestic achievements of these two men are mainly economic. When Menzies was in power, it was the fastest period of industrialization and economic growth in Australia's history; Lee Kuan Yew turned Singapore into a "power station" in terms of trade .The two peoples have become the wealthiest people in the region. This search for material abundance is ridiculed by those who have never suffered from material scarcity.Dozens of postwar leaders gave their people revolution, national pride, and independence.Their people are very poor and often suffer from Russia.We live in an age where leaders are judged more by their rhetoric and their politics than by the success of their policies.Especially in developing countries, many people go to bed at night with their ears full of leaders' words but their bellies empty. Lee Kuan Yew was also a revolutionary.He was, however, a different kind of revolutionary.He never confused words with matter, and never let ideology override conscience.When he came to power in 1959, Singapore was a tiny country with few natural resources, just a mix of Indians, Chinese and Malays that could explode at any moment.Resentment against British colonialism was running dangerously high.He realized that a Communist-led revolution could be prevented only by pre-empting it, by pretending to be far more radical than he really was.Therefore, he played a set of political tricks.It is most appropriate to sum up his set of tricks as "words and deeds". Before the general election, Lee Kuan Yew's People's Action Party was nothing more than a front for the Communist Party, its rhetoric modeled after Mao Zedong's.He fully played the role of a revolutionary demagogue against colonialism and against the West.He went to campaign in plain shirts and scolded white people for their sins.But after he was elected, he put more than a hundred former Communist Party colleagues in prison, and immediately appeased the wealthy Chinese leaders in Singapore, and assured foreigners that their investment in Singapore and the directors and jobs they sent Everyone will be safe.Today, he presides over a prosperous country in his pinstriped suits.Some people call this country "Singapore Company" because it lives off a combination of investments from Japan, Western Europe, and the United States. Singapore's prosperity has not come easily.The only "resource" the city has, other than its manpower, is its strategic location - a crossroads internationally.Lee Kuan Yew spoke contemptuously of third world countries that depend on royalties to exploit their mineral resources, saying: "Our place can only survive if it has the will to overcome difficulties. Apart from will and labor Apart from this, we have nothing else in our country." After Lee Kuan Yew took office, Singapore had to rely more and more on its own to make a living.The British Army, which had been the main source of employment for Singaporean workers for many years, began to withdraw in the mid-1960s.At the same time, the two-year-long federation between Malaysia and Singapore also failed and dissolved.Many said it was the result of Lee Kuan Yew's attempts to control the federation.Lee Kuan Yew was so disappointed that he wept openly when he announced on television that Singapore would secede from the Federation.He was only temporarily discouraged, though.He said, with a peculiar fondness for vivid metaphors: "It is more comfortable to sit on a stool than a stick. But now we have to sit on a stick. Don't forget, that's all we have. But the branches that the people of Singapore have are made of steel. It seems that Lee Kuan Yew also often wished his people were made of steel.He regulates the length of young men's hair and speaks out against drug use and illicit sexual relations. He cautioned against flaunting wealth, such as race cars and marble floors.He has been criticized for being a man of Victorian ethics and strict discipline.But he believes that discipline and unwavering guidance are necessary to reduce hostility among Singapore's three major races and encourage them to work together.He asked his people to see themselves as Singaporeans, not Chinese, Malays and Indians.In this, he has largely succeeded, making Singapore the envy of other multi-ethnic societies. Like Nehru, Lee Kuan Yew was educated in Britain and returned home with a strong desire for socialism.Unlike Nehru, he was not dogmatic about socialism.He recognized that for a society to provide rent subsidies, schools, housing and clinics, it must have a thriving economy.Lee Kuan Yew cared about the needs of his people, but he cared first and foremost about the needs of a national economy that could pay its bills.He summed up his approach to economic issues succinctly: "We can't expect everything from nothing." Many of Lee Kuan Yew's social reforms had practical purposes."This is the only hope," he said in the late 1950s. "If we don't try this, Singapore will be communist. If we try and fail, it will be communist." .But the most important thing is to try." He often asks government agencies to cover their own costs.This practice had unusual results: the national post office made a profit; the government printing house also took on the commercial side: idleness and waste in the government sector, so prevalent in other developing countries, was a major issue in Singapore. sins. Despite Lee Kuan Yew's utmost concern for the welfare of the people, he rarely talked to me about domestic issues when we met.The reluctance of some leaders to discuss their own problems either suggests that they were overwhelmed by them or, like Sukarno, were unwilling to confront them at all.Not so with Lee Kuan Yew.He doesn't need to talk about Singapore's problems, because he has firmly grasped Singapore in his own hands.Early in my presidency, I sent my Secretary of the Treasury, John Nally, on a field trip around the world.When he returned to the White House for his briefing, he began his comments on the Singapore trip with a crisp and to the point."Singapore is the best-governed country in the world," he told me. Governor Thomas Dewey visited the Far East after his defeat in the 1948 presidential election. In 1953, before I set off for Asia, he told me that of all the people he met during that visit, he was most impressed by Robert Menzies.When I met Menzies, I immediately understood why Dewey had such a high opinion of him.Menzies has an intimate knowledge of the issues affecting not only the Pacific, but the world as a whole. The successful Australian prime minister needs to manage a vast and sparsely populated country.Every part of the country has its own character, from the English gentility of the Adelaides to the raw wildness of the desert fringes of Greater Victoria.Menzies' tenure was longer than any of his predecessors.He has all the conditions to deal with the various problems faced during his tenure.For all the reserve and dignity that characterized a member of British high society, he was also able to deal with the opposition and the press with reluctance.He has a knack for rebuttals with sharp, vitriolic words.When I first met him, he told me: "I'm a British man through and through, but I like America." He seemed to me to combine the best qualities of British and American statesmen up. In fact, there are arguably two Robert Menzies.I know the "second" Menzies.The confident, seasoned statesman makes good use of his time.Under his leadership, Australia saw the greatest economic upsurge in its history.But I never met the "first" Menzies.He was a brilliant, pompous young Australian leader in the early days of World War II. He had a good heart, but was later overwhelmed by events. Menzies served twice as Prime Minister of Australia from 1939 to 1941 and again from 1949 to 1966.But it wasn't until his second term that he recognized what he was supposed to be defending: the forgotten middle class. The Socialist policies of the Labor Party, which took over from him in 1941, shackled the middle class.Menzies once again served as prime minister, safeguarding the welfare of the people without hindering private enterprise and, like Lee Kuan Yew, encouraging new foreign investment.As a result, productivity has greatly increased and the economy has further prospered. Australia's GNP almost tripled between 1949 and 1961.At the same time, Menzies developed a sensible and comprehensive view of foreign affairs.This view boils down to one point, that is, Australia should play an increasing role as a major country in the Far East. During the years when Menzies was out of office, it was clear that he would face enormous obstacles if he tried to regain power.After his resignation and Labor victory in 1941, he was so discredited that he was not even elected leader of the opposition in parliament. In 1944, he organized the Liberal Party.The process of consolidating the party, maintaining control of it and promoting the party to Australian voters has sharply honed his political skills. Like many other great leaders, years in office have hardened him.Therefore, when he came to power again, he was more confident in his ability and more determined in his purpose.He was recognized as an outstanding congressman, a strong campaigner and a captivating orator.People accused him of contempt for his cabinet, but what happened: he let his ministers speak freely because he was confident in his own strength. This time, however, there is no question of who is in charge.Therefore, there is no possibility of bringing down Menzies' political dynasty from within, as happened in World War II. In 1941, faced with differences of opinion in his cabinet, he politely asked his ministers for their opinion: what should he do separately? After 1949, he treated members of his cabinet differently.One of Menzies' most proud achievements is to make Canberra, the capital city, neat and beautiful.有一年，他在预算中拨出一百万英镑，用于在首都建造一个人工湖，接着他就动身去英国访问了。他不在国内时，财政部长又把这个项目从预算中删除了。 他回国以后，风趣地对内阁说："我得到的消息说，我不在国内的时候，财政部勾销了对这个湖的初期工程拨款一百万英镑的项目。是这样吗？"他的部长们告诉他说，一点不错。他答道："噢，那我是否可以说，现在由于部长们的一致同意，这个项目又列入了？"第二天早晨，这个工程果真动工了。 在《伟大的同龄人》这本书中。邱吉尔写道："伟人的标志之一，是他有能力使和他见过面的人留下不可磨灭的印象。"有的人通过他们的外表、有的人则通过他们的智慧的力量，给人留下这种印象。实际上，我所认识的主要领导人都尤其擅长这种越来越少见的、面对面的谈话艺术。我认为这并非巧合。领导工作就是说服工作。一位领导人如果不能成为一位感人的、能引起人们兴趣的谈话者，那他就难以成为一位有说服力的人，因此也难以成为领导人。 麦克阿瑟专横的独白、戴高乐雄辩的见解、吉田茂自我解嘲式的幽默、周恩来光彩夺目的诗句，这一切与今天广播电视节目中的闲聊相比，就象勃朗与指画法的关系一样，相去万里。 他们的谈话，既有风格，又有实质内容；既生动，又意味深长，能在听众中唤起一种对才智的无限尊敬。只有具备这种才智的人，才会有这种给人们留下深刻印象的谈话。这是成功的领导人确立自己的权力并进行说服工作的途径之一。 我在会见这些人中的任何一位之前，总是期待着会见的时刻早点到来，正象我过去常常期待着一位伟大艺术家的演出一样——事实也是如此。然而，如果要我把战后的某一位领导人列于这类人物的首位的话，那么他将不是一位传奇式的欧洲人或美国人，而是罗伯特·盂席斯。 他的幽默感是犀利的，但不尖酸。他是一位雄辩的警句的创造者，喜欢进行生动活泼的对话，而且是一位耐心的听众。 更不寻常的是：他不仅是一位出色的演说家，也是一位杰出的作家。善于写作的人，往往不擅言辞：善于演讲的人，又往往不善于写作。很少有人象邱吉尔、伍德罗、威尔逊和戴高乐那样，两者兼美。不过，对一位要在政界崭露头角的人来说，在公共场合和私下谈话中都擅于辞令，这比善于写作更为重要，实际上也是必不可少的条件。 由于盂席斯工于辞令，很少有人愿意在公开场合与他辩论。 从早年起，他就象邱吉尔一样认识到，对于不友好的问题或评论，用随手拈来的遁词去对付，比冗长的辩护或解释要有效得多。在他担任总理后所举行的第一次记者招待会上，一位左翼记者嘲弄道："我想，在您挑选您的内阁人员之前，一定会与控制您的有权势的人士磋商过吧！"孟席斯回答："那自然罗。不过，年轻人，情把我老婆的名字排斥在这些人之外吧！" 这种做法在议会中也能奏效。澳大利亚议会中还保留着少许边远地区的粗俗话，这使孟席斯有时感到很厌恶。有一次，一位国会议员抱怨孟席斯说话时夹杂着一种优越感。他答道："要是考虑到我在这里有您这样的伙伴，我的这种做法也就不足为怪了。"他又针对另一位国会议员说："这位尊敬的议员真是神思驰骋，可惜是在日薄西山的时候进行的。不然的话，他的这次神游也将是大有教益的。"工党人士由于经常受到这样的讥讽，因此该党曾经告诫它的成员不要与孟席斯再作这种不必要的交锋。 1941年，孟席斯遭到他的党的抵制。这在他的心灵上留下了深深的伤痕。他后来曾说："这是毁灭性的一击。一切都完了。"四十年代期间，盂席斯在从政治上默默无闻的境地卷土重来时，对他的抨击者——尤其是报界——逐渐形成了一种健康的、愤世嫉俗的姿态。他并不伯与他们进行勇敢的交锋。在一次重要的新闻界的集会上——与华盛顿的橄榄球俱乐部午餐会相类似的集会——盂席斯在忍受了两小时的无情嘲弄之后，起而向报界祝酒，说他们是"我们联邦中赚钱最多、又最为无能的劳动者"。有一次，他向我吹嘘说，他以一种"明显的蔑视态度"来对待新闻界，而且取得了"极大的成功"。盂席斯也蔑视商界的抨击者，尤其是在他不当权的漫长岁月中抛弃过他的那些人。他对我说："这些商界的典型代表们总是这样，坐在扶手椅上，对失意的政治家落井下石。"他还说，他懂得在输给工党之后杀回马枪时的滋味。他微笑着说："他们说我赢不了啦。" 然而，在1949年，他以行动证明他们错了。 孟席斯经常对我说，政治家必须脸皮厚。他还针对我们脸皮最厚的总统之一——林登·约翰逊——说过一些颇有见地的话。尽管他对约翰逊的能力很敬重，说他是"一位才华横溢的政治家"，但在六十年代中期，孟席斯就觉察到这位得克萨斯人过分热衷于公众舆论和新闻界——在他后来担任总统期间及以后，这些舆论却使他吃尽苦头。孟席斯对我说："现在，您和我都知道报界无关紧要。过去我经常对约翰逊说，对这些家伙写有关您的东西，都不必神经过敏。您是被选出来做事的；他们却不是。他们只代表自己说话，你却代表人民说话。" 喜欢谈话艺术和努力进行实践的盂席斯，还尖锐地指出了约翰逊的另一个大弱点：他闲耽不住，那怕是一会儿。孟席斯说："您可以感到，他的注意力总是不集中。在谈话过程中，他总是抓起电话筒。" 约翰逊在椭圆形办公室中有三台电视机，他可以同时收看三套节目。相反，孟席斯的管家告诉我，这位总理在论战期间从来不读谈到他自己的报纸。她说："有一次他告诉我说，一旦他们停止辱骂我，我知道我就完了。" 孟席斯是美国政治的一位敏锐的观察家。我的第一本书《六次危机》中，有谈及我1960年与约翰·肯尼迪进行电视辩论的内容。当我向孟席斯赠送这本书时，他给我复了一信，说，他至今仍然认为我同意进行辩论是一个错误。信中还写道，"我并不是因为我认为您输了才这样说的……我在电视中看过你们的两场辩论。就这些辩论本身而言，我觉得您是赢了的。但由于在选举运动开始时，您已是大名鼎鼎的人物，许多人对您的了解比对肯尼迪的了解要多三倍，而他只不过是在东海岸闻名而已。因此，我当时就想，现在仍然这样想：您与他一起在观众众多的电视屏幕上辩论，最大的后果之一，只能是使他与您一样出名。请恕我冒昧直言，我认为，您此举无异于将王牌拱手相让。" 他写这封信之时，我刚在1962年加利福尼亚州州长的竞选中失败。因此他还写道："我相信，这不是我们最后一次听到您在政界的消息。"末了，他免不了又用一句妙语来结束那封信："请向您的夫人致以热情的问候。她与我的夫人一样，由于支持搞政治的丈夫，应该得到一枚金质奖章。" 许多人从新孤立主义的角度来批评美国在越南战争中所发挥的作用。他们争辩说，不管帮助一个正在受到共产党人攻击的国家是对是错，南越距离美国实在是太遥远了，因而与美国没有什么真正的关系。其实，在这个新世界中并没有哪一部分是远离尘世的。任何一个地方发生的事件，对世界其他地方都会产生影响。然而，在道格拉斯·麦克阿瑟首次创造了"北大西洋孤立主义"一语、并对之斗争毕生以后的四分之一世纪，这种思潮又风行起来了。 李光耀和孟席斯对世界有着不同的看法，但他们两人都支持美国在越南所作出的努力。孟席斯实际上还派遣了澳大利立军队到那里去，与美国人并肩作战。这两位领导人都认为，北越的侵略对整个地区的稳定构成了威胁。正如孟席斯所说的，"对你们美国人来说，它是远东；对我们来说，它却是近北。" 李光耀和孟席斯也都是坚定的反共战士。早在1940年，孟席斯就认识到，第二次世界大战结束后，为了遏制苏联向西挺进，可能还得建立一个包括德国、法国、英国和意大利的联盟。他与李光耀一样，都认识到，他的国家正处于远东反共斗争的前线。 李光耀的新加坡地处自由亚洲的十字路口，完全依靠与邻国不断进行贸易为生。李光耀认为，共产主义的蔓延，将产生抑制生产力和商业发展的后果，正象厚厚的雪把它所覆盖的一切冻死一样。他早在1967年就对我说过：一个由共产党支配的亚洲，将会经历经济上和社会上的黑暗年代。十年后，他的预言被证实了，印度支那被笼罩在黑暗之中。 李光耀不仅能高瞻远瞩地从地区性的角度、而且能从全球的角度来看待越南战争。他对我说："象美国这样的大国，最重要的是必须支持那些指望它们保护其安全的小国。如果做不到这一点，苏联扩张主义和镇压的浪潮就将席卷全世界。" 他继续说："一个国家的领导人首要的职责，是使自己和他的国家生存下去。如果他对美国失去了信任，那他除了尽力与苏联和解外，就没有其他选择了。" 李光耀认为，只有一个强大的美国，才能保证自由亚洲各国的生存。1973年他来华盛顿时，我在私下会谈中告诉他：美国政府的目标，是在加强安全和不断繁荣的条件下，建立一种包括中国和苏联在内的稳定的世界秩序，让所有国家都能从这种秩序中得到好处。那天晚上，在我们为他举行的国宴上，他以赞同的口吻谈到我的讲话，并以轻松自在但又打动人心的词语，描绘了一个处于肆无忌惮、掠夺成性的共产党国家的包围之中的小国的艰难境遇。他说："我们是一个非常小的国家，在战略上处于亚洲的最南端。当大象横冲直憧时，如果你是一只耗子而又不了解大象的习性，那将苦不堪言。" 孟席斯还认为，如果美国逃避它的全球责任，那也是危险的。他对我说过："如果共产党人在越南得手，他们还会在其他地方进行尝试。"当我们谈到1965年的战争时，他看来很高兴，因为美国选择了在远东站住脚跟的道路。他说："帮助南越，这是在一个新的地区承担的新的伟大任务。"当谈到反战运动这个话题时，他一扬手，嚷道："真是书呆子！"从某种意义来说，孟席斯正以其对美国在越南的行动的积极支持来偿还从前的债务。在第二次世界大战中，美国人在距澳大利亚海岸几百英里的珊瑚海上进行战斗，拦住了日本人，使他的国家幸免于难，未受到日本的攻击。 孟席斯推行一项积极的外交政策。他使澳大利亚与美国、新西兰结成联盟，缔结了澳新美安全条约。他认为这是他最杰出的成就。他参加了东南亚条约组织；五十年代后期，他又着手与日本恢复友好关系。这在政治上是不得人心的，但在战略上是明智的。日本首相岸信介对澳大利亚的国事访问，把这种友好关系又推向了新的高潮。在孟席斯的领导下，澳大利亚在亚洲事务中发挥了相当积极的作用，以致外交部门的官员们更渴望到新德里和雅加达任职，而不是到罗马和巴黎任职。他说："我们可以为抵抗共产主义毕状明才智。不错，我们有能力担任亚洲的领导。但我们不准备用自封的方式来充当领导。" 由于新加坡的面积小，从政府领导人的角度来说，李光耀的回旋余地比孟席斯还要校然而，在外交政策方面，他是一位同样有见地的分析家。他的家族曾在新加坡居住了好几代。作为一个华裔，李光耀对亚洲那个古老的和最大的国家有一种独到的、直接的了解。早在1967年，他就对我说过："毛泽东是在镶嵌工艺品上画画。他一去世，大雨就将来临，会把他所画的东西冲刷掉，而中国将照样生存下去。中国总是吸收外来的影响，最后又把它们摧毁。"李光耀是在毛译东去世之前九年说这番话的，当时中国正激荡着文化革命的狂潮。然而，事实证明，他关于毛泽东的影响将会下降的预言是正确的。 李光耀在把世界分成有所作为和无所作为的国家时，同样使用了一些类似的术语，生动他说："现在有大树，有小树，还有藤蔓。大树是俄国、中国、西欧、美国和日本。其他国家中，有些是小树，可能会变成大树；但绝大多数是藤蔓，它们由于缺乏资源或缺乏领导，将永远成不了大树。" 谈到亚洲的一棵"大树"时，李说："日本人将不可避免地在世界上再次发挥巨大的作用，而且绝不只是经济方面的作用。他们是一个伟大的民族。他们不能、也不应该满足于只在制造优质半导体收音机、缝纫机和教其他亚洲人种水稻方面发挥作用的状况。"从五十年代初期以来，这一直也是我的信念。 当时，我第一次敦促日本重新武装起来，并取得它作为亚洲自由堡垒的应有地位。作为一个新加坡人和华裔，李光耀有充分的理由对日本在三十年代和四十年的帝国主义行径表示愤慨，但他却能采取前面所述的态度，说明他是一位现实的和具有勇气的领导人。·在国内问题上，李光耀是推翻殖民统治以后的第三世界国家的领导人中少有的一员——他不搞狂暴的、破坏性的革命，而是抑制受过创伤的自豪感，把自己以及人民的精力引导到国家建设中去。在对国际问题的看法方面，李光耀也显示出同样的能力，他摆脱了当前和过去的愤懑，着眼于新世界的未来及其本质。这是一个人真正伟大、崇高的标志。象李光耀这样视野开阔、高瞻远瞩的领导人，没有机会在更广阔的舞台上发挥作用，这对世界来说，实在是不可估量的损失。