I can't think of too many statesmen into today's world. I didn't get on with my father, but he did have some intelligent things to say. At one point we were talking about politics and he defined a statesman as "someone who can inspire a nation or people to do something they don't want to do, and to keep them at it till they succeed.". He quoted Winston Churchill as a statesman, saying "We'd have lost the war without him. We didn't want to fight but he kept us going."
Having said that, Churchill was an imperial dinosaur in some ways, but he was destined to serve a particular role and he did it well.
In US history, I suppose there's Abraham Lincoln and FDR in particular; in Australian history I'd say John Curtin, an ordinary working class man who led the nation through most of World War II. The politicians of that era were a different class to our modern crew - as my old pastor once said to me, "When those old time boys said something, they
meant it."
One thing they all had in common though - they got thrust into difficult circumstances, almost against their will - Abe would not have wished the civil war on his own worst enemies; FDR had the misfortune to have the war on his doorstep when he was in power; Churchill only came to power as there was a power vacuum following the resignation of Chamberlain; and John Curtin would most certainly not have been the US's best friend in normal circumstances as he was a socialist at heart, but recognised the absolute necessity of American power in Australia's interests at a time when the nation was threatened with destruction.
He was pragmatic to the core when it came to the Australian national interest.
The following extract was taken from "The Task Ahead " published in The Herald (Melbourne), 27 December 1941.
'The task ahead' by John Curtin, 27 December 1941
The Australian Government, therefore, regards the Pacific struggle as primarily
one in which the United States and Australia must have the fullest say in the
direction of the democracies' fighting plan.
Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks
to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the
United Kingdom.
We know the problems that the United Kingdom faces. We know the constant threat
of invasion. We know the dangers of dispersal of strength, but we know too,
that Australia can go and Britain can still hold on. ...
Summed up, Australian external policy will be shaped toward obtaining Russian
aid, and working out, with the United States, as the major factor, a plan of
Pacific strategy, along with British, Chinese and Dutch forces.
There's not many politicians around now whom I would call statesmen, although I think we underestimate some of them. I think of Vladimir Putin for example in Russia, balancing a resurgent Russia against considerable opposition from the West, and even Kim Jong-Un in North Korea.
I'm not an admirer of North Korea, far from it. But I sometimes wonder if Kim Jong-Un's ultimate goal is to establish full relations with the West (after all it seems he spent some time in Switzerland during his early years, so he would not be as naive as most of his own countrymen about the West). But he wants to do it from a position of strength, and not weakness, hence the nuclear weaponry charade.
If so, he'd have a difficult time of it, having to play off the hardliners in his country against his own aspirations. Perhaps that's why he's gotten rid of a few of them.
If that's the case, I could think of nothing worse than an assassination attempt mounted against him by his own hard men while he was on Western or South Korean soil. They'd then try to blame the West. But that's only my own imaginative fancy.
