周恩來年譜西方資料補遺--1956年底接受CBS采訪

周恩來年譜中，1956年12月聖誕節前記載總理訪問緬甸，但是沒有接受美國新聞采訪的記錄。
本文來自三本英文書籍中對此事的記錄
第一本是墨若（Edward R. Murrow）的傳記，Murrow: His Life and Times （by A.M. Sperber Fordham University Press 1998）。墨若是美國CBS廣播公司的主持人，1950年代美國人無法進入中國，1956年底周恩來總理訪問緬甸，於是墨若知道機會來了，進不了中國，可以去緬甸啊。通過當時緬甸總理吳努按排了對周恩來總理的采訪，墨若到了緬甸，在聖誕節前采訪了周恩來。這是CBS的獨家新聞，也是美國電視的一個突破，同時也是政治上的燙山芋，先斬後奏，製作完了才扔給公司。CBS在新年前一天夜裏11：15播放了采訪，後麵還跟了一個反駁的一組評判（rebuttal panel），墨若對此很不高興。他本來想自己選幾個參與者，比如對中國很了解的白修德（Theodore White），但未獲批準。節目播出後有批評也有讚譽，但是主體是負麵的，墨若自己也很不滿意：太做作，太一本正經，問題都是事先提交的，而且交流還要通過翻譯。墨若事後給賽珍珠寫信說：周恩來拒絕以私人交談的方式進行，雖然他理解並能說流利的英文。後來墨若回憶，當時就像是聽一張老舊的唱片一樣。錄製過程中，一次，周恩來一手捂著一個話筒，用無懈可擊的英語糾正了翻譯的一個錯誤。在換錄像帶的時候，他離開了。   
墨若問道：你是否相信美國站在那些為自由而戰的國家的對立麵？周恩來強烈抨擊美國的拉丁美洲政策；另一方麵，雖然他否認中蘇分歧，周恩來表達了中美恢複關係的希望，乃至對亞洲和太平洋地區的一個包括美國在內的聯合和平條約。
六個月後，墨若又采訪了南斯拉夫的鐵托元帥，談了社會主義體係之間的區別，毛澤東，匈亞利和中東局勢、武器競賽和和平共處。
與采訪周恩來不同，與鐵托的談話很放鬆，多方位的，兩人談的很融洽。
(20170421)
該書中相關內容原文：
P506 Christmas week of 1956, Murrow interviewed Premier Zhou Enlai of China, flying to Rangoon for a meeting negotiated by Premier U Nu of Burma. It was a first time exclusive for CBS and a breakthrough for American TV. It was also a political hot potato, filmed without so much as a by-your-leave, a fait compli dumped in the network’s lap. CBS ran it after 11:15 PM on New Year’s Eve, followed, to Murrow’s dismay, by a rebuttal panel. The newsman’s attempt to suggest participants, including the knowledgeable Teddy White, met with a thumbs-down. An interview with Marshal Tito of Yugoslavia filmed six months later, was also followed by a panel, less hostile than in the case of Chinese Premier.
.....Stanton himself had negotiated a controversial freewheeling Khrushchev interview over Face the Nation in June 1957 with Daniel Schorr--filmed inside the Kremlin
P507 To Murrow, the praised and damned Zhou Enlai piece was a disappointment--stilted, superformal, based on submitted questions and filtered through an interpreter. “He repulsed all my efforts at private conversation, even though..... he speaks and understand English perfectly. “ He wrote Pearl Buck afterward. “Like listening to a worn and familiar phonograph record” was how he later characterized the interview. At one point in the filming, the Premier, a hand over each microphone, corrected his interpreter in impeccable English, then sat back as the mediated session continued. When the film magazines were changed, he left the room.  
In retrospect, both the Zhou and Tito footage pointed toward the seventies and eighties and the emerging world fermenting between the superpowers. The Chinese leader, answering Murrow’s question, Did he believe the United States was against “those nations.... struggling for freedom,” strongly criticized U. S. policy in Latin America. At the same time, despite a denial of Sino-Soviet differences, the old mandarin expressed the hope for resumed U.S.-China relations and even a “collective peace pact” for Asia and the Pacific, to include the United States.
Six months later, on an island in the Adriatic, Tito of Yugoslavia talked with Murrow of differences in “socialist systems,” Mao Zedong, events in Hungary and the Middle East, tha arms race, and coexsistence as the only alternative, so said the marshal, to annihilation. “But we should abandon the idea of intervening, of mixing in the internal affairs of each other.....If a majority of the people of a country decide to have a socialist system, then nobody has the right to try and impose another system on that people.....”  
In contrast with the Zhou piece, the Tito interview was relaxed, far-ranging, Murrow and the old ex-partisan got on well together, the state photographers snapped stills of the two men in their short sleeves, strolling the ground around the presidential residence....     

 

第二本，也是寫墨若的：Edward R. Murrow, an American Original （by Joseph E. Persico, McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, 1988）  (20170504)
裏麵說，對周恩來的采訪，從新聞角度來說，是曆史性的，之前還沒有人把紅色中國的領導人推介給美國電視觀眾，但是從溝通交流（communication）來說，這是一次失敗的采訪。周恩來沒有回答墨若的問題，而是利用這個機會，引用標準的教課書式的毛澤東的名言警句。CBS的高層無法否認這次采訪的曆史意義，因此同意播放，但是在具體處理上，就好象是對付一個麻風病人一樣，把它流放到一個星期天晚上的11：15分的時間檔。原文如下：
P417 It was a time in which Murrow sought to pierce the East-West veil of ignorance. Intellectual isolationism disturbed him. It smacked of fear and know-nothingism. 
......
In December of that year, he plunged directly into the maelstrom. Chou En-lai was visiting Rangoon. Murrow could not get State Department approval to travel to China, but he could go to Burma, where the Chinese premier was willing to be interviewed. 
As a journalistic initiative, the Chou interview was historic. No one had yet delivered a leader of Red China to an American television audience. As communnication, the broadcast was a flop. Chou did not answer Murrow’s questions so much as use them as cues to recite copybook maxims from the teachings of Mao. But at least CBS management could not deny the historic significance of the encounter in Rangoon and allowed the interview to be broadcast. It was handled, however, like a case of leprosy, banished to the outmost fringe of the schedule,11:15 on a Sunday night. 
第三本是The Haunted Fifties:1953-1963 （by I.F. Stone Little, Brown and Company 1963.）  (20190117)
1957年，CBS還在克裏姆林宮采訪了赫魯曉夫。赫魯曉夫的表現對比周恩來要好的多。雖然中國共產黨人顯示他們比蘇聯人在理論上更靈活，但是墨若從周恩來那除了口號和聲嘶力竭的宣傳什麽也沒有得到。而赫魯曉夫表現出來的，恰是周恩來沒有做到的，就是在美國觀眾麵前，表現出一種人性。對於和平來說，關鍵的第一步就是能夠看到你的對手的領導和人民身上的人性的東西。
原文如下：
P194 No Competition in Ideas
  The Khrushchev interview was a major event for all who desire a relaxation of international tension. The Columbia Broadcasting System performed a public service by it. Khrushchev’s performance was strikingly superior to Chou En-lai’s when interviewed some months ago by Ed Murrow. Though the Chinese Communists have shown themselves more flexible theorists than the Russians, Murrow got nothing from Chou En-lai but slogans and propagandistic rantings. Khrushchev deserves credit for seizing what Chou En-lai missed, the opportunity to emerge as a human being for an American audience. This humanization of the leaders and people on the opposite side is the first essential toward peace.