Hammarskjöld: A Life

13. Into All Corners of the Earth

13 Into All Corners of the Earth I t could be said in low language—for example, by Hammarskjöld’s colleague George Ivan Smith: “I think the concept of ‘Leave it to Dag’ was the farthest [thing] from his own mind. It was a political imperative . . . put upon him by people who didn’t know what the hell else to do.”1 And it could be said in high language—by U Thant, his distinguished successor as secretary-general: “It became a common practice, when any difficult situation came along, for the major organs to say in so many words, ‘Leave it to Dag.’”2 However said, it had become true. After Peking and Suez, Hammarskjöld was trusted and admired by nearly all. The French and British whom he and the North American democracies had saved from success might snipe at him in a residual sort of way. Some Israelis believed he was too good to Nasser. In Sweden the widely read Tingsten railed on. But Hammarskjöld now had the reputation of a diplomatic miracle worker and a man of startling goodness. His influence—or hope for his calming, reasonable influence—reached nearly “into all corners of the earth.” The phrase is from a mid-1958 talk he gave in London to members of both Houses of Parliament, specifically from a passage easily missed that begins with a pleasantly expressed cliché and ends with a statement of moving simplicity. “The United Nations is not a new idea,” he said on that occasion. “It is here because of centuries of past struggle. It is the logical and natural development from lines of thought and aspiration going far back into all corners of the earth since a few men first began to think about the decency and dignity of other men.”3 By spring 1957, he was beginning to ponder his possible reelection in September to a second five-year term as secretary-general. He wrote to his old boss in the Swedish foreign ministry that he could accept another term only if the vote were unanimous. “I’m convinced that this standpoint ,” he wrote, “is not only personally and morally correct but also the only one that is politically defensible. Given what the tasks of the Secretary-General have turned out to be, in an emergency situation he cannot fulfill his office without the freedom he owns through a unanimous election.”4 All was well: on September 26th the Security Council 320 Hammarskjöld | A Life made a unanimous recommendation to reappoint, and the General Assembly followed suit, its vote also unanimous. The day came as close to a “love-in” as the UN can produce. The president of the General Assembly , a New Zealander, praised Hammarskjöld as “surely our supreme international civil servant.”5 The foreign minister of Denmark must have spoken for many when he said: “Dealing always with the most difficult and controversial matters, and often walking untrodden paths and hoping against hope, Mr. Dag Hammarskjöld has succeeded in finding solutions where none seemed to be in sight. But even more, in so doing he has won our admiration and respect and, I might almost say, a universal confidence very rarely enjoyed by any man and certainly unique in the field of politics.”6 Speaking cordially for India but adding a dash of personal salt to the general sugar, V. K. Krishna Menon remarked, “I have some things in common with the Secretary-General. I do not always understand him, and he does not always understand me. But both of us go back afterwards and try to understand each other.”7 Some years later, Urquhart found what he describes as “a slip of paper attached to Hammarskjöld’s copy of his acceptance speech on which, while on the podium after making the speech, he had written in pencil”: Hallowed be Thy name Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done 26 September 57 5:408 This while the laudatory speeches were nearing conclusion. It was not a countercurrent, as if something had to be denied; it was the other current , flowing just alongside. His acceptance speech was not part of the love-in. Of course he expressed gratitude and warmly acknowledged both delegations and Secretariat colleagues, but his thinking about the task ahead displayed dry truthfulness. He spoke a little of himself and the challenges of his role, and a little about the Charter as a steady guide. He returned to his experience...