For Egypt and Tunisia

Time, Place

Egypt and Tunisia are nations to which Dag Hammarskjöld brought his diplomatic skills and humane concern. He worked closely for years with President Nasser and counted Nasser’s foreign minister, Mahmoud Fawzi, among his most trusted friends. He intervened boldly, and at some personal risk, in the so-called Bizerte crisis in Tunisia in the summer of 1961. What would he say now, in this time of immense change? The question can’t be answered. But it can be held in mind. A speculation: he might have advised all concerned to set in motion a patient, careful process, taking all factors into account and leading to a soundly built framework for the future. He often spoke along these lines. This edition offers some of his thoughts, primarily from press conferences. The series begins with a marvelous general statement that swoops in a very few words from lofty to earthy and realistic.

In the course of a press conference on Middle Eastern affairs (January 16, 1959), Hammarskjöld made a striking comment:

I have enough confidence in the basic common sense of human beings and the basic good will of human beings to count that also as a factor in politics.

In another press conference (April 8, 1960), he explored political process through a classic metaphor. A journalist had commented that bridge-building takes a great deal of time—the context was South Africa. Hammarskjöld replied:

How do you go about building bridges? The building of a firm bridge, of course, over which you can pass without any difficulties, may be a long story, but you can at least put the first stones down into the water or get a first piece of wood across the water, a little bit out into it.

Speaking with a group of teachers in 1954 (June 28), he put the emphasis on “slow”—on the long time generally needed to create things lasting and firm:

As teachers you are perhaps better qualified than most men and women to appreciate the virtues of time and patience, how long it takes to develop awareness, how hard it is to achieve a compromise or a working relationship or even simple communication. Inevitably, like the ways of education, the ways of the United Nations must be slow. Like you, those of us who work here prefer an understanding which is the genuine product of growth and development, something more lasting and firm than anything that could be imposed quickly.

In the two brief passages that follow, both excerpted from press conferences, he warned against mistaking appearance for reality, superficial gains for enduring ones. He also brings up a point to which he returned periodically: the importance of not having to retrace one’s steps in a political process.

We have a kind of accelerated rhythm in which world danger comes and world danger goes and keeps us all wide awake at the breakfast table. In fact, the trends, the undercurrents are slower and stronger. When we see in those press reactions seems to me to be only the somewhat choppy short waves at the surface, and the real trend is the deeper swell in the sea. (Press conference, Mexico City, April 9, 1959)

Question: Don’t you think that every peace move that is made should be boldly…and courageously pursued in the name of the UN…—just as boldly, at least, as some of the war-talkers around the world pursue their particular thesis?
Mr. Hammarskjöld: There is a false boldness too, sir, both on the side of the peace-talkers and war-talkers. I think that it is a very sound policy for the United Nations to see to it that it never has to take any step back. If it makes all the bold moves possible without having to take a backward step, I think it will show the boldness that it should show and that I hope it will show. However, I would like to make one clarification…. I think that there is a lot of loose talk about the decrease of tension because of this and that. We should keep apart two different aspects of this. One is that it is a good thing if fighting stops…; it is a good thing a conflict between two Member nations is resolved…. But unless and until we are right in interpreting the end of the fighting or the solution of the conflict as a reflection of a change of basic attitude, I would say, well, it is a good thing, but it does not in itself provide a basis for a new approach to the international situation. You see, I want to keep it apart, and note the value of the factual development, which is good, but I hesitate very much to give far-reaching implications to the symptomatic value of those factors….
(Press conference, 29 July 1954)

Hammarskjöld had a great liking for festive UN occasions that gave a central place to music or theater. He wouldn’t miss the chance to give an introductory talk that refreshed the participants’ feeling for common values and allowed him to share something of his love of the arts. On one such occasion, he interpreted the glorious concluding movement of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony in terms that again swoop from the lofty to the work at hand:

The faith to which Beethoven wished to give expression in his Ninth Symphony…was the dream of a poet. To translate this dream into action, and thus to give mankind the security it can achieve only through cooperation and the strength it can win only through fusion, is the task of realists.
(from a talk given on 24 October 1956, for the annual United Nations Day gathering)

◊ ◊ ◊