The Press WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1961. Hammarskjold

Press, Volume C, Issue 29623, 20 September 1961, Page 14

The Press WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1961. Hammarskjold

The death of Mr Hammarskjold is an international calamity of a kind probably unique in history. Largely because of the dedicated manner in which the Secretary - General interpreted the humanitarian purposes of the United Nations, he became —like his predecessor, Mr Lie—the object of Communist hatred. This, however, was a negligible penalty for achieving his greatest triumph, which was no less than to establish himself in the eyes of the rest of the world as the supreme champion of decency, freedom, and peace. There have been few more ardent internationalists. In him unusual talents were developed by equally urfusual experience of national and international government. To assignments of progressively weightier responsibility he brought a disciplined, well-stored mind, perspicacity, and mature judgment. The post-war growth of international

agencies found in him a powerful and persuasive advocate. Yet, after two years of bickering about a successor to Mr Lie at the United Nations, Mr Hammarskjold was regarded by the “ New York Herald “ Tribune ” as “ the darkest “of dark horses ” among the candidates.

In April, 1953, it was widely believed that Mr Hammarskjold owed his appointment as SecretaryGeneral partly to his distinguished career in Swedish politics and diplomacy, and partly to his reputation of being non - controversial Any misconception was soon dispelled by his announced resolve to be “active as an instrument, “ a catalyst, an inspirer ” of international progress. By the force of his personality and convictions, Mr

Hammarskjold moulded his office to what he conceived to be the needs of peace and orderly relationships among the nations. His first major intervention—with the Chinese Communists in 1955—immediately enhanced his prestige throughout the world; and not until 1958, after his acceptance of a second fiveyear appointment, did he arouse the real antagonism of the Communist bloc. As a personal negotiator within a special field, Mr Hammarskjold was not overshadowed by the flurry of consultations that began among the leaders of the Great Powers in 1959.

In its campaign to vilify Mr Hammarskjold before the uncommitted nations, Russia abandoned all restraint after the outbreak of trouble in the Congo; and Russian malevolence follows tlie Secretary-General to his grave. Perhaps the most astonishing evidence of Mr Hammarskjold’s international stature was provided at last year’s special session of the General Assembly, when a fresh mandate was granted for the United Nations’ Congo operation. Undaunted by Mr Khrushchev’s taunts, insults, and efforts to force his resignation, Mr Hammarskjold was left in no doubt of the free world’s respect for him, and of its admiration for his abilities. If the Congo had been pacified more easily, Mr Hammarskjold would doubtless have survived to see the fruits of his work. Now that he is dead, nobody dare predict how, when, and by whom the work will be completed. Mr Hammarskjold sometimes described himself as an international civil servant. How great a servant he was will take time to appqpr; but humanity will not easily find his like again.