Skip to content

Dag Hammarskjöld: Svarstal till Nikita Chrusjtjov

Om

Talare

Dag Hammarskjöld
FN:s generalsekreterare

Datum

Omständigheter

Under Kongokrisen, som inleddes 1960, intog FN och Dag Hammarskjöld en motsatsställning till Sovjet, som stödde den nyss tillkomna Kongoregeringen mot utbrytarregimen i Katanga. Hammarskjöld försökte medla med hjälp av FN-trupper, men frågan var infekterad och en lösning svår att nå. Generalsekreteraren fick tidigt kritik från sovjetiskt håll för att vara partisk till förmån för västsidan.

På morgonen den 3 oktober 1960 höll Sovjetledaren Nikita Chrusjtjov ett tal i FN:s generalförsamling som var mycket kritiskt mot Hammarskjöld. Chrusjtjov förklarade att hans land inte längre hade förtroende för generalsekreteraren utan ville se honom ersatt av en trojka med representanter från öst, väst och de neutrala staterna. Chrusjtjov tillade: "Om han själv [Hammarskjöld] inte kan uppbringa tillräckligt kurage för att avgå så att säga i höviska former, kommer vi att dra de nödvändiga slutsatserna av den rådande situationen."
Redan samma eftermiddag bemötte Hammarskjöld Chrusjtjovs anklagelser inför ett förväntansfullt auditorium. Han förklarade i ett kort, dramatiskt tal att han inte ämnade avgå och möttes med ovationer. 
Hammarskjöld gjorde bara ett fåtal framträdanden varje år. Enligt presstalesmannen Wilder Foote var Hammarskjöld inte förtjust i flödande retoriska tal; anförandena skrevs snarare för att läsas. I denna mening är Hammarskjölds svarstal till Chrusjtjov otypiskt. Det har visserligen betecknats som en retorisk höjdpunkt under hans tid som FN-chef, men redan samtida bedömare noterade att det är hållet i en stil som man inte förknippar med Hammarskjöld: korta, skarpa formuleringar i stället för vagt diplomatspråk och dessutom "en ton som inte lämnade tvivel vare sig om hans indignation eller hans engagemang" (Dagens Nyheter, 4 oktober 1960).

Till formen handlar det om ett klassiskt försvarstal, genus judiciale. Det inleds med utförliga citat från anklagaren, innan det går över i en argumentation för den egna saken. Ett annat typiskt inslag är meningen om att ett försvar egentligen inte behövs: "I have no reason to defend myself or my colleagues against the accusations and judgments to which you have listened." Hammarskjöld understryker FN-ämbetets höghet genom användande av antiteser, åberopande av historien och omnämnande av sig själv i tredje person. Talet handlar om att det viktiga är ämbetet, inte individen som innehar det. 
Vi återger talet i dess ursprungliga engelska version såsom det kunde höras och ses i etermedierna hösten 1960. 

Tal

The head of the Soviet Delegation to the General Assembly, this morning, in exercising his right of reply, said, among many other things, that the present Secretary-General has always been biased against the socialist countries, that he has used the United Nations in support of the colonial Powers fighting the Congolese Government and Parliament in order to impose 'a new yoke on the Congo', and finally, that if I, myself, and I quote, 'do not muster up enough courage to resign, so to say in a chivalrous manner, then the Soviet Union will draw the necessary conclusions from the obtained situation.' In support of this challenge the representative of the Soviet Union said that it is not proper for a man who has 'flouted elementary justice to hold such an important post as that of the Secretary-General'. And later on he found reason to say to the delegates of this session that they should not 'submit to the clamorous phrases pronounced here' by me 'in attempts to justify the bloody crimes perpetrated against the Congolese people'.
The General Assembly can rightly expect an immediate reply from my side to a statement so directly addressed to me and regarding a matter of such potential significance.
The Assembly has witnessed over the last weeks how historical truth is established; once an allegation has been repeated a few times, it is no longer an allegation, it is an established fact, even if no evidence has been brought out in order to support it. However, facts are facts, and the true facts are there for whosoever cares for truth. Those who invoke history will certainly be heard by history. And they will have to accept its verdict as it will be pronounced on the basis of the facts by men free of mind and firm in their conviction that only on a scrutiny of truth can a future of peace be built.
I have no reason to defend myself or my colleagues against the accusations and judgments to which you have listened. Let me say only this, that you, all of you, are the judges. No single party can claim that authority. I am sure you will be guided by truth and justice. In particular, let those who know what the United Nations has done and is doing in the Congo, and those who are not pursuing aims proper only to themselves, pass judgment on our actions there. Let the countries who have liberated themselves in the last fifteen years speak for themselves.
I regret that the intervention to which I have found it necessary to reply has again tended to personalize an issue which, as I have said, in my view is not a question of a man but of an institution. The man does not count, the institution does. A weak or nonexistent executive would mean that the United Nations would no longer be able to serve as an effective instrument for active protection of the interests of those many Members who need such protection. The man holding the responsibility as chief executive should leave if he weakens the executive; he should stay if this is necessary for its maintenance. This, and only this, seems to me to be tbe substantive criterion that has to be applied.
I said the other day that I would not wish to continue to serve as Secretary-General one day longer than such continued service was, and was considered to be, in the best interest of the Organization*. The statement this morning seems to indicate that rhe Soviet Union finds it impossible to work with the present Secretary-General. This may seem to provide a strong reason why I should resign. However, the Soviet Union has also made it clear that, if the present Secretary-General were to resign now, they would not wish to elect a new incumbent but insist on an arrangement which – and this is my forn conviction based on broad experience – would make it impossible to maintain an effective executive. By resigning, I would, therefore, at the present difficult and dangerous juncture throw the Organization to the winds. I have no right to do so because I have a responsibility to all those States Members for which the Organization is of decisive importance, a responsibility which overrides all other considerations.
It is not the Soviet Union or, indeed, any other big Power who need the United Nations for their protection; it is all the others. In this sense the Organization is first of all their Organization, and I deeply believe in the wisdom with which they will be able to use it and guide it. I shall remain in my post during the term of my office as a servant of the Organization in the interests of all those other nations, as long as they wish me to do so.
In this context the representative of the Soviet Union spoke of courage. It is very easy to resign; it is not so easy to stay on. It is very easy to bow to the wish of a big Power. It is another matter to resist. As is well known to all members of this Assembly, I have done so before on many occasions and in many directions. If it is the wish of those nations who see in the Organization their best protection in the present world, I shall now do so again.

Källa

*Hänvisar till ett kort uttalande 18 september 1960, där Hammarskjöld ber att få återkomma till ärendet senare i debatten. 

Vår omständighetsbeskrivning är en omarbetad version av beskrivningen av talet i Ordet är en makt: svenska tal från Torgny lagman till Carl Bildt och Mona Sahlin: en antologi (1998) sammanställd av Kurt Johannesson, Olle Josephson, Erik Åsard.

Taggar