The Chronicle interview: George F. Saddler.

• Position: UN Chronicle periodical; interview with Assn of Former International Civil Servants or AFICS Pres - Includes related article on AFICS and on Saddler - Interview

Given your long association with the United Nations, I'd like to ask your views on its reform.

To my mind, the United Nations has been undergoing some type of reform almost its entire existence. Reform carries with it a positive connotation of improvement, and I think we approach reform always with that in mind. However, I'm not sure that all reform necessarily leads to a better situation after the reform has been completed.

Any reform movement has to be led, because any entity takes on a personality from its leadership. Whenever you attempt to structure an organization in the abstract, you lose some important elements. Instead, organizations should be structured in the context of the people who are going to operate them. Reform has to fit their desires. In the case of the United Nations, this means what Governments would like the Organization to do and how they would like for it to function. This also has to mesh with the Secretary-General's own perception of his managerial style. So, it is a matter of give and take, and of blending all these different forces to achieve something that is structurally sound, something that is functioning with a reasonable degree of efficiency.

I'm always disturbed when anyone expects something to function 100 per cent efficiently. I don't think any of us are that perfect. My father use to say something like, "You strive for perfection knowing you are unlikely to achieve it"; but that does not mean you don't try. It doesn't mean you don't seek the highest degree of competence and perfection that is possible.

How much autonomy do you feel a Secretary-General needs in carrying out reform?

There has to be a balance between input from Member States and the freedom the Secretary-General needs to take decisions of an administrative or executive nature. Perhaps, one can notice a tendency for the lines between these two functions to be a bit fuzzy. It is clear that the United Nations is an organization created by Member States to serve their own interests. A Secretary-General is selected to operate this Organization that Member States have created and to follow the policies that they have articulated. It is helpful if these policies are clear, if the goals are attainable and if the resources necessary to achieve these goals are provided; but sometimes the goals are overly ambitious, the policies are fuzzy and the resources are inadequate.

I'm not sure it is really a question of autonomy as such. I think it is more a question of compatibility, of harmony between these different interests - that is, the Member States, the Secretary-General and the Secretariat. Because, in some...