"To build a better world".

• Position: Secretary-General's role - Column

"... To Build a Better World"

THE ROLE OF Secretary-General is outlined rather than defined in Chapter XV of the Charter, which consists of Articles 97 to 101. This role can be divided into the political and the administrative. The political function, for which the general framework is set by Articles 98 and 99, has been much discussed but has never been too precisely defined. The capabilities inherent in it can vary in scope, depending on the climate of international relations and also on the qualities of tact, conviction, courage, realism and fidelity to the aims of the Charter which the occupant of the office may bring to bear on it.

We must first be clear about what the Secretary-General is not. Though well understood by the diplomatic community, the question has been a matter of much public confusion.

It is well known, though not always borne in mind, that, as no sovereignty rests in the United Nations, the Secretary-General is not the chief executive of a world government. He disposes of no power to enforce the decisions of the United Nations. Nor is he a secular Pope who can pronounce anathemas and issue edicts in the temporal realm. There are very few absolutes in international affairs. The norms laid down in the Charter no doubt dictate a categorical assent but, more often than not, the application of these norms to a complicated situation becomes itself a subject of controversy. This happens becuase the contestants have different perceptions and senses of values.

Not to speak of the imperatives flowing from the Charter, even the text of resolutions adopted by the main deliverative organs, sometimes lends itself to two conflicting interpretations and the adopting organs seldom clarify which one of the two is wrong.

By the very nature of his mandate, of course, the Secretary-General has no place in any diplomatic transaction or undertaking which ignores or bypasses the principles of the Charter and the pronouncements of the competent organs of the United Nations. Yet he has to employ both political realism and also unlimited patience to ensure that his own evaluation of the positions of the parties does not block communications and inhibit progress towards a mutual understanding between them which would ease the conflict. It is, therefore, neither mere expediency, nor the preference for the easier course, nor the desire to be on good terms with all, but the demands of his office which prevent the Secretary-General from endorsing the moral judgements so frequently passed by the leaders or media of public opinion in one country about the position of another.

These constraints on the Secretary-General's role, however, do not justify a passivity on his part in regard to general turns in international relations or the responsibilities of the various parties in a particular situation. Though the exercise of his political functions can bear fruit only in a climate of reasonableness, he cannot merely wait for the atmosphere to change and the tide to turn; if he does, his functions can rapidly atrophy through disuse. In a time of strains and difficulties, his job is to look for, and take advantage of, whatever openings come to view for better communications and greater accommodation between States that are at odds with one another. I consider aloofness, withdrawal from action and an attitude of unconcern about the outcome of a particular issue or conflict wholly impermissible on the Secretary-General's part. He has to be impartial but not indifferent.

WHAT IS IMPARTIALITY? The litmus test for it is the ability to evoke the trust of both sides; the Secretary-General must not only be impartial in his own attitude; he must be perceived to be so. The prerequisite for it is the scrupulous independence of the Secretary-General. He must not allow his independence of judgement to be impaired or distorted by the pressures which inevitably emanate from the policies of Governments or groups of Governments. He must be guided by a strong sense of justice and humanity. Beyond this, impartiality means that, in situations of divergence or dispute between States, the Secretary-General should try to understand as best he can the roots of insecurity, the fears and the aspirations which have impelled a State to a particular policy or course of action. I speak from personal experience when I...