04-29-2005, 08:43 PM
An Old but nevertheless interesting and very entertaining book on the UNO.
âThe play within the playâ (1966) by Hernane Tavares De Sa
The author was an undersecretary for public relations at the UN (between 1960 and 1965) and the book is full of juicy details and anecdotes about UN internals. WARNING: Author is free with insults particularly towards Africans, Afro-Asians (North Africa and Mediterranean), Asians and Latin Americans (to some extent â remember that the author himself is Brazilian). But as the book was written around 1966 he was not constrained to be politically correct in todays terms (though political correctness was an issue even at that time) â which makes the book all the more useful.
It may be hard to get hold of the book. Public library is an option.
Iâm going to take the liberty of quoting at length from an interview that is part of the book. It has a fair amount to say on the degree of Indian influence in the UN. I have blueized some of the juicy bits. In general the reader of the book will see that the critisisms of the UN today are not fundamantally different from what they were even at that time. The following is a passage that may be quite illuminating to some of us (keep in mind that it is at least 40 years old and things would have changed and also that it was written not long after the 1962 war):-
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The true complexity of the UN bureaucratic establishment, and hence of the operations of the Secratariat of the United Nations is revealed in the following question and answer discussion between a former UN official and journalist friend who wanted to write an article on the Secratariat. Because of political pressure the article was not published.
<b>Q.</b> It is generally accepted as one of the facts of life that executive power is concentrated in the hands of the of the so-called Anglo-Saxons, who share it only with the Indians. Do you agree?
<b>A.</b> It depends on what you mean by Anglo-Saxons.
<b>Q.</b> Primarily the Americans, then the British, with the Canadians and Australians having a much smaller influence. The Americans of course hold by far the largest number of posts, but Iâm not interested in numbers but in key positions. For instance there is an American as executive officer in practically every department. Wouldnât that in itself mean a controlling network of officials in key positions?
<b>A.</b> It is actually much less significant than it sounds. Americans in the Secretariat are by no means as well articulated among themselves as the British or the Indians.
<b>Q.</b> There is of course another theory that has been gaining ground, according to which it is the Indians who have seized power within the Secretariat, operating as a well articulated group, to use your expression. Would you rather subscribe to this interpretation?
<b>A.</b> I donât see why I should. I have a great deal of respect for the Indians, for they have shown much skill and resourcefulness in infiltrating the Secretariat. I will go so far as to say that they have the best intelligence-gathering system within the United Nations; confidential information is tracked down by them at a very early stage and passed up to their top man on the 38-th floor with remarkable speed. But they are not in control of the Secretariat, nor is that the trend.
<b>Q.</b> Will you agree that, however, that at least one Indian is entrenched in a Strategic position in every department of the United Nations, without exception.
<b>A.</b> There is no question of agreeing. This is common knowledge. But it does not amount to seizure of power by the Indians. For one thing, they have never been able to overcome intense dislikes among themselves; for instance southern Indians from the Madras area, who are by far the better political operators, resent being looked down on by their northern countrymen from the northern provinces. What is even more serious is that the Indians have never been able to develop a truly effective system of public relations to overcome the general dislike and distrust in which they are held. Unless they overcome these twin handicaps, which I seriously doubt, they will never be able to seize powe rin the sense of actually running the show. My personal opinion is that the present system will prevail in the years ahead.
<b>Q.</b> You mean the sharing of power between the Americans, the Indians and the British.
<b>A.</b> If I were to accept that listing I would place the British first and the Americans last.
<b>Q.</b> But havenât the Indians been losing ground ever since they lost face in 1962 when the Chinese beat them on the Himalayan border.
<b>A.</b> Let us not confuse two things. They lost an enormous amount of face but very little ground. They lost face with the Afro-Asians and with the Soviet bloc, which is bad for the pursuit of Indian foreign policy, but matters little in terms of the power realities within the United Nations, since neither the Afro-Asians nor the Communists have any substantial influence on the Secretariat.
<b>Q.</b> How about the Westerners? Do you mean that the Westerners were the only ones to overlook Indiaâs decreased influence and prestige after the Chinese routed the Indian frontier army and threatened to sweep into the plains of Assam.
<b>A.</b> Of course the Westerners were fully aware of the new situation created inAsia by the 1962 Himalayan campaign. After all donât forget the Americans and the british reacted more swiftly than anyone else as they had more at stake in the area. It was primarily because of them that the Chinese withdrew quietly to the contested border areas on the Northeast Frontier Agency, even though they could have staged an unopposed march all the way into Calcutta. But we are not discussing grand strategy in Southeast Asia but merely controlling influences within the Secretariat. Since the British and Americans hold the balance of power together with the Indians, it was not in their interest to have the Indians suffer the consequences of their Himalayan defeat also here in the UN.
<b>Q.</b> My information is that the Americans had been fed up with the Indians in the Secretariat for some time and had been eager to cut begin cutting them down to size in 1962. Is that correct?
<b>A.</b> What matters is not what the Americans wanted to do, but what they were finally persuaded to do by the British. The British persuaded their American allies to agree to preserve the Indian position of strength inside the UN.
<b>Q.</b> Are you implying that the British have a dominant role whwn it comes to deciding joint US-British policies regarding the UN?
<b>A.</b> I used the word âpersuadedâ in its genuine sense, not as a diplomatic euphemism. The British persuaded the Americans that it was not in the interest of the western alliance for that matter, to have the Indians lose substantial ground in the Secretariat.
<b>Q.</b> Why not? Wouldnât that have left the Americans and the British in a dominant position by themselves inside the UN, without having to share power with the Indians?
<b>A.</b> Nothing of the sort would have happened and the British with their uncanny political wisdom, knew it all along. Suppose senior Indian officials had actually been wrenched from their strategic posts on the 38-th floor and in the departments that count. The vacancies would not have been filled by Westerners but by other Afro-Asians. What guarantee could the Americans and the British have that they would be able to install an acceptable Afro-Asian, such as a Liberian for instance? None whatsoever; in fact, they would run a real danger of having some of the posts filled by wild Ghanians or Malians. Indians are much more dependable.
<b>Q.</b> Dependable? The Americans are always complaining. Arenât the Indians supposed to play a non-aligned game?
<b>A.</b> The Indians know on what side their bread is buttered. They dislike the Westerners of course, but then they dislike all colored races too, and are cordially disliked by them. But make no mistake, it is the Indians who are the real Westerners of Asia, not the Japanese, as it has become fashionable to say. Besides they depend so much financially on the Americans, and to a lesser extent on the British, that they have to side with them when the going gets rough. The fact that the indians are devious and whenever possible treacherous upsets the Americans, who insist on mixing ethics with politics, but it does not in the least disturb the British, who have known the Indians for several centuries. The best proof of this is that although the British have a lot more respect for an Arab than for an Indian, they will go a long wayto block an Arab from a senior post in the Secreatariat, while they will push an Indian. And I agree with their explanation, which is that while an Arab is not as untrustworthy as an Indian, on the other hand an Indian frightens more easily when he is in a tight spot, and thus becomes easier to handle. Believe me, the Indian chain of command inside the United Nations will survive for quite a few years the political and economic decay of India <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> . The British will see to that and the Americans will go along with them. Reluctantly, I grant you, but they will go along.
<b>Q.</b> All right, let us accept that the Indians will maintain their grip on power inside the Secretariat, by courtesy of the British and the Americans. Doesnât this mean that in effect the balance of power within the UN will be held by the Americans and the British, or perhaps by the British and the Americans, since you seem to think that that is their order of importance?
<b>A.</b> I think we should first agree on some fundamental semantics. These concepts of power structure, balance of power and grab for power by this or that nation or this or that bloc are really romantic exaggerations. The realities of power in the Secretariat are much simpler. And more pedestrian. There is no overall power structure as such, but simply infighting amomg cliques. The Indian chain of command, represents a single nation and operates vertically, from the 38-th floor down. But that is due to the special circumstances we have just discussed and constitutes an exception. All other cliques operate horizontally, with their members holding senior posts in every department. It is basically an âold-croniesâ setup, and the Anglo-Saxon control is merely due to the fact that almost all of them come from white English-speaking countries. Of course the British and the Americans are predominant, but donât forget the Canadians, the Austrailians and even the occasional New Zealander. And if they serve the interests of the the United States and the United Kingdom it is simply because of their background and their political conventions lead them inevitably in that direction. While there is a pro-Western political climate that pervades the Secretariat, there is very little that is sinister about the actions of the Anglo-Saxon senior officials responsible for this climate. In fact among the few dozen senior officials, I doubt whether there is a single one who receives instructions from his delegation daily, as is the case with the Russians. Technically they conform to the ruling in article 100 of the Charter which, the one that says that they shall not seek or receive instructions from any government.
<b>Q.</b> We all know about the cliques. Their purpose according to the research I have already done, is rather to promote the interests of members of the clique, like getting soft assignments, trips to Europe, rapid promotion and that sort of thing. As you say, the cliques are composed of old cronies who will look after each otherâs interests. But that is just a picturesque detail. How effective can they be in the UNâs day-to-day operations; above all, can they be effective when the organization faces a serious crisis, if these cliques are basically mutual welfare groups?
<b>A.</b> You are confusing the operational and survival functions of the clique. In fact, I would reserve the name of clique for the operational aspects, and use the concept of fief for survival. On the operational level the clique functions with sufficient effectiveness. While the UN bureaucrat avoids making a decision, the clique does not. In fact it insists jealously on its power to make decisions. Every time an important move is made in the house, the Under-Secretary who proposes it to the Secretary-General, and the Secretary-General who approves it, have usually had very little to do with the actual decision, which is always taken by a compact, homogeneous group of old-timers who reach consensus among themselves long before the problem is formally submitted to to the Under-Secretary or to the Secretary-General himself. That is the operational aspect of the clique. But since there are several cliques in the Secretariat, they have organized themselves, for survival purposes, in a sort of feudalistic structure of fiefs, each one under its own baron or suzerain. The rules for belonging are few and simple: Loyalty to the baron and to fellow members of the fief, promotion of the material welfare of fellow members and of the prestige of the fief inside the Secretariat. The one unforgivable crime is to work out an individual unilateral pact with another fief.
<b>Q.</b> Is it true that there are alliances and even non-aggression pacts negotiated between different fiefs?
<b>A.</b> Certainly. Since the bance of power is fluid in the secretariat, the baron at the head of each fief manouvers to obtain the support or at least the neutrality of other influential barons. This is particularly true when something of importance is developing. For instance, when the new trade and development outfit was being set up, there were so many new jobs available both here and in Geneva that there was serious concern among the fiefs, especially since there was an organized attempt to give most of these jobs to outsiders, on the pretext that they were better qualified for the highly specialized functions.
<b>Q.</b> Wasnât that true?
<b>A.</b> I donâ know what you mean by true <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> . There was a plan afoot for having a number of highly desirable jobs gobbled up by outsiders. This represented a pressing danger for fiefs within the Secretariat, particularly those operating in the economic branches. The fact that some of the candidates from outside were prominent in the economic field was irrelevant; a member can be made to look as good on paper as a professor at Sorbornne. But there was no doubt that a crisis was looming. So the several fiefs in the economic sections of the UN âbuttoned upâ, as they always do in times of danger.
<b>Q.</b> What do you mean by âbuttoning upâ?
<b>A.</b> Itâs an expression handed down from the world war days. I think it means an armored vehicle preparing for action. They like these dramatic names. Actually what it means in practice is for everyone to shut up so as to avoid leaks, and to speed up the flow of inside information through the umbilical cord every fief manitains with the 38-th floor, so as to be able to plan in advance a sensible strategy.
<b>Q.</b> What you call a sensible strategy in this case was pushing that little Czech into number two position in Geneva, I presume.
<b>A.</b> Very sensible. In fact Iâm inclined to think it was a brilliant move. Do you happen to know that little Czech, as you call him?
<b>Q.</b> Smetana? I have known him for years. Every correspondent knows him. He is very helpful about briefing us discreetly on what went on in closed sessions of his committee. I mean the floor fights and that sort of thing. When it comes to straight economics he doesnât understand much but he has sense enough to have assistants who are graduates of top universities. But his appointment to Geneva to such a high position created quite a flurry. I know because I cabled a special story. Apparently the Russians were upset; they donât trust Smetana. For that matter, the Czech delegation doesnât trust him either. He has managed to be on both sides of the fence ever since the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948. Why was he appointed to such an important post in this new trade and development outfit?
<b>A.</b> As you say, Smetana is not really trusted by the Communist delegations, and much less by the Western ones. Consequently, appointing him gave a political coloration to the staffing of the trade and development organization, which was just then being planned. The delegations from the major countries, who had thus far agreed with the technical approach, now considered that political appointments were called for. Each delegation came up with its own candidate, and as was to be expected most of the candidates were old timers in the Secretariat, men who knew their way around and who could keep a close check on Smetana.
<b>Q.</b> You mean the heat was off for appointing these famous economists from outside?
<b>A.</b> Of the new posts created by the General Assembly for the trade and development outfit, almost all have gone to old timers here in the Secretariat. There is no longer any question of canvassing the great universities and ministries of planning and economic development to find brilliant people. All that is forgotten and the establishment is secure onc more.
<b>Q.</b> Do you mean that it is impossible for the United Nations to enlist the service of first-class people?
<b>A.</b> Someone of course may always join from the outside if he is backed by one of the powerful cliques. But the type of person who can make a brilliant career in the outside world has really no incentive for joining the Secretariat, unless he comes from an underdeveloped country and the pay in dollars represents a fortune for him.
<b>Q.</b> Then the conclusion is that the Secretariat is condemned to mediocrity?
<b>A.</b> I donât understand the question.
<b>Q.</b> It seems obvious from what you tell me that only someone who has been a failure in the outside world will want to join the UN.
<b>A.</b> There you are introducing moral judgements that have no place here. The purpose of the Secretariat is not to function <!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->Â but to participate in power plays. There are four thousand people here in this building, another thousand in Geneva. There is nothing for them to do in terms that would be understandable to a private firm, for instance. But it would be unjust to call anyone of them a parasite. They are engaged in a number of political maneuvers and activities that should not be dismissedas of no consequence simply because they take place at a trivial level. In point of fact the struggle for power among the different cliques, the push for survival and expansion among the fiefs, have a repercussion on the worldâs chancelleries that is out of all proportion to the caliber of the people who constitute the establishment in this building <!--emo&:felx--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/flex.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='flex.gif' /><!--endemo--> . In this sense the Secratariat is playing a significant role in international relations.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regards,
Sandeep.
âThe play within the playâ (1966) by Hernane Tavares De Sa
The author was an undersecretary for public relations at the UN (between 1960 and 1965) and the book is full of juicy details and anecdotes about UN internals. WARNING: Author is free with insults particularly towards Africans, Afro-Asians (North Africa and Mediterranean), Asians and Latin Americans (to some extent â remember that the author himself is Brazilian). But as the book was written around 1966 he was not constrained to be politically correct in todays terms (though political correctness was an issue even at that time) â which makes the book all the more useful.
It may be hard to get hold of the book. Public library is an option.
Iâm going to take the liberty of quoting at length from an interview that is part of the book. It has a fair amount to say on the degree of Indian influence in the UN. I have blueized some of the juicy bits. In general the reader of the book will see that the critisisms of the UN today are not fundamantally different from what they were even at that time. The following is a passage that may be quite illuminating to some of us (keep in mind that it is at least 40 years old and things would have changed and also that it was written not long after the 1962 war):-
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The true complexity of the UN bureaucratic establishment, and hence of the operations of the Secratariat of the United Nations is revealed in the following question and answer discussion between a former UN official and journalist friend who wanted to write an article on the Secratariat. Because of political pressure the article was not published.
<b>Q.</b> It is generally accepted as one of the facts of life that executive power is concentrated in the hands of the of the so-called Anglo-Saxons, who share it only with the Indians. Do you agree?
<b>A.</b> It depends on what you mean by Anglo-Saxons.
<b>Q.</b> Primarily the Americans, then the British, with the Canadians and Australians having a much smaller influence. The Americans of course hold by far the largest number of posts, but Iâm not interested in numbers but in key positions. For instance there is an American as executive officer in practically every department. Wouldnât that in itself mean a controlling network of officials in key positions?
<b>A.</b> It is actually much less significant than it sounds. Americans in the Secretariat are by no means as well articulated among themselves as the British or the Indians.
<b>Q.</b> There is of course another theory that has been gaining ground, according to which it is the Indians who have seized power within the Secretariat, operating as a well articulated group, to use your expression. Would you rather subscribe to this interpretation?
<b>A.</b> I donât see why I should. I have a great deal of respect for the Indians, for they have shown much skill and resourcefulness in infiltrating the Secretariat. I will go so far as to say that they have the best intelligence-gathering system within the United Nations; confidential information is tracked down by them at a very early stage and passed up to their top man on the 38-th floor with remarkable speed. But they are not in control of the Secretariat, nor is that the trend.
<b>Q.</b> Will you agree that, however, that at least one Indian is entrenched in a Strategic position in every department of the United Nations, without exception.
<b>A.</b> There is no question of agreeing. This is common knowledge. But it does not amount to seizure of power by the Indians. For one thing, they have never been able to overcome intense dislikes among themselves; for instance southern Indians from the Madras area, who are by far the better political operators, resent being looked down on by their northern countrymen from the northern provinces. What is even more serious is that the Indians have never been able to develop a truly effective system of public relations to overcome the general dislike and distrust in which they are held. Unless they overcome these twin handicaps, which I seriously doubt, they will never be able to seize powe rin the sense of actually running the show. My personal opinion is that the present system will prevail in the years ahead.
<b>Q.</b> You mean the sharing of power between the Americans, the Indians and the British.
<b>A.</b> If I were to accept that listing I would place the British first and the Americans last.
<b>Q.</b> But havenât the Indians been losing ground ever since they lost face in 1962 when the Chinese beat them on the Himalayan border.
<b>A.</b> Let us not confuse two things. They lost an enormous amount of face but very little ground. They lost face with the Afro-Asians and with the Soviet bloc, which is bad for the pursuit of Indian foreign policy, but matters little in terms of the power realities within the United Nations, since neither the Afro-Asians nor the Communists have any substantial influence on the Secretariat.
<b>Q.</b> How about the Westerners? Do you mean that the Westerners were the only ones to overlook Indiaâs decreased influence and prestige after the Chinese routed the Indian frontier army and threatened to sweep into the plains of Assam.
<b>A.</b> Of course the Westerners were fully aware of the new situation created inAsia by the 1962 Himalayan campaign. After all donât forget the Americans and the british reacted more swiftly than anyone else as they had more at stake in the area. It was primarily because of them that the Chinese withdrew quietly to the contested border areas on the Northeast Frontier Agency, even though they could have staged an unopposed march all the way into Calcutta. But we are not discussing grand strategy in Southeast Asia but merely controlling influences within the Secretariat. Since the British and Americans hold the balance of power together with the Indians, it was not in their interest to have the Indians suffer the consequences of their Himalayan defeat also here in the UN.
<b>Q.</b> My information is that the Americans had been fed up with the Indians in the Secretariat for some time and had been eager to cut begin cutting them down to size in 1962. Is that correct?
<b>A.</b> What matters is not what the Americans wanted to do, but what they were finally persuaded to do by the British. The British persuaded their American allies to agree to preserve the Indian position of strength inside the UN.
<b>Q.</b> Are you implying that the British have a dominant role whwn it comes to deciding joint US-British policies regarding the UN?
<b>A.</b> I used the word âpersuadedâ in its genuine sense, not as a diplomatic euphemism. The British persuaded the Americans that it was not in the interest of the western alliance for that matter, to have the Indians lose substantial ground in the Secretariat.
<b>Q.</b> Why not? Wouldnât that have left the Americans and the British in a dominant position by themselves inside the UN, without having to share power with the Indians?
<b>A.</b> Nothing of the sort would have happened and the British with their uncanny political wisdom, knew it all along. Suppose senior Indian officials had actually been wrenched from their strategic posts on the 38-th floor and in the departments that count. The vacancies would not have been filled by Westerners but by other Afro-Asians. What guarantee could the Americans and the British have that they would be able to install an acceptable Afro-Asian, such as a Liberian for instance? None whatsoever; in fact, they would run a real danger of having some of the posts filled by wild Ghanians or Malians. Indians are much more dependable.
<b>Q.</b> Dependable? The Americans are always complaining. Arenât the Indians supposed to play a non-aligned game?
<b>A.</b> The Indians know on what side their bread is buttered. They dislike the Westerners of course, but then they dislike all colored races too, and are cordially disliked by them. But make no mistake, it is the Indians who are the real Westerners of Asia, not the Japanese, as it has become fashionable to say. Besides they depend so much financially on the Americans, and to a lesser extent on the British, that they have to side with them when the going gets rough. The fact that the indians are devious and whenever possible treacherous upsets the Americans, who insist on mixing ethics with politics, but it does not in the least disturb the British, who have known the Indians for several centuries. The best proof of this is that although the British have a lot more respect for an Arab than for an Indian, they will go a long wayto block an Arab from a senior post in the Secreatariat, while they will push an Indian. And I agree with their explanation, which is that while an Arab is not as untrustworthy as an Indian, on the other hand an Indian frightens more easily when he is in a tight spot, and thus becomes easier to handle. Believe me, the Indian chain of command inside the United Nations will survive for quite a few years the political and economic decay of India <!--emo&:roll--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ROTFL.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ROTFL.gif' /><!--endemo--> . The British will see to that and the Americans will go along with them. Reluctantly, I grant you, but they will go along.
<b>Q.</b> All right, let us accept that the Indians will maintain their grip on power inside the Secretariat, by courtesy of the British and the Americans. Doesnât this mean that in effect the balance of power within the UN will be held by the Americans and the British, or perhaps by the British and the Americans, since you seem to think that that is their order of importance?
<b>A.</b> I think we should first agree on some fundamental semantics. These concepts of power structure, balance of power and grab for power by this or that nation or this or that bloc are really romantic exaggerations. The realities of power in the Secretariat are much simpler. And more pedestrian. There is no overall power structure as such, but simply infighting amomg cliques. The Indian chain of command, represents a single nation and operates vertically, from the 38-th floor down. But that is due to the special circumstances we have just discussed and constitutes an exception. All other cliques operate horizontally, with their members holding senior posts in every department. It is basically an âold-croniesâ setup, and the Anglo-Saxon control is merely due to the fact that almost all of them come from white English-speaking countries. Of course the British and the Americans are predominant, but donât forget the Canadians, the Austrailians and even the occasional New Zealander. And if they serve the interests of the the United States and the United Kingdom it is simply because of their background and their political conventions lead them inevitably in that direction. While there is a pro-Western political climate that pervades the Secretariat, there is very little that is sinister about the actions of the Anglo-Saxon senior officials responsible for this climate. In fact among the few dozen senior officials, I doubt whether there is a single one who receives instructions from his delegation daily, as is the case with the Russians. Technically they conform to the ruling in article 100 of the Charter which, the one that says that they shall not seek or receive instructions from any government.
<b>Q.</b> We all know about the cliques. Their purpose according to the research I have already done, is rather to promote the interests of members of the clique, like getting soft assignments, trips to Europe, rapid promotion and that sort of thing. As you say, the cliques are composed of old cronies who will look after each otherâs interests. But that is just a picturesque detail. How effective can they be in the UNâs day-to-day operations; above all, can they be effective when the organization faces a serious crisis, if these cliques are basically mutual welfare groups?
<b>A.</b> You are confusing the operational and survival functions of the clique. In fact, I would reserve the name of clique for the operational aspects, and use the concept of fief for survival. On the operational level the clique functions with sufficient effectiveness. While the UN bureaucrat avoids making a decision, the clique does not. In fact it insists jealously on its power to make decisions. Every time an important move is made in the house, the Under-Secretary who proposes it to the Secretary-General, and the Secretary-General who approves it, have usually had very little to do with the actual decision, which is always taken by a compact, homogeneous group of old-timers who reach consensus among themselves long before the problem is formally submitted to to the Under-Secretary or to the Secretary-General himself. That is the operational aspect of the clique. But since there are several cliques in the Secretariat, they have organized themselves, for survival purposes, in a sort of feudalistic structure of fiefs, each one under its own baron or suzerain. The rules for belonging are few and simple: Loyalty to the baron and to fellow members of the fief, promotion of the material welfare of fellow members and of the prestige of the fief inside the Secretariat. The one unforgivable crime is to work out an individual unilateral pact with another fief.
<b>Q.</b> Is it true that there are alliances and even non-aggression pacts negotiated between different fiefs?
<b>A.</b> Certainly. Since the bance of power is fluid in the secretariat, the baron at the head of each fief manouvers to obtain the support or at least the neutrality of other influential barons. This is particularly true when something of importance is developing. For instance, when the new trade and development outfit was being set up, there were so many new jobs available both here and in Geneva that there was serious concern among the fiefs, especially since there was an organized attempt to give most of these jobs to outsiders, on the pretext that they were better qualified for the highly specialized functions.
<b>Q.</b> Wasnât that true?
<b>A.</b> I donâ know what you mean by true <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> . There was a plan afoot for having a number of highly desirable jobs gobbled up by outsiders. This represented a pressing danger for fiefs within the Secretariat, particularly those operating in the economic branches. The fact that some of the candidates from outside were prominent in the economic field was irrelevant; a member can be made to look as good on paper as a professor at Sorbornne. But there was no doubt that a crisis was looming. So the several fiefs in the economic sections of the UN âbuttoned upâ, as they always do in times of danger.<b>Q.</b> What do you mean by âbuttoning upâ?
<b>A.</b> Itâs an expression handed down from the world war days. I think it means an armored vehicle preparing for action. They like these dramatic names. Actually what it means in practice is for everyone to shut up so as to avoid leaks, and to speed up the flow of inside information through the umbilical cord every fief manitains with the 38-th floor, so as to be able to plan in advance a sensible strategy.
<b>Q.</b> What you call a sensible strategy in this case was pushing that little Czech into number two position in Geneva, I presume.
<b>A.</b> Very sensible. In fact Iâm inclined to think it was a brilliant move. Do you happen to know that little Czech, as you call him?
<b>Q.</b> Smetana? I have known him for years. Every correspondent knows him. He is very helpful about briefing us discreetly on what went on in closed sessions of his committee. I mean the floor fights and that sort of thing. When it comes to straight economics he doesnât understand much but he has sense enough to have assistants who are graduates of top universities. But his appointment to Geneva to such a high position created quite a flurry. I know because I cabled a special story. Apparently the Russians were upset; they donât trust Smetana. For that matter, the Czech delegation doesnât trust him either. He has managed to be on both sides of the fence ever since the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia in 1948. Why was he appointed to such an important post in this new trade and development outfit?
<b>A.</b> As you say, Smetana is not really trusted by the Communist delegations, and much less by the Western ones. Consequently, appointing him gave a political coloration to the staffing of the trade and development organization, which was just then being planned. The delegations from the major countries, who had thus far agreed with the technical approach, now considered that political appointments were called for. Each delegation came up with its own candidate, and as was to be expected most of the candidates were old timers in the Secretariat, men who knew their way around and who could keep a close check on Smetana.
<b>Q.</b> You mean the heat was off for appointing these famous economists from outside?
<b>A.</b> Of the new posts created by the General Assembly for the trade and development outfit, almost all have gone to old timers here in the Secretariat. There is no longer any question of canvassing the great universities and ministries of planning and economic development to find brilliant people. All that is forgotten and the establishment is secure onc more.
<b>Q.</b> Do you mean that it is impossible for the United Nations to enlist the service of first-class people?
<b>A.</b> Someone of course may always join from the outside if he is backed by one of the powerful cliques. But the type of person who can make a brilliant career in the outside world has really no incentive for joining the Secretariat, unless he comes from an underdeveloped country and the pay in dollars represents a fortune for him.
<b>Q.</b> Then the conclusion is that the Secretariat is condemned to mediocrity?
<b>A.</b> I donât understand the question.
<b>Q.</b> It seems obvious from what you tell me that only someone who has been a failure in the outside world will want to join the UN.
<b>A.</b> There you are introducing moral judgements that have no place here. The purpose of the Secretariat is not to function <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo-->Â but to participate in power plays. There are four thousand people here in this building, another thousand in Geneva. There is nothing for them to do in terms that would be understandable to a private firm, for instance. But it would be unjust to call anyone of them a parasite. They are engaged in a number of political maneuvers and activities that should not be dismissedas of no consequence simply because they take place at a trivial level. In point of fact the struggle for power among the different cliques, the push for survival and expansion among the fiefs, have a repercussion on the worldâs chancelleries that is out of all proportion to the caliber of the people who constitute the establishment in this building <!--emo&:felx--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/flex.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='flex.gif' /><!--endemo--> . In this sense the Secratariat is playing a significant role in international relations.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Regards,
Sandeep.