The Chronicle interview: George F. Saddler.

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 respects, members of the Secretariat should have some autonomy, some freedom in decision-making. It would impede the smooth functioning of the Organization if every decision of any degree had to be taken by Member States or by the Secretary-General. Within certain frameworks and guidelines, and within the establishment of certain priorities, a reasonable degree of autonomy has to exist - certainly at the Secretariat level. And I think the Secretary-General, by virtue of the UN Charter, does have some autonomy in specific cases and specific situations.

This does lead into another one. With 185 UN Members and all their various groupings, isn't it tough to reach that level of autonomy?

Yes, it has become an increasingly difficult job as the number of Member States has expanded and, of course, so have the differences in these interests and in the groups. You have many diverse groups within these 185 Members States which have valid and legitimate concerns that bring them together. I'm thinking, for example, of the so-called "small island territories". They have certain issues that are common to their own interests. You also have other groupings - linguistic, regional, etc. And all of these have to be recognized and, I think, have an input in the process.

One of the things that is very important is transparency and communication - among, between and within these various groups - and access to information. Sometimes I think there is clear evidence that some issues are confused because of inadequate information being available to someone or some group, in terms of the issue under discussion. Quite a number of Governments have the tendency, more and more, to move into the vacuum and take on this micro-management of individual activities and programmes.

I recall that when I was much younger than I am now, the so-called "old-timers" always talked about "the good old days", as though they were perfect then and were imperfect now. And I'm conscious of that. So, I don't want to say now that 20 years ago everything was perfect; but I do think that over time there has been a tendency for the divisions between these different forces - the Member States, the role of the Secretary-General, and the functioning of the Secretariat - to become less distinct.

Governments have become more involved in issues that they should avoid becoming so intimately concerned with. Secretaries-General - and I'm not naming anyone or any particular period - have abdicated, in some cases, their own prerogatives to act in a forceful way, encouraging Governments to move in and get involved in these fuzzy areas and to offer conflicting advice. It is not unusual to have a discussion in an intergovernmental committee with views that are widely divergent. I would defy anyone to harmonize them, it is just not possible. And when they realize they cannot reach agreement, they fuzz it over by the device of "consensus". But a Secretary-General has to be reasonably firm and have a clear idea of direction for the Organization, one in harmony with policies developed and established by Members States, and then (he must) energize, encourage and stimulate the Secretariat to this end. If these separate lines can be maintained, I think things would certainly improve.

Having served in administration within the UN system and, also on behalf of a Member State on several administrative and budgetary bodies, do you believe that the financial problems that the UN now faces will affect its capacity to implement mandates of its Member States?

Well, I think it is quite clear that only a magician can achieve something without resources - by waving a magic wand.

I came to the United Nations around 1968 and there has always been austerity, financial constraints, financial problems, shortages of liquid resources, that is, cash and so forth, in the bank. So, this has become a kind of method of operation for the UN. If someone asks me what it is like to live under conditions of austerity, my answer is: "That is all I have ever known, that's all I've ever seen." I think the financial predicament is more severe now mainly due to the fact that substantial portions of the dues for the Organization are not being paid, either in full or on time.

I firmly believe that having the Secretary-General always worrying about finances is an unnecessary impediment. It is difficult enough to manage an Organization like the UN without also having to worry about where your next $10 is coming from.

It has an impact also on staff morale. There seems to be a growing tendency to belittle the United Nations, and this carries over to the Secretariat. I recall a time when the New York Yankees baseball team seemed to have the ability to take over-aged talent, fading stars, yet win a pennant. I'm not necessarily a Yankee fan, so I don't mean to put it in that context, but I believe that working within an Organization that is respected, that has a good image, that people look up to, that you feel proud to be a part of, helps you to achieve your task.

I remember how, in my time, I couldn't wait to get to work each day - my morale was high, and my impression was that the morale of most of my colleagues was equally so. There was a spirit of dedication, of pride. Perhaps some of this may have been linked to the fact that a number of us had vivid personal recollections of the horrors of the Second World War. We looked forward to the contribution that the United Nations system could make in alleviating the conditions that war had forced on the world. Most of us have forgotten that at least there has not been another world war since we've had a United Nations.

Is this also a problem of projection, of perception?

Certainly a better, more positive exposure of the Organization in the media would be beneficial. There is very little taught about the United Nations in the schools, colleges and universities - in particular, in the United States. Take, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which I think is another major achievement of the United Nations. This Declaration has provided a basis for peoples in many other parts of the world to say, "We have certain rights because the Declaration says we have those rights." These are fundamental, basic things which I think have had a far-reaching effect - much greater than the media has given credit to.

RELATED ARTICLE: 'On An Equal Basis'

"AFICS was founded in 1970", recalls Mr. Saddler. U Thant was the Secretary-General at the time, and a group of retirees felt there was a need for former international civil servants to have a voice, especially in the Pension Fund. The Pension Fund was created as a tripartite arrangement, consisting of the Member States, the Secretary-General and the Executive Heads of the Agencies, and of course the participants.

But at some stage you cease to be a participant and you become a beneficiary. Up until 1970, the beneficiaries didn't have any voice in the Pension Fund or anyone representing their interests. AFICS in New York has about 3,300 members, but there are about 20 Associations around the world with a total membership of some 16,000. We also represent the spouses and dependents of former staff members, in effect, 60,000 altogether.

When you leave an international organization, you cease to have any link to the services that you worked with. The departmental executive officer that you had will most likely wash their hands of you when you leave, because their primary concern is the working staff. So we take over at this point. We don't necessarily have all the expertise "off the shelf", but we do work with members to help them, to point them in the right direction. We have a core of about 30 people who volunteer on a regular basis for the office here. We produce a bulletin four times a year. We have lunches several times a year, which serve as a kind of reunion for former staff members. We do not limit our efforts, our activities or our assistance to only our members. Anyone who is a retired or former international civil servant is helped on an equal basis."

RELATED ARTICLE: Association Chief's Long Personal Association

George E Saddler is President of the Association of Former International Civil Servants (New York). An executive and manager, he has served as a consultant and senior advisor in diverse parts of the United Nations system, as well as with the United States Mission to the United Nations. He has extensive international experience in administrative, management, financial, budgeting, economic and diplomatic affairs.

"Well, I've had a rather spotted career", Mr. Saddler told the UN Chronicle. "I started in the UN arena in 1965 in the United States State Department, in the Bureau of International Organization Affairs; then I was recruited by the United Nations to work in the Budget Division. It was a time when the United Nations was converting to a programme budget. After about five years, I was transferred to UNDP (UN Development Programme), where I became the Director of Finance. After several years, I was asked to join the United States Mission to the United Nations as the Minister-Counselor for Resource Management. In that capacity, I served on the ACABQ (Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions) and participated in the Fifth Committee (administrative and budgetary matters). Again, after nearly five years, I went to Paris, where I joined UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) as Assistant Director-General for General Administration. In 1986, I returned to the United States Mission and stayed there for about four years as Senior Advisor. Then I left the Mission and, over the next six years, served as a Senior Consultant and Advisor in various capacities within the United Nations system. Also, about a year after leaving the Mission, I later joined AFICS. I joined the Board of Governors of the Association as its Secretary, and since 1994 I have been its President.