Bitter and unkind
Sir: Barbara Ward once advised me that one should never rebut a journalist's state- ment, however outrageous, as it only con- firms to the reader the truth of the original contention. Even so, Paul Johnson's bitter and unkind words about Dag Ham- marskjold (`Canal running through Lon- don', 9 November) should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. Hammarskjold was not a homosexual. He was a man who did not feel the need for physical intimacy with either sex. An ascetic, his whole life was dedicated to service. (Is it not odd that, given Mr Johnson's current religious affilia- tion, he does not recognise the type?) Hammarskjold did not hate anyone, least of all Jews. Henry H. Bloch, one of his clos- est advisers, was highly orthodox. The Suez imbroglio, Hammarskjold was convinced, could readily lead to a broader conflict. His efforts were directed to containing it, secur- ing protection for Israel and, with the UN Emergency Force, enabling the British and French forces to withdraw with dignity. His task as he saw it was at all times to further the long-term well-being of the internation- `I had to carry out a deer cull.' al community. As he explained to me at the time, in so doing he was bound eventually to have a run-in with one or more of the great powers. The Congo provided the occasion — where the secretary-general was as ill-advised at headquarters and in the field as our leaders were over Suez.
Finally, Hammarskjold did not meet his death in the Congo. If Mr Johnson cannot be accurate about this fact, how much cre- dence can be afforded to his judgment?
Ralph Townley
Box 516, Marion, MA USA
Previous page
