THE "INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK"

This paper summarizes the findings of ethnographic research I conducted in four UN secretariats of the "food agencies" headquartered in Rome: the Food and Agriculture Organization, the World Food Programme, the World Food Council and the International Fund for Agricultural Development. This study included nine months of participant observation in the headquarters of these agencies and extensive interviews with staff at directorial, professional and general service levels. An examination of discourse within these settings reveals a recurring interpretive pattern in which "persons" and personalistic constructs are employed as mediating terms in attempts to bridge and to resolve conflicts between the apparently opposed domains of thinking and feeling. These findings highlight an underlying and intractable problem in post-Enlightenment efforts to organize society on the basis of reason, namely, what are the sources of evaluative guidance? The appeal to "persons," which represents only a partial and momentary resolution of this issue, is a strategy that is fundamental to the classic paradigm of international civil service.

From its inception with the founding of the League of Nations, the international staffing of international secretariats has been based on understandings about the personal qualities that should characterize international civil servants. Ideas about these qualities generally remain implicit in organizational charters and designs, although there are allusions to them in organizational oaths and job announcements. Memoirs, speeches, histories and organizational studies are the principal textual vehicles and repositories of these understandings. In an extension of ideals of national civil service as apolitical, objective and disinterested, international civil service is based on the idealized premise that secretariat employees detach themselves from national loyalties and cultural affinities to comply with requirements that are conceptualized at some more rationalized, "international" level of perception.

Notions of international service have been variously presented in terms such as "international loyalty," the "international outlook," "international spirit," and "maturity." Each of these terms focuses attention on "persons" or "personality," indicating a key practice within the cultural system on which international organization is based that mediates in personal terms the presumably separate dimensions of thinking and feeling. Value-laden ideologies and political allegiances (feeling) are to be surrendered in favor of rationally conceived obligations (thinking) to the "international" community. This interpretive framework has set the terms for many of the issues that have been problematic in international organization since the founding of the League of Nations, including what happens to national loyalties, the influence of national, cultural, and political biases, whether employees should have "permanent" contracts or be hired on "secondment" from national administrations, and the role of the "Secretary-General" or executive head as exemplary international civil servant vis-à-vis the world community. These issues indicate the problematized locus of "persons" within the conventional paradigm of international organization. On the one hand, persons are understood as essential to the resolution of the dilemma of the opposition between domains; shedding inappropriate values, they will presumably adopt new ones ("international loyalty") and behave appropriately in the international arena. On the other hand, this resolution is fraught with dilemmas, since not all actors appear to manifest authentically "international" values and, more profoundly, the nature and sources of these new values remain unclear.

When the United Nations system was established by the victorious Allied Powers in the closing months of the Second World War, its architects invested it with a Secretariat and required that "due regard . . . be paid to the importance of recruiting the staff on as wide a geographical basis as possible."¹ Most observers now take some form of international staffing to be the sine qua non of international administration. Sir Eric Drummond, first Secretary-General of the League of Nations, was the originator of this method of recruitment for the League's Secretariat. Precedents for permanent, internationally controlled administrations, e.g., the German-French Rhine River Commission (1804), the Universal Postal Union (1878) and the International Telegraphic Union (1868)² generally were staffed by nationals of one of the participating states. International staffing is not a necessary consequence of international organization, but it represents a strategy for international organization that is consistent with Western and, especially, British notions about the relationship of bureaucratic service to personal values, including national and "cultural" ones--in particular, it reflects the notion that it is feasible to have a disinterested, public service to which personally held values, of whatever origin, are irrelevant.

The feasibility of a form of bureaucratic administration staffed by persons who presumably separate political, regional, religious or other interests from technical, legal and official pursuits is a relatively modern idea which emerged gradually in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. During this period there was a progressive adoption of impersonal, bureaucratic ideals in Western countries. For example, several countries shifted from a system of appointments based on patronage (the "spoils system," in the United States), that is, the making of appointments for personal or political motives, to the use of open competition and examinations. This process began in Great Britain in the mid-nineteenth century¹⁰ and somewhat later in the United States. With the passage of the Pendleton Act in 1885, Congress attempted to organize the administration of government on the basis of "merit,"¹¹ an ostensibly more rational basis for selecting personnel than patronage. Ideologically, the shift away from patronage to merit was linked to the desire to replace aristocratic models of administration and rule by "notables" with more democratically-based models.¹² This suggests that what mattered was not only getting a job done, but getting it done in a way that is expressive of the avoidance of personal values. A corollary development was the notion that civil servants should be politically neutral, a doctrine that was strongly emphasized in Britain. The meaning of neutrality, as explained by Leonard White,¹³ a United States Civil Service Commissioner, is that civil servants may have "private convictions," but that they must not allow such convictions "to color the impartial advice which it is their duty to give." The opposition between ideas and values is therefore resolved, ideally, in persons who are presumed to have both the ability and the inclination to subordinate personal choice to rational procedures.

The idea of an international civil service, which seemed at the time Drummond introduced it quite novel and to some fairly radical, represented an extension of these administrative principles to the international level. If it is possible to provide impersonal administrative services within nations, why should it not be possible at the international level, which only entails setting aside "national" preferences--another aspect the personal/affective/evaluative side--so as to provide for the efficient functioning of a rationalized world order? Indeed, the international civil service is arguably the quintessential expression of depersonalized, functional, administrative service.

Employees of the League were expected to detach themselves from the interests of their own nations and to work within the framework of the League's apparently neutral and transcendent perception of international requirements. Beginning in 1932, this stance was formalized in a "declaration of fidelity," required of all incoming officials, which committed the individual employee "to discharge my functions and to regulate my conduct with the interests of the League alone in view and not to seek or receive instructions from any Government or other authority external to the Secretariat of the League of Nations."¹⁹ Identical wording is used for oaths in the UN system.²⁰

The corpus of literature on the Secretariat of the League of Nations consists, by and large, of the impressionistic descriptions of former League officials,²⁴ rather than of sociological inquiry. Much of it was written in the mid_1940s with a view toward the creation of a successor organization and is liberally sprinkled with advice on organizational structure, leadership and style, recruitment and other personnel policies. These writings constitute a valuable data base on the League's Secretariat, especially as understood by its senior officials.

an awareness made instinctive by habit of the needs, emotions, and prejudices of the peoples of differently circumstanced countries, as they are felt and expressed by the peoples concerned, accompanied by a capacity for weighing these frequently imponderable elements in a judicial manner before reaching any decision to which they are relevant.²⁵

The international outlook represents, then, two major steps with respect to feelings: first, the ability to detach oneself from the presumably natural feelings that incline one to favor the interests of one's own nation; and second, the ability to comprehend and to communicate effectively with persons of different cultures (with their special "emotions," "prejudices," and "feelings").

At times it is not clear whether, when describing intercultural sensitivity, these authors mean the ability to communicate effectively in various countries, or internally, within the organization. Evidently they regard the two situations as integrally united. The international secretariat is seen as providing a kind of "international society" that is implicitly a microcosm of the entire world. When Loveday writes, for example, of the qualities required of international civil servants--"understanding and consequential loyalty," "diplomatic capacity," "constructive imagination," et cetera--he includes the Spanish word, "convivencia," for which he finds no English equivalent. `Convivencia' suggests, to him, not a mere capacity to "co-exist," but an apparent empathy for others that enables one to work effectively with them, regardless of cultural differences. So in addition to "rationality," the secretariats become models of the specifically international order implementing that "rationality."

Adequate freedom is not ensured by defining with nice precision the functions, responsibilities and mutual hierarchical relations of each individual, but by allowing the personality of each to adjust itself to that of each other, by allowing each to find out for himself from whom he can best obtain the help he is conscious of needing.³¹

Loveday thus attempts to redefine the locus of persons in these environments, based on the view that internationalism is an attitude generated by interpersonal relations in international settings.

The "geographical distribution" of posts (or the "quota system") provides a principal strategy for guaranteeing the independence of UN secretariats from the influence of any one nation. It is a strategy which has been adopted in several versions throughout the UN system as a whole.³⁵ Several observers³⁶ have described the quota system as a recruitment strategy that structures a major contradiction into the heart of international civil service, since staff loyalty is supposed to be directed toward the organization rather than toward any particular government, while nationality plays a key role in recruitment and promotion. This policy, therefore, mitigates against the selection of personnel on the basis of merit alone and, hence, represents one of the clearest indications of how the "governmentalist" bias of the UN system³⁷ structures its bureaucracies. It is a system that continuously reminds staffs that the "constituency"³⁸ of UN organizations is always governments, rather than individuals.³⁹ This represents an escalation of bureaucratic "depersonalization" beyond that of governmental agencies.⁴⁰

meant bringing together people of many languages, races, and stages of development, of all the great cultures and religions, from Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas. It meant harmonizing all this diversity into an efficient and unified force, with all differences of background and outlook subordinated to the oath of office.⁴¹

This statement reaches beyond governmentalism to a "cultural" pluralism (or multiculturalism) that envisions all cultural orientations, of whatever origin, as subordinate to the rationally conceived obligations of an international civil service.⁴²

Far from demanding that we abandon or desert ideals and interests basic to our personality, international service . . . puts us under the obligation to let those ideals and interests reach maturity and fruition in a universal climate.⁴³

"Maturity," a term also employed by informants in the UN food agencies⁴⁴ harkens back to Kant's definition of "enlightenment",⁴⁵ as a state of freedom from intellectual tutelage to authorities, guides and doctrines. This recalls the personalistic dimensions implicit in the paradigm of rationality from which models of international service and life have been constructed.

The second generation corpus of academic literature on international secretariats is, like its predecessor, largely a digest of impressionistic reflections by those who have served as officials or consultants in international organizations. While, with few exceptions⁴⁶ it lacks sociological depth, it does provide an important source of data on participants' views about their organizational life. In it, authors grapple with the intractable contradictions of internationalism and engage in the cultural practice of constructing a series of mediating terms that appear to resolve, momentarily, the contradictions.⁴⁷

Generally, these authors concur that the cultural heterogeneity of staffs "works," that is, it seems not to be a problem in terms of organizational efficiency. For example, Van Wagenen of the World Bank, asserts⁴⁸ that it provides some "advantages." First, it exposes decision-makers to "different viewpoints" (especially about developing countries) that go "beyond mere factual knowledge"; second, it affords staff at headquarters a chance to sharpen their skills in relating to other nationals, which should enable them to be more sensitive in relating to the "field" (developing countries); and third, it provides the social basis for the organization's "credibility" in dealing with different parts of the world. Van Wagenen goes on to reflect⁴⁹ on the social-cultural dimensions of international staffing, noting that the "personal level" of these working relationships requires special attention. He shares administrators' concerns about methods for honing the staff's diversity into a serviceable "conformity." In laying out the problem, he notes that the feeling dimension presents special challenges because "an international staff has no common cultural background and no symbols transmitting emotional voltage."⁵⁰ He quotes a "pseudonymous UN Secretariat member" who wrote that his organization is "an institution derived from an exclusively rational recognition of the need for its existence" (emphasis added). Van Wagenen emphasizes⁵¹ leadership and "organizational tradition" as generators of staff solidarity.

Van Wagenen strains to account for the distinctive contribution that international staffing makes to UN bureaucracies, as compared to other types of organizations. He calls it an "extra dimension . . . like a wild card in poker," a chance factor, but comments that "it is tempting to stop at the standard observation that everyone is different and that affinities are made by professional and social interest and matters of taste, regardless of nationality."⁵² He finds this "standard observation" uninformative, but seems unable to go beyond it, adding only the speculation that the busyness and frequent duty travel of World Bank staff members may explain why "the normal rubbing of personalities is not enough to chafe and irritate deeply"⁵³. I suggest that a more productive way of examining such apparently "standard" observations, which I find in wide use in the discourse of UN food agency actors as well, is as a form of cultural practice, a way actors employ to organize ideas about the cultural diversity of secretariats. To initial inquiries about the experience of working with persons of many nationalities and cultures, I frequently received the response that such differences are not a problem or are not even noticed, because everyone is considered only in terms of his or her professional contribution (i.e., the organization exists for technical and professional reasons only). Moreover, if the heterogeneity of nationalities is considered, it is in terms of its being a potential problem, something that occurs on the "personal" level, where it may erupt in tensions between individuals.

Data provided by this literature suggest that "international" versions of the conventional paradigm of Western, bureaucratic culture, which intentionally separates thinking and feeling so as to structure organizations as depersonalized, technically efficient "machines," problematize the relationship between these domains in ways that are particular to these settings. My ethnographic study of the UN food agencies demonstrates a continuity of terms and interpretive practice between the conventional paradigm of international organization and the particular setting of these agencies' headquarters. This study shows that actors attempt to organize that paradigm, and their world, by conceptually separating the domains of thinking and feeling. However, as they inevitably encounter in this process contradictions and paradoxes that stem from the problematic place of evaluative behaviors within the system, they deploy a series of mediating terms to idealize the "right" relationship between domains or to account for problems. In each case, the mediating terms center on the place of "persons," or, more abstractly, of "personality," within the paradigm. That these mediating terms fail to resolve in any final sense the conceptual dilemma is suggested by the problematic issue of the locus of "persons" and "personal" behaviors within the UN food agencies.

Actors' recognition of the problematic place of evaluative behaviors in international organizations begin with suggestions that UN secretariats differ from national administrations, suggestions found both in literature on international organization and in informants' testimony. "Rules," "beliefs" and "traditions" are held to be more easily generated within national administrations than they are within the UN system, because (1) dominant national cultures provide guidance (e.g., national ideologies or accepted practices for superior-subordinate relationships) that cannot legitimately exist at the global level among theoretically equal sovereignties; (2) ruling governments provide executive leadership that brings interpretive guidance (i.e., clues to "acceptable" evaluative standards) into the heart of organizational life, while UN secretariats operate always at a remove from their own acephalous governing bodies; and (3) national bureaucrats work within national social settings that have well established expectations, whereas no equivalent social setting exists at the international level, but rather the frequently shifting and competing expectations of governments.⁵⁸

Dilemmas about the relationship between thinking and feeling come into focus very quickly as actors attempt to consider the place of "culture" (of both countries and individuals) within their work and organizational environment. "Culture" is, in their usage, a non-rational, value-laden domain which includes the sets of preferred behaviors ("likes" and "dislikes") that individuals acquire when living in particular societies, most especially their native place. In the ideally impartial setting of international organizations, where some actors, especially "international civil servants," presumably shed culture-based behaviors for the sake of more rational and "international" ones, the processes and structures that enable this process are not delineated, but presupposed. It is presumed that personality is capable of rightly mediating between domains, but the folk tradition is silent on how personality accomplishes this. "Persons," then, bearers of personality, become the constructions where the boundaries and connections between thinking and feeling are presented and examined, both to idealize successes and to vilify failures.

In my study I examine "persons" or "personality" in actors' constructions as loci that mediate thinking and feeling in diverse ways. I examine three principal constructions: executive heads, images of the self as "transcultural" and international work as "craft"--as "cultural operators"⁵⁹ that conjoin and confound different conceptual orders. Boon finds "cultural operators" to provide particularly succinct ways of communicating about socially held understandings of the relationships that exist between distinct orders, because they belong to both. He finds⁶⁰ that societies develop particular cultural operators that take on a privileged status because their property of conjoining what is ideally kept separate appears essential to maintaining the proper relationship between orders. Examples of this quality abound in religious settings, where, for example, only designated persons, who represent the "natural" or "secular" order may handle certain sacred objects which represent the "sacred" or "spiritual" order. Such conjoinings of the sacred and the secular are often considered inherently dangerous; but somebody has to do it.

"International loyalty" was an early construct that indicates the pattern of locating the relationship between thinking and feeling in exceptional personality, namely, personality that is capable of subordinating the presumed claims of nationality and culture for the sake of a rationally-based "internationalism." This construct, like the cultural operators that I examine, deploys some category of "persons" or "personality" to mediate between domains. Those who behave "internationally" and "impartially" are persons, however apparently "depersonalized" their conduct, just as priests are persons still, however sacralized their conduct. But persons are also bearers of "feelings" in this construct, i.e., the evaluative standards of cultures, politics, and ideologies which it is the work of international secretariats to neutralize with respect to their own work (see Figure 1).

THINKING

|

|

| FEELING

| |

| |

IMPERSONAL, |

BUREAUCRATIC <---------> PERSONS <-----------> VALUES, STRUCTURES "CULTURAL"

BEHAVIORS

Figure 1

Central as persons may be to this cultural system, the locus of persons--whether employees or outsiders--is also problematic for it because not all persons exemplify the ideal subordination of feeling to thinking; and, beyond that, because the proper source of evaluative behavior within the system is never addressed. In the UN food agencies these conceptual dilemmas become evident in many ways, including how personnel talk about their relationship to the organization. For example,

many employees find themselves precariously situated in UN secretariats. Responsibility for decisions made in one's own area of competence frequently needs to be referred up the hierarchical ladder, even in simple matters such as sending a telex to a field officer. Many find that excellent work is not rewarded by opportunities for advancement, due to the influence of nationality and patronage networks, further problematizing their sense of professional and personal solidarity with their agency. Moreover, as professional work generally is performed in the name of the organization and therefore efforts usually remain "anonymous," which depersonalizes still more the relationship of the individual with an agency. It is possible to publish independently, in one's own name, but few find the time. Practices designed to secure the workplace by requiring the use of building passes which must be relinquished at retirement are mentioned with a touch of bitterness by retirees, who feel that their personal worth and dignity thereby are impugned. Even after many years of service, some employees have only short-term contracts, while those with permanent contracts speak often of going elsewhere to advance their professional careers or, if older, of looking forward to retirement.

The cultural operations that inform constructions of executive heads, transcultural selves and international craft explore the relationships between thinking and feeling in ways that turn in each case on some central understanding about "persons." Such constructions become occasions to locate the place of persons in, and in relation to, these complex organizations, which, more profoundly, means the relation of feeling (the presumably more personal dimension) and thinking (the presumed generator of bureaucratic organization) as an interpretive framework (see Figure 2). Here, that framework is applied to identities mediating its oppositions and relating to others those oppositions specific to the organization.

While space does not permit a discussion of these mediators in detail, I will present each of them briefly in order to note some of the continuities and connections with previous literature.

The executive head of a secretariat is both one of its major emblems and a frequent topic of conversation in the secretariats. Executive heads are structurally positioned at the top of their organizational charts, the only authorized channels of communication on policy and administrative matters between governing bodies and the secretariats. In conversation the personality, nationality, politics and character of executive heads are explored for their meaning in agency life. The executive head provides a juncture where feeling, in an officially sanctioned way, impacts on thinking (and, therefore, politics, or "culture" on presumably rational and legal procedures, character on technical priorities, et cetera).

If we consider the cultural and social purposes that shape and influence discourse in which the subject of executive heads appears, the "great-man theory" that pervades both academic literature and everyday discourse about executive heads within international organizations may be approached non-referentially as a process of symbolic construction. In these terms executive heads become key symbolic foci that relate impersonal, bureaucratic structures to the evaluative domain that includes culture, politics and ideology in two respects. First, executive heads are able to provide this symbolic function because they alone officially link secretariats to governing bodies and, second, they do so in their personal capacity. They "act," a quality of individuality denied, symbolically, to the "depersonalized bureaucrat."

Underpinning the "great-man theory" that the man makes the position, but the position requires the "right" sort of man, is an understanding that the point of convergence between the neutral, impartial, rational perspective and the evaluative domain of culture and politics is found at the personal level, and specifically, in the individual who is uniquely authorized by a governing body to head up its secretariat and thus to have a "personality." This understanding is reflected both in institutional terminology and by analysts of the position.

All authority in the Secretariat stems from the Secretary-General. . . . Everything that is done in the Secretariat is done by him, figuratively speaking. The actual day-to-day work is either personally executed by him, done under his direct instructions and control, or delegated by him to others.⁷³

actually work in his [the `executive director's'] name, papers are published in his name (or at least circulated in his name); his stamp of approval is what matters inside the organisation although he may sometimes delegate it to lesser officials. Thus secretariats tend to become extremely vertical and very steeply so, with just one point at the top: He.⁷⁴

The image of the self as "transcultural" is also a frequent construction among actors who believe themselves to be changed, as a result of living abroad, often in many countries, and working in multicultural organizations. In general, the focus of this image is on oneself, including the expanded "self" of spouses and children, although the transculturalism (or "internationalism") of other selves is also explored. This is a second, major theme, one which brings "personality" home to staffs in the UN food agencies. Many actors find that their thinking and attitudes have changed in ways that make it difficult to imagine returning to live in their native countries or to work in national administrations, where they would lack the stimulus of continual exposure to many different nations and cultures.

Constructions of the transcultural self practically mediate paradoxically related aspects of thinking and feeling which arise as tensions between the presumed impartiality of international organizations and the perspectives of persons and nations that are presumed to be determined by national interests and cultural perspectives. "Personality" provides the locus, once again, where these terms are mediated. This personality is presumed to be exceptional with respect to its independence from any one culture, whether due to innate characteristics or to exposure to the exceptional learning afforded by multicultural milieux. This is a construction that announces the success, to a degree, of international administration as a cultural project; that is, it is a construction that confirms the possibility of an "international outlook," the prerequisite of authentic, international administration. Its construction, over and over, becomes a central cultural practice in these milieux.

Actors' presentations of work accomplishments and agency competencies feature the technical domain. Forestry studies, loan programs for the rural poor, increases in crop yields and the successful transport of emergency food assistance are among the examples actors provide when presenting the practical results and meaningfulness of agency work. Because of the casting of technicality as a thinking domain within this cultural system, technical excellence is ideally seen as separable from national, cultural, ideological and other evaluative systems. Recognizing that international agencies must perform in a setting that is circumscribed by less-than-rational value choices, actors construct a mediating term, which I designate as "craft," to indicate the personal characteristics that enable technical success to take place in the "real" world of politics and ideology. "Craft" links person to technique.

Successes are conceptualized as representing something beyond technical competence alone; they testify to an adroit handling of various forces and stakeholders in international life, including donors and recipients, corporations and the media. International "craft," as a cultural operator, conjoins and confounds the domains of technicality and feeling by combining a high level of commitment to technical and rational excellence with the diplomatic and other personal skills required to relate this domain to persons enmeshed in value-laden domains. Persons and personality emerge, once again, as key mediators between opposing domains in a manner that defers, rather than resolves, problems that arise concerning how they are related. For this reason, it, too, is best thought of as an operator for pointing to (a) the problematic quality of the resolution, (b) the continuity of effort involved, and (c) the common problematization of relating thinking to feeling in "real world," yet transcendent, institutions.

Logic would seem to dictate that, when there are world problems, they require world solutions. But humanity, alas, is all too seldom governed by logic. It generally takes men some time to accept the realities of what needs to be done. And, although there have been some signs recently that the world has woken up to the fact that individual nation-states around the globe are inevitably being forced into conditions of greater dependence on one another, the necessary action, both national and international, to cope with the consequences has so far been much too slow in coming.

"Dedication," "know-how," "balance," "adaptability," "diplomacy" and "coordination" are among the terms that actors employ to present the cultural operation of international craft, to describe executive heads and to recognize themselves. These terms describe the personal qualities that are required to provide technical services at the international level, in a world which, by definition, is less than perfectly committed to rationality. The appeal to the personal locus as mediator between domains begs the question of the evaluative behaviors that necessarily inform technical works, and thus returns to the dilemma. This interpretive dilemma becomes evident to actors, as they admit to resorting, at times, to a certain "craftiness" in "selling" development projects or fabricating statistics to "put a saving face" on a development program. It becomes evident in critical reflection on the executive heads of their organizations, and on requirements on themselves. Narratives of actor craftiness plainly announce the subordination of technical and rational behaviors to value-choices, in an inversion of the conceptual ideal of international administration.

*Acknowledgments: Partial support of the research and writing of this paper was provided by grants from The Institute for Intercultural Studies and The National Science Foundation (Grant No. BNS.8615746).

The UN's International Civil Service Advisory Board also describes the purpose of geographical distribution in terms of the benefits of multiculturalism: "The Secretariat shall reflect and profit to the highest degree from assets of all the various cultures and the technical competence of all Member States". Weiss, ibid.

5. Ibid., p. 28.

6. James, op. cit., p. 54. See also Hill, op. cit., p. 202.

7. Hill, ibid.

13. White, op. cit., p. 7.

16. Ibid., p. 69.

18. Hill, op. cit., p.202.

20. See FAO, n.d. a) I [Standards of Conduct of the International Civil Service: A Guide for Staff Members of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations], n.p.

22. Jenks, ibid.

24. Jenks, loc. cit.; Ranshofen-Wertheimer, loc. cit.; A. Loveday, Reflections on International Administration (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956).

25. Ibid.

26. Ranshofen-Wertheimer, ibid., p. 10.

27. Loveday, loc. cit.

28. Ibid., p. 25.

29. Ibid., p. 3. (Emphasis added.)

30. Ibid.

31. Ibid., p. 105.

34. Article 100.

38. Ibid.

39. There do rise situations where UN staff are conscious of working as advocates for individuals and groups in ways that undermine the policies of governments within whose boundaries they reside. Galtung finds that a variety of philosophical orientations exists among the various UN organizations, and that such orientations depend largely on the coalition of governments responsible for their founding or controlling them. Thus, the UN system contains both "politically progressive" and "politically regressive" organizations. The political orientation of any given organization may have radical or even revolutionary implications for specific governments, for example, where "development" signifies altering the socio-economic structure of a society by enhancing the situation of a previously disenfranchised group. Even in these situations, then, an organization's advocacy serves the interests of its government constituents. Galtung, op. cit., (1986b).

41. Lie, op. cit., in Press, p. 53.

42. The UN's International Civil Service Advisory Board also describes the purpose of geograhical distribution in terms of the benefits of multiculturalism: "The Secretariat shall reflect and profit to the highest degree from assets of all the various cultures and the technical competence of all Member States," Weiss, op. cit., p. 57.

46. Galtung, loc. cit.

47. See Evens, 1985.

48. Van Wergenen, op. cit., pp. 12-13.

49. Ibid., p. 14.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid., p. 15.

52. Ibid., pp. 13-16.

53. Ibid., p. 16.

54. Galtung, loc. cit.

55. Ibid., p. 9.

56. Ibid., pp. 12-13.

60. Ibid., p. 10.

64. Ibid.

65. Ibid., p. 211.

66, Ranshofen-Wertheimer, op. cit., p. 35.

68. Ibid., [1961]; (1962), p. 336.

69. Ibid, (1945).

71. Ibid., p. 84.

72. Ranshofen-Wertheimer, op. cit., pp. 35-36.

73. Ibid., p. 144.

76. Ibid.