“the United Nations was not created in order to bring us to heaven, but in order to save us from hell.”
Dag Hammarskjöld included this formulation in an address at the University of California, Berkeley, on May 13, 1954. The displayed quotation is the central clause of a longer sentence that he introduced as something already said, rather than as an idea he claimed to have invented. As the United Nations’ second Secretary-General, he used it to describe the organization’s essential role and the attitude its supporters should bring to it. The verified wording comes from the original UN press release. Its emphasis is practical: an international institution can have a vital purpose even when it cannot produce an ideal world.
This is a useful distinction in political judgment because institutions are often evaluated against incompatible expectations. An organization may be dismissed for failing to eliminate every conflict, then criticized when it seeks authority to intervene in one. Hammarskjöld’s formulation asks readers to begin with a more precise question: what dangers is the institution intended to reduce, and what can it realistically do within the powers available to it? That question does not excuse poor performance. It makes performance easier to assess by identifying the task, the resources, and the constraints, rather than measuring every result against an unlimited promise of universal harmony.
Prevention presents another difficulty: its benefits can be hard to observe. A negotiation that averts escalation may leave fewer dramatic signs than a crisis that reaches catastrophe. The absence of disaster does not, by itself, prove that an institution caused the better outcome, but neither does the absence of spectacle prove that its work was useless. Responsible evaluation therefore needs evidence about decisions, alternatives, and the course of events. The quotation encourages this patient scrutiny. It directs attention to the difference between achieving perfection and reducing exposure to a grave harm, while preserving the need to establish that a particular effort actually helped.
The line’s modest ambition can support demanding standards. If an institution exists to prevent catastrophe, failures of prevention deserve serious explanation. Supporters should ask how its arrangements might be improved, and critics should consider what would perform the same necessary tasks if those arrangements disappeared. Both questions move debate beyond loyalty or contempt toward an examination of practical responsibility. Hammarskjöld’s words remain relevant to collective institutions because they make limitation and purpose visible at the same time. A body need not offer salvation to merit support. It must show that its work helps people confront dangers they could not address as effectively alone, and that it remains accountable for how it uses the authority entrusted to it.
Hammarskjöld used the formulation in his Berkeley address of May 13, 1954, preserved in UN press release SG/382.
The displayed words are an exact excerpt. His introductory wording acknowledged an existing saying; he did not claim to have coined it.
The contrast explains the UN through the practical prevention of disaster rather than a promise of universal perfection.
Recognizing institutional limits does not justify ignoring failures. It helps identify the work an institution should be judged on.
Prevention should be evaluated through evidence about risks, actions, and alternatives, including benefits that leave few visible traces.
The quotation invites a realistic comparison between collective institutions and the arrangements that would otherwise carry their responsibilities.
Explore more "Quotes of The Day"
Discover more notable quotes from influential voices across politics, science, business, technology, sports, and culture. Each quote offers insight into how ideas, beliefs, and decisions shape the world around us.