2021.09.16 达格-哈马舍尔德的神秘死亡是谋杀吗？

shiyi18

The Economist explains
Was the mysterious death of Dag Hammarskjold murder?
Sixty years later, the fate of the UN’s second secretary-general remains contentious

Sep 16th 2021

Save

Share

Give
THE LAST CONTACT between the radio tower at Ndola, in what was then Northern Rhodesia, and the Albertina was at ten minutes past midnight on September 18th, 1961. The plane’s flaps were down, ready to land. Then silence. The search didn’t begin for ten hours. Five more passed before the authorities arrived at the crash site. Beneath the decapitated trees lay the wreckage of the DC-6, and nearby was the body of Dag Hammarskjold, the secretary-general of the United Nations. Compared with the charred bodies found among the wreckage it was oddly untouched. A playing card, the ace of spades, was in his collar.

Hammarskjold’s death shocked the world. A whip-smart statesman renowned for his ability to solve problems, he would always carry the organisation’s charter on his person. When his plane crashed in what is now Zambia, he was on his way to negotiate a ceasefire between Congo and the secessionist region of Katanga.


The crash is one of the great mysteries of the cold war. It remains contentious for two reasons. One is the lack of evidence. Only 20% of the plane was intact enough to be examined, initial investigations were flawed (some said they were deliberately botched) and many of those who might know something about what happened have kept schtum for personal or political reasons.

The other is the abundance of enemies Hammarskjold had made. Congo was a hotspot in the cold war, teeming with agents from America, Britain, the Soviet Union and West Germany. The country had immense mineral wealth, much of it concentrated in Katanga, including uranium, vital for the development of nuclear weapons. The UN had backed Congo, angering the Katangese and their ally, the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Britain in theory supported the UN, but it would have suited British interests if Katanga had joined the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. America worried that the UN’s actions in Africa would hand the Soviet Union dominance over the continent. And the Soviet Union thought Hammarskjold a Western stooge. After the crash, Harry Truman, a former American president, coyly remarked that “they killed him”. “They”, it seems, could have been almost anyone.

Ignoring more outlandish explanations, three theories remain. The crash could have been a tragic accident. Rhodesia’s initial inquest found that the Albertina’s pilot erred, flying the plane into the ground. A UN report in 1962 left the verdict open, but thought it most probable that landing charts had caused the pilot to crash. But these explanations have holes. Though accidents do happen, the pilot was experienced and such a landing would have been routine. And several eyewitnesses reported lights in the sky around the plane, and that it caught fire before crashing.


The Albertina had been left unattended for a time before it picked up Hammarskjold. A bomb could have been planted or a stowaway could have climbed aboard, either to hijack the plane or to crash it. But a bomb designed to go off just before landing would have been expensive and technically challenging. No hard evidence of one exists. A stowaway is also unlikely—no extra body was recovered.

The third explanation is that another plane flew near the Albertina as it tried to land, either deliberately or accidentally, causing it to crash, either by forcing it to take evasive action or by downing it with warning shots. This would explain the eyewitness accounts, as well as tidbits other theories struggle with. In 2015 the UN reopened its investigation. Its first report found this explanation “plausible” and suggested that the governments involved ought to prove that they had made exhaustive checks of their records. It will report again in 2022.

When Hammarskjold died, this newspaper asked if the death of the UN would follow. That was overly pessimistic. Last year, 75 years after its founding, the UN renewed its commitment to the charter that Hammarskjold took everywhere. Yet the institution’s future is uncertain. As for what happened to Hammarskjold, the truth may never emerge. Memories fade, many involved are dead and governments continue to ignore requests to open their archives.




经济学人》解释说
达格-哈马舍尔德的神秘死亡是谋杀吗？
60年后，联合国第二任秘书长的命运仍有争议

2021年9月16日



1961年9月18日午夜10点，位于当时北罗得西亚的恩多拉无线电塔与阿尔贝蒂娜号之间的最后一次联系。飞机的襟翼已经放下，准备降落。然后是一片寂静。搜索在十个小时后才开始。又过了五个小时，当局才赶到坠机地点。在被斩断的树木下，躺着DC-6的残骸，附近是联合国秘书长达格-哈马舍尔德的尸体。与在残骸中发现的烧焦的尸体相比，它奇怪地没有受到任何影响。一张扑克牌，黑桃A，在他的衣领里。

哈马舍尔德的死震惊了世界。他是一位聪明的政治家，以其解决问题的能力而闻名，他总是随身携带该组织的宪章。当他的飞机在现在的赞比亚坠毁时，他正在去谈判刚果和加丹加分离主义地区的停火协议的路上。


坠机事件是冷战时期的一个大谜团。由于两个原因，它仍然是有争议的。一个是缺乏证据。只有20%的飞机完好无损，可以进行检查，最初的调查是有缺陷的（有人说是故意搞砸的），许多可能知道一些事情的人由于个人或政治原因保持沉默。

另一个原因是，哈马舍尔德树敌甚多。刚果是冷战时期的一个热点，充斥着美国、英国、苏联和西德的特工。该国拥有巨大的矿产资源，其中大部分集中在加丹加，包括对发展核武器至关重要的铀。联合国支持刚果，激怒了加丹加人和他们的盟友罗得西亚和尼亚萨兰联邦。英国在理论上支持联合国，但如果加丹加加入罗得西亚和尼亚萨兰联邦，将符合英国的利益。美国担心联合国在非洲的行动会使苏联获得对非洲大陆的主导权。而苏联认为哈马舍尔德是西方的走狗。坠机后，美国前总统哈里-杜鲁门腼腆地表示，"他们杀了他"。"他们"，似乎几乎可以是任何人。

忽略更多离奇的解释，剩下三种理论。坠机可能是一场悲惨的事故。罗得西亚的初步调查发现，阿尔贝蒂娜号的飞行员犯了错误，把飞机开进了地面。1962年的一份联合国报告对判决结果持开放态度，但认为最有可能的是着陆图导致飞行员坠机。但这些解释都有漏洞。虽然事故确实发生了，但飞行员经验丰富，这样的着陆本来就是常规。一些目击者报告说，飞机周围的天空中出现了灯光，而且飞机在坠毁前起了火。


阿尔贝蒂娜号在接走哈马舍尔德之前，曾有一段时间无人看管。炸弹可能被安放，或者偷渡者可能爬上飞机，要么是为了劫持飞机，要么是为了坠机。但是，设计成在着陆前爆炸的炸弹将是昂贵的，而且在技术上具有挑战性。没有确凿的证据。偷渡者也是不可能的--没有找到多余的尸体。

第三种解释是，另一架飞机在阿尔贝蒂娜号试图降落时，有意或无意地飞近它，迫使它采取规避行动或鸣枪警告，导致它坠毁。这可以解释目击者的说法，以及其他理论所纠结的花絮。2015年，联合国重新开始了调查。它的第一份报告认为这种解释是 "合理的"，并建议有关政府应该证明他们已经对其记录进行了详尽的检查。它将在2022年再次报告。

哈马舍尔德去世时，本报问道，联合国是否也会随之死亡。那是过于悲观了。去年，在其成立75年后，联合国重申了其对哈马舍尔德在各地采取的宪章的承诺。然而，该机构的未来是不确定的。至于哈马舍尔德的遭遇，真相可能永远不会出现。记忆在消逝，许多参与其中的人已经去世，各国政府继续无视开放其档案的要求。