MADE UP OF FORMER CHIEFS OF STATE OF PERMANENT MEMBERS OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL
In Great Britain, former Prime Ministers are not infrequently made Life Lords, enabling the nation to benefit from their experience and wisdom. Similarly, the suggestion has from time to time been made that US Presidents should be made Senators for life in order that the American people might take advantage of their experience (and get something in return for their generous retirement pay and allowances).
As the UN takes on new importance in the post-Cold War era, sending peace keeping missions of "Blue Helmets" to troubled parts of the world, and with the Secretary General undertaking delicate negotiations between nations in conflict -- as well as with disaffected regions within nations -- much effort is being given to rethinking the UN's role and structure.
The UN has no true war-making capabilities. During the Korean event almost forty-five years ago, it depended on volunteer forces -- chiefly American, Canadian, British, and Australian. Were some, or all, of the CIS members admitted to NATO (as at least Russia has already requested), with NATO's role being expanded to permit it to serve as the peace-keeping arm of the UN, this need would largely be met. The casques bleus would be reinforced by an armed force capable of acting upon UN direction in future Persian Gulf crises, but still subject to NATO Council decision -- thus removing the risk of the volatile US General Assembly setting out to right wrongs unperceived by more stable states now in a minority among US voters.
In order to protect the initiative of the Secretary General however, insulating him not only from his politically determined senior staff and advisors, as well as the domination of the Security Council, it could be useful to provide him with an independent Kitchen Cabinet, not beholden to the Chiefs of State (or Prime Ministers) of the Security Council members, but made up of seasoned elder statesmen no longer subject to the whims of politics or voters, but still possessing access to the top political echelons and organs of public opinion of Security Council states.
Who better could fill such role than former Chiefs of State and/or Prime Ministers of the nations comprising the permanent membership of the Security Council?
The experience and wisdom of ex-Presidents Ford, Nixon, and Reagan, former British Prime Ministers Healy and Thatcher, former French President Giscard d'Estang, and ex-President Gorbachev could have enormous moral power in publically passing on their collective advice to the Secretary General.
It could, one assumes, be taken for granted that Secretary General Ghali would welcome advice from such eminent men, just as the governments of the member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) tacitly welcome the advice published in the Organization's annually published Economic Reviews because these tough and independent international reports provide moral support for taking measures which might be less than popular at home. Imagine how Ghali would welcome the advice of such wise heads as he faces the chaos now occuring in Bosnia.
It is probable that some, or most, of the six or eight former Chief Executives of the five Permanent Members of the Security, would not wish to approach such a calling as a full-time imposition on their time. But. it is believed, most would welcome such a high profile opportunity to keep their views before the world as crises arise -- as they are sure to do even in the post-Cold War world. And holding themselves available for an occasional caucus at times of international tension, or to serve as head of a special delegation (as with former US Secretary of State's Vance's recent Balkan mission) would capture the talents and resources of these seasoned statesmen for international benefit.
It may well be that they would welcome such a post, even if unremunerated -- though a modest stipend, perhaps of about the order of an average Fortune Five Hundred Board member's retainer, as a supplement to their national retirement, would probably be in order. Certainly nothing approaching the inflated full-time salary levels of senior full-time UN officials should be required.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |