It must be representative in the sense that its members between them must represent, in a broad sense, the chief cultures and traditions of the world. They must not all be European, or all Asian, or all American, or all African, but must exemplify the best of each of these, so as to be a living symbol of "the equality of peoples" which, as has already been emphasized, is one of the great distinguishing marks of the present age, as compared with the period of the League of Nations.
That they must have experience of public life on the international level need hardly be added. Had they not earned their spurs in this field their names would never have come into question for this more responsible work. But it is not enough for them individually to have wide experience and tested judgment. They must have given proof of possessing the gift, or art, of social co-operation and of being proficient in practicing this on the international level. This is not only a high intellectual qualification; it is also a moral qualification. A man may be a genius, yet unable to function in a team. Anyone with experience of the international environment knows this. Clever men were always more plentiful at Geneva than good men; and it would be strange if the same were not true in the new international society in New York. This is not to say that the members of the United Nations Executive should be saints. This would be too much to ask. But the more saintliness there is in their joint composition, the better it will be for their work and for the world. And does not the word "saint" spring to the lips in connection with some, at least, of the members of the Combined Chiefs of Staff dealt with in an earlier chapter?
IN the preceding chapters we have tried to make it clear that the principal defect of the present organization of the United Nations,