Does this article discuss how they would get around the fact that the UN Charter prohibits permanent members of the Security Council from holding the position of Secretary General?
This link is from Post 51:
http://www.unsg.org/role.html
Post 51 -- In addition, informal rules often influence the selection process. The best known is that nationals of permanent members of the Security Council - China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom or the United States - cannot be considered for the post, as such would invest an unwise amount of leverage over international decisions in one government, notwithstanding the statutory independence of the office.
Less commonly known, and perhaps more questionable, is the informal requirement that candidates for UNSG must be fluent in English and French, which while the dominant languages of international relations, are only two of the UN's six official languages.
snip
Article 97
The Secretariat shall comprise a Secretary-General and such staff as the Organization may require. The Secretary-General shall be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. He shall be the chief administrative officer of the Organization.
Article 99
The Secretary-General may bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security.
Article 100
1. In the performance of their duties the Secretary-General and the staff shall not seek or receive instructions from any government or from any other authority external to the Organization. They shall refrain from any action which might reflect on their position as international officials responsible only to the Organization.
2. Each Member of the United Nations undertakes to respect the exclusively international character of the responsibilities of the Secretary-General and the staff and not to seek to influence them in the discharge of their responsibilities.
Apparently that was in error...it is a resolution based on an "understanding" that permanent members are not considered for that office...so I guess it could easily be set aside if all were in agreement against a veto.
This is quite a nightmare scenario and more possible than I had feared. Yikes.