ABSTRACT
United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reform has proven as difficult as it is necessary. Contrary to conventional wisdom, however, the problem is not the permanent-five members’ (P5’s) veto power. While the veto does seem unjust and undemocratic, it is essential for keeping great powers supportive of the UN. Perhaps the only reason the United States has not left the UN is that the veto is a powerful weapon that it would hate to lose. The real flaw in the P5 is rather its composition. To remain credible, effective and legitimate, the P5, which dominate and run the council, should constitute the great powers of today. Instead, the body includes two members, the United Kingdom and France, that are no longer ranking great powers. London and Paris implicitly recognise this reality, as they have not used their vetoes since 1989. Furthermore, the Security Council excludes one obvious contemporary great power, India. Martin Wolf, the influential Financial Times columnist, observed in 2009 that ‘within a decade a world in which the UK is on the United Nations Security Council and India is not will seem beyond laughable’. 1 Also conspicuously left out are Brazil and Nigeria, the most populous states in Latin America and Africa, respectively.
