It is acknowledged by members of the United Nations that changes must be made to the organisation. Over the years it has become cumbersome, expensive to run and questionable on whether it gives value for money.
Perhaps at times it is its own worst enemy, showing a side that is unwieldy and slow in arriving at decisions. But then that side, usually, is the Security Council, which tends to receive most publicity in trying to resolve various conflicts around the world. Supporters of the UN say: If not the UN, then what?
It has been argued for many years that the make-up of the Security Council does not adequately represent the global standing nations now have.
The veto-wielding powers - the US, the UK, China, Russia and France - were the "victors" of the Second World War and when the League of Nations collapsed, only to resurface as the United Nations, it was decided by them that they would be "first among equals" and have greater powers than other members of the Security Council.
Besides each of the "top five" having a veto - only one veto needed to defeat a resolution - they would also be permanent members of the Council, the other members rotating on a specified term.
Several different proposals for change in the constitution have been sent to the UN, the latest coming jointly from Cyprus and Germany.
But their submission will surely raise more objections as it wants to expand the size of the Security Council, and include another European nation as a permanent member, thereby contributing to the existing imbalance.
There are many ways in which the problems can be solved, but as a democratic body the Security Council should represent all nations equally, with majority decisions binding and no veto. Anything else makes a mockery of their alleged claim to being a democratic institution.
