Expansion of the UN Security Council?

The UN Security Council is often the subject of intense criticism - from accusations of unfair representation to ineffectiveness to slowness. Expansion of the UN Security will exacerbate this problem, not solve it.

The problem with the current UN Security Council stems from its structural problems - the power to veto. By expanding this to include more permanent members, it means more vetoes and more inaction. Therefore, we do not solve problems on the efficiency front.

Neither do we make it more representative. Presumably, nations like India, Brazil and Japan will be the first to be added the council. This manifests two problems. Firstly, nations will undoubtedly represent their own self-interests as opposed to their continent. Secondly, it will increase agitation and tensions on those countries who are not given permanent seats. Pakistan will be furious about India representing Asia on the council and the same can be said for Mexico and Argentina about Brazil. Thus, far from improving representation, we are harming it.

Besides, even if expansion were to improve representation, that does not enhance the security council. The purpose of the council is to maintain world peace. The reason why USA, China, Russia, UK and France hold permanent seats is because they possess unparalleled military might. If the UN had intervened in Georgia, Russia would have undoubtedly sparked a bitter war. But, the fact that they could veto the UN's involvement meant that the war happened in the boardroom - not the battlefield.

The veto is a necessary evil. Expansion of the UN security council would be, on the other hand, an unecessary evil; it will not become more representative nor efficient.