The United Nations was founded in the wake of two world wars and at the precipice of the Cold War. Its design, organs, and daily operation reflect the balance of power and the international structures of that time. However, since the UN was founded in 1945, the number of political actors –both states and international organizations – has increased exponentially. The original UN charter was signed by only 51 countries. Now, there are 193 members of the UN and more than two dozen organizations with observer status.

The credibility, legitimacy and the ability of the UN to act rest largely on its ability to adapt to the realities of the 21st century. This responsibility rests largely on the will of the member states to bring about change. The UN reform is endlessly discussed, but there is sharp disagreement on what kind of reform is needed and for what purpose. Foundations, think tanks and blue ribbon commissions regularly call for institutional renovation.  Secretary Generals trumpet their reform initiatives. NGOs make earnest proposals.  And from Washington come somber warnings that the UN must "reform or die.” The UN is now a management nightmare that too often fails to achieve the purposes of its creation. UN reform is not a politically neutral. Bids for power and privilege lurk in every proposal.  Many experts would like to see a stronger and more effective multilateral organization, but the mightiest governments are usually opposed to a robust institution, and they often use their power to block change.

The UN Security Council is made up of five permanent member states and 10 non-permanent members a constellation that reflects the 1945 creation and 1966 expansion. Many of today’s major world players and most populous regions are not represented, nor are nations which make some of the largest contributions to the UN System. This lack of representation leads the Security Council to run the risk of losing its authority.