India proposes UN reform.

[jmsepe 2,039]

My god, it would have been better if resolutions in UNSC would only push through if approved by the general assembly. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

We are lucky that that UN is not the League of Nations of which the U.S.A. was not a member.  The old league lacked the "big stick" and some backbone that would have been supplied by the U.S. which, at the time, was undergoing a period of isolationism.  If Haile Selassie's plea before the League had been successful, Mussolini would have had his head handed to him.  Much would have changed, and perhaps the German dictator might have paused before starting the destruction of his country.

 

However, the world has changed since 1945.  The permanent members of the UNSC are not the ones who were there then.  We have a new member (Russia) in place of the USSR, a different China, a different UK.  Only the U.S. and France can claim continuity, but even that is doubtful.  India, with a billion people, should be there.  Their presence needs to be balanced.  By whom is a good question.  The number of permanent members should be an odd number to prevent even deadlocks, and the veto power should be eliminated.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Again, the veto power prevents wars, especially the ones that have the capability to escalate in a full on third World War. The rules as they are still allow a high degree of flexibility when it comes to waging war (again I direct you to the collective self defense clause).