There’s renewed momentum for expanding the permanent membership in the Council; the makeup of which dates from the UN’s founding; Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States. The permanent five became both the victors and arbiters of the post-war era. Their veto powers allows this tightly knit club the option to halt or hinder resolutions on issues ranging from Iran’s nuclear program, to Darfur, North Korea and a host of peacekeeping operations.

The logic of expansion at first appears starkly simple. Though non-permanent membership was expanded to ten in 1963, it’s a fact that the current fifteen-member council represents eight percent of the total UN membership of 192. While few delegates will dispute that the world reflected by the original Council makeup has vastly changed, any enlargement transforming this key peace and security enforcement organ from its post-war political blueprint to a more representative body reflecting the world of the 21st century, will have to be threaded through the miniscule needle of national interests.

After three days of windy speeches in the General Assembly about the need for enlargement, little was achieved. Assembly President Srgjan Kerim of Macedonia, urged delegations to approve a “comprehensive reform” and pleaded to states “to continue the process with the intention of achieving results oriented solutions.”

American Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad put forth the thesis, “The United States recognizes that the world has changed—requiring the United Nations, including the Security Council, to adapt. The changed world suggests that the modernization of the Security Council and the greater UN system is both appropriate and timely.”

The British delegate brought the substance “The United Kingdom seeks a Security Council that is more representative of today’s world…to that end, we support permanent membership for Germany, Japan, India and Brazil and permanent representation from Africa.” Ambassador added, “We are not wedded to a single model.”

Mainland China’s delegate offered a challenge saying that while his country supported “necessary and reasonable reform” of the Security Council, Beijing would not back any formula which does not address the concerns of Africa. He stressed, “This is one of the fundamental principles of China regarding Security Council reform.” Clearly the PRC will use its geopolitical clout to influence its African allies and at the same time champion their cause.

A few years ago the so-called G-4 namely Brazil, Germany, India and Japan made a unified pitch for permanent Council membership. While this “club of the self-selected” has merit, not all UN members quite see it that way.

For example, Portuguese-speaking Brazil has always played the political heavy, but on a Spanish speaking continent Argentina feels its political divine right to represent the region. Cash-rich Venezuela has the capacity to play political hardball and make mischief. A compromise would likely see Chile or Uruguay representing Latin America. Equally India with its acknowledged political peerage in the UN, would not be acceptable to neighboring Muslim Pakistan or Indonesia for that matter.

Germany likewise seeks a permanent place at the Security Council table. As a major UN financial donor and key player in the international aid community Germany has much to offer. Though the first Bush Administration and both Clinton Administrations backed Germany and Japan for Permanent membership, Washington had distinctly cooled towards Berlin given the political peregrinations of former socialist Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder’s policies towards the Iraq war.

Germany’s Ambassador Thomas Matussek admitted candidly, “The aim is a more legitimate Council. What we want is not just a larger Council. What we want is a different Council, one that will be more legitimate, more transparent, more representative, more effective, and more reflective of today’s political realities.”

Japan’s role is equally problematic. While the United States endorsed Tokyo’s case in the current debate, and Japan’s Ambassador Yukio Takasu reaffirmed his government’s desire to pursue UN Security Council reform and permanent membership in the Council, there’s quiet animosity towards Tokyo’s candidature among many East Asian states, most notably the People’s Republic of China and South Korea.

The discussions have probably just begun.