Border wars such as Israel and Palestine can occur even with a properly functioning UN Security Council. But borders wars are less likely to start or continue in a world with a properly functioning Security Council. This is because the UN Security Council was designed for and has an international mandate to keep the peace, as far as is practicable, between warring neighbors. Unfortunately, the Security Council is not functioning properly at all at the moment, and here is why: It is because its permanent members, who have a right of veto over any action being taken by the UN, see this veto power as a legitimate political tool that they can use to manipulate political crises to suit their own agenda. It happened in 2002 with the United States gazumping the wishes of the UN in relation to Iraq, and it is happening now with Russia in relation to Ukraine. That the veto power is being used as a political tool is admitted by Russia's own foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov. The major political powers of the world do not 'mike drop' over this confession, or the problem. This is because it highlights the weakness of a process that also keeps themselves in power. They don't want to lose the current structure. So, instead of reviewing the mechanisms of the Security Council, they support calls for the recruiting of additional permanent members to the Security Council, such as India and the African Union, to bolster its legitimacy. But this will not work. The legitimacy of the Security Council is not threatened by its lack of diversity. It is threatened by its dysfunctionality. Ideally, therefore, this is a time for removal and replacement of the UN Security Council, not repair. But wait. "Good luck!", I hear you say. "There is no way the permanent members will agree to cede power to a new and more democratic body." And you would be right. "And, anyway, what would you replace it with?", I hear you say. And you would also be right. I accept your points. In the circumstances, I say this: you do the next best thing to replacing it. That is, as follows: Go ahead and add the new members, but also change the veto rule to 25%. That is, change the number of permanent members needed to veto an action of the UN to a quarter of their number. Not just one of them. The Security Council was developed in 1945 to protect us all. Its charter contains a promise that its framework is to be reviewed every 10 years. A review of the Security Council mechanisms is way overdue. At the moment, the power of the veto can be and is being exercised by a single leader of a single eastern European country who represents a tiny percentage of the world population, and so the world sings to his tune. This is absolute bollocks. We all, permanent member and non permanent member citizens, need to demand change. The most realistic change is that: to have effect, a veto vote must be by at least 25% of permanent members, no matter how many there are. Thank you for taking the time to read.