This idea is to overhaul the UN Security Council veto system by increasing the number of countries required to 'veto', or block, a resolution, that is otherwise agreed to by all other countries, from just one member to 25% of the members of the Security Council. Here are my reasons for this proposal, and explanations for how it could be done: 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 these days and this is because its permanent members use their veto power as a political tool to manipulate political crises to suit their own agenda. It happened in 2002 with the United States in relation to Iraq, and it happened in the last year with Russia in relation to Ukraine. It is happening new with the US vetoing a demand for a ceasefire in Gaza. That the veto power is used by permanent members as a political tool is even admitted by Russia's own foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov. What happened to the objects of the UN - to preserve peace? Other major political powers of the world do not hold the superpowers to account over this abuse, because they align with one or the other of them. Nobody even challenges the system because the veto power extends to changing the UN Charter. So nobody bothers. And so children are bombed and the world loses - all because we have weak political processes that nobody demands to change. The most that the current permanent members offer, in terms of reform to the system that they dominate, is to recruit additional permanent members to the Security Council, such as India and the African Union, to bolster its legitimacy. That will not work. The legitimacy of the Security Council is not threatened by its lack of diversity. It is threatened by its dysfunctionality. With or without more members, what is needed is a change to the veto rule, I suggest by introducing a 25% requirement for there to be a veto. That is, change the number of permanent (and maybe non permanent) members needed to veto an action of the UN to a quarter of their number, to block any vote that is otherwise thought essential by the rest of the world. Not just one of them, or even just two of them. If the vast majority of the world wants the UN to take an action, then it should happen. Lives are at stake. The Security Council was developed in 1945 to protect us all. Its charter contains a promise that its framework was to be reviewed every 10 years. It is on that basis that the world signed on. A review of the Security Council mechanisms is now way overdue. At the moment, the power of the veto can be being exercised by a single leader of a single country who represents a tiny percentage of the world population. Some of them will even tell you that they are happy to use it as a political tool to suit their own interests. Accepting that the Security Council won't be replaced - at least, in a hurry - there needs to be urgent maintenance and repair to the Security Council, in addition to any proposed expansion. Global citizens of all countries need to demand that for a veto of any resolution to have effect, 25% of permanent (or all) members need to vote for it, no matter how many there are. Not just one. If you agree, you can start the movement for this reform by voting for it here: