There have been vigorous debates on international platforms and in argumentative writings by eminent scholars calling for reforms in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) since long. The issue is under discussion in the General Assembly for the last 25 years but any tangible results are yet to be seen. Membership, working method, and the veto are critical issues in the Council which are focus of the debate. When the UNSC was formed, it composed of eleven members and at the same time the total members of the United Nations Organization (UNO) were 51 in number. Today its membership is 15 while that of UNO has reached a figure of 193. In 1946 for every 4.6 countries there was one representative in the Security Council whereas now it comprises of one member for every 12.8 states. This is almost a three-fold difference which explains the desperate need for reforms. The UNSC should be expanded in accordance with the broadened membership of the UNO. The Council is the main executive organ and is responsible for maintenance of international peace and security and on this account it must represent the whole world in true sense. The African continent and Muslim countries have legitimate grievances regarding their representation on the top body of the UN. The Group of Four (G-4) Brazil, Germany, Japan, and India are collectively striving for permanent membership. While the African Group asks for two permanent members from their continent. Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa, along with some other countries, are the chief competitors for those seats. But such expansion of the Council would result in things going from bad to worse. Even the current permanent membership of the five powers is contested and is considered against the UN Charter which says that the Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members. Many of the P-5 members have already shown concurrence to the demand of increasing permanent membership although without conferring the power to veto. But the demanding countries are not willing to surrender this privilege. Pakistan, Italy, Argentina, and Mexico lead a UN group called ‘Uniting for Consensus’ (UfC), also known as Coffee Club, which has been mounting an effective opposition righteously to the inclusion of new permanent members. Reforming the UNSC is inevitable; this fact is acknowledged by almost all members The veto power proved a stumbling block to resolution of many issues which threatened international peace. The fact that Russia used this right 80 times from 1946 to 1955 speaks volume that it is a serious handicap of the Council. It is also to be blamed for the issues of Kashmir and Palestine which are still unresolved because of its frequent use and as a result regional peace in the Gulf and South Asia hang by a thread for the last 70 years. The right of veto has been more of a bane than a boon for weak states around the globe. The geopolitical landscape of the world has been changed significantly since foundation of the UN which warrants reforms in the Security Council. While doing so no other permanent member should be added as it would create new centers of privileges which flagrantly clashes with principles of the UN. New seats should be distributed justly among geographic regions of the world with special focus on Muslim countries, Africa, and Latin America. The working procedure must also be made feasible so that issues which endanger world’s peace are dealt smoothly. What if the members of the Council work in their own capacity and don’t represent their respective governments on the Council. In such turn of events they wouldn’t be under pressure from their own regimes while negotiating, passing resolutions, etc. and, thus, would be able to work with great ease and deep concern for international issues. The veto powers must be put screws on to renounce their prerogative in order to create parity among nations. The very foundation of this privilege was laid on a surreptitious agreement in Yalta Conference of 1945 in which it was decided upon that the permanent members of UN would have the power to block any unwanted decision in the Council. So, it has also ethical and moral shortcomings. But as they have adopted a principled stance for retaining of the present veto structure, therefore, only restrictions can be put on veto power for the time being. Such as, a limit can be placed on passing consecutive vetoes on different matters by the same member, to block a decision at least two non-permanent members should be required for a veto power to be on its side and so forth. Reforming the UNSC is inevitable; this fact is almost acknowledged by all members unanimously. The only hindrance to the process is the global power politics removing which will require a coalition of world civil society and ordinary citizens to orchestrate a fierce campaign against “elite few” which are responsible for slow pace of the reform process. The writer can be reached at SirajShawa@gmail.com and Tweets at @SrjShawa Published in Daily Times, May 2nd 2018.