“Most of the dreadful situations in the world we hear and read about in these days were not intended. They were not planned. No one wanted it that way. Nearly always the developing disasters and mounting dangers were due not to bad intentions, not even to miscalculations: They were the consequences of failing to take effective action when there was still time.”

Those wise words were spoken many years ago by Lord Hugh Caradon, the Father of UN Resolution 242, which he piloted through the Security Council in the wake of the 1967 “Six Days’ War”.

In 2005 who is supposed to take the appropriate international action when there is still time? President Bush? UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan? President Putin? Prime Minister Blair? Certainly my answer is that all these figures may have a role to play, but it is the Security Council of the United Nations that is really responsible. The 191 members of the General Assembly, the UN Parliament, have delegated day-to-day executive responsibility to the Security Council.

Today we have a problem. Kofi Annan has great enthusiasm for enlarging the Security Council. That enthusiasm is rightly shared within the General Assembly. But carefully considered plans, put forward by a high-powered UN committee, to expand the Security Council have got bogged down. Vital international diplomacy is in danger of being paralyzed.

When the UN was created in 1945 it was very properly agreed that the victorious World War II Allies — the main centers of power — should be given permanent seats on the council. The need now is to add to the council in a manner that will reflect the changed realities of military and economic power. In the process it is hoped to attract greater financial support for the work of the UN by promoting some of the richer nations.

We should not be surprised that even after years of international discussion there is precious little agreement when it comes to deciding which countries should be elevated to the council. An individual country that gives general support to the idea of expansion gets very cross indeed when it learns some of the names of the countries being put forward for advancement. Ancient and bitter rivalries come into play; tempers rise and angry and undiplomatic words are exchanged.

Which countries do you and I think should now enter the Security Council? Germany would seem an obvious choice — but should the EU be allowed to have three members? Neither the United Kingdom nor France wishes to come off. The United States has failed notably to support Germany’s bid, as have Italy and Spain. Japan — an excellent choice? But China strongly rejects any such idea. There have been demonstrations and protests in China over what is seen as Japan’s failure to confront Japan’s wartime record.

We can play on. India and Brazil have good claims. But you can guess the reaction of Pakistan, India’s old foe, and Argentina regards itself as a long-standing rival to Brazil. South Africa and Nigeria have been regularly mentioned as likely choices to represent the vast African continent. Kenya does not agree.

Should Egypt represent the Middle East and the Islamic countries? While I was the director of British-Arab Council in London several Arab diplomats suggested to me that would be unacceptable to the government they represented.

Four countries have come together in the UN to carry the debate forward: Germany, Japan, India and Brazil. Calling themselves the Group of Four, they want the Security Council, which has at present fifteen members, to be increased by another ten, six permanent and four nonpermanent. The Group of Four, plus two African countries would take up the permanent seats and the four nonpermanent would be up for grabs. Troubled by the opposition they have encountered, the Group of Four, have, rather sensibly in my view, offered to forgo crucial veto rights for fifteen years. It would mean having two tiers of permanent members but the group needs to increase its support. London and Paris back the plans of the Group of Four but other permanent members do not and they have the power to block any suggested reform.

In three months time world leaders are due to gather in New York to give their blessing to proposed reform. 2005 is perceived as a rare opportunity to make progress on reconciling the old structures of the UN to the new global realities post the 2001 attack on New York’s World Trade Center and recent events in Afghanistan and Iraq.

To expand the Security Council potential new members must gain the votes of two thirds of the UN’s membership; or at least 128 nations. A number of countries are determined to stop that happening. Much is at stake and it is too close to call.