Amendments to the United Nations Charter
Because Charter amendments require the consent of all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—defined in Article 23 of the Charter as "The Republic of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States"—it is impossible for other UN member states to force the permanent five to give up their Security Council 'veto power', by means of a Charter amendment. Many reformers have described this situation as a Catch-22. According to Global Policy Forum, "the P-5 are content with the present arrangements and oppose any changes that might dilute or challenge their power or expand their 'club.' China has already announced it will block permanent membership for Japan, and the United States has suggested that it will only support Council reform that commands an implausibly 'broad consensus'".
Reform of the United Nations Security Council
With the enlargement of the United Nations membership and increasing self-confidence among the new members, going hand in hand with processes of decolonization, old structures and procedures were increasingly challenged. The imbalance between the number of seats in the Security Council and the total number of member States became evident, and the only significant reform of the Security Council occurred in 1965: this included an increase in the non-permanent membership from six to 10 members. With Boutros Boutros-Ghali elected as Secretary-General in 1992, the reform discussions of the UN Security Council were launched again as he started his new term with the first-ever summit of the Security Council and then published "An Agenda for Peace". His motivation was to restructure the composition and arguably anachronistic procedures of the UN organ to recognize the changed world. In the twenty-first century, the mismatch between the structure of the UN Security Council and the global reality the former is supposed to reflect became even more glaring. So much so that demands were raised by many politicians, diplomats and scholars to reform the Council at the earliest so that it reflects the reality of the present times and not the time of its establishment. For example, Indian scholar of diplomacy Rejaul Karim Laskar argues, "for the continued existence and relevance of the UN, it is necessary to ensure that it represents as nearly as possible the reality of the power equation of the twenty-first century world".