Exactly which African nations are they referring to? Egypt or Nigeria? Not under these circumstances. South Africa? I'm fairly sure that U.S enthusiasm for South Africa ended with the Mandela era and the past few years hasn't done anything to increase it. I suppose you could increase the number of non-permanent seats allocated to Africa but that seems like a small step for Africa.

The permanent members represent diverse enough interests, with Russia and China there acting as nominal checks on "the West".

Expanding the Security Council will defeat it's purpose, which is to be a (relatively) quick acting body. On transparency, increased formal transparency will just push the US & GB to use informal backroom secret meetings. No doubt it happens now, but it could worsen.

This is a reform that could have unintended consequences.

Contrary to what Mr. Bosco says, more than two third of UN General Assembly members will support UN General Assembly resolution by BIGJ (Brazil, India, Germany, Japan) to expand UNSC. There are always opponents in a democracy as Mr. Bosco knows.

It is three out of five veto-wielding Brahmins of UNSC (China being the leader of them) that will stop any reform in its tracks because such an expansion will dilute their power to dictate UN agenda.

If even two UNSC Brahmins i.e. Britain and France have a will to support such an expansion, they can do it by forcing other two Brahmins to support UNSC expansion and threatening to prevent any other UNSC business until the two opposing Brahmins i.e. China and US support the UNSC expansion demanded by BIGJ.

Contrary to what Mr. Bosco says, more than two third of UN General Assembly members will support UN General Assembly resolution by BIGJ (Brazil, India, Germany, Japan) to expand UNSC. There are always opponents in a democracy as Mr. Bosco knows.

It is three out of five veto-wielding Brahmins of UNSC (China being the leader of them) that will stop any reform in its tracks because such an expansion will dilute their power to dictate UN agenda.

If even two UNSC Brahmins i.e. Britain and France have a will to support such an expansion, they can do it by forcing other three Brahmins to support UNSC expansion and threatening to prevent any other UNSC business until the three opposing Brahmins i.e. China, Russia and US support the UNSC expansion demanded by BIGJ.

A country representing 1,200 million people should certainly have a seat on the Security Council.

Germany is problematic, as that would give the EU nations 3 seats. They should retain the current 2 and perhaps alternate them amongst the four largest European nations -- Germany, France, the UK and Italy.

Although the G-4 have strong claims to permanent seats on the UNSC, the fact of the matter that no P-5 member will willingly share the veto. I see India and Brazil possibly having the best chance of gaining permanent (but non-veto wielding) seats in some expansion of the UNSC (either to 21 with a revision of the number of affirmatives needed or possibly 25), but Japan will be blocked by China for the foreseeable future.

Germany is a special problem: as the most powerful economy in Europe and the fact that it has attempted to show what a nice country it is since WWII, Germany should at least have a shot. However, there is simply no way that the world community will give Europe a 3rd permanent seat. The solution (which won't happen, sadly) would be to give the EU a permanent non-veto seat. This would allow Germany to directly influence without overtly giving the UNSC a seat.

unless the weight if a nation's or a group of nations' votes reflect population size to a more meaninful way.

The Times's article is particularly interesting because it is an Indian publication discussing China's opposition to UNSC expansion in any meaningful capacity, referring to China as a "guardian angel for the opposers."

The prospect of China accepting a permanent seat -- or even an expansion of the "non-permanent categories of membership," flatly, does not exist. India is by a very real margin China's primary competition as it seeks hegemony in Southeast Asia and beyond, and the border tension between the two are so palpable you could cut it with a dull knife. Attempts to win a seat for India on the UNSC are guaranteed to bear no fruit beyond a stronger friendship between India and its supporters.

The story is the same when Japan is taken into consideration -- both Russia and China balk at the prospect. And with Germany, the players may change (France and the UK) but the story remains the same, although perhaps more subdued -- with Germany's increase in relative power through the Eurozone crisis, it seems fantastically unlikely that France would let it gain the influence a UNSC seat would provide.

But let's change the path of this conversation a bit. With Russia today seeking to block resolutions regarding Syria, what would the UN and the world really gain from more seats at the Security Council's table besides an even clearer ability to function? No, the United Nations is (as you taught me) designed to be controlled by the UNSC's five permanent members, and presenting an argument acceptable to all of them that they should muddy their processes even more is a challenge that few would take on and even fewer would accomplish.