The Veto Power Reconsidered

The fate of the Syrian peace resolution at the Security Council has called the attention of many observers once again to the legitimacy of the veto power. I also would like to make some comments.
When the UN Charter was decided upon, in 1945, it was signed by only 51 member nations. The Second World War was not yet over. The name UN itself meant the allied nations fighting the 'Axis' powers. The British and the French empires were fighting the war in order to survive as empires, with Winston Churchill saying, for instance, that he did not become the Prime Minister to preside over the liquidation of the British empire.
Let us examine why the original 51 has expanded to the present 187.
First and foremost, almost all of the African nations, with the possible exception of the former Spanish Sahara, have joined the UN afterwards, whereas there were only two at the time.
Similarly, 13 Caribbean countries have become independent, largely under the impact of the Cuban revolution.
The same is true for most of the ASEAN ten, Pakistan and Bangladesh both of which have bifurcated from India, and some in the Middle East and the Central or South Pacific.
There are other categories also. Japan, the united Germany and Italy are members, making the name 'the United Nations' sounding rather odd. The simultaneous admission of the two Koreas in 1991, after the end of the Cold War, was a great dividend of peace, although not followed up since then.
Then there was the dismemberment of the USSR, also in 1991, increasing the member countries by 12 at a stroke. It is difficult to understand why Russia has inherited the veto power, as the USSR and Russia are two different entities. Yugoslavia also has been dismembered, making one into six, at least as of now.
Other cases are mostly bifurcation of countries like Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia and Sudan.
Looked at this way, we will notice that the UN today is substantially different from what it was at its inception. But by far the largest number of nations have no means of participating in the crucial decision-making process of the Security Council. True, the number of the non-permanent members increased by an amendment of the Charter. But the permanent members are the same five. The democratization has not proceeded in the international relations at all.
Besides it is difficult to conclude from the past history of the UN that those five have cooperated for promoting peace. They have tended to use the veto power to defend their own interests. They are the only legally sanctioned nuclear powers, having turned vast areas into barren ones by repeated nuclear experiments. None of them has been faithful to the Article 2(4) of the Charter, prohibiting members 'the threat or use of force'. And they are the major exporters of weapons in the world.
Can it be overcome by increasing the number of the permanent members? It will take years to agree on who. The countries which are opposed to by their immediate neighbours will automatically be disqualified. Japan is one such example. The inclusion of Japan would simply mean another vote for the US. It is extremely difficult for her to speak with her own voice under the present military alliance with the US.
The majority countries have been endeavouring to overcome the impasse by some other means. At the Middle East war over the Suez in 1956 the General Assembly virtually took over the function of the Security Council. The resolution passed by the GA this time may be looked at in a similar light. There may be other ways out. 'Necessity is the mother of invention'.
As for the present five with veto power, the sooner they disown it the better for the cause of peace.