I quite like CarolC's idea above. Knowing politicians, and those who represent their countries at the UN, are politicians, from the moment of it's reincarnation guess what? - the UN will be run by the US, Japan, EU then a bit further down the trail those mentioned above will be joined by Russia, China and possibly India.

It reverts to being a meaningless, ineffectual talking shop with all the member piggies with their snouts firmly lodged in the trough.

Example - UN Committees - every member with an equal voice:

"Oh, you want our vote on ___________ (any given subject) OK then, what do we get in return if we side with you on this?". The same thing happens now but it's a lottery, it all depends what comes up in the Security Council while your country is sitting on it.

The UN at some point in time will have to recognise whatever form of government emerges in Iraq. The hand-over on 30th June is important. It creates an interim Iraqi Government that will lead to the first democratic elections that that country has ever seen. But what this does do from that first step on 30th June is set up a "civil power" that can be supported and aided by the "international community". If, for whatever reason, the "international community" fails to support it, it will be the responsibility of the "international community" to explain why, like in so many other instances it has been faced with, it just sat back and did nothing.

The process, doctrine and necessity of international engagement cannot be promoted by those not prepared to engage in that process.