As President Insanally said, there is a convergence of views that the Security Council should be expanded, but there is no convergence of views at all as to whether the expansion should carry with it more permanent members or not. Whether or not they have aspirations to become permanent members, they certainly have aspirations to be present in the Security Council most of the time. I think that in democratization, representivity is the real issue. That is the real thing that the small and even middle-sized have to watch out for in the future, because we could run a risk of a Security Council that is monopolized by, say, the 20 largest countries in the world. I do not think in real terms that is in anyone's interest.
People talk of the veto.
New Zealand was right at the very beginning, at the foundation of the Charter, a country which spoke long and eloquently against the veto. We still have this view. The veto should be rolled back. As a absolute minimum, it should not ever be expanded. I do not anticipate any serious risk of the veto being expanded, because I do not believe that there is a serious political risk at this point of any agreement on any new permanent member.