CHIANG MAI, Thailand -- Although we live in an era of sad comparisons between the current status of the United Nations and the demise of the old League of Nations, let us hope and assume that the U.N. will survive its immense test without being relegated to "irrelevancy" and substituted by new formations of "the willing." Without wishing to enter the fray of analyses on Iraq, I find it striking that references are being made continuously to the U.N. Security Council from all quarters without -- at least to my knowledge -- any mention of the body's eventual expansion.

It would be gratifying indeed if the present turmoil, despite the frictions that exist between the Muslim world and the West, between the United States and Europe and among European Union partners, could at least lead to a reopening of discourse on the Security Council's desirable composition.

In an imperfect world, the healthiest aspiration in the aftermath of the tragedy of World War II was to develop an undisputed center of international order. Shortcomings aside, the U.N. Security Council seems to be the best available and generally accepted guarantor of such an order. Of course, the issue of how to realign priorities and re-examine the Security Council's composition is not new, as we have become familiar with a plethora of ideas as well as candidacies. Yet, on the eve of a possible devastating conflagration in the Middle East, it is urgent to revisit this issue.