I would hope that this whole UN Security Council reform business (which, of course, has happened before) doesn't impact any potential settlement over Kashmir.

I expect (hope) them to be on quite different time lines. India wouldn't expect Pakistan to support them anyway, so it's not like it's added anything new to the mixture.India will take offense only if it wants to use the UN as a pretext for a fight.

Apparently the US has said yes to Japan but hasn't taken a position on the others including India -- some bargaining to come on that one I imiagine. I'm sure the US is concerned about 3 EU countries. And then there's the "Africa seat," which Egypt claims (as also the rep of the Arab world & Islam) but to which there's considerable opposition. Not the least reason, the whole Mubarak succession thing. And a sentiment from a lot of Africans that S Africa would do a much better job of representing the Continent's interests.

If the permanent members go from 5 to 10, it's unwieldy, what are the voting rules, how many rotating members, etc etc. It's true we've seen discussions before, but this does seem to be the most organized and high profile push to date.

I've been struggling (in my head) with a post on this topic.

I don't know enough about Egyptian politics to say just how big of a phony Gamal Mubarak is, and it's hard to find much commentary on him that isn't propaganda. My understanding is that nobody in Egypt is fooled by the machinations of the NDP, though. Thomas Barnett called him an "idiot son." All of the liberal reform talk sounds good, but again, it's hard for me to determine how legit it all is. Almost every column in Al Ahram talks vaguely of the need for reform, but never specifies what reform entails. Very confusing to the outsider.

FWIW, here's a Village Voice feature just came out on Ayam Nour:

For Egypt's opposition, reforms change little, and America is still the 'kiss of death'
The Challenger
by Kareem Fahim

As for the "idiot son," I've no way to judge. He certainly has an eye (or someone around him does) for attractive and reasonably competent technocrats. It's "his guys" who have been making the running in the economic reforms area. And he seems to say the right things.

The problem I see is that there's been no space for any political personalities to develop while Mubarak has ruled. So who besides the idiot son is in a position to take over, even if suddenly the constitution were amended and they had direct Presidential elections? Are the parties in Parliament in any sense representative or have a real following the could organize for a Presidential system?

Is that while the opposition parties are allowed to have newspapers, they basically are barred from any kind of political organizing (rallies, public meetings, etc.) and can be arrested for saying the wrong thing.

One other fun fact: "gamal" means camel in Arabic, but I'm not sure whether the idiot son's name actually translates as "Camel Mubarak."