The U.N. General Assembly opened its 59th session this week in New York. Did anyone notice? Did anyone care?

A report on the mood of Americans toward this event might describe the reaction this way: "Apathy sprinkled with occasional loathing, irritation and exasperation."

Perhaps we should pay slightly more attention.

This year’s session of the General Assembly is likely to take up the touchy subject of U.N. Security Council "reform." (Here comes the apathy again. Stay focused. Just a little longer.)

For years, many nations have advocated modernizing the United Nations to reflect a more current view of the geopolitical situation. They argue that U.N. institutions are frozen in time, built on the balance of power as it existed at the end of World War II, when the world body was formed.

The primary focus of their concern is the U.N. Security Council, the most powerful and significant of all U.N. institutions. Under the U.N. Charter, the Security Council is charged with protecting security and maintaining peace around the world. It is the only U.N. body whose pronouncements are legally binding on all members, and the only U.N. institution with the power to request troops and other security resources from member nations for dispatch around the world.

Under the Charter, there are five permanent members of the Security Council: the United States, Great Britain, France, Russia and China. Each of these "P5" members has the power to veto any proposal being considered by the Security Council. In addition, there are ten non-permanent members, which are elected by the General Assembly and serve two year terms.

Critics of the current Security Council make-up argue that important military and financial powers are currently denied permanent seats in the body and there is no permanent voice for either Africa or South America.

These arguments spurred U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to appoint a special committee, called the "High Level Panel," of former diplomats and national leaders to consider structural changes to the world body. This panel is expected to report its recommendations in December.

In the meantime, the international jockeying has already begun. Japan, Germany, Brazil and India are waging active campaigns to secure permanent seats on the Security Council. Foreign Ministers are jetting from capital to capital, trying to secure support for their respective bids. Egypt, Nigeria and others have also expressed interest.

The U.S. government has said that because Japan and Germany are the second and third largest financial contributors to the United Nations respectively, the United States supports making those two nations permanent members of the Security Council. Generally, the United States says it will await the final report from the High Level Panel and see what, if any, specific proposals are developed.

Despite our government’s generosity toward Germany and Japan, the United States should be on guard. Many advocates of reform have made it clear that they consider Security Council reform the best way to further dilute American influence on the Council specifically and at the United Nations in general.

Over the past few years, we’ve seen that the United Nations is no particular friend of the United States. But in many cases, we’ve been able to use our influence — and our veto — in the Security Council to advance America’s interests and to protect ourselves from foreign countries and terrorist regimes that would harm us and threaten our freedom.

Once the Pandora’s Box of United Nations reform is opened, closing it again in order to protect U.S. interests is certain to be difficult. Changes to the U.N. Charter must be initiated in the General Assembly, where representatives of totalitarian regimes and underdeveloped nations dominate. They are jealous of American wealth and prosperity, and their radical agendas have made the General Assembly the poster child for U.N. incompetence and corruption.

Given its historical unpredictability and penchant for dealing in rhetoric and zealotry over substance, once the General Assembly begins considering proposals to amend the U.N. Charter, anything could happen.

Because the first tool in diplomacy is compromise, it is critical to view the American starting position as merely a beginning point. If the United States enters the reform debate ready to agree to certain Charter amendments, there is a real danger that the final diplomatic "compromise" will not be what we bargained for.

We might find the Security Council expanded to the point of absurdity, with permanent votes (and vetoes) for all of the announced candidates. Nothing good can come from that.

A cynic might say that such reform would bring the United Nations closer to self-destruction and welcome such a development. But as much as there might be desire to the contrary, it’s clear that we’re stuck with the United Nations for now. It’s vital that the United States protect its interests and maintain a firm hand on the U.N.’s rudder. Otherwise, the world body might spin further out of control, increasing its threat to U.S. sovereignty and interests.

For that reason, the U.S. should drop its support for adding new permanent members to the Security Council and oppose efforts to consider U.N. reform. Once we start down the slippery slope of Security Council expansion — and dilution of American power on the Council — there’s no telling where it will stop.