Vijay Mehta introduced the speaker

Professor Schwartzberg wanted to modernize the UN, particularly the Security Council, by making it more democratic, more representative of the non-permanent member countries and more fair in terms of financial contributions.  This would effectively curb the autocracy of Permanent Members, especially the USA. [His talk was fully illustrated with clear and fascinating overheads, which were not available to take away and study, so allusions to them here are only for guidance.]

Composition of the UN  The original Members of the UN constituted 70% of the population.

After 2003 many developing countries joined, changing the balance of power by population. But China with over 1000 x the population of Honduras was not adequately represented, having the same number of votes (1).  Therefore a weighted representation was needed on clear, valid principles: They should be objective, uniform and yet flexible and realistic.  They should represent democratic status, economic strength and contributions and other relevant measures.  In addition, the number of seats on the Security Council should be sufficient to be comprehensively representative but not so numerous as to be unmanageable.  The measures should be nuanced so that small changes in economy or population should not lead to large changes in voting power.

There should be an organic link between the Security Council and the General Assembly.

He advanced a formula to take account of some of these values for voting on the Security Council:

The Weighted Vote (WV) = (Population [expressed as a % of global total] + C [% share of total budget] + M [% share of population] ) / 3 [the number of measures]

The US weighted vote (WV) would be (P4.6% + C22% + M0.5%)     = 27.17% / 3   = 9%

China's would be                                     (20.87% + 1.51% + 0.52%) = 22.38% / 3   = 7.63%

India would be                                                                                                             = 6%

Brazil                                                                                                                           = 1.9%

The Russian Federation                                                                                                = 1.3%

Pie charts illustrated the much fairer shares of votes using the formula compared to the present.

Another measure was introduced to reflect the 'democratic' status' of each country, whether 'free', 'partially free' or 'not free', though this is a matter of opinion and dispute and not included.

Economic Strength was divided into OECD, Group 77 countries and the rest.  The formula raised the representation of OECD countries from 16% to 41%, while Group 77 fell from 69% to 52% and the rest dropped from 16% to 8%.   This would oblige small countries to link together.  But this would still be unfair because wealthy nations have exploited poorer nations in the past and put them at a starting disadvantage.   Therefore it was proposed that up to say, 2025 the formula should be adjusted to double the population and economic contribution weights:

WV = (2xP + 2xC + M) / 5

The frequency of representation in the Security Council was also unfair.  A map showed how often each country had served as a non-Permanent Member.  40% of nations had never served, including Viet Nam with 85 million people, Israel and Saudi Arabia.  Conversely, some countries had served many times.  Most surprising was Panama; 6 times, Mexico; 5 times and Mauritius; 4 times. India had served 5 times.  It was likely that this was connected with their willingness to vote according to US wishes.

A bar chart showed how the representation on the SC had changed since 1945.  The Permanent 5 had dropped from 18% to 8% of Member population, while the total population represented had grown in an 'S' curve to 2003. Only in 2 years did the SC represent more than 50% of world population.

Hypothetical seats on the SC were under reform.  Many were puppets of former colonial powers.

A block of more than 4% of global population should qualify for a seat. It was for the General Assembly to vote on which blocks should be on the SC in a given year. For example, Africa as a block would get 18% of the seats whilst the US would only get 8%.  16 blocks would account for 90% of the world population.  An odd result is that Russia does not qualify for a seat.  So, for an interim period the Permanent 5 would be retained for 25 years, with 17 blocks.  There would be 18 seats on the SC for each block: the US, the Western League (Canada), Europe, Russia, Japan, China, West Asia (Islam), India, East Asia (ASEAN), Africa, the Arab League, Latin America, the Australian League and others [not noted].

The ultimate formula would therefore become W = (P + C + 8.3% [17 as % total pop] ) / 3

Conclusion: The Benefits of this formula would be:

1.         Non-discriminatory

2.         To give a voice for all on the SC

3.         More realistic relative to the balance of powers

4.         More balanced between 'haves' and 'have-nots' (50:50)

5.         Encourage nations to pay their dues

6.         Strengthen the voting power of democratic nations

7.         Create regional consultation, transparency and accountability

8.         To encourage more responsible national behaviour

9.         Promote meritocracy and emergence of global statespersons

10.       Accept revisions with changing circumstances

The Chairman thanked the speaker and posed the first question

[Q & A sadly not legibly recorded]

Further information is apparently on the CIVITAS website

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dr James B Thring, Secretary  [comments on square brackets]

15th August  2007                                                                ref: GKS DMD MoP @ UN AUNR JSchwartzberg 9Au7

The Ministry of Peace is a private initiative to unite peace campaigners in challenging the war lobby