“Weighted Voting for the U.N. General Assembly & Security Council”
 

Introduction:

In his speech to the UN General Assembly on September 23, 2003, Secretary General Kofi Anan stated, “History is a harsh judge: it will not forgive us if we let this moment pass.”  He proposed that there be a thorough study of the ways to strengthen the UN through radical reform of its major organs.

The problems with the major organs are that the GA has for many years been engaged in a power struggle between the developing nations,  known as the “G77 and China,” on the one hand and the major nations of the north who overwhelmingly pay the costs of the U.N. and its operations.  So far the GA has not considered any way that seems likely to manage that power struggle constructively.  A second problem is that the 1945 design of the Security Council, now 60 years out of date fails to represent the power realities of the 21^st Century and thus prevents the U.N. from dealing effectively with threats to world peace and other global problems.

My name is Mike Kronisch and I invite you to review with me the concept of Weighted Voting and how first in the General Assembly and later in the Security Council Weighted Voting will safely and fairly give the GA the power it needs to make binding decisions and assume limited legislative powers and how with weighted representation in the Security Council it can be revitalized and democratized.

First, a brief message from the retired TV anchorman who still bears the title “The most trusted Man in America” and another short presentation on amending the UN Charter from the Columbia University professor who yearly gives an orientation lecture to the new Security Council members on the history of reform in the U.N. system.

Second, let us review how “Ambassadors for Weighted Voting” are responding to the call from the Secretary General for radical reform of the GA and SC at meetings with the key U.N. players at the Missions to the UN in New York and at their foreign ministries around the world.

Finally, let us consider what you and your organization can do now to advance this project in your communities and later to lobby your Senators, when the time comes, for ratification of relevant U.N. Charter Amendments.

Here is the keynote address that Walter Cronkite presented at a Conference at Seton Hall University Law School, “What Future for the United Nations?”

==============================

Dr. Edward C. Luck, Director of the Center of International Organizations at Columbia University explained at the Seton Hall conference how in 1965 the opposition by the Permanent Five, the US, UK, France, China and the Soviet Union to enlarging the Security Council and ECOSOC evaporated.

===============================

The Binding Triad:

And now, let us consider the way weighted voting will enable the U.N. to make better decisions that can be fully implemented because the votes going into the decisions will represent the real power of the different member countries, and let us also us see why weighted voting will safely and fairly empower the General Assembly to provide global solutions for global problems and only global problems.

What are Global Problems? Today, Peace and Pollution are universally recognized as Global Problems.  Some believe that in the near future Poverty and Population may be added to that list.

Dick Hudson, founder of the Center for War/Peace Studies, designed the BT.   For a period of 15 or 20 years Board Members held meetings with Ambassadors and members of Mission staffs.  The reaction was rarely more than polite.  Things began to change during 2003 because of the SG’s call for radical change and because several other efforts at fundamental reform were unsuccessful.  At a meeting in the spring of 2005 with the Legal Counsellor at the Canadian Mission, we were told that the message we had just delivered should be taken to the key foreign ministries.  The Counsellor explained that Ambassadors at the U.N. and their staffs are simply messengers.  He urged that the weighted voting concept should be explained at the respective foreign ministries directly to the person making recommendations to the foreign minister on matters of UN reform.  That is the task we have been engaged on since early March, 2006.

The Group of 77 developing nations was organized in 1964 to “enhance their joint negotiating capacity…”  The “G77 and China” now include 132 nations.  Careful analysis leads us to conclude that nothing can be accomplished regarding UN reform unless it originates with the G77.  This year, South Africa holds the presidency of the G77.  And so South Africa was at the top of our list.

Here is the message that we are presenting at the UN Missions and at the key Foreign Ministries.  We deal with both the Binding Triad plan which we think is best for the GA and the Schwartzberg proposal which we consider best for the Security Council.  The presentation we make is clear and simple:  We are here today at your mission first to explain the concept of weighted voting and then to ask for your assistance in making an appointment for us at your foreign ministry.

Our letter requesting today’s meeting listed the topic as “Additional Power for the General Assembly as the World’s Legislature.”  It explained that we were writing at the suggestion of Mr. Fadl Nacerodien of the foreign ministry in Pretoria, South Africa.  It continued:

A recent example of the GA crisis took place, you will recall, on April 28, 2006. 108 members of the “G77 together with China” voted to table major parts of the Secretary General’s blueprint for UN management reform. The US led 50 nations that voted against the tabling motion.  The G77 explained that the major reason for its negative vote was the perception “that the proposed reforms are part of a larger strategy by the major donor states, primarily the U.S., to assure tighter control of the UN internally.”  The U.S. responded that “Absent top to bottom management reform, the UN will continue to be ill-equipped to meet the current demands that we as member states place upon the organization.”  We, the Ambassadors for WV, see merit in both positions.  There is a solution which can satisfy both the G77 and the Major “Donor” nations.

Since 1945 the GA has been envisioned as the world’s legislature.  But it still has no authority other than to manage the internal operations of the U.N.  It has no international power because its voting system does not reflect reality.  The smallest island member-nation has the same one vote as does China and the United States: one member, one vote.  It is clear that until each of the member nations in the GA can play an important role, the G77 will continue to act so as to protect the limited power the GA now possesses.

To become the U.N.’s Legislature, the GA must have a system of representation that will not only reflect the sovereign equality of each member but also the wide differences among the members in population and financial strength. An historical example taken from U.S. history may be useful to make the point.  At Philadelphia in 1787 the big states, New York and Virginia both had very large populations.  They argued that representation must be based on population.  The states that had small populations such as Delaware and Rhode Island argued that representation in Congress must be based on equality of the 13 sovereign states.  The Connecticut Compromise solved that problem of legislative representation with a bi-cameral Congress.  Today, the GA does not need a House based on population and a Senate where each member state has the same number of Senators.  But the GA does need an equitable Weighted Voting plan that will reflect not only sovereignty, and population but also a state’s financial contribution to the U.N. budget. 

WV is used in different forms in all international financial and certain other specialized organizations.  In some it is based on population and in others it is based on monetary contributions.  The recently adopted Peace Building Commission is weighted in its representation according to who contributes the money, who contributes the armed forces as well as other factors.

GA decisions utilizing the BT would still be made with a single vote but with three simultaneous ways of counting that vote.  A computer would instantaneously report whether the resolution had the required majority on each of the three legs: (1) The first leg reflects sovereignty.  This will give real international power to each of the 192 member-states for the first time.  It would require two thirds of the states present and voting; (2) The second leg reflects population.  It would require support of nations representing an agreed upon majority of the world’s population.  China, India, Indonesia, Nigeria and other populous states would certainly approve.  (3) The third leg reflects financial and military strength.  It would also require nations representing the agreed upon majority of contributions to the U.N. budget.  The U.S., Japan and Germany should certainly be pleased.  The size of the required majorities on the population leg and on the money leg, such as 51% or more, would be negotiated in committee before the plan would be presented to the GA for a final vote.  

The BT would not deprive the GA of its present power to pass non-binding resolutions by the one member-one vote system.  Likewise, the GA’s OMOV control over the internal affairs of the UN would be retained.  The BT also provides that no member state would have a vote of more than 15% on either the population or the contribution leg of the Triad.  On the population leg China would be limited to 15% despite it having 20% of the world’s population.  On the monetary third leg, the U.S. which contributes 22%, and Japan which contributes 19% would be limited to 15%.

The Tobin Tax:

One of the first areas where the GA acting as the World’s legislature might act is the problem of financing the United Nations.  For the first forty years of the United Nation’s history the Soviet Union was frequently intentionally in arrears with its dues payment.  During the last twenty years the U.S. has frequently been the problem. In both cases late payments reflected dissatisfaction with something the U.N. was doing.   It is time to consider financing independent of the national governments.  The Tobin Tax has been suggested as a solution.

The Tobin tax was proposed in 1972 by James Tobin, a Nobel laureate economist at Yale. The primary initial intent was to stabilize international exchange rates by discouraging speculation.  The cost in dollars of 100 yen in Tokyo usually differs very slightly from the cost in London.  The exchange of billions of dollars an hour yielded at the end of each day millions in profits.  An extremely small tax on purely “money for money” transactions was proposed by Tobin.  His secondary purpose was to provide funding for U.N. goals such as reducing world poverty, disease and to address global warming.  He eventually abandoned the first goal but the second goal will be of real interest to the GA acting as the U.N.’s legislature.

Even an infinitesimal tax of 0.02% would generate some $40 billion to $60 billion per year.  That would be more than enough financial support to meet the U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

Many of the diplomats we meet with have asked how the power of the GA can be limited so as not to improperly interfere with each state’s internal sovereignty. The first check will be the common sense of the Ambassadors who sit in the General Assembly and who introduce proposals for consideration.  The second is the system itself.  The checks and balances within the GA are the three majorities required.  To become world law, the proposal would have to have the support of most of the nations, most of the people and most of the power in the world.

The third check would be the World Court a/k/a the International Court of Justice.  The World Court is held in high esteem within the corridors of the U.N.  That type of check exists in the U.S. federal government and many others.  The Supreme Court has in the last ten years declared acts of Congress lacking Constitutional authorization more than 10 times.  The World Court could be called upon to decide the same issue: whether the legislation enacted by the GA went beyond Global Problems.

The Schwartzberg Plan:

In our presentations at the missions we rarely go deeply into the somewhat complex Schwartzberg proposal of Weighted Voting and weighted representation for the Security Council.  At the foreign ministries, we usually do.  Weighting of sovereignty, population and contributions to the U.N. budget is employed but the formula is more complicated and more favorable to the major powers; the states which have to pay for peace keeping operations authorized by the Security Council.

The Schwartzberg formula is:

WV = P plus C plus M divided by 3

P is the member’s percentage share of the total population of all UN members.  One out of every five humans is Chinese.  Therefore China’s percentage is 1/5.  C is the member’s financial contribution as a percentage of the total U.N. budget.  The U.S. percentage is 22/100.  M is the member’s share of the total UN membership. Every Member’s fraction on that leg would be the same 1/192.

Were this formula in place today the U.S. would have a weighted vote of 9.1%, China 7.7%, India 6.0% Germany 3.8%, France 2.6%, the U.K. 2.3%, etc.  Keep in mind the first four: The U.S. China, India and Germany.

In the Security Council the non-permanent members now number 10. Several microstates have occupied SC seats but they have never even tried to represent the interests of the vast and diverse regional blocks from which they were elected. Professor Schwartzberg argues that Permanent SC seats, along with the attendant veto should be abolished and membership should be based on objective eligibility criteria.  He suggests that any single nation with a weighted vote of more than 4% (recall the U.S. China, India and Germany) or any self formed caucus of likeminded nations with a combined WV of more than 4% would be entitled to a seat. 

The regional seats going to blocs of states such as the League of Arab States or the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) would probably total twelve or thirteen with another four going to the four highest scoring individual nations.  Any remaining seats needed to total 18 would be elected by the GA voting from among candidates nominated at-large from non-bloc nations.  Terms would be for three years.  This system would enable representation in the SC of more than 90% of the world’s peoples at any given time, far more than has ever occurred to date.  The need for consultation and cooperation within bloc caucuses should lead to a variety of regional benefits.

We believe that the GA will adopt WV before the SC adopts a weighted system of representation.  We think the BT is more likely to appeal to the GA members because it gives each of the three legs the opportunity to block action, just as in Washington either the House or Senate can block action.  But once there is “majority” support from most of the member states, most of the people and most of the power, the world will have clearly made up its mind in a reasonable and equitable manner.  Even those few member states who may have opposed the action would have to respect it.  Losing a vote is better than losing a war.

Professor Schwartzberg and Professor Szasz have both made clear in their monographs that their weighted voting proposals can be, and already have been, modified.  It is to be expected that they would be further modified as the General Assembly committees explore, discuss and negotiate the two proposals. 

We believe that Weighted Voting for the GA and the SC is an idea whose time has come.  Victor Hugo wrote: “There is one thing stronger than all the armies of the world and that is an idea whose time has come.”

Your Role in Weighted Voting:

What can you do until such time as WV is acted upon by the General Assembly and sent to the 192 member states for ratification by their respective legislatures?  We suggest that you bring the message on this DVD to the attention of your secondary schools and universities, to service clubs and to other NGO’s in your community.  Place copies on the shelves of your public and school libraries. 

Your job will not be done until all your local religious, and political leaders are aware of the concept of Weighted Voting.  When the time comes to lobby your two U.S. Senators in Washington, or at their offices in your state, the support of those community leaders, in person and in their letters that you will carry with you, will help to make the case for ratification.

These four Non Governmental Organizations support the study of Weighted Voting and can provide you with copies of the monographs mentioned below.

1. The Center for War/Peace Studies - www.cwps.org - was founded by the late Richard Hudson who devised the “Binding Trial” system for the General Assembly.

2. The Center for UN Reform Education -  www.centerforunreform.org -published the monograph on “The Binding Triad” by the late Paul Szasz. The Center for U.N. Reform Education is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit policy research organization. The mission of the Center is to encourage, generate and sustain discussion of various specific proposals to reform and restructure the United Nations

3. Citizens for Global Solutions - www.globalsolutions.org - has endorsed the Binding Triad.

4. The World Federalist Movement - www.wfm.org  - published, through its Institute for Global Policy, Professor Joseph E. Schwartzberg’s “Revitalizing the United Nations: Reform Through Weighted Voting.”

Thank you for beginning today your further study of these proposals which respond to the Secretary General’s call for radical reform of the organs of the United Nations, our best hope for world peace and for an effective, democratic UN federation.