Who should be on the Security Council and why?

Over the past ten years, a growing number of countries have questioned the overall direction that the UN has taken. It has come to be seen as ineffective, overly bureaucratic and susceptible to corruption, and of acting beyond the limits of its charter.

Again the UN's world seems archaic and untrue. The Russian Federation is not the USSR. The United Kingdom without its dominions and colonies is a diminished force. So is France. They are no longer among the privileged. They are just some amongst many. Also the Eastern bloc is no longer a living force. The world has changed since 1945. An old order has given way to a new. The UN reform program is merely admission of this fact.

Within the reform package, the most significant and, surely, the most contentious is the proposal to restructure the permanent membership of the Security Council, as it represents the power structure of the world as it was in 1945 and not of the world of today.

With regard to Security Council reform, there are two models making the rounds. Model A provides for 6 new permanent members, in addition to the present 5, and 3 non-permanent members. Model B is for 8 new semi- permanent members for a period of 4 years, subject to renewal, and one non-permanent member. Both models envisage a Security Council with 14 members in all.

Under Model A, the nations being proposed for permanent membership are Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan. These 4 plus the present 5 and Italy happen to constitute the world's top ten countries in terms of GDP. If this was to be the criteria, why was Italy ignored?

That is not all. China, as well as North Korea and South Korea, has doubts about Japan. The US has refrained from supporting Germany as it opposed the invasion of Iraq, but supports Japan's bid. Pakistan opposes India; and Mexico and Argentina oppose Brazil, which is a Portuguese-speaking country in a largely Spanish-speaking continent.

The smaller countries and the African bloc are particularly supportive of Model B as they feel it is more representative than Model A, which will block the number of available seats, and make only a limited number available for those outside the permanent bloc.

We are unlikely to see a quick end to the bickering, behind the scenes bargaining, and open discussion. Not much is likely to happen at the coming General Assembly session as well. Seeking a consensus can be difficult. Putting matters to the vote can be embarrassing. This is a tough time for Mr. Kofi Annan.

All this bickering and maneuvering leads us to the following questions:
a) Are the two models inadequate?
b) Is GDP alone a good measure?
c) If not, will adding population size, trade, and military strength create better balance? Are the results then likely to be any different?
d) What should the optimum size of the Security Council be?
e) Who should be in and who should be out? In what follows, we shall attempt to find answers to these questions.

There should not be any doubt that a place on the Security Council has to do with many things: region, religion, language and race but, above all, it has to do with power.

The present power centres are North-East Asia, Asean, Saarc, Arab League African Union, European Union, CIS, North America, Central America, South America, and Oceania. It is essential that every one of these power centres finds a place on the Security Council for the reform process to find general acceptance.

About religion, it needs to be ensured that peoples and nations which follow Christianity (with 32 percent of the world's people as adherents), Islam (20 percent), Hinduism (14 percent), Chinese Traditional (6 percent) and Buddhism (6 percent) are adequately represented, as well as the 20 percent who admit to being "non-religious."

The language factor is of no less importance with Chinese (all dialects) spoken by 17 percent, followed by English (6 percent), Spanish (6 percent), Hindi (6 percent), Arabic (4 percent), Bengali (3 percent), Russian (3 percent), Portuguese (3 percent), Japanese (2 percent), and German (1.5 percent).

About language sensitivities, it will be sufficient to recall here Spanish-speaking South America's current objections to Portuguese-speaking Brazil representing it on the Security Council, and to the creation of Bangladesh.As to race, political correctness prevents us from commenting about it. We believe, however, that it is strong enough to take care of itself.

We come now to power. To us, power is 35 percent people power and 15 percent military strength on the one side, and 35 percent GDP power and 15 percent trading strength on the other. The resultant will define the Power Index (PI). The PI will be our final arbiter.

It is not our purpose to get into the detailed computations and mundane data here except to confirm that our source documents are the CIA World Factbook 2005, and the Military databases on the Internet, and also to clarify that the population data relates to July 2005 while GDP, trade, and military strength information pertain to the year 2004.

Our findings are as follows:
a) North-East Asia with a PI of 23 is the most powerful region followed by EU (19), North America (13), and Saarc (12). Each region merits at least one permanent seat.
b) China with a PI of 15 tops among nations, followed by US (12), India (9), Japan (4), Germany (3.5) and Russia (2.9). These nations select themselves for permanent positions. Thus their number will increase from 5 to 6.
c) France and the UK with a PI of 2 each no longer merit a permanent place. Italy (2) was correct in its protestation. Brazil (2) is also not eligible to come in as a permanent member.
d) However in case France and the UK are to retain their places and Brazil to come in, which appears to be the case, then Italy and Indonesia would have to be accommodated as they also have PI of 2 each, together with one seat each for the Arab League and the African Union.
e) In any case the size of the Security Council should not exceed 17 members in all. This number would adequately ensure representation of all the 11 regions mentioned above. Strictly on merit the number of permanent members is 6 -- any number larger than that would be expediency.

Models A and B both are inadequate and unfair. The Security Council reform proposal must return to the re-drawing board and quickly.

Joseph Michael Pereira is a freelance contributor to The Daily Star.