The first question I'd like to ask is this issue of North Korea's declaring to have nuclear weapons. That issue brings the question or world security right to the doorstep of the United Nations. And the United Nations at this stage seems incapable of handling it, because the Security Council is not in a position to decide anything. So how does one move on this problem of world security if the Security Council is paralyzed because of differences that exist within the five permanent members?
This is the heart of the security problem, the collective security problem. In fact, we discussed this today at the Center for Globalization at Yale. I think the Security Council is the only institution really in the international system that does have power. Potential power, if you like. But too many times, that power is deadlocked by the veto power of individual countries. And I think that one important thesis in the book, which has a lot of support in the world, is that one has to move to a more representative Security Council, but at the same time a Security Council that works.
Global democracy cannot be just one country, one vote. You cannot have China and Malta have the same weight in the international system. So one has to weight them both, a weight that reflects the size of the country and the population and the resources the country contributes to the international system. So one proposal is to move to a Security Council that is more universal, with weighted voting. It's tough, because the existing veto holders, of course, they have it. They don't want to give it up. So it's not an easy proposition at all.