Global equity refers to distributing resources according to the contribution of different countries to the world, not evenly distributed in the general sense. In brief, what you deserve matches what you get. We use comprehensive national power [8] to reflect global equity because countries with greater comprehensive national power contribute more to the global economy, in politics, no matter in economics, science or technology. For example, the US and China account for a high proportion of GDP in each country or region to global GDP, at around 23.92% and 18.45%. But India accounts for 3.22% then India’s contribution to the world is lower relative to the U.S. and China. On the other hand, when a country achieves outstanding results, other countries will follow it and thus promoting global development. We believe that the “fairness” is “what you deserve matches what you get” so the country that contributes more deserves more resources when it comes to resource allocation.

After the 1970s, a scholar of international issues and strategic studies, R.S. Klein of the United States, conducted a more extensive and in-depth exploration in the quantitative studies of comprehensive national power. In his three works Evaluation of World Power, Evaluation of World Power 1977 and World Power Trends and U.S. Foreign Policy in the 1980s published in 1975, 1977 and 1980 respectively, he proposed a mathematical model for measuring and assessing a country’s national power based on the kernel of the recent geopolitical doctrine of national power: P_N = (C + E + W) × (S + W). P_N is the composite national power index; C is the basic entity, consisting of population and land area; E is the economic power, consisting of six categories of indicators, including GDP, energy, critical non-fuel minerals, industrial production capacity, food production, and foreign trade; M is the military power, expressed as the sum of strategic nuclear forces and conventional forces possessed by a country; S is the power of a country conventional forces; S is strategic objectives, which refers to the political goals to be achieved and national interests to be protected in the international environment; W is the will to pursue national strategy, which refers to a country’s ability to mobilize its citizens to support the government’s defense and foreign policy. As the pioneer of national power measurement, Klein equation has great authority and reference value. So, we choose four important factors in Klein equation as our evaluation index, which are population, land area, GDP, and military power. They account for the national power calculation weights of 10%, 10%, 40%, and 40%, respectively (There is no influence factor brought by science and technology in Klein’s equation, then we decided that the science and technology factor has been reflected in the economic power and military power side-by-side because of the wide range of factors involved and influenced by science and technology, and the degree of change of science and technology is so fast due to historical development that it is more complicated and inaccurate to strip the weights separately).

We visualized the data:

China and India have large differences in population size from the other countries and are more dominant in terms of population size; as shown in Figure 1.

Russia, Canada, China, and the United States account for a large portion of the world’s land area, and these countries are more dominant in terms of regional size to assess national power; as shown in Figure 2.

The United States, Japan’s national GDP is bigger, then the economic strength is higher, the national strength of these countries more dominant; as shown in Figure 3.

The lower the ratio, the stronger the military power. If the United States, Russia, and China have more military power, then the judging of national power will be more dominant; as shown in Figure 4.

Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a decision analysis method which combines qualitative and quantitative methods to solve multi-objective complex problems. The method uses the decision maker’s experience to determine the relative importance between the criteria for the achievability of each measure of the objectives. The proportion of the country power calculation weights has been determined, and a comparative value for these four trade-off indicators that allows for fair feedback in each country needs to be determined.

The decision problem is now decomposed into three levels, the top level is the objective level M, which is to develop a reasonable global equity evaluation system, the middle level is the criterion level, including population C1, land area C2, GDP C3, and military power C4, and the bottom level is the program level, which is the individual countries with global autonomy, indicated by P1, P2…Pn. To simplify the hierarchical model and control the ratio b greater than 0 and less than 10, we choose the United States, China, India, and Pakistan as representative countries for the calculation of their comprehensive national power [9]; as shown in Figure 5 below.