Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
Permanent Membership: Objective Criteria During the current debate about additional non-elected (permanent) members of the Security Council, delegations often say that this or that member state meets the requisite criteria. All too often, though, the attributes mentioned are extremely vague -- such as "the ability to undertake global responsibilities." But sometimes delegations mention more objective criteria -- such as population size, wealth, contribution to UN peacekeeping operations, and other kinds of support for the UN (including timeliness of payment of budget assessments). The following table looks at how existing and aspirant "permanent" members measure up on some of the more commonly-mentioned criteria. Permanent Membership: Objective Criteria
by Ellen Paine
Based on December 1996 Data
Country Pop.
RankPop.
Size
MillionsGNP
RankPKO Trp.
Cont. RankAssessmt.
Payment
TimelinessPermanent-5 . . . . . China 1 1,210 7 48 fair France 19 58 4 24 fair Russia 6 148 11 4 poor United Kingdom 18 58 6 27 fair United States 3 266 1 17 poor Candidates . . . . . Argentina 30 35 21 21 fair Brazil 5 163 9 8 poor Egypt 16 64 34 34 fair Germany 12 84 3 30 fair Indonesia 4 207 16 29 fair India 2 952 13 2 fair Japan 8 125 2 45 fair Mexico 11 96 10 none fair Nigeria 10 104 52 39 fair Pakistan 7 129 23 1 fair South Africa 26 42 24 none good Assessment Payment Timeliness Criteria:
good = pays on time
fair = does not pay on time, but pays within the budget year -- no major debts outstanding
poor = does not pay within the budget year -- major debts outstanding
