PLAbuddy said:en...well....i cant fully agree with u on the per capita issue...
china 's GDP per capitia is only about 1000$ U.S, but it is one of the "big five"
i think we should have another new "Big Ten", 2 nations from each continenet...
I didnt say GDP/capita should be one of the criteria, I said "influence", in this case economical influence. S.Africa having a rather small population AND a rather small GDP/capita probably doesnt excert much of it, though factors other than the bare numbers play a role in a security context, i.e. how much a country is involved in intl. trade.
(i.e. exports 2002 from CIA wfb:
1. United States $687 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
2. Germany $608 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
3. Japan $383.8 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
4. China $325.6 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
5. France $307.8 billion f.o.b. (2002)
6. United Kingdom $286.3 billion f.o.b. (2002)
....
18. Switzerland $100.3 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
...
38. South Africa $31.8 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.)
...
48. Nigeria $17.3 billion f.o.b. (2002 est.))
So I still dont get the arguments why the member seats ought to be geographically balanced. Just imagine: Nigeria interfering in the peace process? S.Africa vetoing sanctions against North Korea? I dont see how this could make the UNSC a more powerful and respected institution. Including countries just because they are geographically located in a certain part of the world is a mistake, just as including France after WW2 for historical reasons and the sake of peace.
(Note: I'm not saying that France should be removed from UNSC in the process of adding other members, they still play an important role in intl politics, especially in Africa.)