united nation: a follow-up observation/question

(This observation/question has already been posted as a comment in my first question. But, I intently repost it here as separate from the first question so that anyone who may give a comment/answer/or share my doubt to this post can post a separate answer)


I am grateful to those who post their idea with regard to my question.

Verily, I agree with the idea that: “the contributions in the UN are also based on equal proportion, those small states are not subjected to the same financial responsibilities as the affluent members. But, again this will not cause those small states to lose that one vote reserved for them in the General Assembly. True enough they are still entitled of that one vote in the spirit of equality”(Matissa) and “the contributions depends on the state's capacity to pay”(Warr).

But still allow me to express my doubt.

Yes, it is stated in the principle of the United Nations that every member have Equal Sovereignty and it is shown in the voting process that every member big or small is entitled only to one vote. Yet, I believe that the essence of equality among the members of the Organization does not depend on the uniformity of the count of its vote alone. This is just a superficial equality. There must be a substantial equality wherein every members share at least a comparable power with all other members of the Organization. I do not see this equality in the Organization, or maybe I still need volumes of books to read to grasp what equality they are talking about.

My doubt stems from my suspicion and distrust with the composition and power of the Security Council especially the permanent status and veto power of the Big Five. I see this status and power of the Big Five as inimical to the purpose of the said principle.

With the present set up of the Security Council, any member of the Big Five (the permanent members of the Council) can prevent the adoption of any (non-'procedural') draft resolution which they do not like (for whatever reasons). As a consequence, the power of veto often prevents the Council from acting to address pressing international issues, and affords the Big Five great influence within the United Nations institution as a whole.

I would be convinced of “Sovereign Equality” if the set up of the Organization would be:
NO NATIONS TO BE CONSIDERED AS BIG FIVE.
EVERY MEMBER NATIONS SHOULD HAVE EQUAL PRIVILEGE FOR REPRESENTATION AND POWER IN EVERY SRUCTURE OF THE ORGANIZATION.

Thanks again.

Contributions of Every States for UN

July 03, 2008

Sir good am. each members of the United Nations are compelled to contribute financially for its subsistence.

It is stated from the net that:

“ The UN is financed from assessed and voluntary contributions from member states. The regular two-year budgets of the UN and its specialized agencies are funded by assessments. The General Assembly approves the regular budget and determines the assessment for each member. This is broadly based on the relative capacity of each country to pay, as measured by their Gross National Income(GNI), with adjustments for external debt and low per capita income”

Major contributors to the regular UN budget for 2006[6]
Member Nation (the list is not complete)
Contribution (% of total UN budget)
United States
22.00%
Japan
16.624%
Germany
8.66%
United Kingdom
6.13%
France
6.03%
Italy
4.89%
Canada
2.81%
Spain
2.52%
China
2.667%
Mexico
1.88%
Australia
1.59%
Brazil
1.52%

My Question: With this unequal contribution from every states, would it not lead to:

Tendency for the highest contributors to demand more privilege and/or more control over major organs of the Organization?

Which would lead to negate the primary function of the Organization which is to: be based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members?

Just asking.