Has the permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council of China (PRC) helped them to attain their big economy?

In other words, was the permanent membership of China beneficial to their economic growth and size?

In other words, if they didn't have permanent membership of the UNSC, would they have been able to become so economically big?

  • 1
    No - Chinese use of vetoes on the SC have been to support their geopolitical goals, rather than economic. Their membership into the WTO was the main thing that helped their economy. Oct 22, 2020 at 12:03

1 Answer 1


Short answer: no, at least directly.

It's mainly because Nixon's turn to China, as part of the strategy of isolation of Soviet Union. US companies understood that moving its production infrastructure to China would give them benefit due to much cheaper worktime.

There was even a Simpson's episode about that tendency.

So, China obtained access to the western markets and huge investments from the western companies - and it definitely boosts its economy


Another question is, would the US ever "turn" to China, if it wasn't a UNSC permanent member - but it is unanswerable question, I think. It's a waaay broad suggestion to discuss about - for example another UNSC roster may form another Kissinger's triangle (or not triangle at all).


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .