By Joe Aura, Aurajoe6@gmail.com
In a historic turn of events, the United States has recently voiced its support for granting Africa two permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), a proposal that could shift the balance of global diplomacy. The Security Council, a vital institution in maintaining global peace and security, has been dominated by five permanent members, the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, and China, since its formation in 1945. These nations not only hold permanent membership but also possess veto power, allowing them to block any substantive decisions. This structure, however, excludes a continent of more than 1.2 billion people, Africa, a region burdened with some of the world’s most pressing security challenges.
Currently, African nations occupy three rotating, non-permanent seats on the UNSC, a limited role with no veto power. The U.S.’s recent endorsement for two permanent seats for African nations, albeit without veto power, has sparked debate across the globe. Some view this move as a step toward inclusivity, while others see the exclusion of veto power as a form of continued marginalization.
The Case for Permanent African Representation
Africa’s case for permanent seats on the UNSC is compelling, particularly as the continent’s geopolitical and economic influence continues to grow. From peacekeeping missions to economic partnerships, African countries play an increasingly central role in global governance. The growing number of conflicts in the region, from terrorism in the Sahel to ongoing instability in the Horn of Africa, further underscores the need for stronger African representation in global decision-making.
Sierra Leone’s President, Julius Maada Bio, has voiced the importance of justice and equity in the UNSC’s decision-making processes. His position aligns with that of many African leaders who argue that Africa’s contributions to global security and economic growth justify its call for a stronger voice at the table. The challenge, however, lies in whether Africa’s inclusion in the Council will truly reflect a shift in global power or merely reinforce existing inequalities.
The Growing Debate: South Africa vs. Nigeria?
In the wake of the U.S. proposal, debates about which two African countries should receive permanent seats have taken center stage. Recent surveys reveal a preference for South Africa and Nigeria, with South Africa leading the charge. In the first round of voting, South Africa emerged as the top choice, securing 32.8% of votes, while Nigeria garnered 15.6%. Other notable contenders included Kenya, Egypt, and Ghana.
The second round, conducted in October 2023, solidified South Africa’s position as the top contender, with 32.8% of respondents pairing it with Nigeria. The backing of both nations stems from their economic power and political influence. Nigeria, with its vast population and growing economy, has already asserted its claim. Foreign Minister Yusuf Tuggar highlighted Nigeria’s democratic credentials and its role as a leading force in African diplomacy, stressing that the country should be considered for a permanent seat due to its size, economic prowess, and democratic standing.
South Africa, with its strong voice in African and global politics, also views itself as a natural choice for the seat. However, as Chrispin Phiri, spokesperson for South Africa’s Department of International Relations, suggested, while the survey results are interesting, it is too soon to make any conclusions about who should represent Africa on the Council.
Unity and Challenges within Africa
Despite the apparent unity in Africa’s call for a permanent seat, experts caution that there are complexities involved in choosing which countries should represent the continent. Priyal Singh, an analyst at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria, emphasizes that while South Africa and Nigeria are economic powerhouses, other nations such as Kenya, Egypt, and Ethiopia also have strong claims based on their regional and global influence.
The African Union (AU) has made it clear that it expects its representatives to have veto power, particularly if the five existing permanent members retain theirs. Uganda’s Ambassador to the UN, Adonia Ayebare, has underscored that Africa will not settle for second-class treatment. “If there is a veto, why not have it?” he asked, reinforcing the idea that Africa’s status on the global stage should reflect its growing influence and not simply be a token gesture.
What Does the Future Hold?
The road to securing permanent seats on the UNSC will not be straightforward. The choice of which countries will occupy those seats, if the proposal passes, will ultimately be decided at an African Union summit. This decision will likely be a complex one, influenced by various factors, including population size, contributions to peacekeeping, and economic influence.
Furthermore, it remains to be seen how the global community will react to Africa’s potential inclusion. While the U.S. has offered its support, other powers, particularly China and Russia, may have different priorities when it comes to expanding the Security Council. As U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield noted, the proposal is a significant step forward, but challenges remain, especially regarding the question of veto power.
In conclusion, the question of whether it is time for Africa to reshape global diplomacy is one that will have profound implications for the future of the UNSC and global governance. As the continent continues to grow in both power and influence, the call for stronger representation is becoming louder. But whether this will translate into permanent seats on the UNSC, and whether those seats will come with the veto power that Africa insists upon, remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that Africa’s role in global diplomacy is poised to expand, and the world may be on the verge of a diplomatic shift that redefines international relations for the 21st century.