Why Africa is furious with the US over UN Security Council seats

By Susan Mwongeli

Africa's long-standing quest for permanent seats in the UN Security Council received an unlikely endorsement from the US ahead of the General Assembly's 79th session in New York in September.

The pleasantness of the surprise typically didn't last long since the announcement came with a caveat.

While the US committed to backing the move for African countries to get at least two permanent seats in the Security Council, it insisted that potential new entrants shouldn't be automatically entitled to the essence of being in that hallowed group—veto power.

"We don’t want to give up our veto power...Expanding veto power across the board will make the council more dysfunctional," said Linda Thomas-Greenfield, the American ambassador to the UN.

The US's position has predictably angered African countries and their institutions, with many describing it as an insult to the continent.

Arikana Chihombori-Quao, a former ambassador of the African Union to the US, believes that Africa should not "waste time" occupying permanent seats in the Security Council without being given veto power.

"We are sick and tired of this," she declares, voicing the frustration of a continent that wants more than lip service paid to its rightful demand.

So, why does a permanent presence in the Security Council matter?

Simply put, it is the most influential arm of the UN, comprising a select club of countries with the power to decide what the rest cannot.

The UN has 193 members, but only five countries are permanent members of the Security Council with veto power. Alongside the US, the members of this exclusive club are the UK, Russia, China, and France.

Each has the right to reject any UN resolution that does not favour it, and that resolution is forgotten.

Chihombori-Quao is aghast that five nations can outweigh 188 others when it counts.

"I think it's ludicrous that the UN can seriously have a conversation, engage nations in a debate on whether or not we should expand the Security Council, and then insult us by saying, 'Oh! Yes, you can become a member, but just come and sit at the table and remain mute like you have been for centuries. That's unacceptable," she says.

With 54 countries and a more than 1.5 billion population, Africa is the largest voting bloc in the General Assembly. African leaders have been pushing for the continent to have permanent seats on the Security Council with veto power because the General Assembly's decisions are not binding on the members.

As South African President Cyril Ramaphosa puts it, that's the benchmark of inequity in the world order.

"Placing the fate of the world's security in the hands of a select few when it is the vast majority of the peoples of the world who bear the brunt of the various threats is unjust, unfair, and unsustainable," he says.

Kenyan President William Ruto views it as a travesty that a 21st-century global institution can exclude 54 African countries and allow five nations to veto the decisions of the remaining members.

When the UN was established, most African countries were under repressive colonialism. What confounds most observers is the organisation's continued lopsidedness in thought and action regarding the continent.

"Nearly 80 years after its creation, the Security Council has been stuck in a warp. Its imbalanced composition is unjust and at odds with current realities, undermining its legitimacy and effectiveness," says President Julius Maada Bio of Sierra Leone.

Currently, issues specific to Africa account for 60-70% of the Security Council's agenda. Yet, the decision-making caucus does not give the continent a say in these matters, taking self-serving positions.

Structural flaws

The UN was established in 1945, just after World War II, with the primary responsibility of preventing and resolving conflicts. The idea was to avoid the mistakes of its predecessor, the League of Nations.

The Security Council remains the most influential arm of the UN. It has 15 members, 10 of whom are non-permanent constituents without veto power. The permanent members have remained the same since the council was established.

The non-permanent members are elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly on a rotational basis among countries from the regional blocs in the UN.

Africa has three non-permanent seats, currently occupied by Algeria, Sierra Leone and Mozambique.

In some cases, the Security Council can even authorise using military force against an aggressor. But here's the rider: if any of the so-called P5 doesn't like a decision, it can just veto it.

"It is critical that the pen-holder power within the Security Council is democratised. You cannot continue to have a P5 that holds the nuclear button and wields the power to draft and table resolutions," says Amitabh Behar, executive director of Oxfam International.

In principle, the African Union is in favour of abolishing veto power. If the P5 retains veto power, two permanent seats with all powers should come to Africa.

Divided caucus

Although it is the most powerful organ of the UN, the Security Council is also the most divided.

Its members, particularly Russia, China and the US, frequently disagree and clash on major resolutions that could impact the world.

Some analysts say that expanding the council could bring some balance and make it more representative of the current world.

The Ezulwini Consensus, named after a valley in Central Eswatini (erstwhile Swaziland), was arrived at in 2005 to push for Africa's representation in the Security Council through permanent membership.

African countries are not the only ones pushing for the expansion of the Security Council. This is a growing global campaign led by nations such as Türkiye.

"A comprehensive reform is needed in the UN, especially in the Security Council. The world is bigger than five. We need to democratise the decision-making procedure at the UN," says Hakan Fidan, Türkiye's minister of foreign affairs.

"The resolutions adopted with an overwhelming majority at the General Assembly cannot be implemented because of the Security Council. International peace and security cannot be left to the will of a privileged clique consisting of a limited number of countries."

Complex process

The UN Charter must be revised to expand the Security Council. Some say it is a difficult task, albeit not impossible.

Two-thirds of the General Assembly must agree, and all veto-holding members must be on board.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres sounds optimistic. "I think all those things are possible, and I am hoping for progress in all of them. I am sceptical about the possibility of abolishing veto power, though. That is not to say I like it," he declares.

➤Click here to follow our WhatsApp channel for more stories.