Africa continues to demand two permanent seats on the UN Security Council, but which two countries can realistically protect African interests?
An AI-generated meme currently doing the rounds shows a group of cherubic African-American toddlers, in a naked emperor moment, holding aloft a placard with the words ‘stop twerking and give us some generational wealth’.
Not too hard to imagine more severely worded placards held up by youth in Kenya, Nigeria etc. demonstrating the growing anger at their global powerlessness, and their increasing impatience with the strategic decisions and abortive deliveries of their elders and leaders.
Can they be trusted to put the interests of their countries and the young first, can they negotiate effectively with more powerful external players, or are they merely at best hopelessly self-interested and at worst, vassals acting on behalf of others?
These questions of powerlessness and strategic effectiveness immediately come to the mind over reform of the pinnacle of global power – the UN Security Council.
At a time of huge turbulence and shifting of the global order, pressure is once again building for the UN Security Council to finally admit a permanent African Security Council representative, alongside the current five veto-wielding permanent members.
Out of the 54 countries at the UN, Africa currently has two of the rotating 10 non-permanent members, without a veto. The continent demands at least two permanent veto-wielding members.
UN debate initiator, President Maada Bio of Sierra Leone, who has the support of Secretary-General António Guterres, was robust in reiterating Africa’s longstanding calls for reform: “The time for half-measures and incremental progress is over. Africa must be heard, and its demands for justice and equity must be met.”
One understands the passion behind these recurring African demands for ‘justice and equity’ but the sentiment is totally misplaced if we believe the UN Security Council to be a democratic forum.
It was structured not to repeat the mistakes of the League of Nations, which did not adequately recognise the interests of powerful states. The veto wielded by the five victors of the WWII was based on realism, “not justice or equity”, ensuring that their red lines and vital interests would always be protected.
Of course, the order that was established in that post- war period is on the verge of total collapse. Countries like France and the UK, which had huge empires in Asia and Africa, are now diminished, medium-sized powers, with the war losers like Japan and Germany having overtaken them economically.
Now they take up positions they can’t sustain. Realistically, their continued existence as veto-wielding members is actually destabilising, as new economic and military powers arise – i.e., India,
Brazil, Iran – alongside religious, regional and other civilizational power centers, whose reality needs acknowledging.
A sobering reality
Realistically then, where do the African countries sit in all this in terms of hard economic and military power? Which two African veto wielding powers can speak for the continent – Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, Ethiopia? Which of them can protect its own red-lines in its near abroad, let alone Africa’s? Can Nigeria internally, and in a disintegrating Ecowas? Egypt in Libya, Sudan, Gaza? Ethiopia internally? Perhaps South Africa in SADC?
Also, the arguments about ‘equity and justice’ do not take into account whether any of these countries will actually protect Africa’s vital interests.
Take two examples of African behavior in the Security Council from the last 15 years. First, rotating members Nigeria, South Africa, and Gabon in 2011 voted for Security Council Resolution 1973 which led to the destruction of the Libyan state, as well as chaos and instability across West Africa. Five countries (Brazil, Germany, India, and permanent members China and Russia) abstained, with Russia and China later hinting that they would have vetoed the resolution had the African countries voted against.
The second example is the Nigerian-led Ecowas threat to launch military action against Niger, following a bloodless coup. The move was widely perceived as protecting Western (especially French) interests, rather than protecting democracy or African interests. It has led to the fragmentation of Ecowas, with three states withdrawing.
The African diaspora in the UK have learned that simple representation is not enough after a Prime Minister and Home Secretaries with immigrant backgrounds indulged in gross anti-immigrant rhetoric and legislation.
It is far better to first define the minimal principled positions and core African interests that our two veto-wielding representatives would be minded to protect. Perhaps a consensus AU representative?