The hurdles African countries face in getting permanent seats at UN Security Council

There is a growing global consensus among the members of the United Nations that the UN Security Council, responsible for maintaining international peace and security, requires reform or restructuring to reflect the current balance of forces, and to improve its working methods and ability to do its work.

There is also growing consensus among members of the African Union that Africa deserves a permanent presence at the council.

The debate took a new turn on September 13, when the US announced it would support the creation of two new permanent seats for African countries, and a non-permanent seat for small island developing nations. This came after a pledge in 2022 by the Biden administration to support the expansion of the Security Council.

The new permanent seats would come without the power of a veto vote.

Those with permanent seats and veto power (Russia and China, the US, the UK and France) are reluctant to share it, for fear of diluting their own interests and influence.

Second, if there was agreement on expansion, who would be worthy to fill the extra seats, and how would they be chosen? There are many deserving candidates, from Latin America to Europe and Asia.

Third, how would Africa go about selecting two of its own to represent the continent on the council?

Fourth, what would prevent such newcomers from being co-opted by the powerful (in this case, the US) to support or help implement Western peace and security agendas at the expense of African and global south agendas?

To offset the attractiveness and prestige of joining the premier international security club, Africa should be mindful of the entry requirements (namely, diplomatic nous, experience with peacekeeping and the ability to finance such), lest it find itself relegated to serving the security council’s longstanding members.

Africa would be wise to select and support candidates that have experience, resources and a credible peacebuilding track record on the continent.

Hurdles and dangers

It is far from obvious that the continent’s two economic giants, Nigeria and South Africa, should represent Africa.

Size counts but doesn’t always translate into attractiveness or credibility at home – a key requirement for a successful role in regional and international affairs.

The unfortunate reality is that Africa remains divided on the basis of region, language and culture. The continent struggles to speak with one voice on critical matters such as peace and security – the priority of the UN security agenda.

Under these conditions, a drawn-out and perhaps even unsuccessful process of selecting two out of the 54 members of the African Union is likely.

In addition, the offer by the West for Africa to take up seats should not be viewed as an act of benevolence. Bringing Africa into the Western sphere of influence is a strategic calculation to counter the growing impact of Russia and China on global affairs.

The emergence of a new world order produces stresses and strains. The West, led by the US, continues to exercise hard power but declining influence, while an assertive alliance of global south states, led by China, is bent on eventually determining international affairs.

Prominent members of the global south are enticed or pressured to partner with one or the other power bloc.

A view of the UN Security Council as members meet on the situation in the Sudan. (Photo: UN Photo/Manuel Elías)

Africa in particular is being courted precisely because of its large voting number (54 countries can swing decisions at multilateral meetings) but more strategically, because it constitutes the reservoir of the world’s future economy. Apart from being blessed with a youthful demographic, Africa can come into central focus due to its unique endowment of green transition minerals like cobalt, lithium and nickel.

Where to from here?

If all obstacles are overcome, the chosen countries will have their work cut out for them. Serving – never mind shaping – the UN Security Council agenda is a demanding, full-time task. The chosen African countries would have to commit significant human and financial resources, peacebuilding capacity and diplomatic leadership skills.

South Africa is arguably the best-placed to meet these criteria and can play a constructive role in pushing the African agenda. But it needs to be wary.

The country’s president, Cyril Ramaphosa, was quick to respond to the US statement. On the eve of departing for the annual UN General Assembly talk show he told the media, "We have been campaigning and the concept has been accepted and of course, Africa continues to play through various countries on the continent, important roles, peacekeeping missions not only on our continent but around the world. So, we [have] got the capability, we know how and Africa needs to be given its rightful place in the UN system and its various structures.

Some critical questions need to be answered by all African leaders first:

• What are the benefits of an African country taking up a permanent seat on the UN Security Council?
• How would it contribute, and what would it receive in return?
• Would it be able to set agendas and norms, or would it be forced to carry out the tasks of those who allowed it a seat at the table?

Africa is not unfamiliar with the workings of the United Nations system. It has benefited immensely from UN involvement as it strove for decolonisation and overcoming the apartheid system. It works closely with the UN as it faces the challenges of underdevelopment, unequal trade, extreme weather and the ongoing exploitation of its human and natural resources.

It is fitting and ethical for Africa to take up permanent seats at the apex institution and put the security council to work to address Africa’s peace and security challenges.

To do so, its chosen members must chart an African course of action, supported by the other members of the council.