By Morris Wambua

The Perennial Question of African Representation at the UNSC

Oh, how sweet it would be!

Africa, the continent with the largest number of nations under the United Nations banner, finally getting a seat—or two—at the most exclusive international decision-making table: the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

While the idea of Africa finally claiming its spot as a permanent member seems like the kind of reform the world needs, the devil, as always, is in the details, and trust me, there are more devils here than at a Halloween party.

Africa’s bid for permanent seats on the UNSC is gaining momentum, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. With global power plays, geopolitical maneuvering, and the inevitable contest for influence, this journey is neither simple nor straightforward.

From the inevitable internal squabbles over who gets to sit on these coveted seats to the potential
co-optation by Western powers, Africa’s ambition is rife with complexity.

Will it be more than political theater? That’s the trillion-dollar question.

The Push for UNSC Reform: A Battle of Old Power vs. New Realities

Why is Africa pushing for permanent representation on the UNSC, and why now?

In short, the UNSC in its current form looks about as fresh as a fax machine. Established post-World War II, the council's five permanent members—The U.S., U.K., France, Russia, and China—were reflective of the global power structure back then.

However, the geopolitical realities of the 1940s bear little resemblance to those of today.

Africa, with over a billion people and a fast-growing economy, feels it deserves a say in global security decisions that affect it.

Fair point.

African nations have been involved in countless UN peacekeeping missions, and given the continent's resource wealth, population, and growing strategic importance, it seems logical that they would demand a permanent seat.

So, when on September 13, 2024, the U.S. officially backed two permanent African seats (without the pesky veto, of course) and a non-permanent seat for small island nations, it felt like a win for Africa—or did it?

Support is great, but how much is this worth when veto power, the true currency of UNSC influence, is notably missing?

The Gloriously Flawed Power of the Veto: Why Africa Won’t Get It

The veto power.

The UNSC’s golden scepter, wielded with impunity by its five permanent members to block any resolution they don’t fancy.

So, let’s get this straight. Africa gets two permanent seats on the council, but they come without veto power.

In other words, they get a front-row seat to global decision-making, but no real authority to change the course of any decision.

Sounds promising, right?

The veto isn’t just a procedural tool; it’s the beating heart of the UNSC’s power dynamics.

The current five permanent members—the U.S., U.K., Russia, China, and France—are unlikely to give up this power without a fight. And by "unlikely," I mean not a chance in hell.

Expanding the council could dilute their power, and that’s the one thing the permanent five won’t allow.

After all, why on earth would these nations voluntarily limit their influence, especially when global tensions are already sky-high? Between the growing economic and military muscle of China, and the
Western bloc’s not-so-subtle chess match against Russia, this is a game of geopolitics where every move matters.

If Africa wants to play, it’ll have to do so on their terms—veto-free.

African Unity: The Unicorn of Continental Politics

Alright, let’s assume the veto isn’t a deal breaker for Africa.

Even if the current members generously allow for African representation, the real fun begins when Africa itself has to decide who gets those coveted seats.

The African Union (AU) consists of 54 member states.

That’s 54 countries, each with their own agendas, ambitions, and longstanding regional rivalries. Getting them to agree on anything of substance is already a diplomatic high-wire act, so imagine the fireworks when it comes to choosing two permanent UNSC representatives.

Historically, South Africa and Nigeria have been floated as the most likely candidates.

After all, they’re Africa’s largest economies, and both have led regional security initiatives and peacekeeping efforts.

Sounds logical, right?

However, the bad news is that neither of them is exactly in great shape. Nigeria is neck-deep in security crises, battling Boko Haram and other insurgent groups.

South Africa?

Well, it’s contending with an economic recession, domestic instability, and a diplomatic reputation that’s been eroded by years of internal corruption.

Other African nations, many of which have less economic or military clout, might see the dominance of these two giants as more of a liability than an asset.

After all, would South Africa or Nigeria really advocate for a pan-African agenda, or would they pursue their own national interests under the guise of continental leadership? And then there’s Egypt, Kenya, or Ethiopia—each with their own claims to regional influence.

Good luck to anyone tasked with refereeing that mess.

The Strategic Play: Africa Caught Between Superpowers

 Africa’s bid for UNSC seats is not happening in a vacuum.

Western powers, particularly the U.S., have realized the strategic importance of Africa, especially in counterbalancing the growing influence of China and Russia on the continent.

Let’s not mince words—Africa is rich in resources, including rare minerals needed for the global tech industry, and has a young population that makes it a tantalizing market for the future.

It's no wonder the U.S. wants to bolster African representation.

However, it’s not just about inclusion—it’s about influence.

Two African seats on the UNSC could be a way for the West to rope the continent into aligning with its broader geopolitical strategy, all while pretending it’s empowering Africa.

Sure, the U.S. offer might look like an olive branch, but let’s call it what it is—a way to strategically co-opt Africa into its game of global power.

Without veto power, Africa runs the risk of becoming a glorified observer, unable to shift the UNSC’s agenda, but pressured to vote in line with its benefactors. It’s like being invited to dinner, only to find out you’re expected to clean the dishes afterward.

The Criteria for African Representation: Diplomatic Muscle or Symbolism?

For Africa’s seats to matter, the continent needs to send heavyweights—nations with credible peacebuilding experience, strong diplomatic networks, and the financial capacity to sustain their commitments.

After all, a permanent seat isn’t a ceremonial position.

It’s a full-time job requiring leadership and diplomatic finesse.

South Africa has long been involved in peacekeeping efforts, but its domestic problems mean it might struggle to lead effectively.

Nigeria, despite its economic might, is plagued by internal conflicts and a faltering diplomatic reputation.

If Africa’s chosen representatives can’t present a united front or demonstrate global leadership, they risk becoming pawns in a broader geopolitical chess game.

Again, let’s not forget the optics.

Sending weak or compromised nations to represent the continent would not just undermine Africa’s influence—it would reinforce every cynical assumption that the continent isn’t ready to play in the big leagues.

Balancing Risks and Opportunities: A High-Stakes Game

There’s no denying the symbolism of Africa securing permanent UNSC seats.

The continent would finally get its long-overdue representation, a recognition of its importance in global security and governance but without veto power, how meaningful is this representation?

The risk is clear.

Africa could end up as a secondary player in the UNSC, expected to lend legitimacy to decisions made by the existing power brokers but with little actual influence.

That’s the optimistic scenario.

The pessimistic view?

Africa becomes a tool for global powers to pursue their own interests, with little regard for the continent’s actual needs.

History has shown that the UN system is far from perfect when it comes to African interests. While the UN played a critical role in the decolonization of Africa, it has also been criticized for its inability
to address issues like underdevelopment and resource exploitation.

Without strategic planning, Africa’s presence on the UNSC could mirror a more symbolic than substantive reality.

Charting Africa’s Independent Path in a Geopolitical Storm

Africa's bid for permanent representation on the UNSC is long overdue but it’s not enough to merely occupy seats at the table.

The chosen African representatives must have a clear mandate to promote an African agenda that addresses the continent’s unique peace and security challenges.

More importantly, they must resist the inevitable pressure from global powers to simply fall in line with existing power dynamics.

If Africa is to turn this opportunity into lasting change, it will need strong leadership, robust diplomatic strategies, and a commitment to independence from external influence. Anything less, and the continent risks becoming another pawn in the geopolitical chessboard—a symbolic player without real power.

FAQs

1. Why is Africa pushing for permanent seats on theUNSC?
Africa believes its population size, resource wealth, and strategic importance warrant permanent representation in global security decisions.

2. Which African countries are most likely to securepermanent UNSC seats?
Nigeria and South Africa are the most cited contenders due to their economic and diplomatic roles, but both face internal challenges.

3. Will African countries have veto power on theUNSC?
No, the current proposal excludes veto power, leaving African countries without the ability to block resolutions.

4. What are the risks of Africa securing permanentUNSC seats?
Africa risks being co-opted by Western powers and marginalized in decision-making without veto power.

5. How can Africa maximize its influence on theUNSC?
By selecting strong, experienced representatives with clear peacebuilding and diplomatic credentials, and advocating for genuine reforms.