UNSC: What About Africa?

Black and white hands, courtesy of crlse/flickr

Hands of unity
(cc) crlse/flickr

Africa is paradoxically both heavily present and strikingly absent on the UN Security Council. Although not a single African state possesses a permanent seat on the Council, issues affecting the African continent are frequently discussed there, Séverine Koen comments for ISN Security Watch.

By Séverine Koen for ISN Security Watch

Out of the 27 resolutions adopted by the Security Council this year, 13 dealt with Africa.

To be fair, when the UN was created and permanent seats were allocated in 1945, one could only count four independent African states, and none of these nations had even the slightest chance of being included in the exclusive club of the world’s biggest players. Over 60 years later, despite a world map that has transformed itself dramatically, the Security Council composition has not changed: the P-5 (or 'Permanent Five') still remain sole holders of the most privileged and prestigious status in the UN.

Not surprisingly, Security Council reform has elicited the interest of numerous nations, not the least of which are African.

At the 7th Extraordinary Session of the African Union in Addis Ababa in 2005, member states adopted a common position, the Ezulwini Consensus, which called for two permanent seats for Africa with veto rights. This common African position has since then been almost flawlessly touted by each and every African nation.

Although Africa managed to be one of the only regional blocs to have united so strongly under a common position, any applause would be premature, as the ‘consensus’ hides much internal dissent and frustrations. Indeed, no agreement can be reached as to which countries would be afforded 'Africa’s' permanent seats. The lack of African agreement (concerning the veto) had already hindered a chance for reform in 2005. This prompts the question: Is African unity necessary to achieve a Security Council reform that meets their expectations?

On the one hand, it is hard not to notice that virtually all states support the allocation of one or two permanent seats for Africa (except those that oppose the expansion of the permanent category altogether – mainly the Uniting for Consensus Group).

A trend of support for Africa’s 'legitimate claims' is apparent in most countries’ statements during negotiations. This would suggest that, regardless of the strategy of the African Union (AU), two permanent seats would most likely be guaranteed for Africa if the permanent category were to be expanded. Because the African demands are almost universally recognized, they do not seem to necessitate a show of unity from the continent in question.

Yet, as clearly stated in the Ezulwini Consensus, Africa is adamant about choosing its permanent seat candidates itself. Thus, Africa cannot afford to sit back and wait for two permanent seats to be handed to it, at the risk of losing influence over the decision of who should fill them. Besides, it is contrary to Africa’s interests (as well as any other UN member’s) to be non-active in such an important reform process that could potentially redefine the chief body of the UN.

Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa and even Senegal, Kenya and Libya, have all shown interest in obtaining a permanent seat. Yet, in the rhetoric used by these and other African nations during negotiations, no individual claims are put forth. Instead, the African discourse centers on a widespread feeling of historic injustice, present-day exclusion and need for restoration of sovereign equality and better representation 'for Africa' through reform.

This framework places African nations in a situation in which they cannot disunite to advance individual claims, as they have all collectively suffered these wrongs. This discourse also suggests that the African permanent seats would be used as representative of continental, as opposed to national, opinions.

Considering that Africa does not seem interested in settling for anything less than permanent seats (it has dismissed models proposing the expansion of only non-permanent seats), African unity beyond the Ezulwini Consensus is essential.

The strength of Africa’s unity will not lie in their faithfulness to an ‘empty’ position – one that asks for permanent seats without even knowing who would fill them – but the strength of their unity will come from putting aside their intra-continental differences, deciding on their own set of specific criteria and facing the tough choice of permanent seats now.

Séverine Koen is an intern at the Center for Security Studies (CSS). She holds a BA in Political Science and International Development Studies from McGill University in Canada.

The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the author only, not the International Relations and Security Network (ISN).