By most accounts little tangible was achieved at the recently concluded UN General Assembly. Even less so for the Global South.
It was more of the same — talk of reform, balanced development, global peace and the fight against the climate change crisis. For a body that is preparing for its 80th anniversary next year, that is disappointing. Not only has the UN failed to reform itself to become relevant in this century, but its Security Council — ostensibly the global peace watchdog — has watched as conflicts rage on around the world.
Proof points of its impotence include the background against which this year’s summit took place: the unwinnable war between Russia and Ukraine, a year-long bombardment of Gaza by Israel after Hamas’ October 7 2023 air and land assault on Israel and a month-long invasion of Hezbollah militants by an emboldened Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as several long-running African conflicts.
Most UN diplomats are not looking forward to next year’s 80th anniversary. They think it will — and should — be as low-key as the 75th, which took place during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Perhaps the only topic that generated any spirited, albeit largely informal, debate at the General Assembly was the proposal for Africa to have a seat in the Security Council. This is not a new proposal. For years Africa has been calling for representation on the structure charged with global peacemaking.
From a moral point of view most of the UN’s members agree that Africa should have a permanent seat on the council. They further agree that the continent could even have two seats alongside the five permanent members of the council — China, the UK, US, Russia and France — and 10 non-permanent members that are elected for a rotating two-year term.
The five permanent members have veto rights. This means decisions and resolutions have to be taken by consensus — almost as likely as like squeezing toothpaste back into the tube — making the body dysfunctional and unable to resolve conflicts around the world.
This past week the US threw its weight behind the proposal for Africa to have two permanent seats on the council. However, in its iteration this proposal comes without the veto rights enjoyed by the council’s permanent members.
Even though Africa often struggles to speak with one voice, it is unlikely to accept second-class citizenship status on the council. In coming months the proposal will be debated in African capitals, regional economic communities and the AU. Assuming the two-seat aspect is accepted the next question will be which of Africa’s 54 states should occupy them.
Years ago, when the issue of Africa’s representation on the council first gained traction, two countries’ names were bandied about — SA and Nigeria. This was when only a single seat proposal was on the table. A further complication will be that Nigeria, such as SA, is an English-speaking country in a continent that also has numerous francophone countries.
Unlike Africa, the other permanent members represent themselves and broader global interests, with the Global South championed by China and the Russian Federation. In a way, Africa has had its proxies at the main table for years.
Nigeria and SA both come with baggage. In the recent past SA has held global posts such as heading the AU (Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma), having its former deputy president (Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka) heading up UN Women, and most recently Wamkele Mene serving as the inaugural secretary-general of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA).
Nigerians, on the other hand, have led prestigious institutions such as the African Development Bank, the Commonwealth and now the World Trade Organisation through Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Nigeria’s former finance minister.
Hard sell
Pretoria and Abuja will be a hard sell to the rest of the continent. Compromise could come in two forms — either give the seats to smaller countries but ensure they send top-class diplomats who are well funded, or rotate the seats as with the AU, G20, Brics and EU presidency. The risk with the latter formulation is that it would make the seats less prestigious.
As with many such issues, Africa’s global allies will have a say, and their preferences. Key among these will be China and Russia on the one hand and the US-led West on the other, depending on who occupies the Oval office after the November elections.
In addition, questions are being raised about the motives of the US-inspired proposal for Africa to be given two seats on the council, but without veto rights. The continent is a terrain of fierce competition and rivalries between the world’s super powers and a main attraction is Africa’s mineral resources, especially those that are critical to the transition from fossil energy to clean green energy. Africa also occupies a strategic geopolitical position.
The continent’s push for a seat on the world’s apex organisation comes as the UN’s relevance is increasingly in question. Its failure to broker durable peace in Africa and end conflicts in Eastern Europe and the Middle East make it irrelevant compared to new multipolar formations.
As well as the question over whether Africa is ready to agree on which countries should take up the two seats and drive a common Africa agenda, the continent also has to grapple with whether it can engineer the reforms it has campaigned for all these years from within the belly of an ineffectual organism such as the UN Security Council.
• Dludlu, a former editor of The Sowetan, is CEO of the Small Business Institute.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.