“History will judge those who stood by and said nothing, when they could have done something“– The Honourable Jeremy Corbin, MP
Eighty years ago, in the aftermath of the Second World War, the United Nations was created as humanity’s great experiment in collective security and shared destiny. Its Charter promised to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and to uphold peace, justice, and equality among nations. In 2025, as the UN marks its 80th anniversary, the question is inescapable: can the United Nations still embody the ideals for which it was founded, or has it become an outdated relic of a bygone era?
Nowhere is this question more urgent than in the composition of the Security Council, the UN’s most powerful organ. Here, Africa, a continent of 54 sovereign states and nearly 1.5 billion people, remains excluded from permanent membership. The Council’s permanent five — the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France — reflect the balance of power in 1945, not the balance of interests in the 21st century.
This exclusion is not just symbolic; it undermines the credibility of the international system. Africa, which accounts for nearly one-fifth of humanity and forms the largest regional bloc in the UN General Assembly, is the subject of more Council deliberations, sanctions, and peacekeeping operations than any other region. From Somalia and Sudan to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mali, Africa’s destiny has repeatedly been shaped in New York. Yet Africa itself has no permanent voice at the table where such decisions are made. That is a structural injustice which continues to erode trust in multilateralism.
The token representation of three rotating non-permanent seats does not alter the perception and the reality of marginalisation. It reduces Africa to a second-class participant in global governance, even as its people occupy the centre stage in the Council’s regular deliberations.
In 2005, the African Union adopted the Ezulwini Consensus, a landmark framework demanding at least two permanent seats for Africa with full veto rights, and five additional non-permanent seats. It was Africa’s declaration that it would no longer accept being a bystander in world affairs. Ezulwini remains a powerful rallying cry, but 20 years later it has not delivered results. The global landscape has shifted since then. Multipolarity is rising, the G20 has admitted the African Union as a member, BRICS has expanded its influence, and crises from Ukraine to Gaza, Sudan, and the Sahel have exposed the paralysis of a Council frozen by great-power rivalry.
For Africa to simply repeat Ezulwini without refining it risks causing stagnation of the initiative. To move beyond Ezulwini does not mean abandoning it, but operationalising its principles into pragmatic strategies that can win support and produce real change.
First, Africa must move from broad demands to specific proposals. A transparent mechanism for designating its permanent representatives is long overdue. Should the choice be regional, to ensure inclusion of North, West, East, Central, and Southern Africa? Should it be rotational, so that no particular state monopolises the role? Or should criteria such as population size, peacekeeping contributions, financial support for the UN, and diplomatic capacity determine eligibility?
Nigeria, South Africa and Egypt are often cited as natural candidates given their size and influence. Yet smaller states fear domination by regional hegemons. A fair, AU-sanctioned process can resolve this tension and give legitimacy to Africa’s chosen representatives. Drawing inspiration from the African Union Peace and Security Council and using tools such as the African Peer Review Mechanism, candidates could be assessed on governance, leadership, contributions to peace and security, and commitment to inclusive development. Such criteria would demonstrate Africa’s seriousness about responsibility as well as representation.
Second, Africa must be pragmatic about the use of the veto power. Ezulwini insists on equal veto rights for new permanent members, and rightly so since second-class membership would not be acceptable. Yet, the veto itself has become a discredited instrument. The Council’s paralysis over Syria, Ukraine, and Palestine is proof of how destructive this privilege can be. Even France, a Council permanent member, has called for its limitation. Africa could adopt a flexible stance whereby permanent membership without veto can be admitted for a transitional period, or maintaining the veto power subject to collective checks. What matters most is securing Africa’s permanent seat after which the veto debate can be settled.
Third, Africa must build global coalitions. Reforming the Security Council requires amending the UN Charter, a herculean process demanding two-thirds approval in the General Assembly and ratification by all five permanent members. Africa cannot achieve this alone. It must align with like-minded partners in Asia and Latin America — the G4 (Germany, Japan, India, Brazil) chief among them. Incremental change, such as expanding non-permanent seats, could be the first step toward more fundamental reform.
At the same time, Africa should leverage its growing diplomatic capital: its admission into the G20, its pivotal role in peacekeeping, its centrality in climate action, and its expanding weight in the global economy and in BRICS-Plus. Africa’s youthful population and position on the front lines of climate change make its inclusion not only fair but essential for the credibility and effectiveness of global governance. To exclude Africa is not just to deny its dignity; it is to weaken the capacity of the international community to respond to humanity’s shared crises.
Above all, Africa must present a united front. Internal rivalries, if left unresolved, will invite external powers to dismiss its case. A fractured Africa is a powerless Africa. A united Africa, with clear proposals and credible candidates, would be difficult to ignore.
The urgency could not be greater. The UN at 80 risks the fate of the League of Nations if it fails to adapt. A Security Council that excludes Africa lacks legitimacy, representation, and relevance. In a world scarred by climate disasters, pandemics, terrorism, conflicts and economic inequality, leaving Africa outside the chamber of permanent decision-making is a betrayal of both justice and common sense.
Reform is not a gift to Africa but a necessity for the survival of the United Nations itself. And Africa does not seek seats merely for prestige but for responsibility, to shoulder the burdens of peace and security, to contribute more financially, and to bring its voice, its energy, and its youth to the service of humanity.
The 80th anniversary of the UN must not pass with empty rhetoric. To delay reform yet again would deepen cynicism and accelerate the drift toward alternative groupings like BRICS, the G20, or the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation. To act now, by securing Africa’s rightful place, would renew faith in multilateralism and give substance to the Charter’s opening words: “We the peoples of the United Nations.”
The world cannot afford another decade of excuses. Africa cannot be kept waiting any longer. The time for reform is not tomorrow, but today.
The post Africa and the Membership of the United Nations Security Council: Beyond the Ezulwini Consensus, by Usman Sarki appeared first on Vanguard News.
