“The current composition of the Security Council does not reflect the world in which we live.”
South African President, Cyril Ramaphosa
With seventy-five years (75) years gone by, two thousand, five hundred and fifty-two (2552) Security Council Resolutions adopted and the progressive wave of the international relations landscape, one question lingers; “does the composition of the United Nations Security Council reflect the world we live in today.”
What is the Table?
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC), one of the main organs of the United Nations, bears the responsibilities of maintaining international peace and security, developing friendly relations among nations, cooperating to solve international problems, promoting human rights, and the harmonization of actions of member nations of the United Nations. These responsibilities and the composition of the UNSC are prescribed by the United Nations Charter. Therefore, one can say that the mandate of the UNSC does seem to be; “to keep the earth spinning.”
The UNSC is by far one of the most powerful organs of the United Nations. It can determine the existence or otherwise of threats to international peace and security and take actions to quell hostilities when and where they arise. For the sustenance of international peace, the UNSC under its Chapter VII powers also has the authority to impose enforcement measures such as economic sanctions, travel restrictions and bans, arms embargoes, severance of diplomatic relations and collective military action where there has been a breach of the UN Charter and a threat to international peace and security. Indeed, the range of the UNSC’s authority is broad and has far-reaching consequences.
Who is at the Table?
At the moment, the UNSC is composed of five permanent members and ten non-member states. The permanent member states, also known as the P5, are - China, France, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The ten non-permanent members are each elected by the General Assembly to serve two-year terms. Currently, the non-permanent members of the UNSC are Belgium, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Germany, Indonesia, Niger, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Africa, Tunisia and Viet Nam.
Procedurally only members of the UNSC can vote on resolutions of the UNSC. Worthy of note, however, is the fact that, historically, of the 193 member states of the United Nations, over 50 states have never held a seat at the UNSC, and as such, have not been able to participate to any degree in making determinations on issues of world peace and security at the UNSC.
For non-permanent members present at the Table notwithstanding, the P5 has a very substantive power, which creates a significant distinction between the permanent and non-permanent members – veto powers. Though entrenched in the United Nations Charter per Article 27 (3) of the United Nations Charter, which states that all substantive decisions of the Council must be made with “the concurring votes of the permanent members,” it has been argued by many that the veto powers of the P5 exacerbate the power imbalance between the P5 and other member nations of the United Nations.
On the flip side, the expansion of the non-permanent member seats at the UNSC by A/RES/1991 (XVIII) arguably echoes the reality of the progressive international relations clime. Article 23 (1) of the United Nations Charter illustrates that at the formation of the UNSC, there were only six non-permanent seats, which has been increased to ten by A/RES/1991 (XVIII). Notwithstanding the expanded geographic representation formula introduced by A/RES/1991 (XVIII), which gives five seats of the ten non-permanent seats to Africa and Asian States, the viewpoint of many African states is that the composition of the UNSC is still antiquated and fails to reflect the reality of the world we live in.
What is done at the Table?
The powers that the UNSC wield encompasses making a determination that a situation requires or does not require a UNSC intervention. Beyond making the determination, the UNSC also determines the enforcement mechanism for quelling threats to international peace and security. Within the scope of its mandate, the UNSC, as a matter of finality, adopts resolutions that become settled on a case in point. Arguably the status of UNSC resolutions is akin to the law within the international fora; at the very best, it presents as a declaration that member states seek to adhere to. Since the inception of the UNSC in 1945, it has adopted 2552 resolutions on a range of thematic and country specific response to issues of peace and security.
The process leading up to a resolution navigates a variegated pathway. For one, the UNSC can explore its Article 28 (2) of the United Nations Charter power to hold meetings, either public or private, to flesh out relevant details before the UNSC. The UNSC also has the authority to issue invitations to persons whom it considers competent to give assistance in examining matters or supply information such a person is competent to provide. Informal interactive dialogues (IID) are another pathway that the UNSC uses as a fact-finding and information gathering tool to address issues before it. IIDs are organized at the initiative of one or more Council members, to entreat the perspective of member states locked in conflict. Also, the UNSC has the power to dispatch or not dispatch (as we saw in Rwanda and in the Srebrenica) UN peacekeeping missions to conflict zones and fragile states for the maintenance of peace and security in fragile states. Presently the UN has thirteen peacekeeping missions, seven of which are in Africa.
The order of world events in recent years has shown increased engagement within the African region. On the UNSC 2019 agenda, there were ninety-four cases from Africa, which constituted 50.27 percent of the UNSC’s agenda for the year 2019. By the end of 2019, of all the decisions reached, issues in Africa formed 64.15 percent. Specifically, 50 percent of the chapter VII resolutions adopted in 2019 were in respect of African countries, representing six out of eleven (Sudan/South Sudan, Central African Republic, DRC, Somalia, Mali, Libya).
Why not Africa?
At the root of the quest for “a seat at the table” is the assumption that the decision making and the subjects of the said decisions are detached. Therefore, the clamour is for a synergy to allow for the intersectionalities of the subject to come into play by allowing the subjects of the decisions the opportunity to advocate their case – leveraging their unique lived experiences to offer greater clarity and create solutions unique to them – and the entire international community.
If the trend in the last few years is anything to go by, many of the decisions reached or resolutions adopted by the UNSC have thematic and country-specific reference to the African region. Evidence-based studies show that since the 2000s, Africa houses more than 50 percent of the fastest-growing economies and that by 2050, every one in four humans would be African. To this end, Africa covets a UNSC that would offer a more encompassing representation, of its contribution to global economy and its numerical strength.
Africa’s quest for a seat at the Table has been aptly documented in The Ezulwini Consensus. In 2005, African states under the auspices of the African Union (AU) adopted a consensus document, The Ezulwini Consensus, where it recommends a UNSC that leans towards full participation. In this document, the AU recommends expanding the UNSC membership from fifteen to twenty-six, with Africa having two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats, one for each region – north, south, east, west and central. Although opposed in principle to veto, the Ezulwini Consensus Agreement demands that’s so long as the P5 has veto powers, all permanent members of the UNSC should have veto powers.
Conclusion
While Africa still champions its bid for a seat at the table – permanent representation and more non-permanent seats at the UNSC, it remains to be seen what the future holds. The antithesis to this bid for a seat at the table is the allusion to the weak institution and corruption that has come to be accustomed with many countries in Africa. But again, are there any nation-states devoid of internal challenges?
As Carl Cohen asks
“Have I a Right to a Voice in Decisions that Affect My Life?”
I dare ask….
“Can Africa have a Seat at the Table?”