This past September, as part of its annual U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) conference in New York, the U.N. held the landmark Summit of the Future event, where debate centered on the prospect of granting African member states permanent seats on the U.N. Security Council (UNSC). The move promises to right historical wrongs and strengthen legitimacy in today’s era of pessimism toward the U.N.
But this is not new.
At the 2022 African Union Summit, Abiy Ahmed, prime minister of Ethiopia, reflected on how, despite 80 years of existence, the U.N. continues to marginalize Africa.
“Africa remains a junior partner without meaningful input or role in the system of international governance,” he said. “This is particularly true of the United Nations where Africa lacks representation on the Security Council and is underrepresented in a variety of ways.”
But to be frank, the U.N. was never meant to help Africa. The U.N. was created after World War II as a debate-centered global security alliance to prevent a World War III, especially among the Great Powers. In the U.N.’s early days, it was decided the organization would be divided into two distinct parts.
The UNGA would consist of all member states, debating and drafting resolutions to address crises or condemn the acts of another member state. The UNSC, contrarily, would consist of only 15 member states, reviewing draft resolutions for implementation and was the undisputed highest decision-making body within the U.N.
However, only five of the 15 members are granted permanent status on the body, while the remaining 10 are rotated in two-year terms. Britain, France, the Republic of China, the Soviet Union and the United States, also known as the Big Five, were chosen for their contributions to the Allied victory in World War II, not for example, their moral righteousness or restraint.
Additionally, the rightful place of the Big Five has been hotly contested in the case of Taiwan and China, or Britain, France and post-Soviet Russia, who used to rule over countries that were just as much or more deserving of the status through their contributions to victory in World War II. The UNSC, therefore, is not a council of the just, but the powerful.
But the continent’s collective anger has been placed on the Big Five’s access to veto power. Intended only in the most extreme cases, the veto allows its holder to block any legislation by the UNGA, despite overwhelming support. This is a power that has been unjustly overexploited to serve the Big Five’s national interest.
The U.N. has proven to be an ineffective body in addressing global challenges as a result, with the UNSC being particularly guilty in this matter. The victims of this inefficiency are too many to count, ask the Ukrainians, Cubans or Uyghurs of today. Still, Africans are acutely aware of this, fueling a rising movement arguing that Africa ought to have a seat at the table. This should come to nobody’s surprise.
Despite the language of self-determination in the founding charter, the U.N. never forced imperialist nations to decolonize. Even when sufficient diplomatic pressure materialized, the past six decades of neo-colonial rule have seen assassinations, high-scale privatized mineral exploitation and child labor in Africa with no consequences to its perpetrators. Despite this, the U.N. stands to benefit, because who better to strengthen the existing system than the countries that suffered the most as a result of its weakness?
The case has been reinforced by the fact that Africa is set to become its own powerful geopolitical entity for a host of reasons, one being population.
As a result of the continent’s 54 nations reporting a higher birth rate than anywhere else in the world, the average African is over a decade younger than the global average, according to Statista. If continued at the same pace, the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies reports that Africa will be the most populated continent in the world by 2100. Put simply, Africa is rapidly developing its people power, which is guaranteed to have profound political and economic impacts worldwide.
Additionally, the rise of social media and the proliferation of the mobile phone, when mixed with the massive youth population of these countries has awoken a continent-wide political consciousness that outright rejects neo-colonial rule.
Lastly, the new Cold War between the U.S. and China is global in nature, but Africa is proving to be the decisive battleground between the two countries. The Chinese Belt and Road Initiative and U.S. efforts to counter Chinese influence in countries like Kenya, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Tanzania and Gabon.
This ‘strategic competition’ between both Great Powers will inevitably grant each country the window of opportunity required to leverage their newfound geopolitical significance for economic development.
But it’s this same competition that complicates the prospects of retaining permanent status, as the UNSC’s failure to find consensus on matters concerning climate change, global health and condemnation of member states for violations of international law underscores this.
Any addition, therefore, is expected to result in heavy strategic implications that could sway votes on one side or the other. The 2024 summit proposed the U.N. support the addition of two African states to the UNSC’s permanent body in the near future, but the U.S. fears uncertainty over how African countries would vote in global crises, and opinions are split on whether their inclusion would help or hurt their national interest.
To be fair, the U.S.’s influence today over African countries at the U.N. is already very limited. After all, in response to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, it was “African states [that] formed a significant bloc of countries choosing to abstain from the UNGA vote to demand Russia pull its troops out of Ukraine,” according to Fikayo Akeredolu of the Wilson Center, and this was nowhere near the first time.
Africa has diverged from the U.S. at the U.N. on a host of different issues, whether it be Iraq in 2003, Israel at any time and Cuba since 1962, and even Ukraine, therefore consistently siding with U.S. adversaries at the U.N. This is concerning, but Jeffrey Barrett, senior analyst for Africa at Arcanum Global, is more hopeful, believing that supporting the expansion will reverse this trend.
“Maybe advocating for the expansion of the UNSC will act as an olive branch, and by recognizing the value of having African member states as part of the Security Council even if it doesn’t pass it would go a long way in recognizing the continent as an equal,” he said. “If the U.S. can be seen as being in their corner, this can be a very strategic long-view move.”
That is, if President-Elect Donald Trump is convinced to continue the support. Barrett believes “the likelihood of the U.S. advocating for this is pretty low” under the president-elect, suggesting Trump doesn’t much care for Africa, but conversely, Africans love him.
In October 2018, the Economist broke the news with an article titled “Why Donald Trump is popular in Africa,” detailing how his decisive ‘no-nonsense’ attitude, however rude, are traits often admired in traditional African leadership.
Another thing, Trump doesn’t preach. Compared to other American leaders, he doesn’t attempt to impose democracy in return for critical food aid, medicine and security assistance, and he doesn’t seek to impose gay rights or abortion as they broadly oppose most modern African cultural norms. Trump’s transactional foreign policy, then, could help African leaders see alliance opportunities with the U.S.
A Gallup poll the following year validated this fringe view, showing Trump with 52 percent favorability among Africans despite global unpopularity. The president-elect has options, he just needs to see them with his eyes wide open.
Trump ought to make up his mind fast, as China seeks to significantly alter its foreign policy in the recent Forum on China-Africa Cooperation Summit. In the summit, written commitments mirrored previous initiatives to promote cultural exchange and “enhance the bond between Chinese and African people,” signifying a clear intent to challenge the U.S. in an arena previously considered incontestable: soft power, or the ability to influence the actions of people and states without the use of force. If Trump ignores Africa in his second term, China will gladly fill the gap, making urgent U.S. engagement essential.
Barrett said, “If he [Trump] does drop the ball, this would play perfectly into China’s strategic hand. They would definitely take advantage of that opportunity to step into that vacuum of influence with Africa.” China’s economic influence already presents a significant challenge, and when coupled with cultural diplomacy, it can be weaponized.
It’s time for America to pick a side because this project will move forward with or without the U.S.
The U.N. is at a crossroads. It is a strategic necessity that African states be included on the Security Council, not just because it’s fair or morally correct. If Washington hesitates, it risks ceding influence to a rival power that has no such reservations. The question is not whether the UN will adapt but whether America will rise to meet the challenge. Time, as ever, waits for no one.
Copy edited by Camiryn Stepteau
