By Gertrude Kamya Othieno
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) stands as one of the most influential bodies in global governance, entrusted with the critical task of maintaining international peace and security.
Currently, it comprises 15 members, including five permanent members; China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, who wield the essential veto power.
This veto allows any one of these nations to block decisions, regardless of the level of support from other Council members. The remaining ten members are non-permanent, serving rotating two-year terms without veto authority.
Recently, the UN proposed to offer Africa two permanent seats on the Security Council, but without veto powers. This offer was swiftly rejected by two eminent Pan-Africanists, Dr. Arikana Chihombori-Quao and Professor P.L.O. Lumumba.
Both leaders, renowned for their steadfast commitment to African sovereignty, argued that this proposal would not serve Africa’s true interests and would merely sustain the existing inequalities within the Council. But were their rejections warranted?
A Token Presence Without Power
At the heart of the rejection is the absence of veto power in the proposed offer. The veto is a formidable tool that enables any permanent member to block substantive Security Council resolutions.
Chihombori-Quao and Lumumba contended that, without this power, Africa’s presence on the Council would be largely symbolic. The continent would remain subject to the dictates and interests of the five permanent members.
Despite holding permanent seats, African nations would be powerless to influence international decisions that directly impact their future.
Dr. Arikana Chihombori-Quao has been outspoken about the neo-colonial character of global institutions, including the UN, where African states are often relegated to second-class status.
To her, accepting seats without veto power would imply a resignation to a subordinate role. Africa should not be satisfied with mere appearances of inclusion; it should demand full participation on equal terms with other global powers.
Professor Lumumba echoes this sentiment, consistently arguing that Africa’s position in the global arena must align with its increasing significance and independence.
He views the offer as a contemporary form of subjugation, where the continent is granted a seat at the table yet remains excluded from genuine decision-making. For him, rejecting this offer is about rejecting a system that perpetuates global inequality and denies Africa full autonomy in international affairs.
Historical Context and Neo-Colonialism
The rejection of the offer by Arikana and Lumumba also needs to be situated within the broader historical context of Africa’s marginalisation and exploitation.
The current structure of the UNSC reflects the geopolitical realities of the post-World War II era, where African states had scant voice. The Council’s framework favours the victors of that conflict, leaving Africa with minimal influence.
By proposing permanent seats without veto power, the UN effectively asks Africa to acquiesce to a system that has historically excluded and exploited it.
This offer fails to address the deep-rooted structural inequalities that permit powerful nations to intervene in African matters without accountability.
Both Arikana and Lumumba perceive the proposal as yet another attempt to placate Africa while withholding genuine power in global governance.
The neo-colonial implications of this offer cannot be overlooked. African nations have frequently found themselves at the mercy of international interventions driven by foreign interests in the continent’s natural resources and strategic location.
The veto power currently enjoyed by the permanent members enables them to shape global policies that serve their interests, often at the expense of African states. Without veto authority, African nations would be left with little means to protect their interests on the world stage.
The Demand for Genuine Equality
Both Arikana and Lumumba advocate for a restructured global order that treats Africa as an equal partner rather than a subordinate.
Their rejection of UNSC seats without veto power signals a call for true equality in global governance. They argue that Africa’s growing geopolitical significance, wealth in natural resources, and youthful population should translate into a more substantial role in international decision-making.
Accepting anything less than full participation, with the same privileges as the current permanent members, would merely reinforce the unequal power dynamics entrenched since the colonial era.
Furthermore, granting Africa veto power would not only empower the continent but also contribute to a more balanced and representative global governance system.
The current UNSC structure has faced criticism for its lack of representation and failure to address the concerns of the Global South.
Including African nations with veto authority would introduce a fresh perspective, one grounded in the realities of post-colonial states and the challenges they face in an evolving world.
A Question of Opportunity or Principle?
Critics of Arikana and Lumumba’s stance might argue that their rejection of the offer represents a missed opportunity to enhance Africa’s influence within the UN.
They may contend that securing permanent seats, even without veto power, is preferable to the current arrangement where African nations hold temporary positions without guaranteed seats. From this viewpoint, accepting the offer could be viewed as a stepping stone toward further reform.
However, this perspective overlooks the symbolic and practical significance of veto power. Without it, Africa’s role in the Council would remain marginal, devoid of any real influence on outcomes.
Moreover, accepting the offer without veto authority could undermine future efforts for meaningful reform, signalling that Africa is willing to settle for less than full participation, thereby entrenching its status as a passive player in global governance.
Conclusion
Dr. Arikana Chihombori-Quao and Professor P.L.O. Lumumba’s rejection of the proposal for two permanent African seats on the UN Security Council without veto powers transcends mere resistance to symbolic representation.
It embodies Africa’s demand for genuine equality within the global order. The absence of veto power would render these seats ineffective in safeguarding African interests, perpetuating the continent’s marginalisation on the world stage.
Africa’s burgeoning importance in global affairs necessitates appropriate representation within the UN; this means nothing short of full and equal participation.
In rejecting the offer, Arikana and Lumumba champion a vision of Africa that seeks more than tokenism; they demand its rightful place as an equal player in international governance.
This stance aligns with a broader movement for decolonisation and the restructuring of global institutions to accurately reflect contemporary realities.
Ultimately, Africa’s future in global governance hinges on its ability to assert sovereignty and command the respect and power it rightly deserves.
The Author is a political sociologist in Social Development and an Alumna of London School of Economics and Political Science