The morality and legality of a permanent African seat on the UNSC

However imperfectly executed, democracy, within the contextual paradigm of popular representation by ordinary people, is the prevailing global political orthodoxy. Swathes of Africa, Australia/Oceania, Europe, North America and South America reinforce that hypothesis. Notable exceptions exist too – in absolute monarchic, autocratic, despotic and theocratic states straddling Asia, Middle East, South America and beyond.

Nevertheless, reasonable reform proposals on multilateralism are not based on exceptions to the norm, but generally on what is just, lawful, right, fit and proper for the generality of people and institutions. It is upon that foundational premise that this treatise makes the case for a reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to include African representation, amongst the current five permanent veto-wielding nuclear-armed members – America, China, France, United Kingdom and the United States.

Proceeding from first principles, no proper discourse of the UNSC is complete without the United Nations’ raison d’être. The ineffectiveness of the League of Nations (1920-1946), the predecessor to the United Nations (UN), especially given its gross inability to administer its own covenants by preventing genocidal wars; the 1930s world economic depression, which catalysed aggressive isolationist policies by its members towards themselvesand their duplicity; conspired to destroy the institution. Extremist dictatorships with radical expansionist policies took hold in Germany, where Adolf Hitler held sway (1933-1945); in Italy, where Benito Mussolini a.k.a. Il Duche, ruled (1922-1943) and Japan, where the iron-fisted Inukai Tsuyoshi (1931-1932), and Hideki Tojo reigned supreme (1940-1944).

For instance, Japan conquered Chinese Manchuria in 1932 for its natural resources and strategic location, yet, despite the League’s supine challenge, it was powerless to act. Japan promptly departed the League of Nations in 1933, pursuant to the latter’s recognition of Chinese sovereignty over the territory. Hitler announced Germany’s departure from the League in October 1933.

Completely unprovoked, Italy invaded sovereign Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) in 1935. Historians contend that the 1935 Italian invasion of Abyssinia was an attempt to “redeem” whatever remained of Italian national pride following Abyssinian Emperor Menelik II’s total victory over Italian forces at the Battle of Adowa on March 1, 1896.

Now then, although the League of Nations officially condemned the Italians, France and Britain were engaged in surreptitious agreements to cede Abyssinia to Italy. France and Britain, through the agency of the Hoare-Laval Pact 1935, allowed Italy to seize Abyssinian territories as a strategic quid pro quo for Italian support against a resurgent Germany. Three striking inferences emerge from these diplomatic manoeuvres.

First, Abyssinian sovereignty meant little or nothing to the triptych of Italy, France and Britain. Second, the competing strategic geopolitical and geopolitical interests of France and Britain inuniting to limit Germany’s expansionist designs trumped,Abyssinia’s strategic value to the European powers. Third, and crucially, it completely shredded whatever remained of the League of Nation’s vaunted credibility as a stabilising force for honest diplomacy, global justiceand enduring peace. The League Nations perished and quite rightly too.

Arise the United Nations, which berthed on October 24, 1945 pursuant to the ratification of its establishment Charter by post-WWII powers, China, France, Russia (formerly the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic), United Kingdom, United States of America – all de facto and de jure permanent members of the security council with veto wielding powers – and other countries.

The objectives of the United Nations, according to its foundational fons et origo, its 1945 Charter, per Article 1.1 are:to maintain international peace and security, and in that connection: take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace; to peaceably invoke adherence to principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace.

The Charter per article 1.2, aims to facilitate cordial relations among sovereign states based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace. The UN Charter purposive aims of seeking to achieve international co-operation in resolving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without discrimination as to race, sex, language, or religion are well-established in Article 1.3. Importantly, the Charter, affirms that the United Nations and all its Member States shall act, proactively, based on the philosophy of the sovereign equality of all Members (Article 2.1).

By virtue of Article 7.1 of the UN’s 1945 Charter, its six pivotal organs are: the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice and the UN Secretariat. However, the dynamic and interrelated logic of power, influence and realpolitik, justifies the assertion that the Security Council is the most powerful organ of the United Nations, because primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security is entrusted with the UNSC pursuant to Article 24 of the UN Charter.

Thus, UNSC’s resolutions are binding on all UN member states, making it the sole UN organ empowered to impose decisions on countries.The five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have veto power, affording them the right to reject any decision they oppose.The UNSC also has the capacity to impose sanctions, authorise peacekeeping missions, and enforce ceasefire agreements.

Equally, the UNSC is the primary organ for responding to international crises, such as conflicts, natural disasters, and humanitarian emergencies. Theoretically, the Security Council represents the interests of its 15 members, including the five permanent members, giving it a broad range of perspectives and expertise.

In practical terms however, the permanent members (as will any country in that position really!) exercises veto-wielding powers to advance its overriding strategic geo-national, geopolitical and geoeconomic interests not least because commonality of interests is oftentimes a mirage.Furthermore, the UNSC is in continuous session, which enhances its capacity to respond quickly to emerging crises, if it nimbly exercises the collective political will to do so, which is never a forgone conclusion!

Still, vital questions emerge from the foregoing. First, how can the majority of the UNSC’s five nuclear-armed and veto-wielding permanent members, genuinely advocate democracy and popular representation in other parts of the world when the very configuration of the Security Council is anti-thetical to democracy and popular representation?

Second, doesn’t the very fact of the prevalence of extremist wars between Russia versus Ukraine; Israel versus Palestine/Hamas; Sudanese Army versus Sudanese Rapid Support Force (RSF); Armenia/Azerbaijan; Myanmar (Burma), Haiti, Sahelian crisis et al expose crippling deficiencies in the UNSC’s capacity to execute overriding its objective of facilitating international peace and security?

Third, is the UNSC in danger of repeating the same inglorious mistakes which jinxed the League of Nations? Finally, what if any, is the moral and legal the justification, for Africa’s non-representation on the UN Security Council’s permanent veto-wielding members?

Afterall, Africa is home to almost a fifth (18.14 per cent or 1.47 billion people) of the global population (8.1 billion) and the second largest continent in demographic terms. Yet, Africa is denied a permanent seat on the UNSC, effectively disenfranchising African representation on the most important decision-making body in the UN, by extension, in the world, in the 21st Century.

How does this make sense when it demonstrably violates Article 2.1 of the UN Charter, concerning the sovereign equality of members states? Contrast that with the largest continent in demographic terms, Asia (59.18 per cent of global population or circa 4.8billion people), with China and Russia (straddling Asia and Europe), permanent UNSC members.North America is 4.68 per cent of global population or approximately 380 million people, with the United States as a permanent UNSC member. Europe has 9.29 per cent of the global population, that’s approximately 754.23 million people, yet has France and UK as UNSC permanent members.

For clarity, the contention is not to naively and simplistically add an African country to the UN Security Council purely to make up the numbers and correct the blindingly obvious democratic deficit, without the capacity to add value to fundamental strategic issues impacting international security and conflict resolution.

No!! Africa has repeatedly proven its leadership capacity in this regard, not least with regards to impactful African Presidency of the United Nations with Egyptian Boutrous Boutros Ghali and Ghana’s Kofi Annan; UN General Assembly with Tunisia’s Mongi Slim, Ghana’s Dr Alex Quasion-Sackey; Liberia’s Angie Elizabeth Brooks, Nigeria’s Major-General Joseph Nanven Garba, Uganda’s Sam Kutesa among others; and the UNSC’s Rotational Presidency by Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Egypt et al.

Much has been said about UNSC reform and the extant submission is for demonstrable actions, with greater African representation, to counter balance what’s been rightly or wrongly perceived as an Anglo-American stranglehold on this materially significant global decision-making body.

Tinkering and alluring rhetoric plainly won’t do. Legality, morality, realpolitik and strategic reorientation objectively justify this argument as was further expounded in ‘The Dynamic Intersections of Economics, Foreign Relations, Jurisprudence and National Development (2023): “urgent consideration be given to the expansion of the permanent membership of the Security Council, adopting the criteria of sustainable democratic credibility; visionary leadership; an enduring commitment to the rule of law; respect for human rights; sustainable development and, evidence of honouring treaty obligations.

That would go a long way in practically, and symbolically, upturning the unintended consequence of the Security Council’s permanent members’ perception as an exclusive preserve of super powers, each possessing nuclear weapons, riding roughshod over jus gentium publicam (the legal theory which regulates the intercourse of sovereign states), international law and global security.”

Ojumu is the Principal Partner at Balliol Myers LP, a firm of legal practitioners and strategy consultants in Lagos, Nigeria, and the author of The Dynamic Intersections of Economics, Foreign Relations, Jurisprudence and National Development (2023).