Superpowers and Nigeria’s case for UN security council permanent seat

There can be no comprehensive evaluation of the UN Security Council’s nuances without a thorough appreciation of the concept of power, its uses and deployment to safeguard, and project vital strategic goals, geo-economic and geopolitical interests, to maintain a relative balance of power in the subjective national interests of sovereign nations; within a hotly contested global paradigm.

What is power? It is the possession of control, authority or influence of others. Conceptually, international relations confer more subtle characterisations of power. Ergo, power could be the ultimate aspiration of leaders, the capacity to exert direct or indirect control over events of strategic consequences. It could be military victory in warfare within or outside international law, just as it could encompass dominion over disputed capabilities, resources and territories, ditto the projection of sovereign pre-eminence on the global stage.

Here, the inference of power reeks of Machiavellian provenance. That is, the end goal of geopolitical and geoeconomic self-interest, justifies the means of achieving those goals whether through diplomacy, coercive control, violence or combinations thereof.

Former U.S. Diplomat, Chas W. Freeman, Jr., opines that power is the capacity to direct the decisions and actions of others, emanating from strength and will. Strength, emerges from the transformation of resources into capabilities. Will, infuses objectives with resolve.

Whereas, strategy marshals capabilities and brings them to bear with precision. Statecraft seeks through strategy to magnify the mass, relevance, impact, and irresistibility of power. It guides the ways the state deploys and applies its power abroad. These mechanics embrace the arts of war, espionage, and diplomacy.

Consequently, hardly any political authority or sovereign nation, willingly cedes power. Philosophically, nature abhors a vacuum. And to surrender power, by inferential logic, is to create a vacuum or the circumscription of incumbency. Thus, the ‘power-giver’, in a political-leadership context, necessarily loses all or some authority, control, influence to exert his will or coercive capacity over another. Thus, the ‘donation’ or surrender of power is subtractive; not accumulative. The proposition is partly illustrated by historical allusion to the English Civil Wars between Charles 1 versus Parliamentarians and their respective forces between 1642 and 1651.

The crux of the conflicts were searing disagreements over the monarch’s excessive powers and economic policies. Parliamentarians defeated the monarchists and Charles 1 was executed in 1649, resulting in the establishment of the Commonwealth of England.

Kenya’s Mau Mau Revolution (1952-1960) against British colonialists, after much bloodshed, ushered in Kenyan Independence in 1963 with Mzee Jomo Kenyatta as its pioneer African leader.

Nigeria’s unimpeded twenty-five-year-old Third Republic, 1999- to present, further reinforces the key point that power is hardly freely ceded by any leader nor institution. The country’s Third Republic, emerged from the heroic sacrifices and struggles against military dictatorship, driven by the likes of late Chief MKO Abiola, the presumed winner of the annulled June 2012 elections, late Chief Anthony Enahoro, Chief Michael Ajasin, Chief Alfred Rewane, Alhaji Shehu Musa Yar Adua, Major-General Adeyinka Adebayo (rtd), Mallam Lawal Dambazzau, Dr Beko Ransome-Kuti and other significant participants.

Upon that logic, buds the assertion that the political and sovereign powers, characterised by the five veto-wielding, UN Security permanent members, China, Russia (Eastern powers) and France, United Kingdom and the United States (Western powers); all of whom possess nuclear weapons capabilities, are reluctant to cede power in what is effectively a zero: sum phenomenon.

Afterall, the UN was founded approximately 80 years ago and if there was intentionality about objectively expanding the UNSC to include permanent veto wielding members beyond the current big five countries, surely that could have happened aeons ago. Besides, the five permanent (P5) security council members were the triumphant powers after World War II (1939-1945), possess the most formidable armed forces globally and together, have the largest defence expenditures (Blum, 1992).

In 2024 alone, the United States defence budget was $842 billion; whilst the combined defence budget of the P5 in that year exceeded $1.2 trillion. In 2020/2021, P5 members contributed 57.54 per cent to United Nations peace keeping operations. So, aside from the realpolitik of striving to maintain global security and a relative balance of power, comes the humongous financial commitment. The inference of the quid pro quo is superior diplomatic leverage manifested in veto powers exercisable by the P5.

Based on its pre-eminence, the UN Security Council is, by far, the most powerful organ not least given its overriding responsibility for maintaining global peace and security, in accordance with Article 24 of the UN Charter. Article 7.1 of the United Nations’1945 Charter, establishes six crucial organs. These are the Security Council, General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council, the International Court of Justice and the UN Secretariat.

The 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 resolution they oppose.
The UNSC also has the capacity to impose sanctions, authorize 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 exercise veto-wielding powers to advance their overriding strategic geo-national, geopolitical and geoeconomic interests not least given divergent strategic priorities. Plus, the UNSC is in continuous session, which enhances its capacity to respond quickly to emerging crises, if, and it is a big if, it adaptively summons the courageous political will to act, which is not always guaranteed!

That milieu affords a segue to Nigeria’s quest for the UN Security Council’s permanent membership with veto wielding powers and there are indeed compelling arguments in the country’s favour.

First, Nigeria has produced some of the world’s finest diplomats and statesmen with enviable records to warrant a permanent UNSC seat with veto powers. Amongst these include Chief Simeon Adebo, who served as the United Nations Under-Secretary-General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku GCVO, GCFR, former Secretary General of the Commonwealth of Nations, Professor Ishaya Audu, former Nigerian External affairs Minister and Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Mallam Yusuf Maitama Sule, former chairman United Nations Special Committee Against Apartheid; Professor Ibrahim Gambari.

Others are former Nigeria’s External Affairs Minister and President, UNICEF; Professor Joy Ogwu, pioneer female Nigerian Permanent Representative to the United Nations and former Chair of the UN Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDR); Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, current Director-General, World Trade Organisation, Dr Akinwunmi Adesina, current President, African Development Bank; amongst an impressive array of outstanding ambassadors and scholars.

Accordingly, there is no shortage of brilliant, able, dynamic and principled Nigerians, to represent the country and continent at the UN Security Council with full powers.

Second, Nigeria’s commitment to the United Nations, global peace, understanding and cooperation is unwavering. More than 200,000 Nigerian troops served in UN peacekeeping missions around the world and senior military personnel have commanded some of those missions over several decades.

Furthermore, Nigeria spent approximately $8 billion in its pivotal role within the West African peacekeeping force, ECOMOG, to end the Liberian civil war (1989-1997).

Third, the UN is at vanguard of promoting the rule of law, justice, equity and human rights around the world and in its own modus operandi. Articles 1.1, 2, 8 and 76 of the UN Charter, together, affirm that proposition. Those provisions establish inter alia the sovereign equality of all UN Member States. But how can the sovereign equality of UN Member States have credence if the UN security council P5 is, de facto, an exclusive preserve of the wealthiest countries with the largest defence budgets, troops and military armature?

Fourth, 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. Nigeria’s population is approximately 223 million or 15.17 per cent of Africa’s population and is the most populous nation on the continent. Yet, Nigeria, and Africa, are 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.

Does this make sense when it demonstrably violates Article 2.1 of the UN Charter, concerning the sovereign equality of member 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.

Fifth, Nigeria is not ideologically aligned to East or West, and has, over several decades, proven its commitment to global peace, cooperation and development across various multilateral fora.

Therefore, within the parameters of objectivity, and safeguarding its own geopolitical, geoeconomic and geostrategic interests, the country is more likely than not to add value to the UN Security council its permanent membership.

Yes, there are counter-arguments in that Nigeria is contending with internal challenges notably ethno-religious terrorism, economic crisis, separatist agitations et al. However, those contentions are neither sufficient, nor compelling, to justify Nigeria’s exclusion from veto-wielding permanent membership of the UN Security Council.

The UN Security Council’s permanent membership configuration is unrepresentative, staid, and circa 80 years since its founding in 1945, needs greater adaptability to meet exacting complexities in a progressively contested world, if the organisation is to maintain credence and relevance in coming years. Indeed, absolute power maybe “neat”, but is it equitable?

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).

How can the sovereign equality of UN Member States have credence if the UN security council P5 is, de facto, an exclusive preserve of the wealthiest countries with the largest defence budgets, troops and military armature?