African countries appear to be in agreement on what they perceive to be “historical injustices” that are believed to have been imposed on the continent by the dominant powers of the international system, but how to seek redress. There is little agreement on this. As a result, despite criticizing the modern world order as an “anachronism”, African countries insist on abolishing the system completely or He seems to be at a loss as to whether he should insist on expanding to accommodate .
Nothing better illustrates this ambiguity than the continent’s attitude towards the UN’s main decision-making body, the UN Security Council. This tends to be portrayed, on the one hand, as a symbol of the institution’s intolerable inegalitarianism, but on the other, for example, as Nigeria’s Vice-President Kassim Shettima argued in a speech: ” is a permanent member of the Council. Last month’s United Nations General Assembly remains the holy grail.
sub-saharan africa
diplomacy and international organizations
democracy
Also, this indecisive attitude is not necessarily new. The African Union’s (AU) 2005 Ezulwini Consensus (PDF), Africa's common position on UN reform proposals, captures the continent’s turmoil. For example, the AU has expressed opposition “in principle to the veto,” but it nevertheless states that “as long as it exists, and as a matter of common justice, all permanent members of the Security Council should “It should be made available.” ” It therefore calls for “full representation of Africa” in the Security Council with “at least two seats with all the privileges and prerogatives of a permanent member, including the right of veto.”
Africa in transition
Michelle Gavin, Ebenezer Obadare and other experts track political and security developments across sub-Saharan Africa. Most weekdays.
Despite Africa’s unsatisfactory position, representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) have on various occasions called for widespread support for “structural reforms.” I have expressed my support. Increase seats in underrepresented regions such as Africa. ” It doesn’t matter whether this unprecedented show of solidarity is sincere or merely a gesture based on political exigencies. What is clear is that, for the first time in recent memory, there appears to be a real willingness by member states to implement the kinds of reforms (or are they transformations?) they have been advocating for years. complains about not being attended to at the table. When the United Nations was created, or “when its first reforms took place,” it was “not in a particularly strong position.”
All this makes it a particularly advantageous moment to press on the affected areas to smooth out obvious wrinkles in the structure of the argument. For example, African countries need to develop a consistent position on the future of the UN Security Council. If, as they have lamented for years, the Security Council’s supposed lack of democracy is the essence of all the UN’s mistakes, then it is logical to demand its abolition. It is a position. Seek the accession of new members who will continue to operate under the same charter that until recently was condemned as an undemocratic and repugnant vestige of opportunism and moral disagreement.
Moreover, there is little guarantee that abolishing the Security Council (a remote prospect at this point) will not create more problems than it solves. Perhaps if there is anything worse than a UN where some people have a veto, it will turn out to be a UN where no one has a veto. More realistically, African countries should abandon the pursuit of rosy egalitarianism in which country A automatically allocates what goes to country B and what can only go to country B, and instead adopt a permanent It may be necessary to accept the reality of a geopolitical landscape characterized by interests and evolving alliances. . In summary, AU’s tenet should be one of agility and adaptability, not equality, although suffice it to say that it is itself full of different kinds of hierarchies. As a growing number of African countries seem to have realized in the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the current world situation, despite its undeniable constraints, does not preclude opportunities for diplomatic maneuvers by so-called “weak parties”. do not have. It’s one thing to request a legitimate change to a global setting; it’s another to assume that nothing can be done unless that request is heeded.
This raises an interesting question. Beyond the undoubted prestige, what tangible concrete benefits does a permanent member of the Security Council actually bring? What can a notional permanent African member do with their position? can be considered in many ways, but the real question is: what does it bring to the same country? Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa are considered likely candidates. Specifically, what will permanent membership on the Security Council help these countries achieve? For example, Nigeria’s time and scarce resources could be better spent on coming to terms with thorny development challenges rather than fancifully pursuing a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council.
detail:
sub-saharan africa
diplomacy and international organizations
democracy
Certainly, this is not to say that a country must be immaculately dressed before seeking membership in this or any other elite multinational group. Yet, putting aside the legitimacy of the Security Council’s existence and composition, it is difficult to imagine that some countries, in their zeal for a distant view, would ignore the truth that, in their zeal for a distant view, they would summon the great Dr. This is abnormal. Lie open in front of it.
None of these near truths is more heartbreaking than the ongoing humanitarian disaster in Sudan. In Sudan, a fierce power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has left several soldiers in limbo since April last year. 150,000 people have died, 750,000 are on the brink of starvation, and an estimated 25.6 million people, more than half the population, are in need of humanitarian assistance. Africa’s lack of coordinated action on the Sudanese conflict is inexcusable, given the reasonable expectation that countries seeking to become big players on the international stage should first go about their business in their own backyards.
Overall, it appears that over time African countries’ sense of being ‘wrong’, understandable as it may be, has overridden their obligation to articulate appropriate remedies.
Needs reconsideration.
