In Africa, the possibility of reforming the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has sparked heated debate among analysts. Many emphasize the importance of reconfiguring the international system, which has faced significant shifts in the balance of global power.

However, despite the recognition that there is a need to make the UNSC more representative and inclusive in Africa, there is growing skepticism about the feasibility and real impact of such reform.

A 79th UN General Assembly, held last September, marked the adoption of the “Pact for the Future“, a document that establishes the commitment of member states to reform the Security Council, making it more democratic and efficient.

Several African leaders took the opportunity to advocate for the expansion of the body, suggesting that Africa have two permanent seats on the UNSC.

The Opinion of Anthoni van Nieuwkerk

However, Anthoni van Nieuwkerk, professor at the Thabo Mbeki African School of Public and International Affairs, views this attempt at enlargement with great skepticism.

He asserts that, while the proposal may seem fair, practical implementation faces significant obstacles. According to him, the current permanent members—the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and France—are reluctant to cede any fraction of their power, thus maintaining the status quo.

Van Nieuwkerk goes further, arguing that African elective structures themselves, such as the African Union (AU), do not offer sufficient guarantees that the selection of two permanent members from among the 54 eligible African countries would be made efficiently and consensually. This, according to the professor, makes the success of this initiative even more unlikely.

The Opinion of Peter Fabricius

Peter Fabricius, a researcher at the Institute for Security Studies (ISS) in Pretoria, agrees with van Nieuwkerk, reinforcing that the lack of consensus among the great powers on UNSC reform is one of the main obstacles.

“This is a perennial issue and I don't believe anything different will come of it in the near future,” reinforces Peter Fabricius.

He points to the irony present in the block of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). Although three of these countries (Brazil, India, and South Africa) are fighting for permanent membership status, the two already present on the Council (China and Russia) have been ambiguous in supporting the inclusion of their partners.

Fabricius also highlights an additional problem: the idea that an enlarged Security Council, with more members, could function more effectively is viewed with skepticism.

He mentions that in serious crises, such as wars in Ucrania and Gaza Strip, the UNSC has already demonstrated its inability to act decisively, often becoming paralyzed by disagreements among its permanent members. Therefore, an increase in membership could exacerbate this paralysis.

For van Nieuwkerk, the UN and its Security Council are at breaking point. He describes the system as paralyzed and incapable of responding adequately to major international challenges, from the war in Ukraine to conflicts in the Middle East and Africa.

"When people look to the United Nations system, waiting for it to intervene decisively to stop atrocities and war crimes in Ukraine, Gaza, the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Somalia, and Sudan, the UN is nowhere to be found," he says.

According to him, the UNSC, whose primary mission is to ensure global peace and security, has failed to fulfill its role. If the UNSC cannot implement what it was created to do, van Nieuwkerk questions, then the entire United Nations system may be bankrupt and in need of deeper reform.

For him, a possible solution would be to decentralize decision-making and give more power and responsibility to continental and regional organizations, such as the African UnionHowever, the professor admits that even this proposal faces substantial challenges, given the fragility of regional institutions on many continents, including the African Union itself.

The researcher argues that for this decentralization to work, it would be necessary to empower these regional institutions, providing them with resources, training, and logistical support. Otherwise, they would continue to face the same obstacles that currently limit the efficient functioning of the UNSC.

Both van Nieuwkerk and Fabricius also question whether it is really desirable to maintain the current “ work” of the UN that often seems dominated by hypocrisy.

Fabricius criticizes the fact that every year, autocratic leaders or those accused of war crimes, from Africa and elsewhere, take to the podium at the United Nations to defend democratic principles, while, in their own countries, they suppress human rights and govern authoritarianly.

“The hypocrisy of countries that are not democratic demanding more democracy every year is ridiculous,” says Fabricius.

Van Nieuwkerk, in turn, suggests that one solution would be to convene a World Citizens' Assembly, where ordinary people could have a voice in reimagining the UN's goals and creating a new, more accountable and morally oriented system.

He argues that an international organization capable of intervening effectively in the promotion of global peace and security should not allow leaders accused of serious crimes to participate in its decisions and deliberations.

“We must prevent the elites from playing their games,” he concludes.

UN Security Council reform remains a highly controversial topic. While many agree that the current system requires adjustments to better reflect the contemporary geopolitical landscape, there is widespread consensus among Africa analysts that implementing such reform faces significant obstacles.

Resistance from permanent members and the limitations of regional structures such as the African Union are just some of the challenges that jeopardize the viability of this transformation.

However, the pressure for change does not disappear, and the question remains: to what extent is the United Nations willing to adapt to new global realities, and how can developing countries, particularly in Africa, ensure fairer and more equitable representation in international decision-making?