Can Africa Obtain Permanent Membership in the Security Council

Prepared by the researche : Amr Rashad Ismail – Expert in African Affairs

DAC Democratic Arabic Center GmbH

Amid the many changes reshaping the global order—whether related to the end of the unipolar era led by the United States and the transition toward a multipolar world, or the fact that 2023 has been deemed by the United Nations as one of the deadliest years in the history of conflict, recording 183 regional armed conflicts worldwide, the highest figure in three decades—the Summit of the Future 2024, to be convened by the UN General Assembly on 22–23 September next year, comes with great expectations. The hope is that this summit will produce a new charter capable of responding more effectively to the challenges of global governance. The United Nations has described the event as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reinvigorate global action and continue shaping multilateral frameworks that are fit for the future.

With the numerous challenges facing the African continent, expectations from this summit are high—whether in achieving climate justice and ensuring that major powers bear responsibility for the disproportionate damage suffered by African countries, or in advancing efforts to reform global financial institutions, as well as sustaining the ongoing calls for reparations and historical justice in light of the devastation, exploitation, and developmental setbacks caused by colonialism across Africa’s political and economic structures.

Yet amid all these aspirations, the most pressing and persistent question remains: Can Africa obtain a permanent seat on the Security Council—with full veto powers—through this summit?

African Aspirations for a Permanent Seat

For decades, Africa has sought permanent representation on the UN Security Council. African nations have undertaken numerous initiatives toward this end, beginning with the Sirte Declaration in 1999, which called for reforming the United Nations, followed by the Ezulwini Consensus of 2005, adopted by the African Union. The Consensus represented a unified African position demanding two permanent seats—with all the privileges and rights of permanent membership, including the veto—as well as five non-permanent seats. Although Africa currently holds three of the ten elected non-permanent seats, it still lacks any permanent representation on the Council. Africa’s long-standing pursuit of a permanent seat is rooted in several key considerations:

1. Africa represents 28% of UN membership: The continent’s 54 member states constitute roughly 28% of the United Nations’ total membership (193 countries), making Africa the second-largest region by population. Yet, it has no permanent seat on the Security Council. By contrast, Europe—home to only 10% of the world’s population—controls half of the Council’s permanent seats. This imbalance persists despite Africa’s vast geostrategic importance and its immense natural and human resources.
2. African issues dominate the Council’s agenda: Security crises and conflicts across the continent consistently dominate the Security Council’s discussions, raising serious questions of legitimacy and credibility when decisions are made without adequate representation of those most affected. Moreover, Africa faces emerging challenges such as climate change, terrorism, forced displacement, and food insecurity—alongside rapid transformations in its political and economic systems. These evolving threats demand that Africa be represented within the body that deliberates and decides on the very issues that most directly impact its nations and people.
3. The Security Council’s failure to resolve African conflicts: Despite decades of UN involvement, the Security Council has largely failed to end or effectively address the many conflicts that have plagued Africa. The structures created in the aftermath of World War II have proven increasingly incapable of managing the complex crises of the modern world. This exposes the urgent need for a more representative, responsive, and adaptive Security Council—one that can meet today’s global challenges. When the United Nations was founded in 1945, most African countries were still under colonial rule. Upon gaining independence, African states faced the harsh reality that the UN Charter had institutionalized a hierarchy favoring the great powers through permanent membership, while excluding Africa from genuine decision-making authority. Consequently, the continent’s absence deprives the Council of perspectives rooted in the cultural, linguistic, religious, and ethnic factors that often underlie African conflicts—factors that only an African voice can adequately understand and address.
4. Double standards of the five permanent members. The five permanent members (P5) of the Council have repeatedly prioritized their national interests over the collective goal of maintaining international peace and security. Increasing violations of fundamental principles of international law, as well as selective application of humanitarian norms in conflict zones—particularly in Africa—have eroded the credibility of the multilateral system. This double standard manifests in two main ways:

First, there is a striking discrepancy in the level of attention devoted to African crises compared with others. For instance, while the Council has been intensely engaged in the Russian–Ukrainian conflict and the war in Gaza, the devastating civil war in Sudan has received comparatively little attention.

Second, the veto power is often wielded—or merely threatened—as a tool of political leverage to protect national interests. Such behavior deters others from even tabling resolutions, effectively silencing debate before it begins.

This pattern of selective engagement and structural exclusion underscores why Africa’s demand for permanent representation is not merely a political ambition, but a moral and strategic necessity. A reformed Security Council that includes African voices would not only enhance its legitimacy but also ensure that the body reflects the realities of a multipolar world, one in which Africa’s future is inseparable from the future of global peace and security.

An Unlikely Scenario

Although UN Secretary-General António Guterres has criticized the absence of a permanent African seat on the Security Council—emphasizing that the Summit of the Future will provide an opportunity to help rebuild trust and align outdated multilateral institutions and frameworks with today’s realities on the basis of equality and solidarity—Africa’s bid for permanent membership continues to face formidable challenges. These obstacles can be broadly divided into three categories: challenges stemming from within the African continent itself, challenges posed by the five permanent members, and those rooted in the structure of the global system as a whole.

1. The Selection Dilemma: One of the primary obstacles lies in the lack of a clear mechanism for selecting the state or states that would represent Africa on the Security Council, and in the continent’s failure to unite behind a renewed common position. This includes the difficulty of presenting practical proposals to the Summit on how African countries would choose their permanent representatives. Despite the Ezulwini Consensus, the African Group has not yet agreed on criteria for selecting its candidates. Meanwhile, several African nations—such as Nigeria, Egypt, South Africa, Morocco, and Algeria—consider themselves deserving of the seat and of the international authority that permanent membership entails. This competition and lack of consensus severely undermine Africa’s chances of securing permanent representation.
2. Resistance from the Five Permanent Members: While all five permanent members (P5) have publicly supported expanding the Security Council to include additional permanent and non-permanent members—including, in principle, African representation—such support is largely rhetorical. In practice, the P5 are unlikely to endorse granting any new member full permanent status with veto power.

For example, U.S. President Joe Biden stated during the 2022 UN General Assembly that Washington supports enlarging the Council’s permanent and non-permanent membership, including permanent seats for African countries. Yet, in reality, such a move would likely be blocked for several reasons.

First, granting an African state veto power could obstruct many decisions advanced by the P5 that serve their national or allied interests, even when those decisions run counter to Africa’s welfare or international peace.
Second, doing so would open the door for other nations—such as Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil—to intensify their own demands for permanent membership, especially since entire regions like South America currently lack any permanent representation.
Third, reforming the Security Council could trigger broader institutional reforms—particularly in the global financial architecture—that would weaken the dominance of the existing powers and challenge their long-standing economic and political advantages over developing nations, including those in Africa.

3. Opposition to the Veto Power Itself: In recent years, growing opposition has emerged from several states and international non-governmental organizations against the very concept of the veto. Critics argue that the veto contradicts the principle of sovereign equality among nations, as enshrined in Article 2(1) of the UN Charter. From this perspective, introducing new permanent members—such as an African representative—with veto rights would likely provoke resistance from advocates of eliminating the veto altogether, who view it as an inherently undemocratic privilege.
4. The Exclusion of Security Council Reform from the Initial Draft: The Secretary-General has issued a series of eleven policy briefs in 2024 as foundational documents for negotiations leading up to the final “Pact for the Future.” However, the section dealing with “governance transformation” notably omits any discussion of reforming the Security Council or expanding its permanent membership. This omission signals that the issue may not feature prominently at the Summit, and that even if new permanent members are eventually added, they are unlikely to be granted veto powers.
5. The Difficulty of Amending the UN Charter: Article 108 of the United Nations Charter stipulates that any amendment to the Charter requires the approval of all five permanent members as well as a two-thirds majority of the General Assembly. Thus, for Africa to secure a permanent seat with veto authority, it would need unanimous support from the P5 and broad consensus among the wider membership.

In effect, this means that such reform will remain unattainable unless African states build a strong coalition within the General Assembly to invoke this article and place a Charter Review Conference on the Summit of the Future’s formal agenda—something that has not occurred in recent months. Consequently, the prospect of amending the UN Charter to grant Africa permanent membership in the near term remains highly unlikely.

Future Prospects

The African continent has gained increasing attention from global powers in the aftermath of the Russia–Ukraine war, as several of these powers have sought to project parts of their struggle for dominance in the international order onto Africa. Nevertheless, it remains unlikely that the upcoming Summit of the Future will deliver a substantial response to Africa’s challenges. On the contrary, African priorities are expected to be sidelined in the final version of the Pact, despite Namibia’s role as one of the Summit’s co-facilitators alongside Germany.

This limited outlook can be attributed to several factors: the unprecedented global divisions that weaken the prospects of reaching an international consensus or producing a Pact capable of addressing the world’s most pressing crises—many of which disproportionately affect Africa; the African Union’s limited engagement with the Summit, given its recent preoccupation with the G20 since joining it in 2023; and the perception within the Union that this Summit, like many before it, will likely produce lofty declarations without meaningful implementation. Added to this is the persistent determination of major powers to maintain Africa’s vulnerability and fragmentation, ensuring continued control over its natural resources and strategic geography.

Nonetheless, the inclusion in the draft Pact of a section addressing reform of international financial institutions could represent a significant step toward shaping a global economic system that better serves Africa’s developmental needs. The current international financial architecture was designed by the victors of World War II, with the primary goal of reconstructing Europe rather than addressing Africa’s needs—despite the continent’s own abundance of natural wealth.

Furthermore, the coincidence of this year with the 80th anniversary of the Bretton Woods Conference—the moment when nations convened amid a global crisis to reshape the multilateral system—presents an important symbolic opportunity. It could catalyze efforts to strengthen Africa’s representation in global financial institutions, reallocate Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to increase the continent’s share, and work toward establishing a financial ecosystem that supports sustainable development and climate action.

The Summit of the Future may also serve as a platform for developing strategies to bring the world back on track toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and broader climate objectives before the 2030 deadline.

In conclusion, although Africa’s chances of obtaining permanent representation on the Security Council remain slim, the Summit of the Future could nonetheless mark an important moment for reassessing the continent’s collective policy approach. It may provide the foundation for a genuine unified African position that can, in the long term, strengthen Africa’s voice and participation in global governance.