Africa and the UN Security Council seats
DAKAR, Senegal, Mar 6, 2005 (PANA) — A rancorous debate over which countries should occupy Africa’s two permanent seats on a reformed UN Security Council is predictable and even inevitable.
But the danger of an unhealthy debate for the continent is
that this might send a wrong signal to the big powers – that
two African nations with Security Council vetoes could
undermine the immense powers which the authority confers.
The African Union (AU) has fixed a crucial meeting for 7-8
March in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to help resolve this issue.
Should the meeting fail to arrive at a consensus, the UN
could be forced to postpone further discussion on the matter
or African countries might decide to vie for the seats
independently, using their own diplomacy.
If however, some semblance of a consensus is reached such that the two African seats become rotational, this could help
douse the tension.
Allowing countries to vie for the seats independently,
would mean that each contending country could seek support
from outside the continent for a successful bid.
But this option also has its drawbacks.
So far, the behind-the-scene negotiations for African seats
on the Security Council have largely shut out civil society
participation.
No country has been willing to talk about the issue openly,
and African intellectuals have been all too aloof, or sidelined.
While the idea of permanent seats for Africa on the Security
Council had been in the air for more than a year, it was only
in January that the AU announced the setting up of a 15-member committee to put in place a mechanism to select prospective countries for the seats.
Before then, just a couple of countries had muted opinions,
without initiating any real discussion on the issue.
Even after the 4th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the
AU, which met in Abuja late January, the 15-member ministerial committee, which met in Mbabane, Swaziland from 20-22 February failed to reach any clear decision on which countries should be given official backing by the continental body.
The Abuja meeting had charged the committee of foreign
ministers of the 15 countries to produce the African
position by March, in time for the Addis Ababa meeting
of 7-8 March.
Traditionally, the AU seems to favour a decision-making process based on linguistic lines, although the different regions have of late become more affirmative.
But clearly the stakes in the Security Council seats are too
high to resort to that option, which has often divided the
continent.
Still there appears to be no easy solution for Africa on the
issue.
In the other continents diplomacy and negotiations over the
Security Council seats had been ongoing for years, such that
no country in Europe can now openly challenge Germany’s
ambitions. Nor would any Asian nation question Japan’s
candidature.
Africa should have approached its own selection process
through a series of well-structured debates on why the
continent needs the seats, how the continent plans to
use them, and which countries are well suited.
It would be recalled that the choice of current members of
the Council was made a lot easier based on the reflection
of the global power structure of 1945, when the victors
of the Second World War shared the seats among themselves.
But while the African debate looks set to continue at the
Addis Ababa meeting, there appears to be a general understanding
among Africans that Nigeria and South Africa would fulfil the
minimum conditions to represent the continent on the Security
Council.
As Club Millennium, a Paris-based African think-thank recently
pointed out, any country seeking Africa’s backing should be
credible in the key domains of diplomacy – to be able to
negotiate for Africa; militarily – to be able to forge peace;
economically – in order to have independence of thought; and
politically – to be an example of stability, democracy and
good governance.
Nigeria and South Africa come closest to meeting some of
those requirements, although they both could still learn a
few lessons from other countries such as Senegal and Mauritius
on good governance, public administration and the fight
against corruption.
If the above stated criteria are accepted, the Addis Ababa
meeting may have less difficulty resolving the question of
“small States,” language or regional balance.
Doubtless, the Security Council seats will bring fame and
power to the African countries that will occupy them,
but they must use the position to work for the common
interest of the continent.
But what guarantees does the AU have on this and do other
Security Council members have any such undertakings?
The Security Council of today still reflects the global
power structure of 1945, even though its membership was
expanded to 15 in 1965 to accommodate the non-permanent
members.
A few powerful members still dominate the UN policy and
frequently veto widely accepted decisions to further their
own interests.
But it is precisely because the present arrangement makes the
Council both undemocratic and often ineffective that everybody is calling for reforms.
Africa should make sure that the ground rules are put in place, such that the Council’s decisions reflect the collective will.
Unnecessary squabbling over choice could reinforce the negative and false notion that the continent is not ripe for a permanent seat on the Council.