The Ezulwini Consensus is one of the most important documents in Africa's campaign to reform the United Nations Security Council. It sets out the African Union's common position on how the Council should be changed to give Africa a stronger role in international decision-making. At the centre of the consensus is a clear demand: Africa should receive at least two permanent Security Council seats and five non-permanent seats in an expanded Council. The AU also insists that the new permanent members should enjoy the same privileges as existing permanent members, including the veto for as long as the veto remains in place.

The consensus is significant because Africa is not represented among the five current permanent members, despite the continent's size and the importance of African peace and security issues to the Council's work. Understanding the Ezulwini Consensus helps explain why the African Union has continued to reject reform proposals that it believes would leave the continent without genuine permanent representation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Ezulwini Consensus?

It is the African Union's common position on reforming the United Nations Security Council, including Africa's demand for permanent and non-permanent seats.

How many permanent seats does Africa want?

The AU demands at least two permanent seats for African countries.

Does Africa also want non-permanent seats?

Yes. The AU calls for five non-permanent seats for Africa in an expanded Council.

Does the Ezulwini Consensus support veto power for new African permanent members?

Yes. It demands the same privileges as existing permanent members, including the veto for as long as the veto exists. The AU has also expressed opposition to the veto in principle, arguing that it should not be an unequal privilege if it continues to exist.

Has the Ezulwini Consensus already changed the Security Council?

No. It sets out Africa's position, but implementing the proposed changes requires agreement among UN member states and the relevant Charter amendments.

Discussion and Arguments: Why was the consensus developed?

The Ezulwini Consensus emerged from African concerns about the structure of global decision-making. When the United Nations was founded in 1945, much of Africa remained under colonial rule. The continent's countries did not participate in shaping the permanent membership in the same way as the major powers that established the post-war order. As African states gained independence and joined the United Nations, the gap between the continent's growing membership and its absence from the permanent category became increasingly difficult to justify in the eyes of African leaders. The African Union developed a common position to prevent individual countries from pursuing separate approaches that might weaken Africa's negotiating power. The consensus was adopted in 2005 and became a central reference point in the AU's Security Council reform campaign.

What exactly does Africa demand?

Nevertheless, the Ezulwini Consensus calls for at least two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats for Africa in an expanded Security Council. It also states that Africa should determine which countries occupy its permanent seats. This is important because the AU does not want other countries to decide on Africa's behalf which African states should represent the continent. The proposal is therefore about both representation and decision-making authority. Africa wants a permanent role in the Council and a say in selecting the countries that will hold that role.

Why does the AU demand veto power?

The African Union has argued that if the veto remains available to the current permanent members, new permanent members should not be denied the same privilege. This position reflects a concern about creating a second class of permanent members. If Africa were given permanent seats without veto rights while the existing five retained theirs, the new members would have a permanent title but fewer formal powers. There is, however, an important nuance. The AU has stated that it opposes the veto in principle. Its position is that, while the veto continues to exist, it should be available to all permanent members on an equal basis. That is different from saying that Africa considers the veto an ideal system.

Why has the consensus been difficult to implement?

The Ezulwini Consensus is Africa's agreed position, but the UN membership is divided over how the Security Council should be reformed. Some countries support adding new permanent seats, including seats for Africa. Others oppose creating additional permanent members and instead want to expand the elected category. There are also disagreements about veto power, the size of an expanded Council and which countries or regions should receive new positions. In addition, any amendment to the UN Charter requires a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of UN member states, including all five current permanent members. Additionally, the existing permanent members therefore have a decisive role in the legal process required to implement major reform.

Is the Ezulwini Consensus the same as choosing Nigeria or another country?

No. The consensus sets out Africa's collective demand, including the number and privileges of the proposed seats and the AU's role in selecting representatives. It does not, by itself, grant Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt or any other African country a permanent seat. The selection of the countries would need to be handled through an agreed African process within the wider reform framework. Naming a preferred country without a credible selection process could undermine the unity the consensus is designed to preserve.

Is Africa's position reasonable?

Supporters argue that it is difficult to defend a Security Council structure in which an entire continent lacks permanent representation. They also argue that reform should correct the historical exclusion of African states from the permanent category. Critics may question whether adding more permanent members and extending veto power would make the Council more effective. Others may argue that a system based on elections and rotation would offer broader access to all countries.

My argument is that the Ezulwini Consensus should be understood as Africa's collective response to an existing imbalance. At the same time, the wider reform debate should examine how new representation could improve accountability and decision-making rather than simply increase the number of countries with special privileges.

Wind Up

The Ezulwini Consensus calls for at least two permanent seats, five non-permanent seats and the same privileges for new permanent members as those enjoyed by the current five, including veto power for as long as the veto exists. Its significance lies in the effort to give Africa a united negotiating position and a role in choosing its own representatives. However, the consensus is a demand for reform, not a change that has already been implemented. The challenge now is to turn the agreed African position into an internationally accepted reform while addressing the wider questions of representation, accountability and the distribution of power within the Security Council.