More than 80 years after the United Nations was created, Africa remains without a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The Council has 15 members. Nevertheless, five are permanent: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Additionally, the other ten are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms.

This creates an obvious question. Why has Africa, a continent made up of many independent states and one of the largest regional groups in the United Nations, never been given a permanent place at the table?The answer is connected to the history of the United Nations, the political structure created in 1945 and the difficulty of changing it. But there is another question worth asking today: if Africa eventually receives permanent representation, who exactly should represent Africa?

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Africa have non-permanent seats?

Yes. African countries regularly serve as elected members of the Security Council. These seats, however, last for two years and do not carry veto power.

Why does Africa want permanent seats?

The African Union argues that the continent is historically underrepresented and should have permanent participation in the Council's decision-making.

Would African permanent members have veto power?

The African position calls for the same privileges as existing permanent members, including veto power for as long as the veto remains part of the Council's system.

Who would choose the African permanent members?

Under the African position, the African Union would select the candidates for submission to the General Assembly for election.

Why Was Africa Left Out?

When the United Nations was established in 1945, the international political map looked very different from today. Much of Africa was still under colonial rule and therefore did not participate in the creation of the UN as independent states. The five permanent seats went to China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States. Nevertheless, this reflected the major powers that shaped the post-war international order.

Moreover, the UN Charter itself established those five countries as permanent members. It also created ten non-permanent seats, which are elected with consideration given to equitable geographical distribution. Africa therefore did not simply lose a permanent seat during a later election. There was no African permanent seat in the original arrangement to begin with. As African countries gained independence and joined the United Nations, the organisation changed considerably. Nevertheless, the UN now has 193 member states, but the permanent membership of the Security Council remains five countries. That historical difference is at the heart of today's reform debate.

Why Does Africa Want Permanent Representation?

The African Union has developed a common position on Security Council reform known as the Ezulwini Consensus, together with the Sirte Declaration. Under the African position, Africa is seeking no fewer than two permanent seats, with the same privileges as existing permanent members, including the veto if the veto continues to exist. Africa is also seeking five non-permanent seats in an expanded Council.

The African Union argues that this would address what it describes as the continent's historical underrepresentation. There is also a practical argument. The Security Council regularly deals with questions involving international peace and security in Africa, yet no African country has a permanent seat. The African position is therefore not simply about having a seat for the sake of having one. It is about having a permanent voice in decisions that can directly affect the continent.

But Who Would Represent Africa?

Although, this is where the debate becomes more complicated. Africa is not a single country. It contains many sovereign states with different political interests, economic circumstances and foreign-policy priorities. If two permanent African seats were created, which countries would occupy them?

Would the same countries hold them permanently? Would the African Union select the countries? Would they rotate between African states? The current African position gives the African Union responsibility for selecting the candidates who would be submitted to the General Assembly for election. This addresses the question of who selects Africa's representatives, but it does not eliminate the wider debate about whether permanent regional representation is the best way to achieve geographical fairness.

The Bigger Question About Representation

This is where the argument can move beyond Africa. If the fundamental concern is that some parts of the world have no permanent representation, should reform focus only on creating permanent African seats? The current permanent membership is concentrated among countries associated with Asia, Europe and North America, with Russia spanning Europe and Asia. Other major regions, including Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Pacific island states, have no permanent member.

That raises a broader question: should Security Council reform create more permanently privileged countries, or should it create a system in which different regions have meaningful opportunities to participate on a continuing basis? One possible approach would be greater use of elected or rotating representation. Under such a model, countries from regions without permanent seats could regularly take turns representing their broader regional interests.

This would not necessarily answer Africa's historical argument, but it would change the question from “Which countries should become permanently powerful?” to “How should the world's regions be represented fairly?” That distinction matters because adding new permanent members could solve one representation problem while creating another. If two African countries became permanent members, questions could still arise about why those particular countries were chosen to speak for a continent containing dozens of sovereign states.

Wind Up

Africa's absence from the permanent membership of the UN Security Council is largely a consequence of how the international system was organised in 1945, when much of the continent was still under colonial rule. The world has changed since then. African states became independent, joined the United Nations and became important participants in international affairs. Yet the permanent structure of the Security Council has remained largely unchanged. The African Union therefore wants permanent representation as part of a broader reform of the Council.
But the discussion does not have to end with the question of whether Africa deserves two permanent seats. It can also ask how those seats would represent a continent made up of many sovereign countries, and whether permanent seats are the most effective way to achieve geographical representation. Perhaps the deeper question is not simply why Africa has no permanent seat, but what permanent representation should mean in a United Nations that no longer looks like the world of 1945.