This House would reserve a permanent UNSC seat with veto power to an African country

An African state with veto power in the UNSC would have much more leverage to get African positions listened to. This is something that is particularly important as Africa is the region that is most commonly on the UN agenda. An African permanent member would likely alter the priorities of the Council for the better. It would be the first UNSC member without nuclear weapons, indeed if it were South Africa it would be a state that had given up nuclear weapons so would be in favour of disarmament.[1] There might be more attempts to solve the ‘root causes’ of conflicts rather than just providing a response when a conflict breaks out as Rwanda promoted as president of the UNSC in 2013.[2] An African member might also be more interested in development issues, pushing on climate change etc. It would provide more of a view from the South.

[1] Graham, Suzanne, ‘South Africa's UN General Assembly Voting Record from 2003 to 2008: Comparing India, Brazil and South Africa’, Politikon, Vol.38, No.3, 2011, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02589346.2011.623842#.UrQ0IeImZI0

[2] Kanyesigye, Frank, ‘Rwanda Sets Priorities for UNSC Presidency’, AllAfrica, 2 April 2013, http://allafrica.com/stories/201304020025.html

Countries on the UNSC do already take an interest in the Africa, illustrated by French troops helping local democratic governments form Mali and CAR defeat various outlaw rebel groups.[1]

Secondly, simply giving a veto to an Africa nation, does not guarantee that they will promote beneficial policies. South Africa for example has been accused of using UNSC membership to defend human rights abusers, South Africa’s response was that human rights "have always targeted mainly the developing countries".[2]

[1] “Sand on their boots”, The Economist, Jan 24th 2013 http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21570718-french-action-mali-seems-be-workingso-far-sand-their-boots

[2] Humphreys, Joe, ‘SA defends human rights voting at UN’, The Irish Times, 20 November 2007, http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1319279&ct=4653987

Africa’s goal is to be fully represented in all the decision-making organs of the UN, particularly in the Security Council, which is the principal decision-making organ of the UN in matters relating to international peace and security.

 In 2013 the majority (23 out of 41) of UNSC resolutions concerned Africa.[1] Beyond 2013 almost 70% of issues considered are African; further 90% of peacekeeping personnel are in Africa. The African continent is keen to ensure that their opinion is considered on prospective embargos and military interventions. At the moment African countries are “preached to rather than consulted as equals” this must change. [2]

[1] United Nations Security Council, ‘Resolutions adopted by the Security Council in 2013’, un.org, 2013, http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/2013.shtml

[2] Spies, Yolanda K., ‘The multilateral maze and (South) Africa’s Quest for Permanent United Nations Security Council representation’, University of Pretoria, http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/6307/Spies_Multilateral?sequence=1, p.99

There is no reason to believe that African opinions are disregarded when in the UNSC. Three out of 15 members is not particular disproportionate.

First of all, many decisions are taken in the United Nations General Assembly, a completely democratic body, in which the African Union due to its 54 members has a lot of influence. Therefore Africa is not underrepresented on economic and development issues.

Moreover the UNSC is usually following local concerns; the African Union has a chance to intervene on African security issues first like every other regional organisation. Indeed the AU is increasingly providing peacekeeping and even intervention as in Somalia.[1]

[1] African Union Peace and Security, ‘Somalia (Forward AMISON HQ)’, African Union, 12 September 2012, http://www.peaceau.org/fr/page/40-2889-static-somalia-forward-liaison-office

The composition of the council is outdated and must adapt to a much-changed world in the 21st century.

It is clear that there is growing discontent among African countries regarding the current structure of the UNSC. “We don’t understand why you have three countries out of five countries on the Security Council as permanent members with a veto coming from Europe,” Simbarashe Mumbengegwi, Zimbabwe’s Foreign Affairs minister has said.[1] South African  Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane appealed for United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reforms and inclusion of Africa with at least two permanent seats, he made it clear that South Africa expects a UNSC seat when reform occurs.[2] The United Nations is meant to present sovereign states equally. The current membership was created in 1945 when there were 51 member states; most of them European, now there are 193 of which almost a third are African. On numbers alone in the current UNSC Africa should have between 4 and 5 members of which 1-2 should be permanent. The current distribution is selfish reflecting an imperialist past.

[1] Phiri, Gift, “African nations push for permanent UNSC seat”, Al Jazeera, 26 September 2013, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/09/african-nations-push-for-permanent-unsc-seat-2013924133231925482.html

[2] Nkoana-Mashaban, Maite, ‘South Africa demands permanent African seats in UNSC’, South African Foreign Policy Initiative, 12 August 2013, http://www.safpi.org/news/article/2013/south-africa-demands-permanent-african-seats-unsc

Despite Africa’s demands for increased influence, they are not in a position of power and it is within their interest to maintain positive relations with the developed powers.

They have numbers but despite their economic growth in the past decade Africa is still more dependent than any other region on foreign help. The budgets of Ghana and Uganda, for example, are more than 50 percent aid dependent.[1] Moreover, they need foreign troops in order to maintain order and fight rebel groups. In 2013, there were 15 peacekeeping missions in Africa playing a necessary role in maintaining order in countries such as the CAR.[2]

[1] Ayodele, Thompson et al., “African Perspectives on Aid: Foreign Assistance Will Not Pull Africa Out of Poverty” Cato Institute, 14 September 2005 http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/african-perspectives-aid-foreign-assistance-will-not-pull-africa-out-poverty

[2] “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign, http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/un-peacekeeping/missions/africa.html

An African state with veto power in the UNSC would have much more leverage to get African positions listened to. This is something that is particularly important as Africa is the region that is most commonly on the UN agenda. An African permanent member would likely alter the priorities of the Council for the better. It would be the first UNSC member without nuclear weapons, indeed if it were South Africa it would be a state that had given up nuclear weapons so would be in favour of disarmament.[1] There might be more attempts to solve the ‘root causes’ of conflicts rather than just providing a response when a conflict breaks out as Rwanda promoted as president of the UNSC in 2013.[2] An African member might also be more interested in development issues, pushing on climate change etc. It would provide more of a view from the South.

[1] Graham, Suzanne, ‘South Africa's UN General Assembly Voting Record from 2003 to 2008: Comparing India, Brazil and South Africa’, Politikon, Vol.38, No.3, 2011, http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02589346.2011.623842#.UrQ0IeImZI0

[2] Kanyesigye, Frank, ‘Rwanda Sets Priorities for UNSC Presidency’, AllAfrica, 2 April 2013, http://allafrica.com/stories/201304020025.html

Countries on the UNSC do already take an interest in the Africa, illustrated by French troops helping local democratic governments form Mali and CAR defeat various outlaw rebel groups.[1]

Secondly, simply giving a veto to an Africa nation, does not guarantee that they will promote beneficial policies. South Africa for example has been accused of using UNSC membership to defend human rights abusers, South Africa’s response was that human rights "have always targeted mainly the developing countries".[2]

[1] “Sand on their boots”, The Economist, Jan 24th 2013 http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21570718-french-action-mali-seems-be-workingso-far-sand-their-boots

[2] Humphreys, Joe, ‘SA defends human rights voting at UN’, The Irish Times, 20 November 2007, http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1319279&ct=4653987

Africa’s goal is to be fully represented in all the decision-making organs of the UN, particularly in the Security Council, which is the principal decision-making organ of the UN in matters relating to international peace and security.

 In 2013 the majority (23 out of 41) of UNSC resolutions concerned Africa.[1] Beyond 2013 almost 70% of issues considered are African; further 90% of peacekeeping personnel are in Africa. The African continent is keen to ensure that their opinion is considered on prospective embargos and military interventions. At the moment African countries are “preached to rather than consulted as equals” this must change. [2]

[1] United Nations Security Council, ‘Resolutions adopted by the Security Council in 2013’, un.org, 2013, http://www.un.org/en/sc/documents/resolutions/2013.shtml

[2] Spies, Yolanda K., ‘The multilateral maze and (South) Africa’s Quest for Permanent United Nations Security Council representation’, University of Pretoria, http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/6307/Spies_Multilateral?sequence=1, p.99

There is no reason to believe that African opinions are disregarded when in the UNSC. Three out of 15 members is not particular disproportionate.

First of all, many decisions are taken in the United Nations General Assembly, a completely democratic body, in which the African Union due to its 54 members has a lot of influence. Therefore Africa is not underrepresented on economic and development issues.

Moreover the UNSC is usually following local concerns; the African Union has a chance to intervene on African security issues first like every other regional organisation. Indeed the AU is increasingly providing peacekeeping and even intervention as in Somalia.[1]

[1] African Union Peace and Security, ‘Somalia (Forward AMISON HQ)’, African Union, 12 September 2012, http://www.peaceau.org/fr/page/40-2889-static-somalia-forward-liaison-office

The composition of the council is outdated and must adapt to a much-changed world in the 21st century.

It is clear that there is growing discontent among African countries regarding the current structure of the UNSC. “We don’t understand why you have three countries out of five countries on the Security Council as permanent members with a veto coming from Europe,” Simbarashe Mumbengegwi, Zimbabwe’s Foreign Affairs minister has said.[1] South African  Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Maite Nkoana-Mashabane appealed for United Nations Security Council (UNSC) reforms and inclusion of Africa with at least two permanent seats, he made it clear that South Africa expects a UNSC seat when reform occurs.[2] The United Nations is meant to present sovereign states equally. The current membership was created in 1945 when there were 51 member states; most of them European, now there are 193 of which almost a third are African. On numbers alone in the current UNSC Africa should have between 4 and 5 members of which 1-2 should be permanent. The current distribution is selfish reflecting an imperialist past.

[1] Phiri, Gift, “African nations push for permanent UNSC seat”, Al Jazeera, 26 September 2013, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/09/african-nations-push-for-permanent-unsc-seat-2013924133231925482.html

[2] Nkoana-Mashaban, Maite, ‘South Africa demands permanent African seats in UNSC’, South African Foreign Policy Initiative, 12 August 2013, http://www.safpi.org/news/article/2013/south-africa-demands-permanent-african-seats-unsc

Despite Africa’s demands for increased influence, they are not in a position of power and it is within their interest to maintain positive relations with the developed powers.

They have numbers but despite their economic growth in the past decade Africa is still more dependent than any other region on foreign help. The budgets of Ghana and Uganda, for example, are more than 50 percent aid dependent.[1] Moreover, they need foreign troops in order to maintain order and fight rebel groups. In 2013, there were 15 peacekeeping missions in Africa playing a necessary role in maintaining order in countries such as the CAR.[2]

[1] Ayodele, Thompson et al., “African Perspectives on Aid: Foreign Assistance Will Not Pull Africa Out of Poverty” Cato Institute, 14 September 2005 http://www.cato.org/publications/economic-development-bulletin/african-perspectives-aid-foreign-assistance-will-not-pull-africa-out-poverty

[2] “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign, http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/un-peacekeeping/missions/africa.html

The reason there are only a few states with veto power is to prevent most states from being able to block essential security action that is in the international interest.

More members increase the chances of vetoes and deadlock. There have been 263 vetoes since the founding of the UN with vetoes having been used by every permanent member. The veto is used to protect national interests not for the good of the international community.[1] States provide veto cover for censure against those they consider allies or even trading partners. Thus the most common veto in the last couple of decades has been by the USA to prevent censure of Israel. China and Russia on the other hand have prevented action against Syria and Sudan despite crises in these countries.[2]

Give more countries vetoes and it will be used more often. Even worse an African country would have very different interests so would be vetoing different proposals. Thus for example in the past the USSR and USA have vetoed the admission of new members from Angola to Vietnam. An African veto might be wielded to discourage secession movements by for example vetoing the membership of South Sudan.

[1] Okhovat, Sahar, ‘The United Nations Security Council: Its Veto Power and Its Reform’, Sydney University, CPACS Working Paper no.15/1, December 2011, http://sydney.edu.au/arts/peace_conflict/docs/working_papers/UNSC_paper.pdf pp.11-12

[2] United Nations, ‘Security Council – Veto List’, Dag Hammarskskjöld Library, accessed 20/12/2013 http://www.un.org/depts/dhl/resguide/scact_veto_en.shtml

There is no evidence that an African state would constantly use the veto if they had it. No African state has the kind of interests around the world the current members have so a veto is only likely to be wielded over African issues. Such a veto will simply be ensuring that the African side is put before the council.  

Moreover an African veto would not prevent the council from being useful; it won’t even have the effect the cold war did. Since 1990 62 UNSC resolutions were adopted per year, during the cold war only 15 were on average. If the UNSC could operate then it can operate with more veto members now.[1]

[1] Okhovat, Sahar, ‘The United Nations Security Council: Its Veto Power and Its Reform’, Sydney University, CPACS Working Paper no.15/1, December 2011, http://sydney.edu.au/arts/peace_conflict/docs/working_papers/UNSC_paper.pdf p.12

African countries are not the only ones who wish to have a chair at the P5 table. There are more financially and military prominent countries who also have expressed their desires for having a veto power.[1] Among them, the most important are Germany and Japan who are, the second and third largest contributors to the UN budget.

 Offering an African state permanent membership to the UN, would likely offend Germany and Japan. The reason UNSC reform has not gone ahead is that all potential members have other powerful countries that would be opposed to their membership. Thus for example Japan is opposed by China. And the G-4 (Japan, India, Germany, Brazil) are generally opposed by the 'coffee club' of 40 mid-size countries led by Argentina, Pakistan, Italy, Mexico, South Korea and Spain.[2]

[1] Parashar, Sachin, “Insistence on veto may delay UNSC reform process”, Times Of India, 16 January 2012 http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-16/india/30631641_1_veto-power-veto-rights-veto-issue

[2] Alam, Mohammed Badrul, ‘For a Rightful Place: UNSC Reforms and Japan’, SSPC, 12 July 2005, http://www.sspconline.org/opinion/ForARightfulPlace-UNSCReformsandJapan_MohammedBadrulAlam_120705

That there should be competition for a seat at the highest international table is no surprise. However this is not a reason against reform. Nor should Germany and Japan be considered stronger contenders than an African country; why should Europe get a third and Asia a second permanent member before Africa has one? 

When looking at contributions to the UN, in 2010 no African countries are in the Top 27.[1] Those who fund an organisation deserve to lead it and have their opinion count the most. Of course, there is the need for a democratic council such as the UNGA, where all the countries, regardless of contribution deserve a right to vote, but when it comes to the UNSC, the veto power is just a privilege the African countries have not earned yet. Imagine creating a union to which a few states provide contribute the most resources, but are prevented from acting by another member who actively contributes nothing. This sort of power is unjustified.

Peacekeeping and other activities the UN undertakes in Africa require money. No African state would want these operations to be diminished as Africa would be the region that has most to lose. But in return the continent has to accept the funders will get more say over the UN.

[1] Browne, Marjorie, and Blanchfield, Luisa, ‘United Nations Regular Budget Contributions: Members Compared, 1990-2010’,  Congressional Research Service, 15 January 2013, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30605.pdf, p.23 

Assessment of fees for the UN is not done on the basis of the influence of the member within the UN, rather it is done through a formula based on national income. The payment is for membership, not to buy influence.[1]

As far as peacekeeping forces are concerned, South Africa is already a prominent contributor.  In the UN’s assessments of present troop contributions for peacekeeping efforts South Africa is 10^th. Its record in promoting peace on the continent includes playing leading roles to end conflicts in Burundi and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and most recently in Ivory Coast.[2]

[1] Committee on Contributions, ‘Regular budget and Working Capital Fund’, United Nations, 2013, http://www.un.org/en/ga/contributions/budget.shtml

[2] African Union Monitor, ‘Africa and the UN Security Council Permanent Seats, Pambazuka News, Issue 204, 28 April 2005, http://pambazuka.org/en/category/aumonitor/27913

There is not just competition from countries outside Africa but also internally. If there is only to be one permanent African member or even two who should it be? With no defined criteria for UNSC membership any African state could stake a claim. There are however three or four serious contenders. South Africa, Nigeria and Egypt have declared themselves contenders and are leaders of their sub regions.[1] Ethiopia is also a similarly sized state and if thinking about the future DR Congo has immense potential if its conflicts are ever resolved. How would these countries resolve their competing interests with only one position on offer?

[1] Spies, Yolanda K., ‘The multilateral maze and (South) Africa’s Quest for Permanent United Nations Security Council representation’, University of Pretoria, http://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/6307/Spies_Multilateral?sequence=1, p.106

A dispute over who which African state obtains membership is a sideshow. What matters is the principle that an African state should have permanent membership.