Although African countries appear to agree on the perceived “historical injustice” believed to have been inflicted on the continent by the dominant powers in the international system, there is little agreement on how to seek redress. Consequently, with all the vitriol aimed at the contemporary world order for its alleged “anachronism”, African countries seem undecided whether to justify abolishing the system altogether or expanding it to accommodate the historically excluded.

Nothing encapsulates this equivocation better than the continent’s attitude towards the United Nations Security Council, the UN’s main decision-making body. While it tends to be depicted as a symbol of the unbearable inegalitarianism of the institution, on the one hand, on the other hand, permanent membership “with the same rights and responsibilities” as the Nigerian Vice President. insists Kashim Shettimafor example, in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly last month, the Holy Grail remains.

This indecision is not necessarily new either. The The Ezulwini Consensus (PDF), the African Union’s (AU) 2005 African Common Position on Proposed United Nations Reform captures the continent’s confusion. For example, while expressing an opposition “in principle to the veto,” the AU nevertheless maintains “that as long as it exists and as a matter of common justice, it should be made available to all permanent members of the Security Council. ” Hence the demand for “full African representation” in the Security Council with “not less than two permanent seats with all the prerogatives and privileges of permanent membership, including the right of veto”.

Despite the nascent nature of the African position, representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) have at various times expressed broad support for “structural reform”, including “adding seats for underrepresented regions such as Africa”. Whether this unprecedented show of solidarity is sincere or a mere posturing dictated by political exigencies is beside the point. What is clear is that, for the first time in recent memory, there seems to be a real appetite to implement the kind of reform (or is it transformation?) long advocated by member countries grumbling that they were either not represented at the table. when the UN came into existence or “were not in a particularly strong position” “when the first reform took place”.

All this makes this a particularly auspicious time to press the affected regions to smooth out the obvious wrinkles in the material of their argument. African countries, for one, must take a coherent position on the future of the United Nations Security Council. If, as they have lamented over the years, the alleged lack of democracy of the Security Council is the quintessence of all that is wrong with the UN, the logical position is to call for its abolition. Let’s demand the incorporation of new members who will then continue to operate under the same charter that was until recently denounced as undemocratic and reeking of opportunism and moral inconsistency.

Furthermore, there are few guarantees that abolishing the Security Council (a distant prospect at this point) will not create more problems than it solves. Most likely, it will be found that if there is anything worse than a UN where some have a veto, it is one where no one does. More realistically, African countries may need to abandon their pursuit of rose-tinted egalitarianism, where country A is automatically allocated what country B gets and what country B only gets, and instead embrace the reality of an interest-driven geopolitical landscape permanent and evolving alliances. . In conclusion, the mantra for UA, which, suffice it to say, is itself full of hierarchies of various kinds, should be agility and adaptability rather than equality. As a growing number of African countries seem to have noticed in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the current global configuration, despite its undeniable constraints, hardly precludes the opportunity for diplomatic maneuvering by the so-called “weaker powers.” It is one thing to demand legitimate changes to the global configuration and another to imagine that nothing can be done unless and until these calls are heeded.

Which raises an interesting question: beyond the undoubted prestige, what obvious tangible benefits does permanent membership of the Security Council really confer? One can imagine the various things a notional African permanent member can do with the status, but the real question is what it will do for the same country. Nigeria, Egypt and South Africa were promoted as possible candidates. What, in concrete terms, will permanent membership of the Security Council help these countries achieve? For example, are not, say, Nigeria’s limited time and resources better spent coming to terms with her nagging development challenges than a quixotic pursuit of permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council?

We are certainly not suggesting that a country be fully dressed to perfection before it can claim admission to this or any other elite transnational group; yet, leaving aside the justice of the existence or composition of the Security Council, it is extraordinary that a body of countries, to call upon the great Dr. Johnson, should be so hastened by its own ardor for distant views as to neglect the truths which stand before you his.

Among those near-truths, none is more gut-wrenching than unfolding humanitarian disaster in Sudanwhere, since April last year, a fierce power struggle between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) has left over one hundred and fifty thousand people dead, seven hundred and fifty thousand on the brink of starvation and estimates that 25.6 million people, more than half of the population, are in need of humanitarian aid. Given the rightful expectation that countries that want to become big players on the international stage should first take care of business in their own backyard, the absence of coordinated African action in the Sudanese conflict is inexcusable.

Overall, it would appear that African countries have over time allowed their sense of “responsibility”, however understandable, to override the obligation of clarity on the appropriate means of redress.

A rethink is needed.