Security Council reform: Africa refuses to be a mere extra

Long relegated to the role of a mere observer in global diplomatic arenas, Africa is beginning to raise its voice. As Moscow and Beijing shape the contours of a new multipolar order, calls for an overhaul of the Security Council are multiplying. But what good is a reform without real power? Nofi dismantles the illusion of inclusion and argues for uncompromising African sovereignty.

The eternal conference of the victors

Since 1945, the United Nations Security Council has functioned as a closed circle, at which only the victors of World War II have had the privilege to sit—and to decide. The United States, Russia (formerly the USSR), France, the United Kingdom, and China: five nations arrogated to themselves the right of veto, establishing a geopolitical monopoly, as if world history could remain forever frozen around this self-proclaimed quintet of peacekeepers.

But this institutional architecture, built on the ruins of a European world war, has never reflected the true balance of power nor the aspirations of the peoples of the Global South. Africa, Asia, and South America have never had a meaningful say—if any at all—and never in a binding way. It is this structural injustice that Vladimir Putin recently placed back on the table: should we continue to ignore three-quarters of humanity in global governance? The idea is not new, but its return to the diplomatic agenda marks a strategic shift.

Figures such as Robert Mugabe and Muammar Gaddafi tirelessly denounced this multilateral masquerade, where the dice are loaded in favor of Western powers. Marginalized, demonized, or even eliminated, they gave way to other voices—just as critical, but now more tactical, more rooted in economic power dynamics. Today, in the era of the BRICS¹ and the global shift toward multipolarity, the debate over Security Council reform is no longer theoretical. It has become vital. And Africa can no longer be kept on the sidelines.


A global governance designed without Africa

The UN Security Council has never been an equitable body of global governance; from its inception, it has been a cartel of victors. Created in 1945 in the immediate postwar period, it is based on a fundamentally asymmetrical equation: only five states (the U.S., USSR—now Russia—France, the U.K., and China) were granted the privilege of a veto, a true totem of absolute sovereignty over world affairs.

This veto right, presented as a balancing mechanism among major powers, has in reality become an instrument of unilateral imposition, bypassing the very principle of international democracy. A single one of these five states can oppose a resolution and nullify it, regardless of the majority vote. One country can block a decision supported by the rest of the UN. It is no longer a global forum—it is a council of player-referees, judge and party, operating in the name of a glorified past.

Africa, meanwhile, was excluded from the outset. No African state participated in the founding negotiations at Yalta² or San Francisco³, as at the time, nearly the entire continent was still under colonial rule. An international system was created under the guise of preserving peace… while maintaining African subjugation. This original contradiction has never been corrected. For 80 years, Africa has remained in a subordinate role: invited without a voice, a spectator without leverage.

Even after independence, African countries were placed in a structurally dependent position. Temporarily seated as non-permanent members of the Council, they may discuss—but never decide. Their role is consultative, peripheral, almost ceremonial. And when they dare to challenge the established order, they are reminded—often brutally—that they have neither veto power nor the means to influence major diplomatic decisions.

This so-called “Security” Council has never ensured Africa’s security. It has endorsed military interventions, embargoes, and foreign interference, often under the guise of humanitarian aid—but always to the detriment of African sovereignty. This global governance, designed without Africa, has been exercised against it.


The Veto as a neocolonial tool

Far from being a diplomatic balancing mechanism, the veto has become, over the decades, the ultimate weapon of postcolonial domination. It is not a tool for peace, but a lever for punishment. When a state dares to defy Western orthodoxy, refuses to conform to liberal dogma, or questions the implicit geopolitical hierarchy, it is swiftly brought back into line. The mechanism is always the same: isolation, delegitimization, sanctions. The veto becomes the trigger of a global punitive machine, with the Swift system⁴ as its core.

Take Cuba, for example. Because Havana refused to align with the U.S. political and economic agenda, it was hit with a total embargo in 1962, which has since been renewed and reinforced—despite near-unanimous UN General Assembly votes calling for its lifting. Each time, the American veto blocks any progress. The result? A country throttled, deprived of medicine, modern infrastructure, and fair trade. A nation condemned to suffocation not for aggression—but for daring to choose another path.

Iran, too, has faced decades of multi-faceted sanctions, from oil embargoes to exclusion from the Swift system. Here again, it’s less about nuclear programs than geopolitical insubordination. And Russia, since the start of the war in Ukraine, has been cut off from international financial circuits—accused (not without reason) but judged and condemned without due process by a court where the West is judge, witness, and prosecutor.

Perhaps the most emblematic case is Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe. In the late 1990s, Mugabe launched a land reform policy to redistribute colonial farmland taken from Black peasants during British rule. A supreme offense in the eyes of London and its allies, this attempt at historical redress was met with economic sanctions, asset freezes, and crucially, Zimbabwe’s exclusion from the Swift system. Within a few years, the country’s economy collapsed: hyperinflation, mass emigration, total destabilization.

Yet Western rhetoric claims to champion democracy, law, and justice. But the facts are stubborn: the veto is not an instrument of balance—it is a sword of supremacy. It does not protect people—it crushes dissenters. It does not resolve conflicts—it perpetuates a world order built on force and exclusion.

Africa knows this all too well. Many of its leaders who tried to break free—from Lumumba to Sankara, to Gbagbo—saw the mechanisms of this selective justice fall upon them. The veto acts as a silent guillotine—often invisible to the masses, but devastatingly effective in stifling resistance.


The hypocrisy of reform without real power

In recent years, Western capitals have multiplied signals of openness toward Africa: talks of inclusion, greater representation, modernization of the Security Council. According to these polished speeches, the world is evolving toward fairer multilateralism. But upon closer inspection, this so-called “reform” is mere cosmetic dressing for a system designed to remain closed. The key remains unchanged: newcomers would be admitted—without veto power.

African states would be offered a folding seat at the Security Council—just to tick the diversity box. But what is a seat without leverage? What value does a presence hold without blocking power in a chamber where only five countries can single-handedly overturn global consensus? Africa would be there to decorate, to “participate” in discussions—but not to influence.

This proposal is no progress; it is a maneuver. A clever attempt to defuse criticism by conceding symbolic presence without real impact. It’s not about justice, but about managing appearances. A façade reform to perpetuate a foundational injustice.

This is one of the most insidious traits of modern Western diplomacy: inclusion without empowerment. Welcoming—on the condition of neutralizing. Africa would be invited to sit at the table—but only if it keeps its hands tied. In other words, this isn’t reform—it’s co-optation.

What’s the point of sitting in an institution where one cannot amend, block, or propose? What’s the point of voting if Washington, London, or Paris can override it with a gesture? This configuration offers no power—only the illusion of respectability. A diplomatic mirage in a desert of unilateral decisions.

Africa, with its 54 states and 1.4 billion people, deserves better than a token role. It must demand not a seat—but equality. And if equality cannot be attained within the old framework, then perhaps it is time to build a new one. For it is better to be absent from an unjust system than to be its voluntary hostage.


The emerging alternative: toward a new multipolar order

The Western monopoly on global governance is faltering. What was long presented as a natural order—based on Northern supremacy and Southern submission—is now shaken by deep geostrategic realignments. At the forefront of this shift: Russia and China. Two powers that, each in their own way, are working to undermine the foundations of the 1945 order by creating alternatives. Not to directly confront the West—but to liberate themselves from it.

Russia’s exclusion from the Swift system in 2022, following the Ukraine conflict, acted as a catalyst. Cut off from the global banking network controlled from Brussels and New York, Moscow was forced to develop parallel systems—most notably the SPFS⁵ and increased use of the yuan in bilateral trade. China, meanwhile, promotes its own system (CIPS⁶) for cross-border bank transfers. The message is clear: the era of financial unipolarity is ending.

In this realignment, Africa cannot remain a bystander. It is being courted—actively—in a new ecosystem of alliances. The BRICS+⁷, with several African nations poised to join, embody a collective aspiration for emancipation. A new South-South cooperation zone is emerging—based not on conditional aid, but on strategic exchange, economic complementarity, and technological sovereignty. The idea of a shared currency, independent of the dollar, is already circulating in African circles close to these emerging powers.

From finance to cybersecurity, diplomacy to defense, an Africa aware of its interests is reconfiguring its alliances. It now understands it can no longer be a mere land of compliance, destined to validate decisions made elsewhere. It must become an autonomous decision-making hub, capable of negotiating its partnerships from a position of balance—not submission.

But to do that, Africa must stop waiting for recognition in the plush salons of the UN. It must act—build its own regional institutions, strengthen continental integration, and speak with one voice. Africa will not gain its place in the Security Council’s halls. It will gain it by writing its own rules.


For african sovereignty in global governance

As long as Africa accepts being a mere extra in the grand theater of international institutions, it will be treated as such. Speeches of empty inclusion, powerless seats, applause without influence—these serve only to maintain the illusion of universal multilateralism, while the levers of power remain in the same Western hands as in 1945.

The time for excuses is over. Africa—rich in resources, youthful, strategically positioned—can no longer be content to “participate” in games where the rules are pre-written and the dice loaded. Either it secures an equal seat (with veto power, initiative rights, and blocking capabilities), or it must withdraw decisively—and build a credible alternative.

This is not utopian. The world is changing. Western hegemony is cracked. Emerging blocs are gaining ground. People are challenging the legitimacy of outdated institutions. In this context, Africa must position itself not as a supplicant, but as a power. It is no longer about asking for a seat—but imposing it—through alliances, strategic discipline, and continental integration.

An alternative pan-African model is not only possible—it is necessary. A continental organization with a unified foreign policy, coordinated diplomacy, shared defense, and an independent monetary system. That would be true sovereignty—not the one ceremoniously celebrated every April 4 or August 5, but the kind that asserts itself concretely in global decision-making arenas.

The UN Security Council may survive a while longer, frozen in its colonial framework. But it will fall—just as other empires built on injustice have fallen. The world of tomorrow will not be built without Africa. And it certainly will not be built against it.

Sources

  • Reuters (March 27, 2024), “Putin discusses security cooperation with West and Central African leaders”
  • Le Monde (March 17, 2023), “From the UN to the G20, Africa seeks its place in international institutions”
  • Le Monde (August 23, 2024), “Russian presence in Africa: Vladimir Putin’s reconquest”
  • Le Monde (September 13, 2024), “UN Security Council: Washington’s outreach to Africa not guaranteed”

Summary

  • The Eternal Conference of the Victors
  • A Global Governance Designed Without Africa
  • The Veto as a Neocolonial Tool
  • The Hypocrisy of Reform Without Real Power
  • The Emerging Alternative: Toward a New Multipolar Order
  • For African Sovereignty in Global Governance

Notes

  1. BRICS: Acronym for a bloc of emerging powers—Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—aimed at promoting a multipolar global order as an alternative to Western dominance.
  2. Yalta Conference (February 1945): A meeting of the Allies (U.S., U.K., USSR) to define the postwar order and spheres of influence. It marked the conceptual birth of the Security Council.
  3. San Francisco Conference (April–June 1945): Founding conference of the United Nations, where the UN Charter and permanent Security Council composition were established.
  4. Swift (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication): A global secure messaging network used for international bank transfers. Though based in Europe, it is heavily influenced by Western sanctions.
  5. SPFS (Russian Financial Messaging System): Russia’s alternative payment system developed by its central bank in response to Western sanctions and Swift exclusions.
  6. CIPS (Cross-Border Interbank Payment System): China’s system for facilitating international bank payments in yuan, as an alternative to Swift.
  7. BRICS+: Extension of BRICS bloc to include other emerging economies such as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or Argentina, to boost the geopolitical weight of the Global South.
Charlotte Dikamona
Charlotte Dikamona
In love with her skin cultures

Soutenez un média engagé !

Chez NOFI, nous mettons en lumière la richesse et la diversité des cultures africaines et caribéennes, en racontant des histoires qui inspirent, informent et rassemblent.
Pour continuer à proposer un regard indépendant et valoriser ces héritages, nous avons besoin de vous.
Chaque contribution, même modeste, nous aide à faire vivre cette mission.
 
💛 Rejoignez l’aventure et soutenez NOFI ! 💛
 
👉 Faire un don 👈

News

Inscrivez vous à notre Newsletter

Pour ne rien rater de l'actualité Nofi ![sibwp_form id=3]

You may also like