The single thread running through the 81st General Assembly was the demand for a seat—permanent, decisive and unapologetic—at the Security Council. This is not a new demand; it has been voiced from Nehru to Nkrumah, from Nyerere to Mandela. But it has acquired a new and urgent force, because the arithmetic of global power no longer matches the arithmetic of global governance. Africa, with over 1.4 billion people, is the world’s second most populous continent and will soon hold the largest working-age population on earth. Latin America and the Caribbean, with more than 650 million people, are likewise excluded. The Middle East has no permanent voice. The Council remains frozen in 1945, and a body that reflects a dead world cannot govern a living one. It is worth remembering what the Council actually is. Fifteen members sit around that table. Five hold permanent seats and the veto. The other ten—the non-permanent members—are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms, allocated by region, and stripped of any power to block. As of January 2026, Bahrain, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Latvia and Liberia took their seats. In June, Austria, Kyrgyzstan, Portugal, Trinidad and Tobago and Zimbabwe were elected to replace them from January 2027. Notice what this means. Zimbabwe and Trinidad and Tobago will sit in the chamber. They will speak. They will vote. But when the decisive moment comes—when a veto is cast, when a resolution dies, when a people are abandoned—their voices will count for nothing. Africa’s only route to the table is through a revolving door that never opens onto permanent power. This is not representation. It is decoration. The case for reform rests on three pillars. The first is demography. The second is equity: the Council’s decisions are binding on every member state, yet the overwhelming majority have no permanent voice in making them. Why should five nations, representing a shrinking share of humanity and output, decide for all? Why should Africa, which bears the heaviest burden of the conflicts the Council debates, be denied a seat at the table where they are discussed? The third is effectiveness. A Council whose legitimacy has been shredded by failure cannot act decisively. New permanent members from the Global South would bring new perspectives and new energy, and would make it harder for any single power to freeze the world in place. The prize is enormous: a decisive voice in shaping the rules of peace and security; a platform for African-led solutions instead of solutions imposed from outside; a symbol of Africa’s arrival as a co-author of global policy; greater leverage across climate, trade and development finance; and a counterweight to a Council long dominated by the narrow geopolitical interests of the P5. Is it achievable this time? There is genuine momentum. President Joe Biden told the Assembly that the United States supports expanding the Council to include permanent seats for Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean—a significant shift, warmly received across the South. But the devil lives in the details: Washington has not said whether new members would hold the veto, and it is improbable that the existing five would surrender their most prized privilege. Article 108 of the Charter requires any amendment to be approved by two-thirds of the General Assembly, including all five permanent members—meaning any one of the P5 can kill reform by simply withholding support. Russia will resist anything that dilutes its power. China welcomes a greater role for developing countries in principle but is wary of strengthening regional rivals such as India and Japan. Britain and France support reform vaguely and will not diminish themselves. Nor is there consensus among the aspirants: the Group of Four—Brazil, Germany, India and Japan—want new permanent seats for themselves, fiercely opposed by the Uniting for Consensus group led by Italy and Pakistan. The African Union’s Ezulwini Consensus demands two permanent African seats with veto power and five non-permanent seats—a demand the P5 will not grant. The realistic path is therefore gradual: first expand the non-permanent category, then create new permanent seats without the veto, and finally—the hardest battle of all—reform the veto itself. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine, endorsed by the General Assembly in 2005 but never implemented, would bar the veto in cases of genocide and crimes against humanity. The veto initiative, which summons the General Assembly whenever a veto is cast, has already proven a useful instrument of accountability. Yet while the South argues for law, the self-appointed guardian of the “rules-based international order” behaves as a predator. In Venezuela, Washington has since 2015 imposed sanctions aimed not at a government but at a people, devastating the economy and collapsing a health system. The UN Human Rights Council found the measures had a “devastating effect,” contributing t
Don't miss out on breaking stories and in-depth articles.
