Will the Big Five in the UN Security Council open the door for Africa, and what would that mean for Serbia?

Sierra Leone will chair the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for a few more days, and during its month-long leadership, it has used the opportunity to bring up the issue of Africa's membership in the Security Council. It has been reiterated that this continent should have a permanent seat on the UNSC, with support for this coming from UN Secretary-General António Guterres. However, as noted by Sierra Leone's President Julius Maada Bio, it is the Big Five with veto power in the UNSC that "hold the keys to the gate."

Written by: Dusica Radeka Djordjevic

Africa has long been demanding at least two permanent seats on the UN Security Council, along with two additional non-permanent seats, in addition to the three it already holds. President Maada Bio argues that the current configuration of the Security Council is outdated and does not adequately serve Africa's interests. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has stated that it is unacceptable for the world's leading body for peace and security to lack a permanent voice from a continent with over a billion people. Despite some changes, Guterres emphasized that the composition of the UNSC has not kept pace with global changes.

Arguments that may seem commonsensical to many in the world raise numerous questions, from which African countries would represent the continent on the East River to whether it is feasible to reform the UNSC in such a way that the gate opens only for Africa, while the aspirations of others who also believe they should be in the company of those with veto power remain unfulfilled.

If Africa were to eventually become a permanent member of the UNSC, this could be significant for Serbia's interests in resolving the Kosovo issue, as most countries on this continent do not recognize Kosovo and have friendly relations with Serbia. However, some believe that this scenario would not bring anything particularly beneficial to Belgrade.

According to Dragan Zupanjevac, a former Serbian ambassador to Kenya, the process of admitting Africa to the ranks of permanent members of the Security Council seems more likely today than it did 30 years ago, when this issue was also discussed but nothing happened.

Zupanjevac notes that in 1945, Africa had only four member states in the United Nations—Ethiopia, Egypt, South Africa, and Liberia—while today there are 54 member states from the African continent in the UN, yet they have only three non-permanent seats in the Security Council.

"There is a growing realization that this must change. The African continent has the largest youth population. It is expected that by 2050, every fourth person on the planet will be from Africa. It is unacceptable that it does not have a permanent member on the Security Council. Currently, Africa has three non-permanent members, but it is asking for two permanent seats, with either the veto being abolished or, if it is not abolished, two African countries should have veto power, along with two additional non-permanent seats," Zupanjevac explained to Kosovo Online.

He added that discussions are underway about the possibility that the reform process could begin at the Summit on the Future, which will be held in September in New York, with Africa being in the spotlight.

"But, of course, as soon as the conversation about Africa begins, Asia has the right to say: 'We are a huge continent and have only two non-permanent members.' Latin America has two, the Western world has two more, and Eastern Europe, where we belong, has one seat. Once this process starts, it doesn't proceed simply. Everyone understands that Africa, due to its large population, economic and political significance, and as a continent with the largest natural resources, needs to strengthen its presence in the Security Council. But as soon as this process begins, other demands and desires will also arise," Zupanjevac said.

He noted that efforts to reform the Security Council have existed for over 30 years, with discussions about admitting the so-called Group of Four—Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil—as permanent members.

"But as soon as these four countries put their case on the table, using the argument that they are powerful in terms of gross domestic product, their rivals immediately raised questions. Pakistan immediately objected—why India and not Pakistan? When Germany came forward, Italy and Spain immediately said 'no,' and because of Brazil, Argentina and Mexico objected," Zupanjevac pointed out.

When asked whether it would be advantageous for Serbia in the context of resolving the Kosovo issue if Africa became a permanent member of the UN Security Council (UNSC), our interlocutor points out that most African countries view the unilateral declaration of Kosovo's independence as a dangerous precedent, contrary to international law, and that only a third of African states recognize Kosovo.

"There are African countries that have recognized the unilaterally declared independence of Kosovo, such as Senegal, Tanzania, Mauritania, and the Ivory Coast, but the majority consider it an unjust alteration of borders in the middle of Europe and see it as dangerous for their continent, which is why they do not recognize Kosovo. From this perspective, if Africa were to gain two permanent seats on the UNSC, it could potentially be beneficial for Serbian interests, but we cannot say that this is guaranteed or 100 percent certain. Currently, as non-permanent members of the UNSC, we have Sierra Leone, which has withdrawn its recognition of Kosovo, Algeria, which does not recognize it, and Mozambique, which is somewhat unclear. But it could happen that Malawi, Chad, Tanzania, and Senegal, all of which recognize Kosovo, take those seats, and in that case, we gain nothing. What is clear is that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the African continent does not recognize Kosovo and Metohija as an independent country, and that is certainly important for Serbian interests," Zupanjevac points out.

Foreign policy analyst Borislav Korkodelovic also believes that the atmosphere in the Security Council would be different with "new, fresh blood," and that this would be beneficial for Serbia's interests.

"Anything that contributes to multipolarity and breaks the chains formed by small circles of hegemonic countries is favorable to Serbia and the issue Serbia faces regarding the unilateral declaration of Kosovo's independence. If, for example, Nigeria and Egypt, or Ethiopia and South Africa, were to join the Security Council, these are countries that have not recognized the unilaterally declared independence of Kosovo, although Egypt has a somewhat ambiguous stance, as their officials say they froze the decision to recognize it in 2012. So, you could say there would be three and a half countries against Kosovo's independence, which is good. But, in general, the atmosphere within the Security Council itself would be different with this new, fresh blood. And I think that would be good for Serbia," Korkodelovic told Kosovo Online.

He recalls that Africa has been lobbying to be represented in the Security Council since 2005, but he also believes that this is a long-term issue and that it has less to do with Africa's wishes and more with geopolitical relations in the world.

Korkodelovic emphasizes that at the time of the United Nations' founding, the majority of African countries were colonies and were not visible on the global stage.

"In addition to Africa, there are four individual countries also seeking permanent membership—India, Brazil, Germany, and Japan. And here again, the problem lies in geopolitics and the rivalry between the United States and its Western allies on one side, and Russia and China on the other. The U.S. strongly supports Germany and Japan, its allies, while Russia and China primarily advocate for Brazil and India, which are members of BRICS. India is also a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Germany is a member of NATO, and Japan is a potential future member of NATO in the Asian region. So, this is a matter of high politics, and it's unclear when something like this will be achieved. However, in September, when the regular annual session of the UN General Assembly begins, there will be a Summit on the Future, which is supposed to outline the vision of the United Nations for the next ten years, and there will likely be some indications of what could come out of all this for Africa," Korkodelovic concludes.

Regarding how it would be determined which country would represent Africa if a permanent seat on the UN Security Council were secured, our interlocutor explains that this would be decided through a vote within the African Union.

"It seems to me that the choice would likely be between three or four countries. One would be Nigeria, which is the most populous African country, known as the African giant with over 220 million people. Then there's Egypt, from North Africa and as an Arab country, considering that there is currently no permanent member of the Security Council from the Arab world. Additionally, South Africa and possibly Ethiopia could also be contenders," says Korkodelovic.

Former ambassador of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to Germany, Zoran Jeremic, notes that discussions about reforming the UN Security Council have been ongoing practically since the founding of the United Nations, but he believes that the realization of such an idea will not happen until it suits all the permanent members of the Security Council who hold veto power.

"It has always been said that something needs to be adjusted to new conditions and the times. There are various ideas and tendencies, but personally, I do not believe that any changes will occur. The very fact that this topic is being discussed means that there is some level of agreement among the major powers to talk about it, but I don't believe they will implement it because none of them wants to give up their still monolithic position, which grants them a particularly significant role. I'm referring to the permanent members of the Security Council with veto power," Jeremic told Kosovo Online.

Jeremic considers it highly questionable whether some regions will be able to gain entry into the UN Security Council. Regarding Africa, he notes that the immediate question is which country from this continent would be included as a permanent member of the Council.

"Will it be a rotation? Who will reconcile all those opinions, and will they represent the views of the entire continent? This is always a topic of discussion, but I do not believe it will come to fruition until it suits all the Security Council members with veto power," Jeremic explains.

He is also skeptical about whether Serbia would gain more understanding for its interests in the Security Council if Africa were to join as a permanent member. He emphasizes that this would depend on which African countries were in the Council and making decisions.

"If the countries are those that have not recognized Kosovo, that would be favorable for us, but if they are countries that have recognized Kosovo or are under the influence of countries that have recognized it, the situation would be entirely different. So it's hard to say whether this would be beneficial for us or not, especially considering that there are also ambitions from the European Union for such a position, as well as from Germany and Latin American countries. I think that we would not gain anything from this," Jeremic concludes.