Zupanjevac: Africa's inclusion among permanent Security Council members more likely than in previous decades

The process of admitting Africa into the ranks of permanent members of the Security Council seems more likely today than it did 30 years ago when this topic was also discussed, but nothing happened. The international climate is now more favorable to the idea of making some changes in the Security Council, Dragan Zupanjevac, former Serbian ambassador to Kenya, says for Kosovo Online.

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres recently called for Africa to be granted a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, noting that the world had changed since 1945, when the UN was founded, while the composition of the Security Council, despite a few changes, had not kept pace with global developments.

Zupanjevac points out that in 1945, Africa had only four member states in the United Nations – Ethiopia, Egypt, South Africa, and Liberia – whereas now there are 54 members from the African continent in the UN, while the Security Council only has three non-permanent members from Africa.

"There is a growing recognition that this needs to change. The African continent has the largest growing population. It is expected that by 2050, one in four people on the planet will be from Africa. It is unacceptable that Africa does not have a permanent seat on the Security Council. Currently, Africa has three non-permanent members, and it is asking for two permanent seats, with either the veto being abolished or, if it is not, then they want two African countries to have veto power, along with two additional non-permanent seats. So, they want to have a total of two permanent seats with veto power, plus five non-permanent ones," Zupanjevac explains.

He adds that this month, the Security Council is chaired by the African country Sierra Leone, and the president of that country presented very clear arguments at a special session on why it is necessary to correct the historical injustice toward Africa and why those countries that were colonized, which have since grown and have their own interests, must be better represented in all international organizations, particularly in international financial organizations, and must have a permanent presence in the Security Council.

Zupanjevac says there is talk that at the Summit on the Future, which will be held in September in New York, the process of reform could begin, with Africa being at the forefront.

"But, of course, as soon as the discussion about Africa begins, Asia also has the right to say: 'We are a huge continent, and we have only two non-permanent members, Africa has three, and we have two.' Latin America has two, the Western world has two more, and Eastern Europe, where we belong, has one seat. So when that process starts, it doesn't go smoothly. Everyone understands that Africa, due to its large population, economic, and political significance, as the continent with the most natural resources, needs to increase its presence in the Security Council, but as soon as that process begins, other demands and wishes will arise," Zupanjevac says.

He notes that efforts to reform the Security Council have existed for over 30 years and that in 1965 the Council was expanded from 11 to 15 members, but nothing has been done since then.

"Boutros Boutros-Ghali, as Secretary-General, initiated this process in 1992, and later Kofi Annan. Initially, there was talk about admitting the so-called group of four – Japan and Germany, plus India and Brazil – but as soon as these four countries put their case on the table, arguing that they are powerful in terms of GDP, their rivals immediately raised questions. For example, Pakistan immediately objected – why India and not Pakistan? When Germany came forward, Italy and Spain immediately said 'no,' and Argentina and Mexico opposed Brazil," Zupanjevac explains.

When asked whether it would benefit Serbia in the context of resolving the Kosovo issue if Africa became a permanent member of the Security Council, our interlocutor says that most African countries view the unilateral declaration of Kosovo's independence as a dangerous precedent, against international law, and that only a third of African states recognize Kosovo.

"There are African countries that have recognized Kosovo's unilaterally declared independence, such as Senegal, Tanzania, Mauritania, and Cote d'Ivoire, but the majority consider it an unjust alteration of borders in the middle of Europe and believe it is dangerous for their own continent, which is why they do not recognize Kosovo. From that perspective, if Africa had two permanent seats on the Security Council, it could potentially be beneficial for Serbian interests, but we cannot say that this is guaranteed or 100%. Currently, the Security Council includes Sierra Leone, which has withdrawn its recognition of Kosovo, Algeria, which does not recognize it, and Mozambique, whose position is somewhat unclear. However, it could happen that Malawi, Chad, Tanzania, or Senegal, all of which recognize Kosovo, are in the Security Council, in which case we would not benefit. What is clear is that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the African continent do not recognize Kosovo and Metohija as an independent country, and that is certainly important for Serbian interests," Zupanjevac emphasizes.

He adds that Serbia has a significant legacy on the African continent dating back to the time of Yugoslavia, along with friendships and certain support, which is not absolute but is present. He points out that this was evident in the vote for Serbia's candidacy to host the EXPO 2027 exhibition, when the majority of African countries offered their support, as well as during the vote in the UN General Assembly on the Resolution on the Genocide in Srebrenica, when African countries either voted against it, abstained, or left the room.