The 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly in 2025 witnessed African leaders delivering passionate speeches demanding permanent representation on the UN Security Council. While their calls for ending the "historical injustice" of Africa's exclusion resonate morally, a harder question emerges: Has Africa done the necessary work at home to earn, not just deserve a seat at the global high table?
The Moral Case: Undeniably Strong
Africa's exclusion from permanent Security Council membership is morally indefensible. When the UN was established in 1945, most African nations were under colonial rule, voiceless in international affairs. Today, that same colonial-era structure persists in an organisation where 38% of Security Council meetings and over 50% of its formal outcomes concern African matters yet Africa has no permanent voice in these decisions affecting about 1.4 billion people.
Kenya's President William Ruto captured this sentiment perfectly: "We won't wait. We will not be silenced." Nigeria's Vice President Kashim Shettima framed the demand as one for "fairness, for representation, and for reform that restores credibility to the very institution upon which the hope of multilateralism rests."
The moral argument is ironclad. But morality alone does not earn respect at the international level, capability and demonstrated leadership do!
Africa's Internal Governance Crisis
While African leaders demanded global representation in New York, back home, the continent grapples with conflicts that reveal uncomfortable truths about governance and institutional capacity. The irony is stark: the very crises African leaders cite as requiring international intervention expose the inadequacy of continental responses.
Sudan: A Humanitarian Catastrophe Unresolved
Sudan's war exemplifies this failure. With over 3,384 civilian deaths in just the first half of 2025 and 24.6 million people facing acute food insecurity, it has become the world's largest humanitarian crisis. Yet this is not merely a domestic affair, it is a conflict where external actors like Russia's Wagner Group have secured gold mining concessions while providing military support to the Rapid Support Forces.
When Russia vetoed a UN Security Council resolution on Sudan in late 2024, a resolution supported by 14 of 15 members, it was not about respecting Sudanese sovereignty as claimed. It was about protecting lucrative business interests, including gold mining operations that have generated millions for Russian entities while fueling the very conflict the resolution sought to end.
But here's the critical question: Where was the African Union's early warning system? Why did the continent’s mechanisms fail to prevent this crisis from escalating to catastrophic proportions? The AU's response has been fragmented and ineffective, with no single credible peace process emerging despite multiple continental initiatives.
DRC: Decades of "Silent Genocide"
President Félix Tshisekedi's plea about a "silent genocide" in eastern DRC highlights another troubling reality. The M23 rebel group, reportedly backed by Rwanda, has displaced over 7.3 million people, the highest number ever recorded in the country. The conflict involves grave protection concerns, including widespread gender-based violence and child recruitment.
The president explicitly linked the conflict to "illicit supply chains of minerals" that have financed war for decades, calling for UN sanctions against perpetrators of economic crimes. Yet despite this clear understanding of the problem, the continent’s mechanisms have proven inadequate to disrupt these networks or end the violence. The AU has expressed support for peace initiatives, but concrete, decisive action remains elusive.
Nigeria: Regional Powerhouse, Regional Instability
Nigeria's case is perhaps most revealing. The country that explicitly demands a permanent Security Council seat faces a complex security landscape: Boko Haram in the northeast, bandit gangs and farmer-herder clashes in the northwest, and separatist agitations in the southeast. The humanitarian toll is a staggering 33 million people projected to face food insecurity during the 2025 lean season and over 2.1 million displaced since 2019.
Nigeria's Vice President acknowledged the transnational nature of these threats, calling for efforts to "follow the trails of weapons, of money, and of people." Yet illegal oil bunkering and theft in Nigeria's Niger Delta continue as part of a broader illicit trade costing Africa nearly $100 billion annually. The question becomes unavoidable: How can a nation struggling with such comprehensive internal instability effectively represent the continent’s interests on the global stage?
The African Union: Promise Unfulfilled
The harsh reality is that the African Union, designed to be the continent's primary vehicle for conflict resolution and governance, has a mixed track record at best. While it achieved notable success mediating between Sudan and South Sudan in 2012: a roadmap so effective it was endorsed by the UN Security Council, this remains more exception than rule.
Here's a sobering statistic that should give pause to anyone celebrating Africa's diplomatic offensive at the UN: Only 15% of all decisions made by the AU since 2001 have been fully implemented at the state level. Fifteen percent! This is not just an administrative failure, it is a fundamental crisis of political will and institutional effectiveness.
This implementation gap reveals a deeper problem: member states often fail to integrate progressive AU decisions into their national legislation or ratify agreements. This raises fundamental questions about the political will of African governments and the importance they attach to their own continent’s organisation.
The Credibility Question: Earning the Right to Lead
If Africa cannot resolve conflicts within its own borders through its own institutions, what credibility does it have to contribute meaningfully to global peace and security? This question cuts to the heart of the continent's quest for UN representation. A permanent Security Council seat without the demonstrated capacity to lead would indeed become what critics fear: a figurehead position that changes little while providing symbolic satisfaction.
The UN Security Council itself demonstrates this dynamic. Consider how the current permanent members use their positions: when the United States vetoed six resolutions on Gaza in nearly two years, or when Russia blocked action on Sudan to protect its gold mining interests, they were not advancing global peace, they were protecting national interests while paralysing the institution.
Now imagine Africa securing a seat without veto power while unable to effectively address its own crises through continental mechanisms. The result would be a voice without influence, representation without power. African leaders would join the monthly meetings, make impassioned speeches about injustice and conflict, and watch as the same dynamics that currently paralyse the Council continue unchanged.
Consider this scenario: Future Security Council meetings on African conflicts where an African permanent member speaks eloquently about the need for intervention while their own continental organisation has failed to act decisively. The other permanent members could simply point to the AU's track record and ask why the Security Council should succeed where African institutions have not.
The Prerequisites: What Africa Must Do First
Before demanding a seat at the global table, Africa needs to demonstrate it can effectively manage its own affairs. This requires several concrete steps:
1. Strengthen the AU's Capacity
2. Address the Political Will Crisis
Member states must commit to:
Implementation: Actually enacting AU decisions rather than treating them as mere aspirations
Resource commitment: Providing adequate funding and personnel for continent’s initiatives
Coordination: Eliminating competing initiatives between the AU and RECs
3. Tackle Root Causes of Conflict
A Different Path Forward: Earning Respect Through Results
Instead of primarily lobbying for UN representation, imagine if Africa focused intensively on demonstrating continental leadership:
Current Approach: African leaders spend diplomatic capital demanding Security Council representation while conflicts in Sudan, DRC, and Nigeria remain unresolved through continental mechanisms. The AU's implementation rate remains at 15%, coordination between the AU and Regional Economic Communities stays fragmented, and external actors like Wagner Group continue to exploit African resources while influencing political outcomes.
Alternative Approach: (Earned Leadership)The AU successfully implements comprehensive reforms, raising its decision implementation rate from 15% to 60% within five years. It develops a functioning early warning system that prevents the next potential Sudan-level crisis through proactive mediation. The organisation coordinates effectively with RECs to present unified responses to emerging conflicts. African institutions dismantle the illicit supply chains that cost the continent $100 billion annually, reducing conflict financing and improving governance.
When such an AU speaks at international forums about peace and security, the world listens not out of politeness, but out of respect for demonstrated capability.
Consider how the AU's one major success,the 2012 Sudan-South Sudan mediation was received. The roadmap was so effective that the UN Security Council endorsed it. This was not charity or symbolic support; it was recognition of genuine achievement. That single success did more for Africa's international credibility than years of diplomatic speeches ever could.
Now imagine if such successes became the norm rather than the exception. If the AU could point to a consistent track record of:
Preventing conflicts through early warning and rapid response
Successfully mediating between warring parties
Implementing post-conflict reconstruction that addresses root causes
Dismantling illicit networks that fuel instability
Coordinating effectively across regional bodies
With such a record, Security Council representation becomes not a demand but an invitation. The world will not just acknowledge Africa's moral right to be heard, it will actively seek African input because of proven expertise in conflict resolution.
The Timing Question: Sequence Matters
This is not about abandoning the quest for Security Council representation, it is about sequencing priorities strategically. Africa's current approach risks achieving a symbolic victory that lacks substance.
The moral case is compelling. But the real test of Africa's readiness for global leadership is not rhetorical, it is operational, and the data reveals troubling gaps.
Can the AU prevent the next Sudan? The current conflict, which has created the world's largest humanitarian crisis, escalated despite continental early warning mechanisms. The AU's response has been fragmented, with multiple competing initiatives producing no credible peace process.
Can it effectively coordinate responses to humanitarian crises? The DRC's "silent genocide" continues despite AU expressions of support for peace initiatives. Over 7.3 million people remain displaced while illicit mineral supply chains that finance the conflict operate with apparent impunity.
Can it hold member states accountable? With only 15% of AU decisions implemented since 2001, the organisation struggles to ensure its own members comply with continental agreements.
Can it dismantle illicit networks? Africa loses nearly $100 billion annually to activities like illegal oil bunkering and mineral smuggling, yet these networks persist despite continental awareness of their role in fueling conflicts.
The answers to these questions expose a hard truth: until Africa demonstrates it can effectively govern itself through its own institutions, demands for global representation remain primarily moral rather than strategic pleas for fairness rather than claims based on demonstrated capacity.
Africa deserves better than a figurehead position on the Security Council. The continent's 1.4 billion people deserve representation that carries real influence, not just symbolic presence. Achieving this requires uncomfortable honesty about current limitations and serious commitment to building the institutional capacity that commands respect.
The question is not whether Africa deserves a Security Council seat, it is whether Africa has earned the right to meaningful influence once it gets there. True representation requires more than presence at the table, it demands the capacity to shape outcomes. Africa's homework is not complete yet.