News / National
Breaking down Dr. Chihombori's allegations: Is the U.S. really the key obstacle to Africa's UNSC permanent seats?
21 Oct 2024 at 22:42hrs | Views
In recent discourse surrounding Africa's quest for permanent seats on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), Dr. Arikana Chihombori, a prominent U.S.-based Pan-Africanist, has pointed the finger squarely at the United States, alleging that it is the primary barrier to Africa achieving this goal.
Dr. Chihombori's bold claim warrants a critical examination: is the U.S. indeed the major stumbling block, or do other global powers like China and Russia also share responsibility for obstructing Africa's ambitions?
This article explores her claims, examines U.S., Chinese, and Russian positions on Africa's quest for UNSC reform, and investigates whether any concrete steps have been taken by these powers to support Africa's bid.
Dr. Arikana Chihombori's Allegations
Dr. Chihombori has asserted that the U.S. is the principal obstacle to Africa gaining permanent seats on the UNSC.
Her allegations stem, in part, from the U.S. position that Africa should be given permanent seats on the Council but without veto power - a critical element of decision-making in the UNSC.
Dr. Chihombori has suggested that this stance is "an insult rather than a favour," arguing that giving Africa permanent seats without veto power would perpetuate its marginalization in global governance.
While her frustration is understandable, placing the blame solely on the U.S. is misleading and overly simplistic.
To gain a clearer understanding of the situation, we need to explore the broader global dynamics at play, including the positions of other world powers like China and Russia.
The U.S. Position on Africa's Bid for Permanent Seats
Historically, the United States has publicly supported the idea of UNSC reform.
However, the specifics of this support, particularly in relation to Africa, are crucial.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
The U.S. has expressed willingness to support African permanent seats on the Council but has generally opposed extending veto power to new members.
This reflects a broader reluctance by the U.S. (and other P5 members) to dilute the influence they currently wield through the veto.
Specific Examples of U.S. Calls for UNSC Reform
During a visit to the African Union (AU) headquarters in Ethiopia in 2015, President Barack Obama acknowledged that the UNSC needed reform and supported a greater African voice in global governance.
He stated, "Africa must have a permanent seat at the table when critical issues are discussed. It's time for reform."
In 2011, then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed support for African representation on the UNSC.
However, this support, like Obama's, did not extend to granting veto power, which African countries view as essential to having meaningful influence.
During the 2022 U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, President Joe Biden reiterated the U.S. stance on UNSC reform, advocating for Africa's inclusion but stopping short of endorsing veto power for new permanent members.
While these statements reflect rhetorical support for Africa's aspirations, critics like Dr. Chihombori argue that the refusal to offer veto power is tantamount to perpetuating Africa's marginalization in global governance.
To Dr. Chihombori, this is not genuine support but a tactic to preserve U.S. dominance within the Council.
China and Russia's Position: Genuine Support or Strategic Posturing?
Both China and Russia have been vocal about supporting Africa's demand for permanent seats on the UNSC.
However, unlike the U.S., China and Russia have not explicitly stated that African seats would be denied veto power.
This allows them to maintain an image of being more supportive of Africa's goals.
Yet, despite their supportive rhetoric, their actions, or lack thereof, suggest that they may also be reluctant to see a fully empowered African bloc in the UNSC.
China's Calls for UNSC Reform
At the 2015 Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) summit in Johannesburg, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for Africa to have greater representation on the UNSC.
However, there was no concrete discussion regarding veto power.
During the 2023 BRICS summit, President Xi reiterated this position, emphasizing the need for UNSC reform to include African representation.
While this rhetoric is strong, China has not taken meaningful steps to push through the necessary UN reforms.
Russia's Calls for UNSC Reform
Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed unequivocal support for Africa's permanent representation on the UNSC during the inaugural Russia-Africa Summit in 2019.
Like China, Russia did not engage in explicit discussions about veto power, leaving this critical issue unaddressed.
In 2020, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov echoed similar sentiments at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), calling for UNSC reform that would grant Africa permanent representation.
Again, no specifics on veto power were discussed.
Practical Steps Taken by Global Powers: Is the Support Tangible?
While the U.S. has voiced support for Africa gaining permanent UNSC seats, its opposition to granting veto power presents a significant roadblock.
The U.S. position, which aligns with its interest in maintaining its veto power and overall influence, reflects a broader issue faced by all P5 members, who are reluctant to share this critical privilege with new members.
From Africa's perspective, a seat without veto power is seen as symbolic rather than substantive, and hence, Dr. Chihombori's characterization of this stance as an "insult" is understandable.
China and Russia have made strong rhetorical commitments to Africa's bid, but, like the U.S., they have failed to take concrete actions toward enabling Africa's full participation on the UNSC.
While they have not explicitly opposed extending veto power to new African members, they have also not actively pushed for any reforms that would make this happen.
This indicates that their support is more about strategic posturing to maintain good relations with African nations, rather than a sincere effort to reform the global governance system in Africa's favour.
Obstacles to UNSC Reform
One of the most significant obstacles to UNSC reform is the question of whether new permanent members (including African representatives) should have veto power.
Africa's Ezulwini Consensus, which outlines its demands, insists that any new permanent members must have the same rights as the current P5, including veto power.
The reluctance of the U.S., and likely China and Russia, to extend this privilege remains a significant roadblock to any meaningful reform.
Beyond the P5, there is also a lack of consensus among other UN member states regarding the specifics of reform.
Some countries, like Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil (the G4), also seek permanent seats but may not fully support the African position, especially concerning veto power.
Africa itself faces internal divisions over which countries should occupy the proposed permanent seats.
Candidates like Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt all vie for these positions, but regional rivalries have hindered a unified African position, weakening its ability to negotiate effectively on the global stage.
Analysing Dr. Chihombori's Allegations: Does She Have a Point?
Dr. Chihombori's assertion that the U.S. is the main stumbling block for Africa's quest for UNSC reform is partially valid but oversimplified.
It is true that the U.S. has pushed for reforms that do not extend veto power to new members, which many Africans view as an "insult."
However, blaming the U.S. alone ignores the fact that China and Russia, despite their rhetoric, have also not taken meaningful steps to advance Africa's bid.
China and Russia use their support for Africa's UNSC bid as part of a broader strategy to position themselves as champions of the Global South, but their actions show that their commitment to Africa's cause is primarily rhetorical.
The U.S. has similarly supported UNSC reform in principle, but its reluctance to give up or share veto power is a common issue among all P5 members, not just the U.S.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Dr. Arikana Chihombori's claim that the U.S. is the primary obstacle to Africa's UNSC bid holds some truth but oversimplifies a complex issue.
While the U.S. has indeed been hesitant to push for reforms that might weaken its influence, China and Russia—despite their vocal support—have also failed to take practical steps to advance Africa's cause.
The reality is that UNSC reform is a deeply contentious and complex issue that involves not only geopolitical manoeuvring but also internal African divisions and the reluctance of the existing powers to share their veto power.
For Africa to succeed, the global community, including the U.S., China, Russia, and African countries themselves, must address these challenges more pragmatically.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
Dr. Chihombori's bold claim warrants a critical examination: is the U.S. indeed the major stumbling block, or do other global powers like China and Russia also share responsibility for obstructing Africa's ambitions?
This article explores her claims, examines U.S., Chinese, and Russian positions on Africa's quest for UNSC reform, and investigates whether any concrete steps have been taken by these powers to support Africa's bid.
Dr. Arikana Chihombori's Allegations
Dr. Chihombori has asserted that the U.S. is the principal obstacle to Africa gaining permanent seats on the UNSC.
Her allegations stem, in part, from the U.S. position that Africa should be given permanent seats on the Council but without veto power - a critical element of decision-making in the UNSC.
Dr. Chihombori has suggested that this stance is "an insult rather than a favour," arguing that giving Africa permanent seats without veto power would perpetuate its marginalization in global governance.
While her frustration is understandable, placing the blame solely on the U.S. is misleading and overly simplistic.
To gain a clearer understanding of the situation, we need to explore the broader global dynamics at play, including the positions of other world powers like China and Russia.
The U.S. Position on Africa's Bid for Permanent Seats
Historically, the United States has publicly supported the idea of UNSC reform.
However, the specifics of this support, particularly in relation to Africa, are crucial.
To directly receive articles from Tendai Ruben Mbofana, please join his WhatsApp Channel on: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VaqprWCIyPtRnKpkHe08
The U.S. has expressed willingness to support African permanent seats on the Council but has generally opposed extending veto power to new members.
This reflects a broader reluctance by the U.S. (and other P5 members) to dilute the influence they currently wield through the veto.
Specific Examples of U.S. Calls for UNSC Reform
During a visit to the African Union (AU) headquarters in Ethiopia in 2015, President Barack Obama acknowledged that the UNSC needed reform and supported a greater African voice in global governance.
He stated, "Africa must have a permanent seat at the table when critical issues are discussed. It's time for reform."
In 2011, then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed support for African representation on the UNSC.
However, this support, like Obama's, did not extend to granting veto power, which African countries view as essential to having meaningful influence.
During the 2022 U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit, President Joe Biden reiterated the U.S. stance on UNSC reform, advocating for Africa's inclusion but stopping short of endorsing veto power for new permanent members.
While these statements reflect rhetorical support for Africa's aspirations, critics like Dr. Chihombori argue that the refusal to offer veto power is tantamount to perpetuating Africa's marginalization in global governance.
To Dr. Chihombori, this is not genuine support but a tactic to preserve U.S. dominance within the Council.
China and Russia's Position: Genuine Support or Strategic Posturing?
Both China and Russia have been vocal about supporting Africa's demand for permanent seats on the UNSC.
However, unlike the U.S., China and Russia have not explicitly stated that African seats would be denied veto power.
This allows them to maintain an image of being more supportive of Africa's goals.
Yet, despite their supportive rhetoric, their actions, or lack thereof, suggest that they may also be reluctant to see a fully empowered African bloc in the UNSC.
China's Calls for UNSC Reform
At the 2015 Forum on China-Africa Cooperation (FOCAC) summit in Johannesburg, Chinese President Xi Jinping called for Africa to have greater representation on the UNSC.
However, there was no concrete discussion regarding veto power.
During the 2023 BRICS summit, President Xi reiterated this position, emphasizing the need for UNSC reform to include African representation.
While this rhetoric is strong, China has not taken meaningful steps to push through the necessary UN reforms.
Russia's Calls for UNSC Reform
Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed unequivocal support for Africa's permanent representation on the UNSC during the inaugural Russia-Africa Summit in 2019.
In 2020, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov echoed similar sentiments at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), calling for UNSC reform that would grant Africa permanent representation.
Again, no specifics on veto power were discussed.
Practical Steps Taken by Global Powers: Is the Support Tangible?
While the U.S. has voiced support for Africa gaining permanent UNSC seats, its opposition to granting veto power presents a significant roadblock.
The U.S. position, which aligns with its interest in maintaining its veto power and overall influence, reflects a broader issue faced by all P5 members, who are reluctant to share this critical privilege with new members.
From Africa's perspective, a seat without veto power is seen as symbolic rather than substantive, and hence, Dr. Chihombori's characterization of this stance as an "insult" is understandable.
China and Russia have made strong rhetorical commitments to Africa's bid, but, like the U.S., they have failed to take concrete actions toward enabling Africa's full participation on the UNSC.
While they have not explicitly opposed extending veto power to new African members, they have also not actively pushed for any reforms that would make this happen.
This indicates that their support is more about strategic posturing to maintain good relations with African nations, rather than a sincere effort to reform the global governance system in Africa's favour.
Obstacles to UNSC Reform
One of the most significant obstacles to UNSC reform is the question of whether new permanent members (including African representatives) should have veto power.
Africa's Ezulwini Consensus, which outlines its demands, insists that any new permanent members must have the same rights as the current P5, including veto power.
The reluctance of the U.S., and likely China and Russia, to extend this privilege remains a significant roadblock to any meaningful reform.
Beyond the P5, there is also a lack of consensus among other UN member states regarding the specifics of reform.
Some countries, like Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil (the G4), also seek permanent seats but may not fully support the African position, especially concerning veto power.
Africa itself faces internal divisions over which countries should occupy the proposed permanent seats.
Candidates like Nigeria, South Africa, and Egypt all vie for these positions, but regional rivalries have hindered a unified African position, weakening its ability to negotiate effectively on the global stage.
Analysing Dr. Chihombori's Allegations: Does She Have a Point?
Dr. Chihombori's assertion that the U.S. is the main stumbling block for Africa's quest for UNSC reform is partially valid but oversimplified.
It is true that the U.S. has pushed for reforms that do not extend veto power to new members, which many Africans view as an "insult."
However, blaming the U.S. alone ignores the fact that China and Russia, despite their rhetoric, have also not taken meaningful steps to advance Africa's bid.
China and Russia use their support for Africa's UNSC bid as part of a broader strategy to position themselves as champions of the Global South, but their actions show that their commitment to Africa's cause is primarily rhetorical.
The U.S. has similarly supported UNSC reform in principle, but its reluctance to give up or share veto power is a common issue among all P5 members, not just the U.S.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Dr. Arikana Chihombori's claim that the U.S. is the primary obstacle to Africa's UNSC bid holds some truth but oversimplifies a complex issue.
While the U.S. has indeed been hesitant to push for reforms that might weaken its influence, China and Russia—despite their vocal support—have also failed to take practical steps to advance Africa's cause.
The reality is that UNSC reform is a deeply contentious and complex issue that involves not only geopolitical manoeuvring but also internal African divisions and the reluctance of the existing powers to share their veto power.
For Africa to succeed, the global community, including the U.S., China, Russia, and African countries themselves, must address these challenges more pragmatically.
© Tendai Ruben Mbofana is a social justice advocate and writer. Please feel free to WhatsApp or Call: +263715667700 | +263782283975, or email: mbofana.tendairuben73@gmail.com, or visit website: https://mbofanatendairuben.news.blog/
Source - Tendai Ruben Mbofana
