Babafemi Badejo is a former Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Somalia. The author of a best-seller on politics in Kenya, Mr Badejo is a legal practitioner and also Professor of Political Science & International Relations at Chrisland University, Abeokuta.
In this interview, he discusses the calls for reform of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and the request for Africa to have two permanent seats on the council.
Why is a permanent seat at the UNSC important?
At the end of the second World War, the strongest power at the time, the USA, proposed that there would be five permanent members of a Security Council made up of 11 proposed countries at the time. This was new, as the preceding organisation, the League of Nations, did not have such.
As a result, the decision was that the United States would get a permanent seat, and the United Kingdom, France, Russia, as well as China, would each also get a permanent seat. These were the strong powers, the so called allied powers that ended the war and led to the world of today, by defeating the axis powers. It was not just the question of calling people to bid for a permanent seat. It was a result of that war, and the decision of the United States on what it was going to do.
So, there were five seats out of 11. The question of having 11 was amended by an increase of an additional four, making the membership of the UNSC 15 today. Africa as you know was largely colonised in 1945 when all these changes were happening. So, it, largely, was not on the table. Even Ethiopia and India that were at the table were not considered fit to have permanent seats. Out of those four additional seats, Africa was given three that would be rotational; that’s every two years, Africans would have elections within the totality of the world, to decide which of its countries would occupy these seats for two years. So, when you are sitting on the Security Council, you are not sitting for Africa alone, you are sitting for the whole of the world.
African countries would contest, by geographical zoning, of the three seats and the African Union would support candidates and the rest of the world would also support the candidates that the Africa Union was supporting. But it is not every time that this happened. Some times in the past, the candidate of the AU had been defeated, in which case another African, not the one having the endorsement of the African Union, got the seat.
Since Nigeria has featured prominently in the debates, do you think it deserves a seat?
As I earlier said, there was an organisation before the UN, i.e. the League of Nations, which had an arrangement that is similar to that of the UN today, except that the US convinced everybody that the League of Nations failed to prevent the second World War, partly because it did not have permanent seats and the veto power arrangements. I should explain what the veto power means. The way that works is that out of the five mentioned major powers, if any of them does not agree on an issue that is being discussed, and gives a negative vote, that issue is dead. So, if a country has a veto power, to use it, it must cast a negative vote (on an issue). However, a member of the P-5 can choose to be silent. If it refuses to vote either way, then the approval of a substantive issue becomes a vote of nine out of 15, with none of the permanent five saying NO. So, a veto is a position of power. And we have seen it used by the United States and Russia, many times, in furthering their respective interests. I keep continuing to say: politics is about interests. If somebody wants something badly, then you negotiate and trade with others on what you want.
Article Page with Financial Support Promotion
Nigerians need credible journalism. Help us report it.
Support journalism driven by facts, created by Nigerians for Nigerians. Our thorough, researched reporting relies on the support of readers like you.
Help us maintain free and accessible news for all with a small donation.
Every contribution guarantees that we can keep delivering important stories —no paywalls, just quality journalism.
SUPPORT NOW
x
Do this later
As of now, Nigeria does not have the status of a permanent seat, not to talk of a permanent seat with a veto. We have been lucky that out of those rotational arrangements, we have been on the UNSC a good number of times, perhaps with other countries in our subregion agreeing that we should go ahead. In Obasanjo’s first time as military head of state, Niger wanted the UNSC seat and it got the AU endorsement, however Obasanjo said Nigeria wanted it, and he, with Joe Garba, went to the rest of the world and got the seat. We have done a number of things like that in the past.
It is crucial to know that if you have a permanent seat with a veto power, others would court you to support issues of interest to them. Such a country would be able to influence the processes to get things done. While others court a country, that country is able to seek a quid pro quo on issues of importance to it.
Q: Nigeria’s leadership role in peacekeeping, advocacy, global diplomacy are its strong points, vis-a-vis competition within Africa, especially from South Africa, and other internal issues. How can Nigerian move, with the domestic issues it faces in Africa and within its home front, in pushing for a seat, and hope the permanent five would allow it to get this?
A: Let me start by stating that it is good for us to be concerned about our country and Africa. There are a number of other countries that equally want permanent seats. This debate has been on for long. It didn’t just start. It started from when four seats were added in 1965. So, the question of how many are those contending is perhaps a place to start.
You do hear Africans say that they deserve two permanent seats with veto power. So, also do you have Germany insisting that because it lost in the war of 1945, and that because it is contributing a lot , it deserves a permanent seat with veto. Japan is making the very serious contention that it should get a seat too. So also are Brazil and India. Now, when you have it far wider than that, then you start to know that it would not be as easy as the Africans are dancing around on.
At UNGA, South Africa, Egypt and our Vice President, Kashim Shettima, made strong arguments for a seat for their respective countries, I guess out of the two being offered to Africa by the US.
I should clarify that the General Assembly runs for a full year, but there are a few days – Wednesday to Saturday – set aside from the 23rd to 28th for the High Level Meetings, during which presidents give a picture of how they see the world. We weren’t alone, before President Ramaphosa left his country, he had expressed the view that South Africa deserved a permanent seat, which must have the veto power.
The US made its offer on 13 September that it was ready to support two permanent seats for Africa. The message came through our sister, Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, who actually started her foreign career posting in Lagos. She used to come to my students at the University of Lagos, to talk about American foreign policy positions, including the anti-apartheid one and all that. But the crucial thing is that the US was very careful because before talking about this two seats for Africa, in the immediate past round of debates, it said that it did not see anyone qualifying for a Security Council seat, but if it was thinking of any country to put forward, it would probably be Germany or Japan.
Nigerians are making it appear as if this debate just started. We need to ask if there is really a vacancy within the United Nations Security Council? Is there a vacancy needing to be filled? It was not only South Africa and Nigeria that spoke on the issue, others did with respect to Africans calling for reform. There was also Egypt, which smartly stated that there is no seat for Africa and the Arabs on the Security Council. The Foreign Minister of Egypt spoke after all the presidents had finished speaking. Normally, speaking has an order at the UN. The kings and presidents speak first, then prime ministers, followed by foreign ministers or ambassadors.
Egypt succeeded in pushing its interest when the whole of Africa was crying that it needed a Secretary-General that looks like us. Africans asked why they were the only ones not fit to produce a UN Secretary-General. Egypt made a legitimate claim on being part of Africa. But when Boutros Boutros-Ghali won the election, the New York Times boldly wrote that the first Arab had become the Secretary-General of the United Nations. So, you have that problem, in a question of three countries putting themselves forward.
Scholars are pained to know that the situation being put forward, with Nigerians dancing all over the place that we are about to get a permanent seat at the UN, is a ruse. It is not as easy as that.
In the earlier rounds of discussions that arose from Kofi Annan as Secretary General pushing strongly for the restructuring of the UN and having permanent seats for Africa, we had a major meeting. That meeting, co-chaired by late Ambassador Olu Adeniji and the current President of Ghana, met at Ezulwini in Eswatini, former Swaziland.
That meeting was crucial. It taught us that the rest of Africa was no longer seeing Nigeria as it did in the 70s, 80s and 90s, when they constantly called on Nigeria to lead. Nigeria then had the kind of leadership that was conscious of the interests of other countries. Unlike the stealing spree that is the case today, there were resources used for positive purposes. Today, Nigeria is unable to pay for its ambassadors to take up their posts in other parts of the World.
The Ezulwini consensus should be at the back of our mind. The countries came to the conclusion that they wanted two permanent seats with veto rights and five non-permanent seats. However, the AU would decide which countries would hold those seats. It was not possible to arrive at which of the two, said three front-runners, would get the permanent seats. Smaller countries wanted even the permanent seats to be rotational. I learnt much about that meeting from late Ambassador Roble Olhaye, then the permanent representative of Djibouti and doyen of the Diplomatic Corps, who was there.
Q: Are there criteria to be used by the AU in its decision and does Nigeria not have the required pedigree to clinch one of the permanent seats?
A: In rephrasing and re-clarifying, the Ezulwini Consensus says there shall be two countries that shall have permanent seats on behalf of Africa, but that Africa would decide who occupies the seats. The smaller countries ganged up together against the three front-runners.
So, when debating the interests of Nigeria, we need to go back first to the Ezulwini consensus. And within the consensus argue that yes, we should be considered. Those criteria were in an earlier question on our role in peacekeeping and peace building. But again, there is the joke amongst men that if you give a woman money today, it is just for today. Past performance doesn’t count. Where is Nigeria in peacekeeping today? It was under Jonathan that Nigeria started withdrawing its active participation in peacekeeping. Maybe in MNJTF trying to fight Boko Haram, being led by Nigeria, and a few police operations here and there. But today, Kenya is being consulted as the only country ready to send a full contingent of police to Haiti. Hence President Ruto is playing a key role in the international community. Today compared to our worth during the days of apartheid, we are not so respected. (There is the analogy of the case of an elder brother who doesn’t pull his weight and impact in a family, compared to his younger brother).
I think if we want the seat, and there is indeed a vacancy, because the USA has spoken only in terms of its interests, we need to be careful in getting excited. Have you heard any of the other permanent members saying anything about it? They have not. Some of them will strongly negotiate other things. Does China want Japan to have a veto? Does Argentina want Brazil? Does Pakistan want India to take it?
Q: On experts saying what are the Big Five doing with the permanent seats, with wars and tensions escalating everywhere, what do you think of this?
If you ask me, we should not have any permanent members with veto powers. If we must have permanent members, we must do so annually. We should recall that some countries which have it today aren’t contributing much, apart from the fact that the US had giving it to them earlier. The veto has not served the interests of the world. It has been a basis for non-performance, because the interests of the permanent five differ tremendously, and as a result it is impossible to get anything done. For example, Russia in Ukraine, and the genocide that the International Criminal Court (ICC) spoke about. Some 143 countries are saying this is wrong. But those who have, have stopped and decided what they want in the case of Gaza. The US is supporting its ally in Gaza.
However, those who have it now do not want their powers diluted. Permanent seats with veto power means those two countries must be consulted widely, as everyone is wooing the permanent vetoes today. It would become more difficult for the US to call SA, Niger or Egypt, whichever one they deem fit, to order.
African leaders continue to deceive themselves. They must go back to the Ezulwini consensus. I saw Shettima saying Africa needs a seat. But the smaller countries are not agreeing.
If Nigeria returned to the Ezulwini consensus and is able to convince the others, and either or all three agrees. But on the basis of the Ezulwini consensus, if anything has changed it is that South Africa has become more assertive at the International Level, and in advocating for positions. I’m not necessarily saying SA would win. Nigeria has been more towards the US, including keeping quiet where it should be speaking, especially in articulating the positions of Africa. Nigeria has recoiled. The last time seems to be under Obasanjo. We can rebuild internally. Build a vision beyond Nigeria. But if it continues like this, and our leaders continue with corruption, we cannot have the resources to be able to articulate clear positions at the International level.
Q: When Thomas Greenfield spoke that experts have controversially been suspicious, was that another opportunity to recapture Africa?
A: Yes, there is the struggle for the re-colonisation of Africa. Africa is a neocolonial position with respect to the West, and a strong China coming to have a stake. But we must be weary with China coming as a friendlier option. Everyone is fighting for their interests. It is for Nigeria to get its acts together within Africa. If we don’t do so, we can’t complain.
The Ezulwini consensus said there must be the veto. Nigeria felt that maybe we can start by having a permanent seat now, then a veto later. The rest of Africa went mad, and everything got scuttled. In terms of the intra-Africa fight, the US is only enticing us. They know that once Africa revisits the Ezulwini consensus, everything will scatter.
Q: What do you suggest, a review of the Ezulwini consensus?
A: If there is anything that I want, it is that Africa as a whole has to return to the Ezulwini consensus and realise a new and genuine consensus. America claims it is ready to support two permanent seats, so two countries supported by the AU need to come forward.
It is not about who the AU is selecting. It is essential about returning to the Ezulwini consensus. That is the first line of action, to get our home situation correct. What kind of leadership do we have, and does that leadership have the capacity to articulate in Africa and the world and be respected? Nobody respects you when they know that your country is corruption-ridden.
We need to rebuild. We need to build our reputation to be regarded as a frontline state. We were consistently the chair of the Anti-Apartheid committee. All our past efforts and impacts are now just past performances. Today what do we do? The spirit of Omoluabi should come back.
Q: Is Africa ripe enough for two permanent seats?
I think Africa should have two permanent seats, with one going to Nigeria. Africa is saying they would not have two seats, without the veto. US is clear that they are seats without the veto power. We are now creating three classes: the Permanent Five with veto, permanent seats without the veto, and the rest. What about the others in Asia and Western Europe? I would love Africa to have two seats. It’s difficult to see it otherwise. However, this current debate like the ones before it is just a ruse, its going nowhere.
This is excerpted from an interview with OGTV’s “New Dawn” Programme, on Nigeria’s Quest for a UN Security Council Seat, Held on 30 September 2024
Babafemi A. Badejo, author of a best-seller on politics in Kenya, was a former Deputy Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Somalia and is currently a Legal Practitioner and Professor of Political Science & International Relations at Chrisland University, Abeokuta. Nigeria.
Support PREMIUM TIMES’ journalism of integrity and credibility
At Premium Times, we firmly believe in the importance of high-quality journalism. Recognizing that not everyone can afford costly news subscriptions, we are dedicated to delivering meticulously researched, fact-checked news that remains freely accessible to all.
Whether you turn to Premium Times for daily updates, in-depth investigations into pressing national issues, or entertaining trending stories, we value your readership.
It’s essential to acknowledge that news production incurs expenses, and we take pride in never placing our stories behind a prohibitive paywall.
Would you consider supporting us with a modest contribution on a monthly basis to help maintain our commitment to free, accessible news?
Make Contribution
TEXT AD: Call Willie – +2348098788999
Source link : https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/top-news/742733-debate-on-africa-getting-two-permanent-seats-in-unsc-is-a-ruse-professor-badejo.html
Author :
Publish date : 2024-10-07 12:25:30
Copyright for syndicated content belongs to the linked Source.