UN member states have been reviewing Security Council reform for over twenty years. Nelson Mandela raised the need for it in the 1990s. Nothing has changed.

A structure built for a world that no longer exists

Veto rights are a vestige of a colonial and post-war order that has passed. The permanent five were fixed in place in 1945, and the Charter has carried that arrangement forward unamended ever since.

The imbalance is plain in the twenty-first century. Africa has the largest bloc of members in the General Assembly and not a single permanent seat. Its people are effectively at the mercy of the veto states. South America has no permanent seat. Nor does South East Asia, the world’s most populous region.

It is not only the veto — it is the threat of it

It is important to highlight that it is not only the use of the veto that distorts the Council, but the threat of it. Issues are stopped before they reach a vote, and are then most often raised only symbolically. Smaller member states have described a seat on the Security Council as something close to a curse, because permanent members can press them through economic and security leverage to vote a particular way.

What reform should mean

Security Council reform should not be about creating more veto powers. It should be about removing the veto from all states. The difficulty is obvious: removing it requires those who hold it to give it up willingly.

The world needs the UN, or a body like it. It is not the organisation or its purpose that is flawed, but its balance of power.

It is time for citizens of the world to speak out and call for UN Security Council reform. We only have no power if we let others take it from us.

Further reading

General Assembly debate on Security Council reform (United Nations, 2018) — member states set out the flaws in the Charter and the record of veto use since 1945.

Shared by the South African Muslim Network (SAMNET) in the interest of global peace, justice and security.