"Dear Ban Ki-moon, we hope that this letter finds you well. The reason for this memo is to remind you of the desire to have at least two of our 54 member countries accorded permanent memberships at the Security Council.

"As things stand, we believe that the current structure of an important global organ like the UN Security Council does not adequately represent interests of the African people who now account for at least 15 per cent of the world’s population.

"We are mindful of the limited powers you have to influence any real change; however, as the UN’s Chief Administrative Officer, we are hopeful that you are uniquely placed to convey our message directly to the powers that be.” – Living in hope, yours truly, the African Union.

--

"Dear members of the African Union, thank you kindly for your request to have two of your 54 members admitted to the Security Council as permanent members. You see, although your request is fair and justified, please be reminded that ours is an exclusive club set up only to represent our interests and our interests only. To get away with it, as we have for the past seventy years, we allowed the rest of the world to share between them 10 non-permanent seats.

"And besides, our members are not too keen on sharing the power, influence and everything else that comes with it. We continue to hope that you will sit tight and administer what we prescribe. We also politely ask that you do it with a smile.” – Yours in friendship, the big five.

***

The above is my imagination of an exchange between a hopeful AU, and ‘the powers that be’.

Africa’s requests to have at least two of her 54 member countries admitted to the UN Security Council as permanent members with full veto rights have been an ongoing expedition, and one that appears to fall on deaf ears time and again.

In fact, as far back as 2005, the African Union outlined five points on reforming the Security Council.

Africa's goal is to be fully represented in all the decision-making organs of the UN, particularly in the Security Council, which is the principal decision-making organ of the UN in matters relating to international peace and security.

Full representation of Africa in the Security Council means: a) not less than two permanent seats with all the prerogatives and privileges of permanent membership including the right of veto; b) five non-permanent seats.

In that regard, even though Africa is opposed in principle to the veto, it is of the view that so long as it exists, and as a matter of common justice, it should be made available to all permanent members of the Security Council.

The African Union should be responsible for the selection of Africa's representatives in the Security Council.

The question of the criteria for the selection of African members of the Security Council should be a matter for the AU to determine, taking into consideration the representative nature and capacity of those chosen.

In addition to the above AU position, recently while addressing the 26th Ordinary Summit of the AU in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia last week, President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who is also the outgoing chairperson the African Union, repeated the demands and also threatened to mobilise members of the AU to pull out of the UN altogether in protest over the continued lack of genuine representation of Africa at the UN Security Council.

Mugabe remarked that "if the United Nations is to survive, we must be equal members of it – equal members…who can say when we go to the body that we can now, speaking truly as members with a voice that is understood, respected and honoured.”

But all things considered, is it plausible to expect the UN Security Council to ever heed calls to reform and represent proportionately the world’s population? I have my doubts that the reforms will take place anytime soon, and I urge you not to hold your breath for one simple reason; Since the UN Security Council was set up in 1946 by the winners of World War II, namely China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, with a primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, the five powers are keen to maintain the small size of the council as it is favourable to their interests – interests that go beyond maintaining peace and security and which they are not ready to share.

Similarly, adding more members to the council would mean that grievances beyond their interests would be tabled and officially discussed. Of course, some will argue that the 10 rotating non-permanent members already bring forward points of discussion from the rest of the world; however, what this argument ignores is that the rotation means that members are rarely able to function effectively as a unit with any genuine influence on the decision-making of the council. This serves the big five well, and they would rather keep it that way, thank you very much.

In the end, in the world of modern warfare such as terrorism, hardly anyone rational claims the Security Council is representative of the world’s population, and regions for that matter. Africa and Latin America aren’t represented, India is nowhere to be seen, and yes, you guessed it, two of the five permanent members are from Western Europe. But, while Africa’s chances of gaining a seat at the highest table remain bleak, why not seize insisting to become part of an already dysfunctional organ and instead concentrate all our efforts on improving the African Union to allow it to execute its mandate effectively? It’s a no brainer, wouldn’t you say?

junior.mutabazi@yahoo.co.uk