By Cheikh Fall, Third Path Africa
When global decision-making bodies no longer serve the common good, rebuilding them becomes not just a moral imperative but a historical duty. Yet, seventy-nine years after its creation, the United Nations Security Council remains a monument to the power dynamics of the post-World War II era that bear little resemblance to today’s world.
The illusion of gradual reform has persisted for decades. We have witnessed countless dialogues, working groups, and diplomatic negotiations—all resulting in nothing. Why? Because the system is designed to prevent its own transformation. The five permanent members possess veto rights not only over world affairs but also over any attempt to make the Council representative or fair.
Africa, with 54 nations and over a billion people, has no permanent seat. Latin America has no permanent seat. Yet these are the regions most frequently subject to Security Council resolutions, their futures decided by powers whose colonial legacies still shape global inequality.
At Third Path Africa, we believe the era of polite requests is over. We propose three fundamental changes:
First, eliminate the veto entirely. This anti-democratic relic allows five countries to paralyze global action while millions die in conflicts the Council refuses to address. The veto has been used hundreds of times, not to protect international peace, but to shield their own allies from accountability and to promote narrow national interests.
Second, the number of permanent seats should be expanded to reflect current realities. Africa must have at least two permanent seats, distributed on a rotational basis within the African Union. Beyond that, the entire notion of permanent representation must be rethought, with seats organized by geographic blocs: the European Union, African Union, Arab League, ASEAN, and the Americas. This would put an end to the absurdity of Britain and France holding separate permanent seats, as if the 21st century were still the 19th.
Third, it is necessary to examine whether the current permanent members still deserve their status. What criteria justify permanent membership? Economic power? Military capability? Contribution to international peace? If we applied objective criteria, would Russia, Britain, and France still be eligible? Or do they hold onto their seats by mere historical inertia?
The predictable reaction will be a categorical rejection from the permanent members of the Security Council (P5), who will never accept these reforms. This is why we must change strategy.
It is now 2025. Much water has flowed under the bridge since the Bandung Conference of 1955. Countries of the Global South are no longer supplicants begging for recognition. We now represent close to 55% of global GDP by PPP, are leaders in exports and manufacturing, and make up some 85% of the world’s population. We have alternative institutions: the African Union, ASEAN, BRICS, the New Development Bank. We have reduced dependencies and strengthened our collective capacities.
The path forward is not another roadmap or reform proposal. Roadmaps buy opponents time to divide us, offer symbolic concessions that maintain their dominance, and pressure some countries to break solidarity. History teaches us that real systemic change does not happen in stages; it requires bold, coordinated action.
Non-permanent members of the Security Council should prepare to withdraw from the UN system if significant reform continues to be blocked. Not as a threat, but as a statement of fact: we will build an alternative international order that reflects today’s world, not that of 1945.
This alternative system would need its own security framework, development institutions, international court, and humanitarian agencies. Is this achievable? The question is not one of capacity, but of will. Do we have the collective courage to say: enough?
Some will call this unrealistic. But what is truly unrealistic is expecting justice from a system designed to prevent it. What is unrealistic is believing that five countries, drunk on privilege, will willingly relinquish power. What is unrealistic is imagining that another seventy-nine years of “dialogue” will bring different results.
The fate of the world should belong to all, not just a few. If the current order cannot incorporate this fundamental principle of justice, then it has lost all legitimacy.
The only question that remains is: when will we act in the face of this truth?