The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has long faced criticism for its inequitable structure, particularly its concentration of power among the permanent five (P5) members: the United States (US), Russia, China, France and the United Kingdom (UK). Namibia, like many other nations from the Global South, has called for significant reforms to address this imbalance. However, the proposals put forth by the U.S. and its allies have been seen as falling short, offering symbolic changes while preserving the dominance of the current powers.

The US has proposed adding two permanent seats for African nations on the UNSC, but notably without veto power. 

This suggestion has drawn fierce opposition from African leaders, who argue that without veto power, these seats are effectively powerless. 

Namibian officials, including President Nangolo Mbumba, have made it clear that any such proposal is an insult to Africa’s 1.4 billion people. 

He urged that no permanent seats be accepted unless they come with veto power, as anything less would perpetuate Africa’s marginalisation in global governance. 

The symbolic nature of these proposals has led many to question the true intentions of the US, particularly given that Europe, with a population of 600 million (excluding Russia), enjoys four veto powers between France, the UK, Russia and the US. The exclusion of Africa from this powerful group raises the question of whether African nations are considered children of a lesser God, as Namibia’s leaders have put it.

Malone, a renowned scholar on the UN, in his work titled ‘The Power Imbalance in the UNSC’, explores how the UNSC’s power structures have historically been shaped by the victors of World War II. 

His analysis highlights that while the world has evolved, the Council has largely remained the same, keeping decision-making authority in the hands of the P5. 

He argues that real reform cannot occur without addressing the structural imbalances at the heart of the UN, particularly the veto power. 

He points out that the P5’s use of this power has often resulted in the paralysis of multilateral action, especially when their interests are at stake. 

Malone’s critiques align closely with the views of Namibian leaders, who see this imbalance as a major roadblock to genuine reform.

Former Namibian president Hifikepunye Pohamba has been a long-standing critic of the current UNSC structure, calling it undemocratic and reflective of a post-World War II hierarchy that no longer suits today’s world. 

His remarks echo the analyses of scholars like James Traub and Michael Barnett. 

Traub has written extensively about how the UN often fails to fulfil its mission of multilateralism due to the disproportionate influence of the P5, especially the US. 

This dominance prevents the organisation from acting as a neutral entity in global affairs. 

Michael Barnett, on the other hand, critiques the UN’s bureaucratic inertia and its failure to adapt to contemporary global challenges. 

He argues that the organisation’s rigid structure prevents it from effectively responding to crises, particularly those that affect the Global South. Both Traub and Barnett assert that without structural changes, including to the UNSC, the UN will continue to struggle in achieving its goals of peace and cooperation.

The African Union’s Committee of 10 and Namibia’s Advocacy Namibia, through its leadership in the African Union’s Committee of 10 (C-10), has been at the forefront of advocating for African representation on the UNSC with veto power. Namibian leaders, including President Mbumba, have made it clear that Africa must have equal standing in the UNSC if reforms are to be meaningful. 

Without veto power, any proposed seats would be symbolic, and would fail to address the core issues of inequality in global governance.

President Mbumba’s recent speech at the UN Future Summit underscored these concerns. 

He pointed out that since 1945, the major powers have developed economic strategies under the UN, which have primarily benefitted themselves, leaving smaller nations to languish as developing countries for decades. 

Mbumba called for a genuine reform of the UNSC that would allow smaller nations to control their own natural and mineral resources and develop their economies independently.

The US Ambassador to the UN, Linda Thomas-Greenfield, backing off a proposal that denies veto power to African nations, has been seen as particularly troubling. 

It is shameful and reckless for a diplomat of her stature to support a measure that treats Africa as less deserving of full participation in global governance. 

For Namibia, this proposal is not just insufficient, but also an affront to Africa’s dignity.

Further highlighting the West’s disregard for African leadership was the recent incident in Poland, where South African president Cyril Ramaphosa and his security team were subjected to discriminatory treatment while on a peace mission to resolve the Russia-Ukraine conflict. 

The incident has been interpreted as another example of the West’s racism and its reluctance to recognise Africa’s growing influence on the global stage. 

Poland’s actions were widely condemned for attempting to undermine African leadership, and considered pure racism in global diplomacy.

Namibia and other advocates of reform have made the following recommendations.

 Grant veto power to new permanent members. This is essential to ensure that African nations can meaningfully participate in global decision-making. Without veto power, any reform is purely cosmetic. In addition to Africa, other regions, such as Latin America and the Middle East, must be included to reflect the current geopolitical landscape. 

Some scholars and leaders have called for restricting the use of the veto in cases involving crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes to prevent abuses of power.

The calls for UNSC reform are growing louder, particularly from the Global South. 

Namibia has been a strong advocate for changes that would grant Africa equal standing in the UNSC, including the power to veto resolutions. 

Scholars like Malone, Traub and Barnett have highlighted the deep structural issues within the UN.

 Namibia’s leaders have been vocal about the need for reforms that would truly democratise the global governance system. 

The time for superficial reforms has passed. 

As the world becomes increasingly multipolar, the UN must adapt by extending real decision-making power to under-represented regions, or it risks becoming irrelevant in solving the world’s most pressing challenges.

*Lot Ndamanomhata is a graduate of public management, journalism and communication. This article reflects his views, and is written entirely in his personal capacity.