The broken promise of 1945: Global South’s rise at the UN, demands a new world (II)

At the 81st General Assembly, the demand for a permanent and decisive seat on the United Nations Security Council echoed throughout the proceedings. This is not a novel request; it has been expressed by leaders such as Nehru, Nkrumah, Nyerere, and Mandela. However, recent events have given it new urgency, as the demographic and economic realities of the Global South no longer align with the outdated composition of the Security Council.

The Council, formed in 1945, remains a body that reflects a world long gone. Fifteen members gather around the table, five of which hold permanent seats and wield the veto. The remaining ten—non-permanent members—elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms, are powerless to block decisions. As of January 2026, Bahrain, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Latvia, and Liberia assumed their seats, followed by Austria, Kyrgyzstan, Portugal, Trinidad and Tobago, and Zimbabwe in June 2027. While these countries will have a voice, they will lack the power to veto.

African nations, the world's second largest continent with over 1.4 billion people, currently have no permanent voice on the Council. Latin America and the Caribbean, with more than 650 million people, are similarly excluded. The Middle East also lacks representation. The Security Council, frozen in 1945, cannot govern a dynamic world.

Three pillars support the case for reform: demography, equity, and effectiveness. Africa's growing population and youthful workforce present a compelling argument for increased representation. Equity demands that decisions affecting billions of lives should have widespread input, but the Council's current structure denies this. Effectiveness argues that a Council with a tarnished legitimacy cannot act decisively.

New permanent members from the Global South would bring fresh perspectives, energy, and the ability to block single powers from freezing the world.

Achieving reform is ambitious, yet momentum is growing. President Joe Biden of the United States has expressed support for expanding the Security Council to include Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. However, the devil lies in the details. Washington has not disclosed whether new members would retain the veto, a crucial point given the P5's reluctance to relinquish this power.

Article 108 of the Charter stipulates that any amendment requires approval by two-thirds of the General Assembly, and any one of the P5 can block reform by withholding support.

Russia will resist any change that diminishes its influence, while China supports the principle of greater input for developing nations but is cautious about strengthening regional rivals like India and Japan. The United Kingdom and France have expressed vague support for reform without committing to specific changes. Within the aspirants, the Group of Four—Brazil, Germany, India, and Japan—wish to secure new permanent seats for themselves, opposing the Uniting for Consensus group led by Italy and Pakistan.

The African Union's Ezulwini Consensus proposes two permanent African seats with a veto, which the P5 refuses. The realistic path forward is gradual. The first step is to expand the non-permanent category, then introduce new permanent seats without a veto, and finally— the most challenging—reform the veto itself. The Responsibility to Protect doctrine, endorsed in 2005 but not implemented, would prevent the veto in cases of genocide and crimes against humanity.

However, the self-appointed guardian of the "rules-based international order" often behaves as a predator, as seen in the US's sanctions against Venezuela, resulting in devastating economic consequences and the abduction of President Nicolás Maduro by US military forces.