Since the United Nations Security Council was constituted in 1945, Africa — home to more than a quarter of the world's nations — has never held a permanent seat at its table. In Tripoli this week, Kuwait's UN ambassador Tareq Al-Banai joined African leaders and international counterparts to press for structural reform, framing the absence not as an oversight but as a sustained historical injustice. The proposal on the table — regional permanent seats with veto authority, expanding the council to 21 or 22 members — represents less a final answer than a serious attempt to reconcile competing vis
Kuwait pushes UN Security Council reform to address Africa's representation gap
Africa has never held a permanent seat on the UN Security Council
Mark
So Kuwait is pushing this reform—but Kuwait isn't on the Security Council either, right? Why is Kuwait taking the lead here?
Mimi
Kuwait holds one of the two co-chair positions in the formal negotiations process. It's a diplomatic role, not a power play. The co-chairs are supposed to be neutral facilitators trying to move the process forward.
Luke
Though it's worth noting that Kuwait's position as co-chair gives it real influence over how these conversations are framed and which proposals get serious attention.
Mark
And Africa's ask is for two permanent seats plus five non-permanent ones. That's a significant expansion.
Mimi
It is. Right now Africa has no permanent representation at all, despite being a continent of 54 nations. The current structure dates to 1945, when the council was designed by and for the victors of World War II.
Luke
The African model is clear, but the question is whether it's achievable. The existing permanent members—the US, Russia, China, Britain, France—have never shown appetite for diluting their power.
Mark
What's this "permanent regional seats" compromise that Al-Banai mentioned?
Mimi
It's a creative middle ground. Instead of adding permanent members outright, you'd create seats that are regional, held for longer terms than the current two years, with the possibility of re-election. They'd have the same powers as permanent members, including veto.
Luke
But here's the tension: if these regional seats have veto power, they're functionally permanent. And if they don't have veto power, they're not truly equal to current permanent members, which violates Africa's stated requirement.
Mark
Does Africa actually want the veto power, or is that just a negotiating position?
Mimi
Africa opposes the veto in principle—the whole concept of one nation being able to block action. But as long as the veto exists, Africa is saying new permanent members must have the same rights as old ones. It's about equality, not about wanting to use the veto.
Luke
That's the stated position. Whether African nations would actually use veto power if they had it is a different question, and we don't know the answer yet.
Mark
How close are we to an actual agreement?
Mimi
Not very. Al-Banai was explicit: deep divisions remain, and negotiations haven't reached consensus on a single model. The Pact for the Future gave the process new political momentum, but that's not the same as agreement.
Luke
The real test is whether the existing permanent members will accept any expansion at all. Everything else flows from that.
Le Pouls
- Africa has waited 80 years for permanent representation on the body that holds the world's highest security authority — and patience among the continent's 54 nations is wearing thin.
- Deep fractures among UN member states persist: some push for new permanent members, others resist any expansion of that category, and no single reform model has yet achieved consensus.
- A compromise formula has emerged — six or seven regional seats with full permanent-member powers including veto rights and extended terms — designed to bridge the gap between permanence and accountability.
- The recently adopted UN Pact for the Future has injected new political momentum by formally acknowledging Africa's historical exclusion and calling on states to sharpen their reform proposals.
- The Tripoli ministerial meeting served as a hard-nosed checkpoint rather than a celebration, with co-chairs briefing ministers on where negotiations stand and how much ground remains to be crossed.
Since the United Nations Security Council was constituted in 1945, Africa — home to more than a quarter of the world's nations — has never held a permanent seat at its table. In Tripoli this week, Kuwait's UN ambassador Tareq Al-Banai joined African leaders and international counterparts to press for structural reform, framing the absence not as an oversight but as a sustained historical injustice. The proposal on the table — regional permanent seats with veto authority, expanding the council to 21 or 22 members — represents less a final answer than a serious attempt to reconcile competing visions of global legitimacy. The deeper question being asked is whether an institution built for one world can be remade to govern another.
In Tripoli this week, diplomats gathered to confront a structural flaw baked into global governance since 1945: Africa has never held a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and its presence among rotating non-permanent members remains chronically thin. Kuwait's UN ambassador Tareq Al-Banai, serving as co-chair of the long-running Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform, stood before the African Union's Committee of Ten to make the case for fundamental change — not as generosity, but as correction.
The African position is well-established and rests on two foundational documents: the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. The continent demands at least two permanent seats carrying full rights — including veto power — plus five non-permanent seats. Africa opposes the veto in principle, but insists that if it survives reform, new permanent members must wield it on equal terms with the existing five. The African Union would choose which countries represent the continent before the General Assembly formally elects them.
A possible middle path has taken shape: six or seven new regional seats, distributed geographically, held for extended terms with re-election possible and subject to periodic review. These seats would carry full permanent-member powers, including the veto. The formula attempts to satisfy those who want more permanent members and those who fear unchecked expansion — preserving accountability through elections while building continuity. Al-Banai was careful to present this as a basis for discussion, not a finished blueprint.
The UN's recently adopted Pact for the Future has lent new political weight to the effort, explicitly naming Africa's historical exclusion and urging member states toward common ground. Yet divisions remain deep, and no unified vision has emerged. The Tripoli meeting was a stocktaking — a moment to measure distance traveled and distance remaining. As Al-Banai acknowledged plainly, a Security Council that does not reflect the world's actual composition cannot credibly claim to speak for it.
In Tripoli this week, the machinery of global diplomacy turned toward a problem that has festered since 1945: Africa has never held a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, and the continent remains chronically underrepresented among the rotating non-permanent members. Kuwait's ambassador to the United Nations, Tareq Al-Banai, stood before African leaders and their international counterparts to push the case for fundamental structural change—not as a favor, but as a correction of historical wrong.
Al-Banai spoke in his role as one of two co-chairs steering the Intergovernmental Negotiations on Security Council reform, a process that has dragged on for years without resolution. The 14th ministerial meeting of the African Union's Committee of Ten convened in Libya's capital on Monday, co-hosted by Sierra Leone and Libya, with the Netherlands' ambassador, Lise Gregoire-van Haaren, sitting as the other co-chair. The gathering was less a celebration of progress than a stocktaking of how far the world still has to travel.
The African position is clear and has been refined through years of continental consensus. Sierra Leone presented what it calls the African model, rooted in two foundational documents: the Ezulwini Consensus and the Sirte Declaration. The ask is straightforward in its ambition: at least two permanent seats for Africa, carrying all the rights and powers of current permanent members, plus five non-permanent seats in total. Africa opposes the veto mechanism in principle, Al-Banai explained, but if the veto remains—and all evidence suggests it will—then any new permanent members must enjoy identical privileges to the five nations that currently wield that power. The African Union would retain the authority to select which countries represent the continent before the General Assembly formally elects them.
Yet the path forward remains fractured. Al-Banai outlined what has emerged as a possible middle ground: permanent regional seats. Under this compromise formula, six or seven new seats would be created and distributed geographically. Rather than permanent appointments, countries would hold these seats for extended terms longer than the current two-year rotation, with the possibility of re-election. The total Security Council membership would grow to 21 or 22 nations. These regional seats would carry the same powers as today's permanent members, including veto authority. A periodic review mechanism would allow the arrangement to be reassessed over time.
The appeal of this formula is that it attempts to satisfy two competing impulses: those who want more permanent members and those who resist expanding the permanent category indefinitely. It also preserves accountability through regular elections while building institutional continuity. But Al-Banai was careful to frame these elements as a basis for discussion, not a settled proposal. He stressed that any compromise must take Africa's demands seriously and address both categories of representation—permanent and non-permanent seats.
Momentum has shifted slightly. The Pact for the Future, adopted by the UN, has given new political weight to the reform effort by explicitly recognizing the historical injustice done to Africa and calling on member states to refine their reform proposals and seek common ground. Yet deep divisions persist. Some nations want to expand both permanent and non-permanent membership; others resist permanent expansion altogether. No single model has achieved consensus. Al-Banai acknowledged this plainly: negotiations have not yet converged on a unified vision.
What remains is the harder work of negotiation—finding flexibility where positions have hardened, identifying common ground between competing proposals, and building support broad enough to strengthen the council's legitimacy and effectiveness. The meeting in Tripoli served as a checkpoint: the co-chairs briefed ministers on the latest developments, including the African Group's own proposals. The conversation continues, but the stakes are clear. A Security Council that does not reflect the world's actual composition and concerns cannot claim to represent it.
Citations marquantes
Any compromise must take the African position seriously and reflect the continent's demands for representation in both categories.— Ambassador Tareq Al-Banai, Kuwait's Permanent Representative to the UN
Envie de l'histoire complète ?
Lire l'original sur Kuwait Times ↗
World & Diplomacy