With African crises dominating over half of the UN Security Council (UNSC) agenda, the continent’s demand for permanent representation remains a defining, yet unresolved, issue in international diplomacy. Africa has long sought two permanent seats on the UNSC, aiming to break the dominance of the five veto powers (P5). While the proposal has periodically gained support, even from some P5 members, a concrete resolution has yet to materialize.
A UNSC delegation traveled to Addis Ababa for the 19th Annual Joint Consultative Meeting with its African Union Peace and Security Council (AUPSC) counterparts on October 17. The high-stakes meeting addressed the most pressing regional security challenges, including the devastating wars in Sudan and the Horn of Africa, the growing threat of terrorism, and the critical need for sustainable financing of AU-led Peace Support Operations (AUPSOs).
The consultative meeting took place as tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea continued to escalate—highlighted by harsh rhetoric and reported military mobilization.
RELATED POSTS
Bewket Abebe of The Reporter Magazine caught up with Vasily Nebenzya, representative of the Russian Federation to the UN and the Council’s rotating President for October, during his stay in the Ethiopian capital for a brief exclusive interview.
Ambassador Nebenzya shared Russia’s position on Africa’s quest for a permanent UNSC seat, dissected the complexities stalling UN reform, and assessed the effectiveness of international missions in Africa, about which many have serious doubts. The conversation also touched on the escalating tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea, among other topics. EXCERPTS:
The Reporter Magazine: The need to integrate more meaningful voices from Africa and other underrepresented regions has long been emphasized by the leaders of various member states as well as by the UN Secretariat itself. Africa has been calling for two permanent seats on the Security Council, and some individual countries — such as Ethiopia — have begun informally expressing interest in those seats. However, the continent’s demand for permanent representation remains unmet, largely due to the lack of collective commitment to translate words into action. Could you share what the discussions at this year’s joint consultative meeting were like on this particular issue? What concrete steps do you believe should be taken to advance this goal, and what role can your presidency play in further promoting greater inclusion and representation?
Vasily Nebenzya: First things first. The UN Security Council is right here for the 19th Joint Consultative Meeting with the AU Peace and Security Council. This has become an annual, regular event, alternating between New York and Addis Ababa. Right now, as we speak, the joint meeting is being held in the other room with an extensive agenda discussing African issues.
The reform of the Security Council is not strictly on the meeting’s agenda. We mostly discuss regional country situations and generic issues like terrorism, for example. But of course, the issue of the reform of the UNSC is high on the agenda at the United Nations. It is being discussed in New York within the so-called Intergovernmental Negotiations Process. And if I speak for Russia, we are unequivocal about it. We think that the historical injustice towards Africa should be repaired, and Africa should receive its due place in the Security Council because today the Security Council is dominated by the West, and we don’t need any more Western countries on the Council. They are well represented already. But the question is that the process is complicated. For one, it is not just the wish of one or the other delegation of the permanent members. There are various groups and various agendas. There are five clusters in the reform process. One of them is membership; permanent or non-permanent. Some, including Africans, advocate for receiving permanent seats, and some object to new permanent members in the Council. So, it is a complex issue being discussed. We are not yet able to reach a solution on it. But Africa has a strong position, and we support that. And as long as Africa sticks to this position, it is safe for the future consideration of the Council. Our position is that the Council should remain a compact body to be effective.
Do you see a way forward for redefining the use of veto power at the UNSC?
Veto power is not a privilege. It is an instrument which allows for reaching compromise decisions. If there were no veto, the Council could have been deadlocked, like what happened to the League of Nations, which finally collapsed because it was a consensus-based principle and they could not agree. The veto allows members to find compromises without imposing their own agenda on others. Regarding new permanent members, again I say if there is a decision process to establish new permanent seats, that would be a joint decision by the membership, and we will have to abide by it. The question is that we need to know who these new members will be, specifically the names of the countries. As far as I know, Africans have not yet come to a decision on this.
How do you assess the effectiveness of the Security Council’s approach in supporting counter-terrorism efforts in countries like Somalia? Specifically, how effective has it been in balancing these operations with the goal of transitioning the country toward full sovereignty and self-reliance?
National ownership is the ideal option and is the primary responsibility of the country itself. However, if the country needs help, it must request it. Of course, the African Union and the UN Security Council have to come to the rescue and try to do whatever they can. We have missions in many African countries—such as the DRC, CAR, Libya, and Somalia, to name a few. But we are not in favor of these missions staying there permanently. The primary aim is to help the country emancipate itself from its current state and achieve full national ownership. We don’t want these missions to stay there forever.
In this regard, how do you assess the effectiveness of the UNSC’s involvement?
More than 50 percent of the UNSC’s agenda is African issues. We met African Union Chairperson Mahamoud Ali Youssouf yesterday, who made a very good overview of the situation in Africa and the crises that have unfortunately raged on the continent. We said that we wish the African agenda were much less in the Council than it is now, but unfortunately, that isn’t the case. Crises claim hundreds of thousands of lives. Of course, it is the responsibility of the country itself, but it is also a matter of international peace and security, and the Council should be involved in the matter.
Tensions between Ethiopia and Eritrea have been on the rise, particularly in relation to Ethiopia’s aspiration for access to the sea. Reports indicate military mobilization on both sides, accompanied by mutual accusations — including a recent communication from Ethiopia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the UN Secretary-General. How does the UN Security Council assess the current situation? Have any concrete measures or backchannel diplomatic efforts been undertaken to prevent further escalation? Are there any efforts within the Council aimed at de-escalation?
The room for backchannel diplomacy always exists. The council has not discussed that situation in any form, briefing or in the consultations. We hope that we will not need these discussions and the situation will not erupt into something that we need to hold in order to prevent. We would be happy if this issue is resolved amicably between the two. If they need help; mediation, that is for them to choose what mediation to request.
What is your assessment of the situation between Ethiopia and Eritrea?
I am perhaps not well-positioned to give you an assessment of the situation between the two countries. Besides, I don’t want to be seen as taking a side with either of them. I think they should resolve this issue bilaterally. That is the best way so that everybody is satisfied. However, how that will happen is difficult for me to say right now. So far, they have not approached members of the Security Council to intervene. There should be an appetite, an interest to do so.
As President, what do you consider the current key priorities for fostering mutual trust and cooperative frameworks between Ethiopia and Eritrea, as well as between Ethiopia and Egypt?
These [topics] largely fall outside the Security Council’s agenda. We discussed the issue of the dam in the Council before, but it’s been quite a long time—more than a year—since we last discussed the subject. I must reiterate that when a country is on the Council’s agenda, it’s generally not a good sign for the country itself. Not many volunteer to have their issues discussed at the Security Council. The best approach is anywhere else. First is to resolve the issue bilaterally or trilaterally.
