The United Nations flag. Civil society is required to be accredited – or hold ‘consultative status’ with a UN entity.
For several decades now, African countries have been raising concerns about their cavalier treatment by the United Nations (UN). Of great concern is the oft-repeated claim that the UN has awfully failed to show enthusiasm and competence in addressing the continent’s contemporary socio-cultural and political issues that matter to the people.
This discontent stems from long-standing grievances regarding Africa’s lack of power and voice in major UN decisions, something the continent views as a perpetuation of colonial-era injustice.
This sentiment has fuelled persistent calls for radical reforms in the UN’s institutional arrangement, aimed at addressing the blatant structural inequalities and representation; failures of peacekeeping and conflict resolution mechanisms; economic and financial issues; and neocolonialism and power balances.
With respect to the UN’s structural inequalities, Africa has raised a myriad of issues, key among them being the lack of representation on the UN Security Council (UNSC). Africa’s demographics read like everything that the world needs to guarantee a more decent survival.
For instance, the total population of the 54-member strong continent is estimated at 1.56 billion (18.83 per cent of the world population), and is growing at 2.29 per cent per annum, making Africa the second most populous continent in the world.
With a median age of 19.3 years, Africa has the youngest population of any continent, and is therefore expected to be a major driver of global population growth and labour productivity in the coming decades.
These beautiful demographics notwithstanding, Africa has no permanent seat on the UNSC despite several appeals, rendering the continent completely bereft of veto power in the UN’s key decision-making processes.
Instead, the continent is represented by three non-permanent rotating members with no veto power. Second, Africa has achieved a dubious distinction of being the most disproportionately over-represented continent as far as the UNSC resolutions on peace and security matters are concerned.
A section of African leaders and the intellectual community has argued that it is disrespectful and unjust to canvass matters that directly impact the continent’s stability and development without listening to its voices.
In 2005, the African Union (AU) established the Ezulwini Consensus, which demanded no less than two permanent seats on the UNSC, with full veto power. Two decades later, evident resistance from the permanent members (UK, USA, Russia, China and France) has delayed the realisation of this noble objective.
Equally discomforting is the outdated power dynamics inherited from the days when Africa was still under colonial rule. African nations argue that this power arrangement is anachronistic and clearly ignores the contemporary global context in which 193 sovereign states belong to the UN as full members.
A lack of a robust framework for peacekeeping and conflict resolution has been cited as constituting the UN’s growing irrelevance to Africa. The continent is littered with examples where the UN’s lethargy in responding to conflict situations in Africa led to the escalation of conflicts, loss of lives and unfathomable humanitarian situations.
A typical example is the Rwandan genocide where the UN’s prolonged inaction led to the deaths of more than one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus.
Similarly, UN missions in Africa, and those led by forces from the continent to other parts of the world, are perceived as ineffective, hampered by inadequate funding, weak mandates, and a reluctance by the UNSC to take decisive action.
This leads to deteriorating situations on the continent. A case in point is the Kenyan-led UN force that is currently tasked with reinstating sanity in the politics and governance of Haiti from mercenaries and militias who are threatening to make the country ungovernable.
This mission is grossly underfunded, thereby compromising the achievement of its mandate and putting the lives of the soldiers in harm’s way.
Reliable evidence has been adduced that points to peacekeepers’ misconduct on African soil. In this regard, there are recurring allegations of sexual exploitation, abuse and rent-seeking behaviour involving peacekeepers in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
This perennial misconduct has severely damaged the UN’s credibility and public trust. Critics argue that the UN’s traditional pe acekeeping model is ill-suited to the complex, asymmetric conflicts involving nonstate actors and terrorist groups whose numbers are increasing in modern Africa by the day.
The UN and its multilateral financial institutions, principally the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB), which were created in the mid-20th century, are seen as perpetuating colonial-era dynamics.
African countries often face high borrowing costs and expensive debt repayments, which end up sinking these countries deeper into indebtedness.
There is overwhelming evidence to prove that despite significant UN donor support, aid has not been sufficient to close the large financing gap required by Africa to meet its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Due to these frustrations, African leaders are now unrelenting in their demand for structural reforms in the global financial architecture to foster self-sufficient growth. Africa needs more realistic borrowing terms from the global financial institutions.
Even more devastating are the schemes designed by multinational enterprises operating in Africa to perpetrate illicit financial flows (IFFs), including transfer pricing, which are estimated to drain approximately $500 billion annually from Africa.
This clearly undermines the continent’s development efforts. There is a perception that the UN primarily serves the political and economic interests of the Global North, and inadvertently suppresses the needs of the Global South.
Some people have, however, argued that these schemes, like the colonial enterprise before them, are designed and executed by African professionals and politicians on behalf of their foreign-based payers.
It is therefore dishonest to accuse the West while turning a blind eye to African professionals who sell their continent’s resources for a song to the highest bidders.
