Nigeria’s quest for UN Security Council seat

President Jonathan said Nigeria had always lived up to its international obligations whenever it occupied the Council’s non-permanent seat. He also called for speedy democratization of the Security Council. “We believe strongly that the call for democratization worldwide should not be for states only, but also for international organizations such as the United Nations. That’s […]

President Jonathan said Nigeria had always lived up to its international obligations whenever it occupied the Council’s non-permanent seat. He also called for speedy democratization of the Security Council. “We believe strongly that the call for democratization worldwide should not be for states only, but also for international organizations such as the United Nations. That’s why we call for the democratization of the UN Security Council. This is desirable for the enthronement of justice, equity, and fairness and also for the promotion of a sense of inclusiveness and balance in our world.”   This would not be the first time Nigeria would fill that seat, which is rotated among member countries.
Nigeria deserves the consideration of the United Nations to once more occupy the Africa slot as a non-permanent member of the Security Council. The country has done much to contribute to maintenance of international peace and security. Occupying this seat once more would be recognition of its peacekeeping role, particularly in the West Africa sub-region.
However, this quest would be bolstered if the administration focused on tackling Nigeria’s domestic challenges. That is when the international community would take it more seriously.
President Jonathan no doubt raised a longstanding issue of significance when he drew attention to the need to democratize the Security Council which, since the end of the World War II, has mandate to facilitate global peace and security. Because the United Nations was formed to replace the League of Nations in 1945, the 5 permanent members, comprising France, Russia, United States, Britain and China, have held sway since then. These ‘Big 5’ countries, sitting in Council in conjunction with ten non-permanent members, formulate plans and determine the UN’s role in global affairs. The permanent members wield enormous influence because of the veto power each wields, to the extent that their domineering role has almost rendered the position of the UN Secretary General as that of a figurehead, while other member nations can hardly influence decisions of the world body.
The sometimes unfair application of the veto process has been the subject of criticism over the years. The Security Council is largely perceived as a dictatorial body, with little regard for the views of the non-permanent members.
In 2003 for instance, the international community was sharply divided and polarized over the conduct of the Security Council when Britain and the United States, acting in concert and with spurious and cooked-up intelligence, invaded Iraq with the pretext to disarm Saddam Hussein and rid the country of chemical weapons, which turned out not to be there.  Also, Security Council’s inability to intervene decisively in the longstanding crises in the Middle East, especially in Syria, reinforces the stance of those clamouring for the restructuring of the Security Council in a manner that it would act more evenly and effectively while being just and fair to all parties. If nothing is done to bring about some balance in the Security Council, the developing world would continue to be at the receiving end whenever decisions are taken at that level. In a modern world and increasingly sophisticated global environment, it is imperative to expand the membership of the Security Council to accommodate more members from each region of the world.  This will make it much more representative and better placed to tackle the challenges of a new world troubled by violence and other challenges.