The post-1945 international order is under strain, with growing instability marked by conflicts such as Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Israel's war with Hamas, and rising tensions over Taiwan. The liberal world order, built on multilateral institutions like the United Nations, World Trade Organisation, and World Health Organisation, is seen by many as increasingly ineffective. China's dual economic and military rise over the past four decades has added pressure, unlike the Soviet Union, which, despite its military strength, remained economically dependent on the West. Emerging middle powers such as Turkey, India, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates are also reshaping global dynamics. The United States, under former President Donald John Trump, further weakened confidence in these institutions by treating them as foreign impositions. The UN has faced decades of reform calls, particularly regarding the Security Council's outdated composition. The G4 nations—Germany, Japan, India, and Brazil—have proposed adding six new permanent non-veto members or creating renewable long-term seats. In 2005, the African Union adopted the Ezulwini Consensus, demanding at least two permanent African seats with veto power and five non-permanent seats on the UNSC.
The sharpest truth in this reckoning is that the African Union has been demanding meaningful representation at the UN Security Council since 2005 through the Ezulwini Consensus, yet global power structures remain frozen in 1945 geopolitics. While middle powers and G4 nations push for expanded roles, Africa's call for two permanent veto-wielding seats is still treated as a symbolic gesture rather than a structural necessity.
The AU's frustration is not merely about pride—it reflects a deeper imbalance in how global conflicts are managed. Africa, home to a significant share of UN peacekeeping operations and post-conflict zones, has no permanent voice in the body that authorises them. The fact that the continent's demand has lingered for nearly two decades exposes how reform is blocked not by lack of merit but by entrenched interests of current veto powers.
For ordinary Nigerians, this stagnation means global decisions affecting African security, trade, and development continue to be made without African agency. Nigerian troops have served in numerous UN missions, yet Nigeria cannot influence high-level decisions on conflict or sanctions.
This story fits a long-standing pattern: African demands for equitable global participation are acknowledged in speeches but ignored in practice.
