Africa wants two permanent Security Council seats with the veto. The offers so far stop short of that.
Since 2005 the Ezulwini Consensus has asked for no fewer than two permanent African seats, with the veto while the veto exists, plus five non-permanent seats. The clearest recent offer, from the United States in September 2024, backs two permanent African seats but no new vetoes, and any change needs a UN Charter amendment every permanent member must ratify.
Key points
- Africa currently has no permanent Security Council seat and holds three of the rotating non-permanent seats.
- The Ezulwini Consensus, adopted in March 2005 and reaffirmed in the Sirte Declaration, demands at least two permanent seats with full privileges including the veto, plus five non-permanent seats.
- In September 2024 the United States backed two permanent African seats, but without veto power. France has taken a similar line on the veto.
- Reform requires amending the UN Charter: a two-thirds General Assembly vote plus ratification by two-thirds of member states, including all five current permanent members.
What happened
The Security Council was designed in 1945, when most African states were still colonies. It has five permanent members with vetoes and ten elected members. African issues take up a large share of its work: Security Council Report notes that more than half of its 2023 formal outcomes on country or regional issues dealt with Africa, yet no African country can block a resolution or sit permanently at the table.
Africa's answer, agreed in Ezulwini in 2005, is deliberately maximal: equal permanent membership or none, including the veto for as long as the veto exists, even though Africa says it opposes the veto in principle. Support from outside Africa has grown for permanent African seats in general, but the veto is where the offers and the demand split apart.
Claim by claim
Why this label: Security Council Report quotes the March 2005 common position directly, and CSIS records its reaffirmation in the Sirte Declaration.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: The common position states this as a matter of common justice, in the wording quoted by Security Council Report.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: Stated by both Security Council Report and CSIS. The Council has five permanent members and ten rotating members.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: CSIS records the US announcement with its no-veto caveat, and says Paris also does not support extension of veto use.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
Why this label: Security Council Report sets out the Article 108 process. This is why statements of support are not the same as seats.
On the ladder: a claim earns Verified from primary evidence, or from two independent sources that do not copy each other.
This claim was published as true and later shown to be wrong. We correct it here, in the open — we do not delete it.
Why this label: Correction: no reform text has been adopted. Negotiations continue, key offers exclude the veto the Ezulwini position requires, and no country has been chosen for an African permanent seat.
On the ladder: stronger evidence beat the original claim. The correction stays visible — we correct in the open, we do not delete.
What we know / what we don't know yet
What we know
- Africa's common position, the current seat count, and the Charter amendment hurdle are all documented in primary-adjacent sources.
- The main public offers support permanent African seats but withhold new vetoes, which is the central gap.
What we don't know yet
- Which African countries would take permanent seats if reform passed; the AU insists Africa itself must choose, and it has not.
- Whether Africa would accept permanent seats without the veto as a step, or hold the Ezulwini line in full.
Why it matters
The Council authorises peacekeeping, sanctions and the use of force, and much of that business concerns Africa. Who sits there permanently decides whose interests are in the room when those calls are made, and whose are only consulted.
Update history
No silent edits. Every change is written here, with its time.
- Latest
Story published.