The 81st United Nations General Assembly may well go down as one of the more memorable gatherings in the institution’s recent history. Against a backdrop of mounting geopolitical tensions, strained multilateralism, and increasingly vocal demands for reform...UNGA81 offered no shortage of moments that captured a world order in flux. Among them was a debate that was hardly new, but increasingly difficult to ignore: Africa’s longstanding demand for a greater voice on the UN Security Council.

Despite representing more than a quarter of UN member states, Africa has no permanent seat on the Security Council. Under the African Union’s longstanding Common African Position, the continent is calling for at least two permanent seats and five non-permanent seats on an expanded Council. Crucially, the AU maintains that any new permanent African members should receive the same privileges as the existing five permanent members, including the veto for as long as that power continues to exist.

The imbalance is particularly striking when considering how much of the Security Council’s work concerns Africa. According to reporting by Al Jazeera, 18 of the 24 resolutions adopted under Chapter VII of the UN Charter in 2025 concerned the continent. Yet African states remain excluded from permanent membership and from the veto power held by China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States (Al Jazeera, 2026).

At UNGA81, Nigeria renewed its call for two permanent African seats with veto rights, while leaders from across the continent argued that reform is increasingly a question of the UN’s legitimacy and ability to reflect contemporary geopolitical realities.

But Africa’s campaign also exposes a deeper dilemma.

If the Security Council expands while the veto remains untouched, should new permanent members receive that same extraordinary power? If they do not, would permanent membership truly be equal? If they do, would expanding the number of veto holders make an already difficult decision-making system even harder to navigate?

These questions point to a fundamental issue at the heart of Security Council reform: representation and power cannot be considered separately.

For decades, governments and civil society organizations have debated how to make the Security Council more representative, accountable and capable of responding to threats to international peace and security. Africa’s renewed push at UNGA81 is another reminder that reforming who sits at the table must also involve examining the rules that determine what those sitting at the table can prevent the Council from doing.

At the World Federalist Movement–Canada, we believe that conversation deserves renewed attention.

In the coming weeks, WFM-C will launch Curb the Veto, a new campaign focused on one of the most consequential structural challenges facing the UN Security Council today.

More details are coming soon!