South Africa faces diplomatic setback in UN Security Council reform efforts

In the midst of an escalating global debate surrounding the reform of the United Nations Security Council, South Africa has encountered a significant diplomatic setback within the BRICS bloc. This follows its failure to garner support from fellow African nations for a permanent seat in a potentially expanded council. Egypt and Ethiopia, newly integrated into the group, opposed the issuance of a statement that would have provided direct or indirect backing to Pretoria. They were joined in this stance by Nigeria and Uganda, which became partner members in January 2025.

This discord surfaced during the BRICS foreign ministers' meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The host nation had proposed to include support for South Africa in a draft declaration regarding Security Council reform. However, in light of Egypt and Ethiopia's refusal, Brazil was compelled to withdraw any reference to the matter, reverting to the so-called Kazan formula, which mentions only Brazil and India. Despite this, Egypt and Ethiopia declined to endorse the final declaration, insisting that their objections be noted, even in the “president's summary,” a document of lesser protocol value.

This episode highlights the growing divisions within BRICS and the challenges the group faces in its aspiration to compete with major international coalitions such as the European Union or the G20. The lack of political alignment among members complicates the emergence of a unified stance, as evidenced by the failure of the Rio declaration, casting doubt on BRICS's ability to assert itself as a global geopolitical actor.

South Africa has expressed dissatisfaction with the situation, arguing that the expansion of BRICS has exacerbated divisions, particularly among African members. Influential nations on the continent, such as Egypt, Ethiopia, and Nigeria, now seem to adopt positions that diverge from Pretoria's ambitions. Nevertheless, a spokesperson for the South African Minister of International Relations clarified that the nation did not engage directly in the disputes among Brazil, India, Egypt, and Ethiopia, while reaffirming Pretoria's commitment to the "Ezulwini consensus," which calls for two permanent seats for Africa on the Security Council, without specifying which countries should hold them.

This consensus is predicated on a common position among African nations, aimed at ensuring equitable representation for the continent within a reformed Security Council, while allowing African states to determine their own representatives. However, the hesitations expressed by Egypt, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and Uganda today reveal the fragility of this consensus and the deep divisions that traverse Africa, especially as calls for reform in global governance grow louder in response to an increasingly ineffective multilateral architecture.

Reforming the Security Council is no longer a political luxury but a necessity driven by shifts in the global order: the proliferation of regional conflicts, the growing inefficacy of the UN, and the misuse of veto power, which has become more of a blocking tool than a mechanism for resolution. Nations such as India, Japan, Germany, and Brazil have long advocated for a restructuring of the Council to make it more representative and equitable. Among the proposals is the addition of six permanent members—four from the "G4" and two from the African continent—as well as four additional non-permanent members, raising the total to 25, without altering the veto mechanism.

Other proposals, supported notably by Italy, Spain, Mexico, and Pakistan, advocate extending the number of non-permanent members only (adding ten new members) with a four-year mandate, while maintaining the current veto structure.

However, all these initiatives collide with the reality of the veto power held by the five permanent members, who alone possess the authority to approve any amendment to the UN Charter, in accordance with Article 108. Even a favorable vote from two-thirds of the General Assembly is insufficient without the explicit consent of the five major powers.

In this complex context, the reform of the Security Council appears to remain subject to power plays and influence rather than principles of justice or representativeness. South Africa, despite its efforts to assert its role as a continental leader, struggles to achieve unanimous support, while other African countries challenge its ambition or resist the notion of a single state monopolizing such representation.