UNITED NATIONS, New York — September 24, 2026:

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres has renewed his call for a fundamental reform of the UN Security Council, arguing that the absence of permanent African representation is no longer defensible in a world vastly different from the one in which the United Nations was created.

Speaking at the opening of the 81st session of the UN General Assembly in New York on September 22, Guterres placed Security Council reform within a broader argument that global institutions must reflect the realities of the 21st century rather than the balance of power that existed at the end of the Second World War.

“We must also reform the Security Council so that it reflects today’s world with the legitimacy and effectiveness that today’s challenges demand,” Guterres told world leaders.

He singled out Africa as the clearest example of what he described as the Council’s failure to keep pace with global change.

“When the UN was founded, most of Africa was still under colonial rule. Today, Africa still has no permanent representation on the Council,” he said.

Guterres then delivered his strongest formulation:

“A 21st century Security Council without permanent African seats is unjust and indefensible. This must change.”

The Secretary-General’s intervention comes as African governments continue a decades-long campaign for reform of the Council’s membership and decision-making structures.

A Council Born From The Ashes Of World War II

The origins of the Security Council are inseparable from the Second World War.

The United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco on June 26, 1945, and entered into force on October 24 that year. The new organization was created in the aftermath of two devastating world wars, with the prevention of another global conflict at the centre of its mission.

The Security Council was given primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Its powers include investigating disputes, facilitating negotiations, imposing sanctions and, under certain circumstances, authorizing collective military action.

The original structure reflected the geopolitical realities of 1945.

The five permanent members were the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, France and China—the major Allied powers of the Second World War. Six additional countries were elected as non-permanent members, producing an 11-member Council.

The five permanent members were also granted the power to veto substantive decisions.

That arrangement was intended to ensure that the major powers would remain inside the collective security system rather than stand outside it. But it also embedded the political realities of the immediate post-war period into the institutional architecture of the new international order.

The Council held its first session on January 17, 1946, in London. It subsequently established its permanent headquarters at the United Nations complex in New York.

From 11 members to 15

The first major structural change came as the United Nations expanded.

By the early 1960s, membership of the UN had increased dramatically, particularly following the independence of countries in Africa and Asia. The composition of the Security Council consequently came under growing criticism.

In December 1963, the General Assembly approved amendments expanding the Council from 11 to 15 members. The changes entered into force on August 31, 1965. The number of elected, non-permanent members increased from six to ten, while the five permanent seats remained unchanged.

More than six decades later, that basic structure remains.

The Security Council today consists of 15 members: five permanent members and ten members elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. The permanent members are China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The ten elected seats are distributed according to a regional system intended to provide geographical representation.

Africa currently has three elected seats on the Council, but none of the five permanent positions.

That distinction is at the centre of the African argument.

Why Guterres Says The System Is Outdated

When the United Nations was founded in 1945, much of Africa remained under European colonial rule.

Consequently, most African territories did not participate as independent states in the creation of the international system that would govern global peace and security.

Guterres has repeatedly highlighted that historical contradiction.

In a 2024 address to the Security Council, he said:

“The Security Council was designed by the victors of the Second World War, and reflects the power structures at that time. The world has changed since 1945.”

He pointed out that Africa now accounts for 28 percent of UN membership, yet has no permanent member on the Council.

The Secretary-General has also emphasized the continent’s contribution to international peacekeeping. In his 2024 remarks, he said African countries hosted almost half of UN peacekeeping operations and that Africans accounted for more than 40 percent of UN peacekeepers.

His argument is therefore based not only on population or geography, but also on Africa’s role in the international peace and security system.

“But African efforts and contributions are not being matched by African representation,” Guterres said in 2024.

Africa’s Common Position

The demand for permanent African representation is not new.

African governments formally developed a common position on Security Council reform in the early 2000s. The Ezulwini Consensus, adopted in 2005, calls for at least two permanent African seats and five non-permanent seats on an expanded Council.

The African Union position also calls for the permanent seats to have the same rights and privileges as existing permanent members, including the veto for as long as the veto continues to exist.

The AU has established a Committee of Ten Heads of State and Government—the C-10—to advance the African common position in the reform negotiations. Sierra Leone currently coordinates that effort.

The issue is therefore not simply about adding an African country to the Council. Africa’s common position calls for structural changes to both the permanent and elected categories.

African leaders have argued that the continent should not merely be represented occasionally through rotating elected seats, but should have a permanent role in decisions concerning international peace and security.

As former AU Chairperson João Lourenço put it in an AU address, the African position seeks to ensure that Africa will no longer merely be “the subject of the Council’s decisions” but become an active participant in those decisions.

Reform Is Not A Simple Matter

Changing the Security Council is considerably more complicated than passing an ordinary General Assembly resolution.

The UN Charter itself must be amended.

Under Article 108, a Charter amendment requires approval by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of UN member states, including all five permanent members of the Security Council.

That gives each existing permanent member a decisive role in any fundamental restructuring of the Council.

It also helps explain why Security Council reform has remained under discussion for decades without producing a new permanent African seat.

There are disagreements not only between the current permanent members and countries seeking new permanent seats, but also among countries and regional groups over how an expanded Council should look.

Questions include how many new permanent seats should be created, which countries should occupy them, whether new permanent members should receive veto rights, how many additional elected seats should be created, and whether the veto itself should be retained or restricted.

The Veto At The Centre Of The Debate

The veto is perhaps the most consequential feature of the Council’s existing structure.

A substantive resolution generally requires at least nine votes, including the concurring votes of the five permanent members. A single permanent member can therefore prevent the adoption of a substantive resolution by voting against it.

The veto has been used by the permanent members throughout the Council’s history and remains one of the most controversial aspects of the institution.

For the African Union, the issue presents a particular dilemma.

Its common position is that if the veto continues to exist, any new African permanent members should receive the same right.

At the same time, there are longstanding international proposals for limiting or abolishing the veto altogether.

This makes reform a debate not simply about who gets seats, but also about how power should be exercised once those seats exist.

Guterres: Africa cannot wait indefinitely

In his latest General Assembly address, Guterres sought to move the issue beyond another round of diplomatic discussion.

“Africa needs to be at the table, not on the menu,” he said.

He added:

“Africa cannot be asked to wait indefinitely for its rightful place on the Council.”

For Guterres, the issue extends beyond African interests.

He argues that a Council that does not adequately represent the contemporary international system risks losing credibility among the countries whose cooperation it needs.

In 2024, he described African representation as not merely an issue of ethics and justice, but also a “strategic imperative” capable of increasing global acceptance of Security Council decisions.

His argument is particularly significant because the Secretary-General himself does not have the power to create a new permanent seat. The authority ultimately rests with UN member states through the Charter amendment process.

An 80-Year-Old Question

The dispute over African representation illustrates a broader question facing the United Nations: Can an institution created in 1945 adequately govern a world of 2026?

The international system has undergone enormous changes since the end of the Second World War.

Dozens of formerly colonized countries have become independent states. Africa has emerged as the second-most-populous continent and contains 54 UN member states. Economic and political influence has shifted across regions, while new challenges—from climate change and cyber conflict to artificial intelligence and transnational terrorism—have altered the meaning of international security.

Yet the core permanent membership of the Security Council remains unchanged.

Even the expansion from 11 to 15 members in the 1960s did not alter the five permanent seats.

That historical continuity is precisely what Guterres is challenging.

His message to the 81st General Assembly is that institutional legitimacy cannot be separated from representation.

“Ending Africa’s underrepresentation, now, is a question of fairness, justice and, ultimately, the credibility of this Organization,” he said.

For Africa, however, the challenge now goes beyond securing international recognition of the principle. The continent must also navigate the difficult question of how its permanent seats would be allocated and represented.

For the United Nations, the larger question is whether its member states can translate decades of discussion about reform into an actual amendment of the Charter.

After eight decades, the Security Council remains a product of the geopolitical settlement that followed the Second World War.

Guterres is now arguing that the world has changed enough—and Africa’s place in it has changed enough—that the institution must change with it.

The question is whether the member states that possess the power to rewrite the rules are prepared to do so.