But the danger of an unhealthy debate for the continent is that this might send a wrong signal to the big powers - that two African nations with Security Council vetoes could undermine the immense powers which the authority confers.

The African Union (AU) has fixed a crucial meeting for 7-8 March in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to help resolve this issue.

Should the meeting fail to arrive at a consensus, the UN could be forced to postpone further discussion on the matter or African countries might decide to vie for the seats independently, using their own diplomacy.

If however, some semblance of a consensus is reached such that the two African seats become rotational, this could help douse the tension.

Allowing countries to vie for the seats independently, would mean that each contending country could seek support from outside the continent for a successful bid.

But this option also has its drawbacks.

So far, the behind-the-scene negotiations for African seats on the Security Council have largely shut out civil society participation.

No country has been willing to talk about the issue openly, and African intellectuals have been all too aloof, or sidelined.

While the idea of permanent seats for Africa on the Security Council had been in the air for more than a year, it was only in January that the AU announced the setting up of a 15-member committee to put in place a mechanism to select prospective countries for the seats.

Before then, just a couple of countries had muted opinions, without initiating any real discussion on the issue.

Even after the 4th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the AU, which met in Abuja late January, the 15-member ministerial committee, which met in Mbabane, Swaziland from 20-22 February failed to reach any clear decision on which countries should be given official backing by the continental body.

The Abuja meeting had charged the committee of foreign ministers of the 15 countries to produce the African position by March, in time for the Addis Ababa meeting of 7-8 March.

Traditionally, the AU seems to favour a decision-making process based on linguistic lines, although the different regions have of late become more affirmative.

But clearly the stakes in the Security Council seats are too high to resort to that option, which has often divided the continent.

Still there appears to be no easy solution for Africa on the issue.

In the other continents diplomacy and negotiations over the Security Council seats had been ongoing for years, such that no country in Europe can now openly challenge Germany's ambitions. Nor would any Asian nation question Japan's candidature.

Africa should have approached its own selection process through a series of well-structured debates on why the continent needs the seats, how the continent plans to use them, and which countries are well suited.

It would be recalled that the choice of current members of the Council was made a lot easier based on the reflection of the global power structure of 1945, when the victors of the Second World War shared the seats among themselves.

But while the African debate looks set to continue at the Addis Ababa meeting, there appears to be a general understanding among Africans that Nigeria and South Africa would fulfil the minimum conditions to represent the continent on the Security Council.

As Club Millennium, a Paris-based African think-thank recently pointed out, any country seeking Africa's backing should be credible in the key domains of diplomacy - to be able to negotiate for Africa; militarily - to be able to forge peace; economically - in order to have independence of thought; and politically - to be an example of stability, democracy and good governance.

Nigeria and South Africa come closest to meeting some of those requirements, although they both could still learn a few lessons from other countries such as Senegal and Mauritius on good governance, public administration and the fight against corruption.

If the above stated criteria are accepted, the Addis Ababa meeting may have less difficulty resolving the question of "small States," language or regional balance.

Doubtless, the Security Council seats will bring fame and power to the African countries that will occupy them, but they must use the position to work for the common interest of the continent.

But what guarantees does the AU have on this and do other Security Council members have any such undertakings?

The Security Council of today still reflects the global power structure of 1945, even though its membership was expanded to 15 in 1965 to accommodate the non-permanent members.

A few powerful members still dominate the UN policy and frequently veto widely accepted decisions to further their own interests.

But it is precisely because the present arrangement makes the Council both undemocratic and often ineffective that everybody is calling for reforms.

Africa should make sure that the ground rules are put in place, such that the Council's decisions reflect the collective will.

Unnecessary squabbling over choice could reinforce the negative and false notion that the continent is not ripe for a permanent seat on the Council.