Following World War I, the League of Nations was established with the noble goal of resolving international disputes peacefully. However, it proved ineffective in preventing the outbreak of World War II.
In the aftermath of World War II, the victorious powers came together to create the United Nations with the primary objective of maintaining global peace and security, filling the void left by the League of Nations' failures.
But can we genuinely consider the U.N. project a success simply because we have not witnessed a third world war since its inception?
From the Korean War to the Vietnam War, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the Cyprus dispute, the Rwandan genocide to the Bosnian War, the Iraq conflicts to the turmoil in Libya, and the ongoing war in Ukraine, we have witnessed conflicts, genocides and massacres that have claimed millions of lives. How has the U.N. fared in preventing or mitigating these crises? If another global conflict were to loom on the horizon, could the U.N. effectively intervene and avert the impending catastrophe?
These questions persist, challenging the U.N.'s ability to live up to its potential in preventing human suffering on a massive scale.
Almost universally, the answer to all these questions is "no." However, among the nearly 200 countries, Türkiye stands alone in systematically highlighting the ineffectiveness of the U.N. and its structure, which shields imperial powers, essentially saying "the emperor has no clothes."
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, a key figure in the "The World is Bigger than Five" campaign, has authored two books on this very issue.
Now, let's put aside the five permanent members of the U.N. who call the shots and have the final say. The current system suits the interests of the United States, China, Russia, France and the United Kingdom, countries involved in almost all global crises.
But the question remains: Why do the remaining 188 countries accept this unjust state of affairs? Why do they settle for powerless roles such as non-permanent members of the Security Council, where some serve for two years and others for one? Are they content with these meager offerings to stave off rebellion against this injustice?
How can they be so certain of their powerlessness?
For instance, envision a scenario in the coming year where a boycott leaves the U.N. Security Council's five permanent members isolated in New York. In this hypothetical situation, 188 countries could put forth the following demands:
– Abolish permanent membership and veto mechanisms within the council to facilitate more efficient decision-making and enhance its functionality,
– Restrict the council's powers while boosting the authority of the General Assembly to break the monopoly of power. Additionally, establish a legal avenue to challenge council decisions,
– Introduce an approval requirement by the General Assembly, particularly for council decisions related to sanctions or military interventions.
Do you regard this as merely a fantasy?
In an era where democracy is universally esteemed as a fundamental value, is it too far-fetched to hope for the dismantling of oligarchy within the U.N.?
Why is a pluralistic structure for the U.N., ensuring equal voices for nations, considered a threat to both the organization and the world?
What distinguishes China, Russia, the U.S., France or the U.K. as more reliable and rational when compared to Iraq, Singapore, Chile or South Africa?
Is it their greater power and assertiveness, their possession of nuclear arsenals, or the fact that their track records are so marred that they are incomparable to the other 188 nations on Earth?
What do your reason, logic and conscience say about this "learned helplessness?"
Continuing this charade despite knowing that the U.N., unable to establish justice within itself, cannot make the world a fairer place – what kind of hypocrisy is that?
