President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan attended the 78th General Assembly meetings of the United Nations in New York last week. In his speech there, Erdoğan emphatically repeated the "the world is bigger than five" discourse, which he has frequently expressed since 2013 regarding the U.N. reform and has become synonymous with him.

As many countries like Türkiye have consistently stated, the U.N., which was established immediately after World War II, can no longer respond to today’s demands politically. On the one hand, the five countries having veto power in the U.N. Security Council (UNSC), also known as the "Permanent Five," "Big Five" or P5, have been exploiting this privilege for a long time. On the other hand, the U.N. cannot institutionally overcome global political crises. For these reasons, the long-awaited U.N. reform has become completely inevitable for a just and sustainable global peace.

An obsolete and unfair order

To correctly understand the nature of the discussions regarding the UNSC, it is first necessary to know the structure and functioning of the council. In this context, it should be emphasized that the UNSC is a kind of executive body of the U.N., which was established immediately after World War II. Its primary duty is to protect global peace and security with an idealistic approach. Accordingly, with the agreement establishing the U.N., the U.S., China, France, the United Kingdom and Russia have enjoyed an extraordinary veto power. Through this authority, the five permanent members have the privilege of rejecting every bill that comes to the UNSC agenda to preserve global peace and security. In other words, these countries can use their veto power to make decisions that can shape the world.

It is striking that as of May 2022, Russia has used its veto power 121 times, the U.S. 89 times, the U.K. 29 times, China 17 times and France 16 times.

Apart from the Permanent Five, 10 countries are elected by the General Assembly in the UNSC, but these serve temporarily. Moreover, these 10 countries do not have the permanent veto privilege that the five countries have. Therefore, their impact on the decisions taken is extremely limited. For this reason, the structure of the UNSC fully corresponds to the aphorism of English author George Orwell in his famous book "Animal Farm": "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." In other words, every country has the right to speak in the U.N., but only some countries have the right to decide.

Political reform demands specific to the UNSC are not specific to today because there has been a serious agenda on this issue for almost the last 30 years. Here, it is necessary to remember that following World War II, a new world order was established, led by the U.S. and Russia and supported by China, France and the U.K. Due to the global polarization between the U.S. and Russia after the war, other countries had to submit to the status quo for a long time because they did not have the political and military power to deal with these two countries. During this process, although a few countries, such as (West) Germany, requested from time to time to update the management structure of the UNSC, they could not go beyond voicing these demands in a low and soft language.

With the end of the Cold War, the number of countries questioning the status quo increased rapidly in the new political atmosphere dominating the global system. Under these conditions, a working group with open participation was established within the General Assembly in 1993 to carry out a comprehensive reform in the U.N. This group was transformed into an intergovernmental negotiation format in 2009. In this process, the number of countries that want to have a greater say in global politics, like Brazil, India and Türkiye, has increased. At this point, the demand for reform in the U.N. has gone beyond an expectation and has become an obligation.

Supporters and opponents of reform

The main issue emphasized regarding the U.N. reform, which has been on the world’s agenda for a long time, is related to the transformation of the management structure and functioning of the UNSC. As seen in the Libya, Syria and Ukraine crises, UNSC member countries reject bills that contradict their national interests or are directly against them. For example, the bill submitted to the UNSC in 2017, calling on the then-Donald Trump government to stop recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, was vetoed by the U.S. itself. In another example, the UNSC bill calling for increased sanctions against North Korea due to its ballistic missile tests was blocked by China and Russia last year. Such examples, the number of which could be increased, show that UNSC members act only by considering their own national interests and openly harm world peace rather than protecting it.

Moreover, the UNSC does not represent a significant part of the world in its current state. While France and the U.K., with a population of approximately 65 million, are among the permanent members of the UNSC, the Muslims around the world, whose number reaches 1.5 billion, African countries, which host approximately 1.2 billion of the world’s population and Latin American countries and the Caribbean whose total population exceeds 650 million are not represented here. This is described as the most unfair aspect of the UNSC.

The five permanent member states, which hold veto power in the council, also oppose a possible UNSC reform because they do not want to share such a privilege with a new country.

Although the heads of state and government of these countries criticize the structure of the UNSC from time to time, they do not take the slightest step toward putting these criticisms into practice. For example, in his speech at the General Assembly last week, U.S. President Joe Biden said that he had been negotiating for the UNSC reform for a long time and that he was ready to do his part for the changes. However, Biden did not take concrete steps during his term of office to implement this nice-sounding rhetoric.

Likewise, China and Russia have expressed their interest in updating the structure of the council, as they are disturbed by the Western domination led by the U.S., France and the U.K. in the UNSC. However, they also take a stand to preserve the status quo by not taking any concrete steps toward reform. In short, the five permanent member countries, which do not want to lose the political privileges they have, stand as the biggest obstacle to the UNSC reform. On the other hand, almost all countries except the UNSC member countries want the U.N. to be reformed and transformed. While a few countries, such as Türkiye and Ukraine, express these demands individually, some countries express them jointly, such as the African Group, the L.69 Group, the Arab Group, the Union for Consensus or G-4 countries (India, Japan, Germany and Brazil).

Is reform possible?

The most reasonable answer to this question may be difficult but not impossible. It is difficult because, as stated above, the biggest obstacle to the realization of such a reform is the five permanent member countries themselves since none of them wants to give up this privilege they have.

On the other hand, such a reform is not impossible because, based on Article 108 of the treaty establishing the U.N., a possible reform bill must first be accepted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the U.N. General Assembly. Subsequently, this bill must be approved by two-thirds of all member countries, including the five permanent members. Although it seems feasible, each country has its own priorities in terms of foreign policy.

For example, if Israel is one of the countries that will join the UNSC as a new member, those countries that have problematic relations with Tel Aviv, like Iran, will oppose it. Therefore, to achieve a realistic reform in the UNSC, it is necessary first to agree on what kind of reform it will be. Otherwise, if each country insists on its own reform plan, it will be impossible to take even the most minor step on the issue.

On the other hand, if the reform that has been expected for more than 30 years does not occur, the U.N. will suffer further loss of reputation in the coming period and become a more dysfunctional organization than it is today. For this reason, if the necessary consensus is not achieved, a new international organization or organizations may be formed in the future, which can be an alternative to the U.N. Thus, with an optimistic approach over time, the world states can bypass the U.N. and come together much more strongly under a new global roof. Further, with a pessimistic approach, if previous mistakes are repeated, there will be no difference between the new organization to be built and the U.N.

Türkiye’s vision: World is bigger than five

Today, Türkiye undoubtedly has the most stable and determined stance on the need to change the management structure of the UNSC. The approach put forward by President Erdoğan with his vision of "The world is bigger than five" on this issue summarizes the issue. Erdoğan expressed this doctrine in his speech to the U.N. General Assembly in 2013 when he was prime minister and has been repeating it non-stop since then. In essence, Erdoğan questions the obsolete order from which the five permanent members of the UNSC publicly benefit and emphasizes that this order brings harm rather than benefit to humanity.

Erdoğan also advocates that the current system should be transformed into a fair system and that the whole world should not be left to the decision of only five countries.

Based on the book titled "A Fairer World is Possible" written by Erdoğan, Türkiye’s concrete suggestions regarding the U.N. reform include the following: strengthening the General Assembly, increasing the number of permanent members in the UNSC, rotating the UNSC members and removing the right of veto or limiting this right as much as possible. Türkiye wants a fair approach in the possible expansion process of the UNSC to prioritize the countries that host a significant portion of the world’s population but are not represented in the UNSC and the countries with densely populated Muslim communities.

With these fair solution proposals, Türkiye ultimately differentiates itself from the countries that want to turn a possible reform in the UNSC to its advantage. For example, Germany, which is among the countries that voiced UNSC reform, emphasizes that it should be included in the UNSC by reminding the political and economic power it has while demanding reform. Thus, he shows a selfish approach. Türkiye, on the other hand, displays an example of altruism by referring to all segments of society that have been subjected to injustice for years instead of making itself a subject in a possible U.N. reform.