The UN, as a universally recognized international institution, is going through a crisis in its ability to make timely and fair decisions on topical issues of international relations, and is thus in need of reform.
The main causes of the crisis in the UN’s activities
The world’s first universally recognized international organization was formed at the end of the First World War in accordance with the decisions of the Paris Peace Conference, enshrined in the Treaty of Versailles. This institution, the League of Nations, was established in 1919 and existed until April 18, 1946, that is, until the formation of the United Nations as a result of the Second World War and the Yalta and Potsdam Peace Conferences.
The UN will regain its power only when the US stops playing ‘global leader’ and portraying itself as a hegemon.
The League of Nations was formed under the dictate of the United Kingdom, and thus reflected an ineffective and unipolar world order. The UN was a consequence of a bipolar world order (USA—USSR), which was a stronger and more stable system that, in view of the destruction that would be caused were nuclear weapons to be used, prevented a Third World War from breaking out.
With the end of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the bipolar world order, in the late twentieth century the UN gradually began to lose its authority and effectiveness as the main international institution for the defense of peace and justice. The attempts of the USA to declare itself a world hegemon were, it is now clear, the main reason for the loss of the UN’s effectiveness, as its decisions began to be ignored by the Americans, and precedents were created for violations of the principles of the equal rights of nations and non-interference in the internal affairs of foreign states.
The military invasions of Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan by the US and the UK, together with other NATO countries, and the bloody events in Serbia are clear examples of this trend. The Collective West has ignored the interests of the Palestinian people and unjustifiably supported Israel in the conflict in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon. UN mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of military conflicts in the post-Soviet space (in particular, the failure of the Minsk negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh and Ukraine) proved ineffective. There has been no adequate response to the terrorist activities of ISIS (an organization banned in the Russian Federation) in the Middle East, nor to the civil conflict in Syria.
The UN needs reform—Recep Erdoğan’s view
Despite the obvious problems in the functioning of the UN, Russia has always advocated the preservation of this authoritative intergovernmental organization and respect for its basic and universally recognized principles. Moscow, aware of the existing shortcomings in the UN’s activities, supports a responsible approach to the reform of the main international institution.
Among the various new initiatives aimed at optimizing the UN, Turkey advocates the idea of an urgent reform of the UN Security Council. In particular, President Recep Erdoğan has repeatedly argued, in relation to a number of regional and planetary crises, that the existing institutional system of the UN does not sufficiently take into account the interests of Muslim states and peoples. He also considers the absence of an African representative on the UN Security Council to be unfair.
The Turkish leader has publicly expressed disagreement with the current number of permanent members of the Security Council who have vetoes. In his view, none of these five countries (Russia, China, the United States, Britain and France) reflects the interests of the Islamic world. Meanwhile, a considerable part of the UN members are representatives of the Muslim community, and together they account for more than 1.5 billion people, or 23% of the world’s current population. Erdoğan therefore argues that “the World is bigger than five states,” meaning that the inclusion of a responsible and representative Islamic country among the permanent members of the UN Security Council is long overdue.
In line with Ankara’s diplomatic principles, Erdoğan is seeking to justify Turkey’s new horizons in the system of regional and global relations. The concepts of a Turkish Axis, Turkish Eurasia (with Turkey as a geographical, civilizational and cultural bridge between Europe and Asia), Neo-Ottomanism and Panturanism are adduced by the Turkish President to justify Turkey’s status as a realistic representative of the Muslim world on the UN Security Council.
Ankara cites Turkey’s strategic location, which is important to both the West and the East, its membership of NATO, its key role in the Middle East and the Turkic world (i.e. the regions of the South Caucasus and Central Asia), its leadership of the emerging Turkic pole in a multipolar world system, all of which factors entitle Turkey to the status of a permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
On the one hand, Erdoğan’s support for the idea of expanding the Security Council by including a representative of Africa is objectively justified, because the UN includes 54 African states, (28% of the total number of the member states). This would also enable Turkey to count on Africa’s support for its own candidacy, especially given the many Muslim-majority nations in Africa.
Erdoğan actively participated in the 79th UN General Assembly, in which his speeches focused on criticizing Israel for the genocide in Gaza and Lebanon, comparing Benjamin Netanyahu to Hitler, accusing the West, led by the US, of supporting Israeli aggression, demanding the recognition of Palestine’s independence, and claiming that the UN was faulty and in a state of crisis, and that the Security Council was in need of reform based on the principle that “the World is bigger than five states.” Erdoğan sees this trajectory of reform as an opportunity to make positive changes in the world for the better and promote the cause of justice.
The Turkish House in New York City turned into a hive of diplomatic activity during the UN General Assembly. It hosted numerous meetings between the Turkish president and his foreign counterparts (including the Chinese, Iraqi and Armenian leaders), was decked with banners featuring Erdoğan’s speeches, and was used for the launch of his book, and other events.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken agreed with the proposal to consider increasing the number of permanent members of the UN Security Council, taking into account the very real political and economic transformations taking place in the world. The chief US diplomat named Germany, Japan and India as likely candidates. Remarkably, he did not mention Turkey, a US ally and Muslim nation.
It is possible that Washington’s position and the silence of other members of the UN Security Council on this issue are motivated by the complex and contradictory policy of Turkey itself, which is not considered a universal leader in the Islamic world (except by the Turkic members of the Organization of Turkic States) due to its membership of NATO and its disagreements with other Muslim states such as Syria and Iran. In addition, while accusing Israel of the genocide of Palestinians, Erdoğan denies the genocide of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Perhaps recognizing this crime of the past would help boost Turkey’s chances of becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
However, despite the mixed reactions to the idea of Turkey’s candidacy for membership of this key UN institution, it is important to recognize that President Erdoğan has raised a pertinent issue—he is quite correct when he argues that “the world is bigger than five states.” The current situation demands that we pay close attention to the voice of the Turkish leader. The geopolitical crisis due to the USA’s strategy of imposing its position on the rest of the world has raised a need for changes in favor of a multipolar world, with a reformed UN that respects the principles of equality and justice.
One cannot but agree with Erdoğan’s view, as expressed in his book “A More Just World is Possible,” of the need to “establish a system in which power supports those who are in the right, rather than one in which power is equated with right.”