Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has long been calling for reform within the United Nations. Since his election to high office in Turkey, the President has been insisting that the UN should be an international body that works for the interests of all countries, rather than a few.

It’s with this distinction that the President’s “The World is Bigger Than Five” motto has received attention worldwide.

UN reform was on the President’s agenda during the 73rd session of the UN General Assembly.

During his speech at the UN on Tuesday, President Erdogan stated that the UN is “suffering from an unprecedented crisis of credibility,” adding that “the main reason for the current troubles of the UN is due to the Security Council’s failure to keep its promise of promoting peace and security around the world.”

“At a time when global leadership is desperately needed, it is crucial to improve the UN rather than destroy it.”

“If the global powers won’t help, the rest of the international community must take the matters into its own hands and launch a comprehensive UN reform process.”

Following his speech at the United Nations, the Turkish President also re-iterated his point in an article he wrote for Foreign Policy. In his article, Erdogan’s message was clear: “Don’t let major powers such as the United States undermine the liberal international order. Instead, reform it so it works better.”

Turkey’s biggest frustration with the UN is largely due to the lack of attention the body gave to the Syrian Civil War and the human catastrophes that are still taking place in the Middle East.

UN Youth proposal

In addition to his call for systematic reform, the President also urged for a UN Youth body to be created. The President added that Turkey will welcome for the headquarters of this body to be located in Istanbul.

Turkey has been active in youth diplomacy and is increasing its overseas representation by ensuring that the country’s youth are represented on an international level.

With the announcement of Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the abolishment of TEOG, the education system and new reforms have re-emerged on the political and social agenda. Amid critics, there is hope that the Ministry of National Education (MEB) is in desire to implement a system that treats students with justice. Considering the number of students within Turkey’s education system, it is highly difficult to find a solution that suits all. Ipek Coskun, Researcher at SETA spoke to Lacivert magazine in regards to recent developments in the education system in Turkey.

---

We see that there are series of changes implemented in the education system almost every year, which invoke criticism within the public. Why are these system changes implemented frequently? Why hasn’t Turkey been able to settle on an education system?

It should be expressed that it isn’t only Turkey that pursues such changes. Steps for change and innovation in education systems are being taken across the world. The important part is to determine what creates the need for change and the methodology in implementing such changes. At this point, the main issue that we need to discuss is not change, but rather “stability.”

A strong methodology should be followed in order to ensure and facilitate such stability. This methodology should be compatible with our local realities and contemporary global developments. While almost all who specialize in education think of reform when ‘methodology’ is mentioned, it should not be forgotten that Turkey underwent a grand reform in education four years ago with the prominent 4+4+4 mode, in which every child receives a 12 year-compulsory education. I think from now on, Turkey should focus on progressive elaboration based on the local reflections of the post 4+4+4 period. Therefore, hereafter, we need ‘restoration’ instead of ‘reform’ in the field of education. While we must facilitate stability by keeping our local realities at the center, we must also be on the watch for developments all around the world. Otherwise, trying to move a huge system will create fault lines. Failure would be inevitable in such a case. I mean you may develop strong national education policies, but all the changes you make may become clogged at the lowest level, for instance, by a teacher or a school administrator.

We need ‘restoration’ instead of ‘reform’ in the field of education.

Another point that needs to be emphasized is that in Turkey, not only in education but in other fields, change is perceived as the antithesis of tradition. Breaking from tradition in education brings only about a societal memory loss. What I mean by tradition is the change in the value of knowledge and definition over time. Our outlook on knowledge is still very pragmatic and opportunist, which is why knowledge that won’t be questioned in an exam is deemed worthless and useless. For instance, a student reading a story or novel instead of doing tests during his/her exam period is perceived as trash. If you ask me, it is not children, but teachers and parents who deem such valuable extra-curricular activities as useless.

Lastly, it is apparent that we need an educational aristocracy. I’m aware that the word aristocracy can come across as intimidating. However, I’m talking about a type of aristocracy that could facilitate stability and preserve tradition. We can say that there was such an aristocracy in the Republican era, but this was, unexpectedly, a position that was not in favor of diversity in Turkey. We would’ve expected them to set a stable foundation, yet they deepened ideological schisms. Thus, they rendered the system antipathetic, distancing it from an intellectual wealth. Now, we need educational aristocrats who are liberated from their ideological baggage. Respect to human beings and scientific endeavor are the prerequisites of this.

It is not children, but teachers and parents who deem valuable extra-curricular activities as useless.

The fact that the skills of children are determined through exam results is an issue that has been debated for many years. Spare time that children have is consumed by the said system and existing examinations. Recently, President Erdogan made a statement expressing that the Transition from Primary and Secondary Education (TEOG) examination is needless. How healthy are success rates determined by this kind of a system? What are your suggestions for developing an individual-centered education model?

Let’s start from the last question. As part of my job and study area, I work closely with students and teachers. Therefore, it is safe for me to say that I’m not a stranger to the children’s world. Moreover, I have nephews and nieces whose education I closely observe. For instance, one’s educational process is worthy of assessment. After living in the U.S. until school age, my nephew returned to Turkey, where he continued his education from primary school. He was a curious child who asked many questions and his questions were of a confounding kind. We tried to keep his inquisitive nature as intact as possible and always expressed that he should never resort to memorization.

He grew up, became an adolescent and more importantly he was to enter TEOG this year. Now, he has greater questions on his mind. I’m sure that TEOG couldn’t assess my nephew’s qualities; neither could the earlier exam models like High School Entrance Examination (OKS) or Placement Test (SBS). I’m not implying that my nephew is perfect or gifted; he is only one among more than a million peers. However, we are in need of a model that observes children not only through their academic achievements but also through their attitudes and behaviors. The only thing that gives us information about the profile of a student who is transitioning from 4^th to 5^th grade or from 8^th to 9^th grade is the scores students obtain from examinations. However, files should be prepared for each student and these files should be examined by their future teachers. While Turkey is in need of a more centralized system, only relying on this will do nothing but increase the number of overambitious students whose primary concern is how high they score on a test. In addition, it’s hard to design a model that would satisfy parents, teachers and students. As an educationalist I value once said, “Pedagogy cannot be built with pleasure.”

We need educational aristocrats that are liberated from their ideological baggage. Respect to human beings and scientific endeavor are the prerequisites of this.

When discussions about the abolition of TEOG begun, many families panicked. What would be your advice to families enduring this process?

I can understand what families are going through and they are rightfully stressful about this issue. At this point it is very important that families do not reflect this tension and exert pressure on their children. As there is always a kind of transition process between different levels of education, children should continue studying and families should encourage them to do so. These studies will inevitably be effective in improving their academic success at high school.

It is useful to remember that even before the debate on TEOG began, families had a love-hate relationship with the examination. This is still the case. There are two types of family profiles in this sense: those that attach a lot of meaning to examinations, and those that hate exams because of the stress they cause. For instance, while TEOG questions would not necessarily require students to resort to extra-school resources, as families began to race against each other, they made the process more challenging by buying extra books, sending their children to additional courses and by employing private tutors.

As I’ve expressed before, these common examinations are not as challenging as families claim them to be. This is reflected by the fact that there are thousands of students who achieve full score in TEOG. The Ministry of National Education did not design TEOG as a centralized examination, but rather wanted to hold a common written examination in Turkey. TEOG didn’t stress students as much as the earlier models like OKS or SBS did. Centralized exam systems have been applied in Turkey since the 1990s and one thing that I have observed is that families have become addicted to such systems. There are families who keep track of the number of tests their children complete daily. This situation within families is merely representative of early stress about university education, as there is a general belief that the first step in entering a good university is to attend a good high school. While they are not completely wrong, even if a child attends one of the best universities in Turkey, it is important not to overlook the ways in which this pressure will reflect on them and how they will turn out to be in the world of employment. Therefore, we should think in a multidimensional way. I believe families should also relieve themselves from their stress.

I believe families should relieve themselves from their stress.

In certain regions of the world, some parents don’t send their children to school and home-school them instead. Have you come across such examples in Turkey? Could this prove to be an alternative to the quandaries of the current system?

I don’t believe it would be a strong alternative, yet we could keep it as an option. Families could be granted with a wider area of action in this matter. As compulsory education in Turkey is 12 years, families attempt this kind of home-schooling models during pre-school education. However, it’s not possible to claim that this practice is widespread. Even if parents are not in employment, children being away from school for a couple of months is not desired by most parents – even the summer break becomes a crisis for many families. In this respect, I don’t believe home-schooling would be a preferred option.

I personally do not welcome a complete home-schooled education. However, we could discuss having certain courses being taught at home or at an alternative location. I don’t have any issues with schools assessing home-schooled students either. Nevertheless, a flexible model that could be substituted with being at school for 40 hours might be designed. For example, while arts such as painting and music can be taught at school, they can also be provided by outside municipalities.

It is about the right time to act in order to reform the United Nations instead of talking about reforming the UN, as has been the case since the mid-1990s. It is now common knowledge that there is something fundamentally wrong about the UN which was supposed to act as the trustee of peace, security, better conditions of living, and cooperation in the world after the Second World War. However, the UN system, with its vast body of institutional machinery and decision-making apparatus combined with a limited budget, has, although at a modest level, managed to better-off the world on a host of “soft” issues of international politics, ranging from codifying international law through support for refugees to educational and medical assistance to some countries in the Third World. Yet, on “hard” matters of international politics, such as war, aggression, militarization, and political coercion, the UN performance could at best be described as “disappointing”.

Indeed, if one looks into the UN through the window of the Security Council, the body entrusted with the task of ensuring international peace and security by virtue of its unlimited powers of decision-making and coercion, one is almost obliged to conceive this organization as an unpleasant leftover from the Cold War. Sadly, this “world body” no longer reflects the true aspirations of the community of nations and societies, especially in Asia and Africa. Under the silence gaze of the UN, many of these societies are beset by international and internecine wars, direct and indirect aggression from outside, poverty, widespread disease, armaments build-ups, war crimes and crimes against humanity, non-representative oppressive regimes, and severe violations of human rights.

The UN has lost its credibility as humanity’s most trusted guardian against aggression and oppression.

The UN has lost its credibility as humanity’s most trusted guardian against aggression and oppression. The permanent members in the Security Council have their own individual agenda, which is, more often than not, set by the dictates of national interests and geopolitical rivalries with other global and/or regional actors. Concerns for international law and justice, alas, play only a negligible role for these actors as we have seen, for instance, in the entire episode of the Palestinian tragedy and the deafening silence in the face of the killing fields of Assad’s Syria since 2011.

Of course, amending the Charter is a herculean task which, inter alia, explains why the UN reforms have not materialized after the Cold War. Indeed, according to Article 108 of the UN Charter, “Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.” This is another way of saying that; each and every permanent member of the Council is, to the disappointment of the world community, legally capable of sabotaging the reform of the UN. However, this is a task from which not even permanent members can escape for long without harming their reputation and credibility.

The reforms should begin with the lifting of the veto privilege for permanent members.

The reforms should begin with the lifting of the veto privilege for permanent members. Besides, a reshuffling of the UN Security Council should, at least, involve the addition of new (permanent) members. In addition to considering states with a huge population and economic clout, as in the case of India and Brazil, there needs to be representation in regards to the Muslim world that consists of 1.7 billion people. Two possible formulas may be offered for this purpose: first, a member state of the Islamic Cooperation Organization (ICO) may be assigned this task by this body on rotating principle; second, the ICO may confer this task to a respected Muslim statesman on an agenda set by the same.

In the likelihood of a comprehensive amendment of the UN Charter, the powers of the General Assembly ought to be enhanced so that this, most representative of UN bodies, has greater say in matters of war, peace and aggression. All the UN member states are also members of the General Assembly and have equal weight based on the principle of one state-one vote. The debates in the Assembly are conducted in the open which suggests that bargaining behind closed doors and elements of coercion by strong actors are less plausible in this organ compared to the Security Council in which only 10 provisional members are represented in the face of five permanent members with veto powers. By virtue of reforms, the veto power in the Security Council ought to be lifted considering that a veto cast by a permanent member against the wishes of the rest-14 on a proposed resolution, spoils the whole process. The veto is a sure recipe for deadlocks and stagnation in the Security Council.

The reforms should also ensure that the UN Security Council decisions imposing sanctions or military enforcement action against an allegedly peace-violating state ought to be submitted to the Assembly in order to ensure that the motion gets the consent of the General Assembly by a two-thirds majority. This is a must in order that the Council (or, rather, some permanent members) is not accused of adopting a politically-motivated posture intended to serve a particular foreign policy objective. As a representative and transparent body, the seal of approval by the Assembly is almost certain to convince the world public opinion that a given “effective” Security Council resolution is legally sound, legitimate and fair. Another measure of caution against politically-motivated Security Council resolutions should be the judicial review of the (binding) Council resolutions by the International Court of Justice. If a particular motion, when put into action, is, for instance, likely to constitute a breach of the fundamental purposes and principles of the UN Charter (1945) or lead to crimes against humanity, it should be declared null and void by the Court.

The reform of the UN should be deemed incomplete without touching on the authority of the Economic and Social Council.

The reform of the UN should be deemed incomplete without touching on the authority of the Economic and Social Council, the UN body that is tasked to deal with economic and social issues as well as with human rights. This representative body of 54 states, elected by the General Assembly, lacks the requisite binding authority, although poverty, global inequality and human rights count as the most pressing global problems hindering peace. Therefore, this organ ought to be given extra powers so that it issues binding legislation and decisions in the said key areas.

We should not fail to note that the Muslim world has become a prime victim of the UN security system in the aftermath of the Cold War. The hopes for a much safer world have unfortunately been dashed by the US and some other permanent members bent on subjugating and controlling the riches and political potentiality of the Muslim world by the misuse of the Security Council. The Security Council has thus become another brick in the wall of the geopolitical exclusion of the Muslim world. This has led me to call this bitter contradiction between the expected role of the UN and the reality of imperial subjugation, from global security to global hegemony^*, in reference to the UN Security Council treatment of the Muslim world since the 1990s.

All in all, the UN system needs to undergo a comprehensive overhaul in order to make it more workable and beneficial for humanity. The permanent members of the Council should be part of the solution, and not the problem. If they stubbornly stick to their previous position, they are likely to find that the UN has become a political irrelevancy for the rest of the world community in the years to come.

*This is actually the title of my latest book, in which I investigate the troubled relationship between the Muslim world and the UN security system particularly after the Cold War, Küresel Güvenlikten Küresel Tahakküme: BM Güvenlik Sistemi ve İslam Dünyası, (Küre, 2016).

During her time at the UN General Assembly, British Prime Minister Theresa May urged for UN reform.

The Prime Minister threatened to hold back 30 percent of her country’s UN contributions unless the world body undertakes relevant reform.

“If this system that we have created is found to no longer be capable of meeting the challenges of our time, then there will be a crisis of faith in multilateralism and global cooperation that will damage the interests of our peoples,” May said before the General Assembly in New York.

The UK is the second largest UN funder and May stated that the withheld funds will be dispersed “only to those parts of the UN that achieve sufficient results.”

“Despite our best efforts, we are not succeeding. We must do more,” she said, urging for reform.

May praised the UN-centric international system, calling it “the amplifying force that allows countries to cooperate and live up to these standards in words, spirit and deed.”

However, in pointing out its shortcomings, May pointed her finger to Russia when she called out a Security Council member who she said has used its veto power as many times in the past five years as during the second half of the Cold War.

“In so doing, they have prevented action against a despicable regime that has murdered its people with chemical weapons,” she said. “As a result, in Syria, the United Nations has been blocked.”

No, Theresa

During her stay at New York, Theresa May also raised the issue of Iran’s nuclear weapon program with President Trump.

The US President refused to share with world leaders his final decision on whether to scrap an international agreement made with Iran on its nuclear program, Rex Tillerson told reporters on Wednesday.

When asked by British PM to share his decision on the deal with Tehran, the US President accordingly “said no.”

Secretary Tillerson looked surprised when a reporter informed him that the President had already told the press that he had arrived at a final decision, signaling the disconnect between the head of state and a top diplomat – a problem the Trump administration has faced since the beginning of the President’s tenure.

“I didn’t know he was going to say he made a decision,” Tillerson said. “I knew he had, but I didn’t known he was going to say he had.”

Tillerson held the press briefing following a meeting with the parties to the deal, known officially as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

Secretary Tillerson further conceded that reports from the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), “continue to confirm that Iran is in technical compliance with the agreement.”

He added that however in the broader context, “the aspirations” of the deal had not been met.

During his first UN address as President, Trump unleashed a stern rebuke of Iran, calling it a “rogue regime” and that the nuclear deal was “an embarrassment to the United States.”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani retaliated during his address at the General Assembly on Wednesday by calling Trump a “rogue newcomer to the world of politics,” without naming him.

Ahead of the 72^nd session of the United Nations General Assembly, President Erdogan, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Deputy Prime Minister Recep Akdag and Chief of the General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces Hulusi Akar have begun their visits in New York.

Rohingya

In spite of crimes that are taking place in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, Turkey has led the effort in humanitarian aid. With delivering aid through the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA), assisted by First Lady Emine Erdogan, Turkey has delivered 1.000 ton of aid to the Rohingya Muslims.

While official figures are unknown, it has been reported that over 400,000 Rohingya have crossed the border to Bangladesh. While the de facto leader of Myanmar, a former Noble Peace recipient, Aung San Suu Kyi announced that she will miss the UN General Assembly as criticism on her handling of the Rohingya crisis grows, President Erdogan is expected to deliver a speech highlighting the attempt of ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, urging the international community to get to action.

Erdogan: UN in need of structural reform

During the groundbreaking ceremony for the building of new Turkevi (Turkish House) center in New York, President Erdogan highlighted in his speech that the UN needs “structural reform” in order to make it more inclusive and ensure that it is able to fulfill its mission towards world peace.

“Despite all it shortcomings, the UN remains the sole global umbrella organization where everyone can make their voices heard and seek solutions to their problems,” the President said. “However, the world is not the world during which the UN was founded.” Erdogan stated that the structure of what is arguably the most impactful UN organ, the Security Council, is unjust, resulting in a global organization that is unable to perform its duties as a vanguard of world peace.

“The UN needs to be reformed so that it can adapt to a changing world,” Erdogan said. “Today, reforming the UN is on the agenda. However, that reform is not what we understand from the word ‘reform.’”

His speech at Turkevi was referring to a reform-themed meeting on Monday at the onset of the UN General Assembly attended by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump, who had promised UN reform as one of the goals of his four year tenure said during the meeting that the organization suffered from “bureaucracy and mismanagement.”

Erdogan has on numerous occasions said “the world is bigger than five”, a reference to the five permanent Security Council members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

P5 countries have abused their veto power to defend national interests, rendering the UN dysfunctional in face of global crisis. The most recent example has been the Syrian war, which has continued for 7 years, and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions.

 

Since the 2000s, Turkey has been one of the vocal advocates of UN Security Council reform, focusing on representativeness, effectiveness and the accountability issues. One should note here that Turkey’s criticism towards the UN system and calls for reform is hardly new; Turkey began to express its discontent with the workings of the UN right after its establishment in 1945. Accordingly, Turkish authorities did not hesitate to express the need for an urgent UN reform during and after the Cold War era. However, since the 2000s, Ankara has been more willing to take an active role in the UN in general and the UNSC in particular. Accordingly, Turkish authorities voice loudly in many platforms that the UN system is outmoded, while a profound change is under way in world politics.In parallel with their predecessors, the AK Party rulers raise, on every possible occasion, the demand for a more representative UN Security Council. They target not only the issue of representativeness, but also the Security Council’s failure to respond effectively to humanitarian crises like the recent debacle in Syria. Ankara’s criticism towards the current UN order is best symbolized in Turkish President Erdoğan’s statement: “the world is bigger than five.” Ankara has been critical of the UN also for its inability to adequately support the developmental needs of impoverished nations. In particular, Turkey has asked the UN to concentrate more on all issues related to human rights and development.

Turkey’s criticism towards the UN system has evolved into concrete reform suggestions in the last decade.

Turkey’s criticism towards the UN system has evolved into concrete reform suggestions in the last decade. Two documents are worth mentioning in terms of Turkey’s posture towards the reform debate. Firstly, on 26 July, 2005, Turkey co-sponsored the Uniting for Consensus plan in the UN General Assembly, together with eleven other members. The plan suggested a reformed Security Council which would consist of 20 elected members, serving for a two-year term, in addition to the five permanent members. According to Turkey’s reform proposal, the General Assembly would elect twenty other members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, based on, in the first instance, their contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security as well as to the other purposes of the Organization with an equitable geographical distribution. The Uniting for Consensus plan also called for improving the Council’s working methods in a transparent, inclusive, and accountable manner, including restraint on the use of the veto; procedures to ensure transparency in decision-making; accountability in performance and access to information.

Secondly, The Turkish Foreign Ministry’s 2007 report, called “Turkey’s Priorities for the 62th Session of UN General Assembly,” was remarkable in terms of documenting Turkey’s priorities and expectations from the UN across a broad spectrum. For Ankara, a comprehensive reform of the UN System cannot be completed without a reform of the Security Council. This document also reconfirmed that an expansion of the non-permanent members of the Security Council would better reflect the principle of sovereign equality. More importantly, Ankara made it clear that “Turkey attaches utmost importance to the effective functioning of the United Nations.”

Turkey’s current challenge to the international order is reform-oriented, rather than anti-systemic.

Thus Turkey’s current challenge to the international order is reform-oriented, rather than anti-systemic. From the political cosmopolitan point of view, the UN is definitely not the best, but the only available global platform that approximates the universality of norms and values. The first decade of the 2000s illustrated that Turkey has significant potential to play a bigger role in the UN platform by combining its new foreign policy vision with its long-lasting commitment to the founding principles of the United Nations, as well as its traditional foreign policy principle of “peace at home and peace in the world.”

Turkish rulers should critically and comparatively access the prospects and the limitations of the Turkish foreign policy at the United Nations during the first decade of the 2000s with that of the second one, in which Ankara lost the UN Security Council non-permanent membership for the 2015-2016 period. Turkey is one of the few states with both the potential and the vision to extend the global order that represents the vast majority of the nations. In a world that is increasingly shaped by fragmentation, it has become much more critical for states like Turkey to be more “cautious” in terms of foreign policy choices towards issues on both the regional and global scale. As one of the founding members of the UN, Turkey will continue to keep the UN at the center of its increasing efforts in search for an effective, accountable, representative and legitimate international order.