The speeches delivered by world leaders on the 73rd anniversary of the United Nations in New York City proved once again that the UN is not capable of addressing the issues of international politics comprehensively. There was no common discourse regarding international terrorism, there was no common understanding of global security issues, and more importantly, there was no common agenda to reform the current UN structure.

We witnessed the fall of multilateral discourse and ignorance towards the fault lines of world politics. The problem here is not solely related to the organizational structure of the UN per se. Instead, the problems lie at the very nature of international politics, which have been under fundamental transformation particularly since the end of the Cold War.

International politics is becoming more fragmented, more competitive and more unpredictable. The Trumpian understanding of international politics deepens the ongoing crises around the world and causes uncertainty.

The UN was initially established to construct an international society mobilized around the idea of universal values to protect shared humanitarian norms and prevent conflicts. “The UN was not created to take humanity to heaven but to save it from hell;” the former United Nations Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold once said. Since the Cold War, however, the UN has not been successful in delivering peace, stability, and security in the international system. More importantly, the UN as a universal supranational organization has been ineffective and unproductive in dealing with global security issues.

At the very end of the Cold War, Francis Fukuyama put forth the argument that the universalization of Western liberal democracy might be the final form of human government surpassing socialist views. He underlined that there was no other alternative socio-political system against the western countries that can console their superiority in the international order. Therefore, non-western societies were obliged to move toward the West and eventually embrace the western way of thinking.

However, Fukuyama’s the end of history thesis failed to predict the very nature of international politics, particularly its changing dynamics. The continuation of ethnic, religious, and sectarian conflicts across the world, the changing dynamics of international terrorism and the emergence of various global terrorist groups such as DAESH proved that the history did not end, and the west is not the only direction that the non-western societies have to look up to.

The Trump administration’s anti-globalist, nationalist, protectionist and well-established white supremacist rhetoric provokes us to rethink about the UN. The U.S. at the end of World War II created the UN, but today the U.S. itself is destroying it.

The problems are not only related to the U.S. perception of international politics and the UN’s role. The other powerful member-states are also responsible for the decreasing role of the UN in creating a more stable position in international politics. Russia, China, the U.K., and France are the same when it comes to building a shared sense regarding the role of the UN. More importantly, these states are responsible for creating instabilities. The Syrian Civil War is a textbook example to see the inefficiencies of the UN.

Even though the Assad regime has been disregarding principles of the UN Charter by using chemical weapons, barrel bombs and other internationally banned weapons against civilians since the beginning of the uprising in the country, the UN Security Council could not come up with any solution. The structure of the UNSC is influenced by the priorities of the five countries in regards to the Syrian Civil War in particular, the Middle East, and the rest of the world in general. As President Erdogan repeatedly underlines, the five permanent member states of the Security Council hold the will of the oppressed people in Syria.

The current organizational structure of the UN and the power-sharing mechanism do not represent an accurate geopolitical picture of international politics. The rise of new power centers and emerging regional actors should also be included in the decision making processes at the UN. There are no Muslim countries represented in the decision-making process.

The UN General Assembly recently condemned the U.S. decision on Al-Quds, but the veto power of the U.S. in the Security Council prevents the international society to rage against the pro-Israeli decision. Therefore, it is possible to argue that the existing UN structure will not only solve the crisis but also deepen the crisis towards a more radical line.

As can be seen in the case of the Syrian Civil War, the UN cannot even act timely to prevent a humanitarian disaster, and it is not effective in protecting human life from state violence. As President Erdogan underlined in his speech at the UNGA, the UN could only provide Turkey with 700 million USD to improve the conditions of refugees that Turkey is currently hosting.

In order to start a new initiative for UN reform, the UNGA should question President Trump’s speech as it reveals the main issues with the UN, and then, should refer to President Erdogan’s statements as a baseline to start thinking about its structure and possible reforms.

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.

During the vote on a resolution proposed to the United Nations General Assembly on December 21, 2017, which condemned U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to declare Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, we witnessed the triumph of humanity’s conscience over power in spite of all threats coming from the U.S. administration.

While an overwhelming majority of U.N. member states who attended the vote voted in favor of the resolution, dismissing Trump’s decision as null and void, only seven countries alongside the U.S. and Israel voted against the resolution. These seven states include four small countries located in the Pacific, Togo in Africa and Guatemala and Honduras in the U.S., which is a clear demonstration of the extent to which Washington and Israel have become isolated in world politics in relation to this decision.

Many comments can be made upon the proposed resolution, and a great deal have been made already. However, it is important to assess the meaning of the resolution in regards to U.S. hegemony in international politics.

The decision drawn from the U.N. General Assembly is the accomplishment of Palestine, Yemen and Turkey, who brought the issue to the agenda of the organization. Turkey exerted serious and determined diplomatic efforts in order to enable support for the draft resolution despite pressure from Washington. Ankara’s position on this issue is a tangible result of “the world is bigger than five” discourse, which has been repeatedly asserted by the Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In other words, the Jerusalem issue became a platform in which Turkey was able to utilize its long-standing discourse of objecting to the privileged positions of certain U.N. members who hamper solutions for international conflicts – initially going against the main reason why the organization was established. Turkey addressed the conscience of the international community and achieved to impose substantial political pressure on the Trump administration by conveying the draft that was vetoed by the U.S. at the U.N. Security Council to the U.N. General Assembly, which has a relatively fairer decision-making mechanism.

Apart from Muslim countries, major components of the Western alliance such as France, Germany, Britain and Italy voted in favor of the resolution, which is reflective of the fact that Europe has been experiencing a divergence in the face of the Trump administration. By supporting the resolution, European leaders uncomfortable with Trump’s “I say I do” mentality, not only underlined their discomfort but also stood against the U.S. President’s decision to drag the Middle East into greater chaos. Unlike the United States, the European Union neighbors the Islamic world through the Middle East and North Africa, and therefore the bloc tends to refrain from taking steps that would lead to a crisis in current relations. This does not change the fact that most of the European countries side with Israel in the Arab-Israeli conflict – they just prefer to do this without causing a stir like Trump.

Aside from opting to use military and economic power, another fact revealed by the U.N. General Assembly’s Jerusalem decision is that diplomacy can be a very effective tool in international relations. Although the U.S. – the greatest military and economic power in the world – tried to intimidate U.N. members, it only received support from seven countries. This very fact demonstrates the extent to which diplomacy can be influential against power-bullying.

Many Christian countries supported the resolution much more than a number of Muslim countries. This illustrates that forming various alliances within foreign policy is a more functional approach in comparison to a standard generalized point of view. In this framework, Turkey achieved what the U.S. – who has immense diplomatic power – could not do. Through its effective diplomatic efforts, Ankara managed to gain support from other leading countries across the world on the issue of Jerusalem, thus leaving Washington to squabble in a substantial political defeat.

It is reasonable to assert that as long as Washington maintains its arrogance and as long as other countries continue to stand against this attitude, the Jerusalem issue may possibly bring the end of U.S. hegemony. If Muslim countries end the conflicts between them and join forces around the issue of Jerusalem, they can stabilize U.S. military and economic power, and if they form alliances against the arrogant policies of Washington, they will suffice to bring the end of American hegemony in world politics and will find themselves respectful positions in the new system.