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.

Last week, German Foreign Minister (SPD) Heiko Maas first visited Israel, where he engaged in fixing out current Germany-Israel relations, and subsequently the United Nations in New York, for promoting Germany’s candidacy for a non-permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) for the 2019-2020 term. The UN’s highest council consists of 5 permanent members, which are the U.S., Russia, China, France and Great Britain and 10 non-permanent members elected by the UN General Assembly for two year terms. The next non-permanent members will be elected on June 8, and Germany will compete against Belgium and Israel for one of two open seats in the group of Western Europe.

In contrast to previous Foreign Minister Gabriel, Maas did not address controversial issues during his trip such as Israel’s illegal settlement policy or the unilateral recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital – even though German politicians were not shy to address these topics a couple of months ago. Ultimately, besides diplomatic gestures and balancing acts, Maas preferred not to mention current conflicts.

A couple of days later he visited New York to promote his country’s candidacy for a non-permanent seat on the UNSC. According to Maas, “Germany is ready and willing to shoulder greater responsibility.” It’s obvious that this approach has ultimately been a general trend of German foreign policy discourse for some time. Given the current transatlantic challenges since the Trump administration, it’s not the first time that a high-profile German politician stressed a so-called greater role and “responsibility” of Germany in global politics. Just to remember, during a speech in December 2017, former Foreign Minister Gabriel had stated that Germany is required to defend her own interests more self-confidently and that she has to take a more active role in global politics.

In May 2017, CDU leader and Chancellor Merkel had also argued that Germany needs a foreign policy less dependent on the U.S. Furthermore, the former non-partisan German President Gauck, former Foreign Minister from the SPD (and current President) Steinmeier and Defense Minister von der Leyen (CDU) also called for a more active Germany in world politics at the 2014 Munich Security Conference. Hence, from Germany’s point of view, a new non-permanent membership on the UNSC could be a convenient instrument for extending those ambitions.

However, while Germany aims to become a non-permanent member of the UNSC, Israel also does the same – though with one difference. While Germany was on the UNSC six times, last in the 2011/2012 term, Israel has never been on the council since 1948. Consequently, Israeli voices asked Germany to step aside for its “partner.” Some opinions even accuse Germany’s candidacy as “a shameless, clueless, cynical power play against the Jewish state.”

Germany though rejects these kinds of criticisms and any other potential deal. Even though Maas stressed, “Germany is not running against anyone; but for a seat,” it seems quite obvious that the Foreign Minister made some tactical moves during his Israel trip. Namely, in the form of not mentioning conflictual issues by expecting to prevent a possible public dispute focusing on both countries’ UNSC seat application.

Germany though rejects these kinds of criticisms and any other potential deal. Even though Maas stressed that “Germany is not running against anyone; but for a seat,” it seems quite obvious that the Foreign Minister made some tactical moves during his Israel trip. Namely, in the form of not mentioning bilateral conflict issues by expecting to prevent a possible public dispute focusing on both countries’ UNSC seat application.

It seems that Germany considers underscoring its current “active foreign policy” discourse through a UNSC seat. It’s obvious that this new and more global responsibility seeking German self-perception cannot be reduced to one specific political party, but rather a long-term state policy. As one of the major worldwide donors to the UN’s budget, Germany is currently closer for a new non-permanent UNSC membership than Israel. Arguments from pro-Israeli circles that seem surprised by Germany’s candidacy will most likely fail to convince Germans and the global audience. In addition, Germany wants to persuade the global audience by stressing its military engagement in various countries under the umbrella of NATO and the UN – despite the fact that the German army is currently insufficiently equipped.

The idea that this likely new term will help Germany to “be involved in tackling the biggest challenges to peace and security” is actually an exaggerated expectation. While it would be interesting, we are unlikely to witness a Germany that demands extending the veto right for new members at the UNSC, as had been the case in 2004 by the former German chancellor at that time.

As the numbers of Rohingya Muslims fleeing Myanmar reach more than 600,000, the UN Security Council met yet another failure on the issue on Monday.

Myanmar’s neighbor and permanent member of the Security Council, China, blocked a resolution condemning the violence of Rakhine state, Myanmar against Rohingya Muslims. The resolution was backed by the U.S., U.K. and France. Security Council failure comes as the latest dash for Rohingyas who are facing state purge and ethnic cleansing in their home country that denies them recognition.

Rohingya is the latest question on international conscience that has incessantly chosen to give precedence to state interests over morality.

In spite of the veto, in a unanimous statement the Council called on the Myanmar administration to allow Rohingya Muslims to return to their homes from neighboring Bangladesh, which has been sheltering the refugees since the outbreak of the crisis in August this year.

The Security Council also condemned the violence inflicted upon poor Rohingyas, expressing “grave concerns” over human rights violations against the Rohingya such as killing, sexual violence and burning of homes and property.

Asking the Myanmar government to halt further “excessive” use of military force in Rakhine state, the council called for restoration of civilian administration and for the application of the rule of law.

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.