Turkey has been seeking a new status in international politics for some time. President Erdogan’s speech this week at the UN General Assembly in New York has made this crystal clear. In his speech President Erdogan alleged that the UN had lost its credibility due to the members of the Security Council avoiding their responsibilities such as providing stability, security, and peace. He implied that despite the great powers occupying seats of leadership in international institutions that are responsible for global governance, they seem to be reluctant to honor those responsibilities that fall on the shoulders of a leader.

Erdogan pointed that the current international system suffers a leadership problem. In a nutshell, whereas the U.S. has started to take an isolationist turn in its foreign policy by declaring the end of globalization and the liberal international order, the European powers and emerging powers such as China and Russia are only concerned with protecting their own national security. Nobody seems to take responsibility for common issues and help the societies that are unable to solve their security and humanitarian problems on their own.

After pinpointing this problem of leadership, President Erdogan offered a solution that incorporates redefining the global leadership. In an article written for Foreign Policy, which is compiled out of his speech at the UN General Assembly, he declared that “We must end the monopoly of a small number of nations and promote the collective leadership of countries that aim to resolve key global challenges. If the great powers prove unwilling or unable to act, the community of nations—under the umbrella of the United Nations or other organizations—must do what is necessary.” More specifically, he offered that the permanent membership in the UN Security Council should be abolished, the number of its members should be increased to 20 and in this new structure all nations should take turns sitting on the committee.

He argued that one of the members of that community of nations is Turkey. He posited that although Turkey is not a great power with regards to its military and economic capabilities, it has become a global power by taking part in the solution process of Iraq, Syria and many other places. More, Turkey hosts 4 million refugees and is among the top donors of humanitarian aid. All these entitle Turkey to claim a great power status.

In sum, President Erdogan asks for two things. One is that the main institutions that are responsible for keeping current international order afloat should be reformed in order to be able to accommodate rising powers such as Turkey, India, Brazil, and Germany. Only after this is done can the existing international institutions become relevant. Secondly, given its eagerness to take responsibility for international peace and security, Turkey should be recognized and treated as a great power. And more importantly, Turkey and other powers which are excluded from decision-making processes in the international institutions have all the right to build up new institutions to handle global governance if the great powers do not take any meaningful step to reform the existing ones.

Indeed, Turkey has undergone a fundamental transformation in its domestic politics. It has eliminated its authoritarian elite rule which had kept the country feeble and dependent on the global centers of power and replaced it with a popular democratic rule. This process of democratization in the domestic realm has increased Turkey’s demand for autonomy in international politics. This demand for autonomy has shaped around the claim for a new status in international politics. The question of whether Turkey will live up to its claim of being a great power in coming years is as interesting as the question of how the Western world and other great powers will accommodate “new” Turkey.

Egypt’s President Abdel Fattah Al-Sisi made his fifth appearance at the United Nations General Assembly. He has become the first Egyptian president to participate in the UN General Assembly for five consecutive years. In his speech he made during the General Assembly, Sisi focused on the changes in the Arab world and the human rights issues.

Despite Egypt’s well-known record on human rights infringements, Sisi absurdly stated, “Egypt has a solid constitutional foundation for the protection of human rights.” The fact that an individual who toppled a democratically elected President through a military coup and who has an extensive record on human rights abuses was lecturing about human rights at the UNGA was shocking for many. This was an additional insult for the many Egyptians who have and who still currently suffer from the Sisi state’s repression.

Despite his autocratic rule, Sisi has been regarded as a legitimate political leader. Western actors, who have supported Sisi without bringing any criticism to his human rights violations, can be blamed for the suffering of the Egyptian people at the hands of a brutal regime. Countries such as the U.K, U.S., Germany, France, and Italy have behaved as if a military coup never took place in Egypt, as if thousands of civilians were not taken into prison for years and as if opposition activists have not suddenly disappeared. This attitude has been a major factor that has encouraged Sisi to turning into a more authoritarian regime. In opposition to this, Turkey has been the only democratic government that has criticized the Sisi regime on every occasion.

The meetings Sisi conducted during the UNGA also attract attention. One of these meetings was with U.S. President Donald Trump. Since the start of Trump’s presidency in January 2017, this has been the fifth meeting between the two. The frequency of bilateral meetings also reflect the sign of strong cooperation between the two governments. This is also understood from the statements made by Trump during the meetings. While praising Sisi’s efforts in combating terrorism and instability in Egypt, Trump labelled his relations with Sisi as the “strongest” ever in the history of relations between the U.S. and Egypt. Trump also added that he would continue to work with Sisi on different fields such as military, trade, and fight against terrorism.

Trump has attributed special importance to Sisi for two main reasons. The first is that Egypt plays a major role in Israel’s security, and second, Egypt has a vital place in the Middle East policies of the U.S. These two issues are in essence closely related to each other. As a matter of fact, it can be argued that Washington’s main objective in the Middle East is to ensure the security of Israel. Trump’s close relations with Egypt can be considered in the light of this dynamic. With a regional alliance centered on Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Trump aims to control the leading countries of the Arab world, thus preventing possible threats to Israel.

Sisi’s second note-worthy meeting was with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. During this two-hour meeting, the two leaders exchanged views on recent developments in Palestine and exchanged views on Middle East politics. This was the third meeting held between the two leaders since September 2017. Sisi and Netanyahu held their first public meeting at the UN General Assembly last year.

In May 2018, Netanyahu organized a secret trip to Egypt, where he met with Sisi as part of the ceasefire talks between Hamas and Israel. Netanyahu’s visit to Cairo took place after the U.S. moved its embassy in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. During the days of the visit, Israeli police were busy attacking Palestinian protesters who opposed Trump’s decision to move the U.S. embassy. It is also important to note that Sisi was in total silence in the face of the Palestinians that were killed during the clashes with Israeli police forces.

Sisi’s frequent meetings with Trump and Netanyahu reveal that Egypt is under the full control of the U.S. and Israel, particularly with regards to their policies in the Middle East. It is fair to argue that the Egyptian regime does not represent the will and consent of the public but that it functions under the guidance of Washington and Tel-Aviv. This is not a new phenomenon. This began with the rule of Hosni Mubarak and continued for three decades until the revolution of 2011. The Morsi period was in contrast with this political landscape, as the Morsi government tried to follow an independent foreign policy in line with the direction of Egypt’s public opinion. However, this period was short-lived and the military coup on July 3, 2013, paved the way for Egypt to re-enter into U.S. and Israeli guidance.