The 74th session of the U.N. General Assembly Tuesday was moved by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's address. In his 35-minute speech, Erdoğan boldly questioned the function of this giant organization and the very foundation it was built on. "While a lucky minority in the world is discussing digital technology, robots, artificial intelligence and obesity, it is very sad that more than 2 billion people live below the poverty line and about 1 billion people suffer from acute hunger. We cannot turn our backs to the fact that none of us can be safe if each of us is not safe. For years, I have been saying at this platform that the fate of humanity cannot be left to the choices of a limited number of states. I reiterate here, in your presence, that the world is bigger than five. It is high time to change our minds, our institutions and our rules," said Erdoğan. This problem, which Erdoğan has spoken out against on all platforms at the U.N. for years, is truly an anomaly.
There are 193 member countries in the U.N. In reality, however, only the will of the five U.N. Security Council members – the U.S., China, Russia, France and the U.K. – is reflected in the administration in real sense. Even if 192 countries agree on one issue, if one of them says no, the U.N. cannot take a step on serious issues.
Even the fact that not one of these countries with a veto is from the Islamic world, which has an estimated 1.8 billion people, brings the legitimacy of the U.N.'s decisions into question.
As it stands, the U.N. cannot move beyond a platform where the issues and the states' mission of peacekeeping are discussed and then cooled down.
There have been numerous genocides, massacres and invasions – in Bosnia, Rwanda, Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia – that the U.N. has so far turned a blind eye to, sat back and watched, or been late for.
However, the organization's effective institutions, such as the Security Council, can be shaped by a more pluralistic approach. In doing so, great benefits can be obtained from the giant organization in many areas, such as peace building, a fairer share of welfare, refugee issues and environmental problems. So, its bulky structure can change and its functionality and capacity for a solution can improve.
However, it is weird that this legitimate democratic demand, which has been voiced loudly only by Turkey in recent years, does not receive the support it deserves. Big states and nations linger at the marble halls of the U.N. like pariahs without the right to vote. Apparently, none of them are bothered by the fact that dynasties in the U.N. kingdom rule the world, which is said to have moved to democracy after World War II.
In the meantime, the state of the central media, nongovernmental organizations and activists who say that they work for global democracy, peace and justice is no less pathetic.
Nowadays they seem to be more interested in the grievances of 16-year-old Greta than Erdoğan's concrete and simple solutions for deadlocks. It is as if we only applaud this Swedish child's call "not to ruin the nature," - which none of us objects to, enough then things will come magically back on to the rails.
How long will you continue to play ostrich in the face of the cry that "the world is bigger than five" by Turkey, the country that allocates a larger share of its budget than other countries for humanitarian aid in the world despite the many troubles it faces?