The 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly convened this year under the theme "Restoring Trust and Managing Transformation.” In fact, the theme alone captures the condition of the contemporary international system.

The fundamental problem today is not simply the growing number of wars. It is also the gradual erosion of confidence among states, societies, and even international organizations in the existing order's ability to resolve the crises confronting it. From Gaza to Ukraine, from Iran and Lebanon to Sudan, and from climate change to the governance of artificial intelligence, seemingly unrelated issues increasingly converge on the same question: Can institutions created in 1945 govern the world of 2026?

We probably already know much of the answer. We increasingly see a U.N. whose room for maneuver has narrowed and an international mechanism that, in many crises, seems more capable of recording developments than resolving them.

This does not mean that the U.N. has become irrelevant. On the contrary, this is precisely where the problem begins. The U.N. remains one of the principal platforms of international legitimacy, diplomatic representation and multilateralism. Yet its ability to produce decisions, and more importantly, to ensure their implementation, has become increasingly contested.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s address to the UNGA should therefore be understood within this broader framework. What Erdoğan is saying is not new. Türkiye’s criticism of the representational structure of the U.N. Security Council has become increasingly pronounced over roughly the past two decades. Erdoğan has repeatedly argued that UNSC reform is directly related to the legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness of the U.N. The institutional background of the critique now identified with the phrase "The world is bigger than five” lies precisely here. The real question, therefore, is this: What changed at the 81st UNGA, and what has remained essentially the same?

World is bigger than five

What remains unchanged is relatively clear. The distribution of power at the center of the international system still largely reflects the conditions of 1945. The five permanent members of the UNSC retain their veto privileges, while the broader membership of the UNGA lacks comparable decision-making power on critical questions of international peace and security.

Gaza, Ukraine and other contemporary crises have once again exposed this structural contradiction. The world is changing, centers of power are multiplying, and the economic and political weight of the Global South is increasing, yet the institutional architecture of global decision-making is not transforming at the same pace. This is why Türkiye’s critique of the international system has taken on a broader meaning. "The world is bigger than five” is no longer merely a criticism directed at the Security Council. It is increasingly becoming a wider objection to the concentration of power in the hands of a limited number of actors across different fields of global governance.

During his UNGA visit, Erdoğan identified several principles: International law should not be applied differently to strong and weak actors; regional ownership should be activated when international mechanisms become blocked; open diplomacy should return to the center of interstate relations; common development and connectivity should be strengthened; and technological transformation should not produce a new form of global hegemony. The underlying logic is straightforward: The stability of one cannot ultimately be separated from the stability of others. Stability for one increasingly means stability for all.

Justice for Palestine

The Palestinian issue has become one of the most visible examples of this systemic crisis. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas could not travel to New York for the second consecutive year because the United States did not grant him a visa. This situation reveals a paradox: Palestine holds observer state status at the U.N. and supports over 150 country leaders speaking; however, because of the host country's visa decision, Abbas cannot be in the hall. Erdoğan also openly criticized this situation from the U.N. podium and called on countries that have not yet recognized Palestine to do so.

The United Kingdom, France and Canada recognized the State of Palestine in 2025. French President Emmanuel Macron described the continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank as a "direct and urgent threat” to the two-state solution. From the U.N. podium, he argued that recognition alone is no longer sufficient and that its credibility would inevitably be questioned if the international community continued to remain passive in the face of developments in Gaza.

At this point, one important observation comes to mind. The positions Türkiye has defended for years – the recognition of a Palestinian state, the preservation of the two-state solution, and the consistent application of international law to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – are now finding a broader resonance among Western actors. This does not mean that these actors have simply adopted Türkiye’s policy line. Yet it does indicate that arguments Ankara has persistently raised are increasingly entering the mainstream of international diplomacy.

Despite everything, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu could once again appear at the same U.N. podium. But this time, the image was at least different. As he began his speech, dozens of national delegations left the General Assembly Hall. The political meaning of the partially emptied chamber was unmistakable. It demonstrated that the debate was no longer limited to criticism of Israeli policy in diplomatic statements; dissatisfaction had become visible in the physical space of the U.N. itself.

Netanyahu also directly targeted Türkiye and President Erdoğan in his speech. Türkiye did not leave these accusations unanswered. But it did not respond at the presidential level. It did not respond through the foreign minister. It did not even elevate the response to the permanent representative level. Instead, Türkiye exercised its right of reply through a third secretary. This detail matters. In diplomacy, protocol can sometimes carry a stronger message than a lengthy political statement. Who delivers a response can be as important as what is actually said. Türkiye’s message was therefore both firm and carefully calibrated: The allegations would not go unanswered, but Netanyahu would not be drawn into a direct confrontation at the highest political level.

This is where Türkiye’s approach can once again be understood through the concept of stability diplomacy. Firmness does not necessarily require escalation. Determination does not require closing every diplomatic channel. A state can respond strongly while still controlling the level, language, and institutional form of that response.

Climate diplomacy, AI governance

Türkiye also placed climate change, artificial intelligence (AI), digital inequality and technological governance at the center of its U.N. discourse. This matters because "The world is bigger than five” can no longer be limited to the structure of the UNSC.

Power in the 21st century is increasingly shaped by new instruments: data, algorithms, semiconductors, finance, energy corridors and technology. If these resources are concentrated in the hands of only a few states and corporations, the political hierarchy created in 1945 may simply be replaced by a new digital hierarchy.

In that sense, the question of global governance is no longer only about who has the right to veto decisions. It is also about who controls data, who produces technology, who finances the green transition, and who sets the rules of artificial intelligence. For Türkiye, therefore, climate diplomacy and AI governance are not separate issues detached from its wider critique of the international system. They are new dimensions of the same debate over representation, access, fairness, and the concentration of power.

Resolving crises for all

In today’s international system, crises no longer remain confined to the places where they begin. A war in one region affects food prices elsewhere. A maritime security crisis reshapes trade routes and energy costs. A climate disaster creates economic, social and migratory consequences far beyond national borders. AI developed by a small number of actors can affect the security, economy and political systems of states worldwide.

For this reason, resolving crises is no longer only a moral responsibility. It is increasingly a matter of national interest for everyone. This is precisely what makes Türkiye’s stability diplomacy significant: criticizing the system without withdrawing from it; identifying problems without stopping at diagnosis; and creating areas of cooperation and solution wherever possible.

So, we have to say, "The world is bigger than five,” again and again. Because articulating a justified objection is no longer enough. The true measure of 21st-century diplomacy will be how much stability and how many workable solutions can emerge from that criticism – and whether stability, prosperity, and justice can be shared by all, rather than reserved for a select few.