In the mechanism of interstate global administration, the United Nations (UN) has become the most centralized, the most universal, but also the most inefficient community. Although it plays a role in many issues such as birth control, public health and environmental pollution, it displays a projection that has narrowed its sphere of influence in stopping the bloodshed in conflict areas. While the most important part of the UN to take a correct position in this respect should be collective power politics, this initiative was left to the mercy of five powerful countries. It is an undeniable fact that we are in an era of powerful states. In terms of destructive and coercive power, we live with the most powerful states throughout the history of mankind. Never before in history has a single state had the unrivaled military power that the United States has today. The USA managed to carry this military power and superiority today with the economic, political and cultural hegemony it created after World War II.
The UN functions in a structure where this global mechanism of supremacy is balanced with strong stakeholders to absorb overload. The UN has a lot of problems to be solved in terms of its internal structure and functioning, and this is not something new. The reform efforts at the UN, which started in 1990, unfortunately did not have any real political reflection on the global level and did not yield an effective result, except for administrative and financial reforms. Especially the issue of veto and number of members of the Security Council is one of the problems that have turned into gangrene. Unfortunately, it is not expected to make radical reforms on these problems in the near future.
General Attitude of the UN
Before the Millennium Summit of the UN in 2000, the problems that were decided to be discussed in the report presented by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and waiting for the UN included internal conflicts, ethnic wars, as well as the diminishing prestige and legitimacy of UN institutions and bodies. Above all, there was the problem of using the concept of national sovereignty as a shield for human rights violations. It is clearly known that the current order of the UN after the collapse of the eastern bloc masked ethnic and nationalist conflicts within some countries. Today, the decision-making and enforcement mechanisms of the UN tend to see the ongoing war in Syria as a concept of national sovereignty.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan frequently states that the UN does not display an effective position against global and regional problems and underlines that the UN should act much more courageously in defending the truth. When we make an evaluation in this context, it is very clear that Erdoğan emphasized the 2nd article of the UN Charter, “the principle of the rights and equality of nations, and the principle of self-determination”.
There are two aspects to the concept of self-determination: The first one; describes “internal self-determination”, that is, the ability of peoples to choose their political, economic, social and cultural system within their own country. The second one, “external self-determination” is the right of peoples to determine their political status and identity, including independence or joining another state. However, this right has been implemented in the UN as permanent members have the right to “self-determination” only of peoples under colonial, racist or foreign rule, in line with their own hegemony and interests. In this respect, the practice of considering a UN military intervention only legitimate when the permanent members of the Security Council authorize it must be urgently reviewed.
Global war against terror
The position and power of these permanent members is also based on a balance of power that goes back to the aftermath of World War II. This current situation is incapable of reflecting both the global spirit of the time and the worldwide rise and representation of countries such as Germany, Brazil, India, Japan and Turkey. These handicaps and institutional problems push the UN into a troubled and contradictory position. The disproportionate balance of power we mentioned, while the UN Security Council gave “power to veto” to the victorious powers of World War II, brought along problems that actually marginalized other countries with attractions that pretended to be in the decision mechanisms. In the face of such institutional and doctrinal challenges, philosophers such as John Rawls can interestingly argue that “democracy is not a human right” by micro-reducing the mission of human rights in international justice.
As a matter of fact, human rights and freedoms were disregarded as a result of the Bush-era ideology of “global war against terror” for so-called democracy, and the whole world clearly witnessed its devastating effects in Iraq and Afghanistan. And unfortunately, despite all the years that have passed, the problems have not been resolved and turned into gangrene. Likewise, the hopes of the Arab Spring were replaced by a cold and stormy Syrian winter that lasted for five years. At the beginning of the factors that encouraged the Syrian Ba'ath Party regime, we can undoubtedly say that the “apostles of democracy” supported the coup that took place in Egypt.
The World is Bigger Than Five!
In the face of the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons against the civilian population, dilemmas regarding how human rights can be defended are already standing before the world starkly. On the one hand, while there is a weariness about “humanitarian interventions” all over the world, on the other hand, being in two minds of US President Obama on this issue shows that there are dilemmas about the prohibition of chemical weapons or the protection of international human rights. The five permanent countries of the UN Security Council, which stand guard for “world peace”, are also the five countries that produce and sell the most weapons in the world. Paradoxically, the task of ensuring world peace seems to belong to them, while on the other hand, they are merchants of war. In order to get rid of these contradictions as soon as possible, a radical revision should be made on the veto power of the five permanent countries before the restoration in the UN.
This veto system is not suitable for any democratic perception, and it reflects an exclusionary and sectarian perspective that is completely contrary to the universal conscience. For a fair and reliable vision, the number of permanent members in the UN should be expanded with different formulas (according to regions, population and even demographic structure), and subordinate and superior committees should be determined to represent those countries as the representative country with the joint agreement of the countries from each region. Once this question of representation and legitimacy is resolved, a new “Humanitarian Interventions Law” is needed, which will clearly and transparently establish the conditions under which the UN can legitimately intervene in the internal affairs of a country.
The phrase “The world is bigger than five”, which President Erdoğan frequently brings to the world agenda, gains an important meaning in this sense. But unfortunately, it has not become debatable even on an intellectual level, let alone a discussion of this issue at the UN. Just as Erdoğan’s discourse of “one minute” in Davos was more effective than the former Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s slogan “We will wipe Israel off the map”; It should not be forgotten that the phrase “The world is bigger than five” is more effective, realistic and applicable than the slogan “Let the UN be discharged, NATO should be ruled out”.
Published on April 02, 2015 in Yeni Şafak
