In-Depth Analysis· Türkiye UN Security Council reform the world is bigger than five

'The World Is Bigger Than Five': Türkiye's Case for UN Security Council Reform

How the UN Security Council's veto works, which reform models compete, and why Türkiye argues 'the world is bigger than five' on Security Council reform.

WAR

By World Agenda Review Editorial Team

Published: October 26, 2026

⏱ 10 min read (2,045 words)

Executive Summary & Key Facts

The UN Security Council has five permanent members with veto power (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States), a line-up unchanged since 1945 while UN membership has grown from 51 to 193 states.
The only enlargement in the Council's history took effect in 1965, when elected seats rose from six to ten and the Council grew from 11 to 15 members.
The main reform camps are the G4 (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan), Uniting for Consensus (which includes Türkiye), the African Union's Ezulwini Consensus and the ACT group, which focuses on veto restraint and working methods.
Türkiye's slogan 'The world is bigger than five' (Dünya beşten büyüktür) is President Erdoğan's call for a more representative, accountable and rotating Council, and Ankara's formal negotiating line aligns with Uniting for Consensus in opposing new permanent seats.
Ankara links the reform case to Gaza humanitarian diplomacy, the UN-recognised Zero Waste initiative and its role as host of COP31 in 2026, presenting them as examples of a wider multilateral agenda.

Why It Matters

The UN Security Council is the only UN organ whose decisions bind all 193 member states, yet five countries still hold permanent seats and the right to veto any substantive decision. Türkiye argues that this 1945 settlement no longer reflects the world it governs, and its slogan 'The world is bigger than five' (Dünya beşten büyüktür) has become one of the best-known short statements of the reform case. Understanding the debate requires separating three questions: who sits on the Council, who can block it, and who can change the rules.

Background

How the Council is built

The Council has 15 members under Article 23 of the UN Charter: five permanent (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States) and ten non-permanent members elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. Under Article 25, all UN members agree to carry out its decisions, and under Article 24 they confer on it 'primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security'.

A substantive resolution needs nine affirmative votes and no negative vote from a permanent member (Article 27). That negative vote is the veto. The Soviet Union/Russia has cast the most vetoes, followed by the United States, and every permanent member has used it.

Why the structure is hard to change

Amending the Charter requires a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of members, including all five permanent members (Articles 108 and 109). The permanent members therefore hold a veto over any reform of the veto itself.

Chronology of reform efforts

Year	Milestone
1945	Charter enters into force; the UN has 51 members and an 11-seat Council
1963–1965	General Assembly adopts an amendment enlarging the Council to 15; it takes effect in 1965, the only enlargement to date
1993	General Assembly creates an Open-ended Working Group on Council reform
2005	The G4 draft resolution seeking six new permanent seats is tabled but never put to a vote; the African Union adopts the Ezulwini Consensus
2008–2009	Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) begin, structured around five clusters: categories of membership, the veto, regional representation, size and working methods, and Council–General Assembly relations
2013	The ACT group (Accountability, Coherence and Transparency), led by Switzerland, is launched
2015	France and Mexico launch a political initiative on voluntary veto restraint in mass-atrocity situations
2022	General Assembly resolution 76/262 requires a General Assembly debate within ten working days after any veto
2024	The Pact for the Future commits states to continue reform of the Council, including better representation of Africa

The veto problem in practice

Critics point to cases where a veto, or the threat of one, blocked action: Russia's veto of a February 2022 draft resolution on Ukraine, repeated Russian and Chinese vetoes on Syria, and United States vetoes of several draft resolutions calling for a ceasefire in Gaza between 2023 and 2025. Defenders of the veto, including the permanent members, argue it was designed to keep the great powers inside the system and to prevent the Council from adopting decisions that no major power would implement.

Key Players & Positions

The reform models

Group	Core idea on seats	Core idea on veto
G4 (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan)	New permanent seats for themselves and for Africa, plus extra non-permanent seats	In the 2005 draft, new permanent members would not exercise the veto until a later review
Uniting for Consensus (including Italy, Pakistan, Spain, Argentina, Canada, Mexico, the Republic of Korea and Türkiye)	No new permanent seats; more elected seats with longer or re-electable terms	Supports limiting its use
African Union (Ezulwini Consensus, 2005)	Two permanent and five additional non-permanent seats for Africa	Africa's permanent seats should carry full prerogatives, including the veto
ACT group (27 small and medium-sized states at launch)	Focus on working methods rather than seat numbers	Code of conduct: do not vote against credible draft resolutions on genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes

The permanent members

The P5 do not speak with one voice, and their positions are stated in their own General Assembly and IGN statements:

United States: Has said it supports expanding both permanent and non-permanent categories. In 2024 it voiced support for two permanent African seats without veto and a rotating seat for small island developing states. It does not support extending or abolishing the veto.
France: Supports enlargement in both categories, backs permanent seats for the G4 and stronger African representation, and co-leads the voluntary veto-restraint initiative.
United Kingdom: Supports permanent seats for Brazil, Germany, India and Japan and a permanent African presence.
Russia: Says it favours greater representation for Asia, Africa and Latin America, but objects to adding more Western-aligned members and rejects any curtailment of the veto.
China: Says it supports more developing-country representation, especially Africa, and insists on broad consensus rather than a forced vote. It has voiced reservations about specific candidacies, notably Japan's.

Other states

The G4 argue that major contributors and populous regions deserve permanent responsibility. Uniting for Consensus members, including Pakistan and Italy, reply that new permanent seats would create new privileges and entrench inequality, and prefer elections. The African Union calls the continent's exclusion from permanent membership a 'historical injustice', a phrase echoed in the 2024 Pact for the Future. Meanwhile the L.69 group of developing countries presses for expansion in both categories.

🇹🇷 Official Policy · Primary Sources

Türkiye's Position

Türkiye is a Council veteran, most recently serving as an elected member in 2009–2010, and it presents its reform stance as a defence of the General Assembly's collective legitimacy. Bullet points below summarise official positions as stated by the Presidency and in Türkiye's statements at the UN; readers should check the full texts on the Presidency website and UN records.

A Council of 1945 cannot govern the world of today. According to the Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has repeated in his addresses to the UN General Assembly that the Council's structure reflects the post-war balance and that 'the world is bigger than five'. Ankara argues that legitimacy requires broader, fairer representation and a rotating system in which more states take their turn in decision-making.
No new permanent privileges. In the Intergovernmental Negotiations, Türkiye's statements align with Uniting for Consensus, which opposes adding permanent seats and favours more elected seats with longer or re-electable terms. Ankara's argument is that new permanent seats would multiply the very inequality the reform is meant to fix.
The veto should be restrained. Türkiye has said at the UN and through the Presidency that veto use should be limited, especially when civilian lives are at stake, and it points to the blocked Gaza ceasefire drafts as evidence. It supports a stronger General Assembly role, as reflected in resolution 76/262's post-veto debates.
The legal basis is the Charter itself. Ankara invokes sovereign equality (Article 2(1)) and the fact that, under Article 24, the Council acts 'on behalf of' all members. It also cites Article 109, which envisages a review conference. Türkiye further argues that Council resolutions can entrench structural asymmetries: Ankara contends that Resolution 186 (1964) treated the Greek Cypriot administration as the government of Cyprus, as set out in The Cyprus Issue: 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, Federation Talks and the Two-State Solution.

Bigger than five in practice: Gaza, Zero Waste and COP31

Ankara presents its UN reform case alongside concrete initiatives:

Gaza and humanitarian diplomacy. Türkiye has pressed for a ceasefire and unhindered aid, channelled relief supplies through Egypt, and cited the repeated Council deadlock as proof of why reform matters. The General Assembly's emergency special session resolution of 27 October 2023 calling for a humanitarian truce shows how the wider membership can act when the Council cannot.
Zero Waste. The Zero Waste initiative launched under the patronage of Emine Erdoğan led to General Assembly resolution 77/161 (December 2022), which proclaimed 30 March the International Day of Zero Waste. Ankara cites it as an example of a middle power shaping the multilateral agenda without a permanent seat.
COP31. Türkiye will host the COP31 climate conference in Antalya in November 2026, under an arrangement with Australia agreed at COP30. Ankara had earlier ratified the Paris Agreement in 2021 and set a 2053 net-zero target.
Black Sea mediation. Türkiye's strict application of the 1936 Montreux Convention and its role in the 2022 grain corridor negotiations are presented as practical diplomacy; see The Montreux Convention and the Black Sea.

Source Comparison

International commentary and Turkish official sources agree that the Council is stuck, but they differ on causes and remedies.

Question	Common framing in international commentary	Framing in Turkish primary sources
What does the slogan mean?	A rhetorical critique; critics say it lacks a detailed model	A short form of the reform case; the detailed model sits in Uniting for Consensus and IGN statements
New permanent seats?	Often seen as the pragmatic route (G4, AU)	Rejected as entrenching inequality; elected, longer-term seats preferred
Veto	Debate over restraint (France–Mexico, ACT) versus P5 opposition to limits	Restraint in atrocity cases, a stronger General Assembly role, and Gaza cited as the test case
Gaza	Seen mainly as a US–Council dynamic	Seen as proof that the structure fails civilians
Consistency	Some analysts note that Ankara's rhetoric covers all five permanent members while its formal position also blocks the G4 bids	Ankara says it opposes privilege on principle, not particular countries

A fair reading holds that the structural diagnosis is widely shared, while the remedy is not. For how this site separates reporting from official position, see Editorial Principles, and for broader claims about Türkiye in international media, see Fact Check: Common Claims About Türkiye.

Veto: The negative vote of a permanent member that blocks a substantive Council decision under Article 27 of the Charter.
E10 / elected members: The ten non-permanent members elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms, drawn from regional groups.
IGN (Intergovernmental Negotiations): The General Assembly process on Council reform running since 2008–2009, organised in five clusters.
Uniting for Consensus: A group of states, including Türkiye, that opposes new permanent seats.
Ezulwini Consensus: The African Union's common position from 2005.
Uniting for Peace (resolution 377(V), 1950): Lets the General Assembly consider matters when the Council is blocked by a veto.

World Agenda Review presents global affairs with a dedicated perspective from Türkiye. Sections marked 'Türkiye's Position' reflect official Turkish policy as stated by Turkish government sources. This article reflects World Agenda Review's editorial perspective that presents Türkiye's official positions and legal theses alongside the wider global debate. Claims are attributed to primary sources such as treaties, UN documents, official statements and archival records. Published by the World Agenda Review Editorial Team.

Cross-Publication Dossiers & Sister Desk Perspectives

For complementary primary-source analysis across our specialist editorial network, consult:

Political Ledger: 'The World Is Bigger Than Five': Türkiye's Case for UN Security Council Reform — Why Türkiye says the world is bigger than five: Erdoğan's case for UN Security Council reform, veto limits, and how the P5, G4, UfC and Africa compare.
Bloc Politics: 'The World Is Bigger Than Five': Türkiye's Case for UN Security Council Reform — How the UN Security Council works, the P5 veto, G4, Uniting for Consensus and African Group plans, and Türkiye's 'The world is bigger than five' reform case.
The State Papers: 'The World Is Bigger Than Five': Türkiye's Case for UN Security Council Reform — Why Türkiye says 'the world is bigger than five': how the Security Council veto works, what G4, Uniting for Consensus and Africa propose, and Ankara's view.

Frequently asked questions

What does 'The world is bigger than five' mean?

It is President Erdoğan's phrase (Dünya beşten büyüktür) criticising the fact that five permanent members hold lasting privileges in a 193-member UN. It calls for a Security Council that is more representative, accountable and rotating, so that decisions on global peace do not depend on five states.

Why is the Security Council veto considered a problem?

A single negative vote from any of the five permanent members blocks a substantive resolution, even when the other 14 members agree. Critics cite blocked action on Syria, Ukraine and Gaza, while defenders argue the veto keeps great powers engaged in the UN system.

Does Türkiye want a permanent seat on the Security Council?

No. Türkiye is part of Uniting for Consensus, which opposes creating new permanent seats and instead proposes more elected seats with longer or re-electable terms. Ankara argues that new permanent seats would add new privileges rather than reduce inequality.

What are the main Security Council reform proposals?

The G4 (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan) seek new permanent seats; Uniting for Consensus wants more elected seats and no new permanent ones; the African Union demands two permanent seats with veto and five non-permanent seats; the ACT group focuses on working methods and veto restraint in atrocity cases.

Why hasn't the Council been reformed?

Any Charter amendment requires a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of members including all five permanent members (Articles 108 and 109). States also disagree on which countries should gain seats and whether the veto should extend to new members.

How do Gaza, Zero Waste and COP31 relate to UN reform?

Ankara presents them as examples of its wider multilateral agenda. Gaza illustrates the veto problem, the Zero Waste initiative led to a General Assembly resolution (77/161) proclaiming 30 March the International Day of Zero Waste, and Türkiye will host COP31 in Antalya in November 2026.

Cross-Publication Perspectives & Cited Research

Related Dossiers Across Partner Publications

4 Partner Desks