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

'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.

By Bloc Politics Editorial Team

Published: October 26, 2026

⏱ 9 min read (1,855 words)

Executive Summary & Key Facts

The UN Security Council has 15 members: five permanent members with veto power (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) and ten elected members serving two-year terms.
The Council has been enlarged only once, in 1965, when elected seats rose from six to ten; its permanent membership still reflects the 1945 outcome of the Second World War.
The main reform camps are the G4 (new permanent seats for Brazil, Germany, India and Japan), Uniting for Consensus (longer-term elected seats only) and the African Group (two permanent seats with veto rights, per the Ezulwini Consensus).
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's slogan 'The world is bigger than five' argues that a Council with five permanent members cannot represent 193 UN member states, and Ankara links it to wider, rotating representation and limits on the veto.
Any change to the UN Charter needs a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of members, including all five permanent members, so the P5 hold a collective veto over reform itself.

Why It Matters

The UN Security Council holds primary responsibility for international peace and security, yet its permanent membership has not changed since 1945 apart from the 1971 and 1991 changes in who occupies the Chinese and Russian seats. Türkiye's slogan "The world is bigger than five" (Dünya beşten büyüktür) summarizes a widely shared critique: a body of five veto-holding powers cannot be legitimate for a world of 193 member states. Understanding the competing reform blueprints explains why the debate has run for more than three decades without a result.

Background

How the Council is built

Under Article 23 of the UN Charter, the Council has 15 members. Five are permanent: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Ten are elected by the General Assembly for two-year, non-renewable-in-succession terms. By convention, elected seats are allocated regionally: three for Africa, two for Asia-Pacific, two for Latin America and the Caribbean, two for the Western European and Others Group, and one for Eastern Europe.

Under Article 27, procedural decisions need nine affirmative votes. On substantive matters, nine votes are also required, including the "concurring votes" of the permanent members. In practice, a negative vote by any permanent member blocks a draft resolution. This is the veto. Under Article 24, UN members confer on the Council primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security, and under Article 25 they agree to carry out its decisions.

Why reform is so hard

Articles 108 and 109 of the Charter require that amendments be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the General Assembly and ratified by two-thirds of member states, including all five permanent members. Every P5 government therefore holds a veto over any reform that would dilute its own position.

Timeline of the reform debate

Date	Event
1945	UN Charter enters into force; Council has 11 members (5 permanent, 6 elected)
1963 / 1965	General Assembly Resolution 1991 (XVIII) enlarges the Council to 15; amendment takes effect on 31 August 1965
1971	General Assembly Resolution 2758 seats the People's Republic of China in the China seat
1991	The Russian Federation continues the Soviet Union's seat
1993	General Assembly Resolution 48/26 creates the Open-Ended Working Group on Council reform
2005	African Union adopts the Ezulwini Consensus; G4 and Uniting for Consensus table rival drafts at the World Summit period
2009	Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) on Council reform begin in the General Assembly
2015	France and Mexico launch a political declaration on veto restraint in mass-atrocity situations
2022	General Assembly Resolution 76/262 requires a General Assembly debate within ten working days of any veto
2024	The "Pact for the Future" adopted at the UN includes commitments to advance Council reform, including better representation for Africa

The IGN process has produced extensive compilation texts but no negotiated outcome, in part because it works by consensus-seeking and has no agreed text to vote on.

Key Players & Positions

The permanent five

The P5 are not uniform, but none has accepted a surrender of its own veto.

United States: Washington has said it supports Council expansion in principle. In September 2024, the US Permanent Representative announced support for two permanent seats for African countries and a rotating seat for small island developing states, while stating that new permanent members should not be granted an extension of the veto.
France and the United Kingdom: Both have publicly supported adding new permanent members, including Brazil, Germany, India, Japan and African representation. France also champions voluntary veto restraint in cases of mass atrocities.
Russia: Moscow says it favors greater representation for Asia, Africa and Latin America, and has expressed support for the aspirations of India and Brazil. It has been more reserved about Germany and Japan, and it opposes any dilution of the veto.
China: Beijing says it supports greater representation for developing countries, especially in Africa, and has stressed that reform should be built on broad consensus rather than imposed by a vote.

The reform groups

G4 (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan): They propose enlarging the Council to 25–26 members, with six new permanent seats (two for Africa, two for Asia-Pacific, one for Latin America and the Caribbean, one for Western Europe and Others) and four or five new elected seats. They have indicated flexibility on deferring the new permanent members' veto.
Uniting for Consensus (UfC): Led historically by Italy, Pakistan, Spain, Argentina, Canada, Mexico and South Korea, among others, and joined by Türkiye. UfC rejects new permanent seats, arguing they would create new privileged states and entrench inequality. It proposes about ten new elected seats with longer terms and possible immediate re-election, and it is often described by critics as the "Coffee Club".
African Group: Under the 2005 Ezulwini Consensus and Sirte Declaration, the African Union demands at least two permanent seats with full prerogatives, including the veto, and five elected seats. It argues that Africa, which accounts for a large share of the Council's agenda, has no permanent voice.
ACT Group and veto-restraint advocates: The Accountability, Coherence and Transparency group and others press for a Code of Conduct under which Council members pledge not to vote against credible draft resolutions on genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

🇹🇷 Official Policy · Primary Sources · Treaty Record

Türkiye's Position

Türkiye's Strategic Position

Türkiye supports a comprehensive reform that makes the Council more representative, democratic, transparent, accountable and effective. It identifies the fixed permanent membership and the veto as the central obstacles.

"The world is bigger than five." President Erdoğan has repeated this formulation in addresses to the UN General Assembly and in his 2021 book A Fairer World Is Possible. Ankara's argument, as set out by the Presidency and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), is that the fate of humanity should not depend on the decisions of five states chosen in the aftermath of 1945. The doctrinal basis is the Charter's own principle of the sovereign equality of all members (Article 2(1)).
Wider, rotating representation. Ankara calls for an enlarged Council in which membership rotates among states of all regions, so that more countries can sit at the table over time. This reflects Türkiye's own experience as an elected member (it has served four terms, most recently in 2009–2010) and its membership in the Uniting for Consensus group, whose approach MFA statements at the General Assembly's IGN have endorsed. The group's aim is to avoid creating new permanent seats, which, Ankara argues, would add privileged members rather than remove privilege.
Limits on the veto. According to Turkish statements at the UN, the veto has repeatedly paralysed the Council on crises such as Syria, Ukraine and Gaza. Erdoğan has pointed to repeated vetoes of Gaza ceasefire drafts as evidence that the system fails civilians, a theme developed in Türkiye and Gaza: Humanitarian Diplomacy, Aid Efforts and Ankara's Position on Palestine. Türkiye supports the General Assembly's role under Resolution 76/262 in debating vetoes, and calls for restraint, especially in cases of mass atrocities.
Reform through the UN, not around it. Ankara argues that the General Assembly, as the most universal organ, should lead reform, and that the process needs the broadest possible consensus rather than the preferences of a few blocs. The pragmatic alternative to formal reform is greater use of mediation and multilateral diplomacy, as Türkiye did in the Istanbul talks and in the Black Sea Grain Initiative described in Türkiye's Mediation in the Russia–Ukraine War.

Primary sources for these points include the Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye's transcripts of Erdoğan's UN General Assembly speeches, MFA's published position on Security Council reform, Türkiye's statements in the IGN process, and the UN Charter text (Articles 2, 23, 24, 27, 108 and 109).

Where Ankara's argument meets criticism

Critics note that rotating or longer-term elected seats, which UfC and Türkiye favor, would not create lasting representation for large regional powers that want permanent status, such as India, Brazil or African Union candidates. Supporters of the UfC model reply that permanent seats lock in today's balance of power for generations. The disagreement reflects different views of what "representation" means: continuity and weight, versus rotation and accountability to voters in the General Assembly. Ankara's role as a bridge between blocs, discussed in Is Türkiye a Bridge Between Blocs?, informs its preference for a model that does not rank states into permanent categories.

Source Comparison

Question	Typical international and P5 framing	Turkish official framing
Why reform?	The Council reflects the 1945 power distribution and under-represents Africa, Asia and Latin America	The same, and also that five states hold lasting privileges incompatible with sovereign equality
Best fix	Add permanent seats (G4, African Group, US and France in various forms)	Expand with rotating, regionally balanced elected seats; no new permanent privileges (UfC)
The veto	Needed to keep major powers inside the system; restraint through voluntary codes	The veto causes paralysis; limits and General Assembly accountability are essential
Who decides?	Negotiations among states, ultimately subject to P5 ratification	Same legal route, but the General Assembly majority must set the agenda and consensus must be broad
Likelihood of change	Low in the short term; the consensus requirement and P5 vetoes block movement	Reform is a moral and legal necessity, even if slow; incremental steps such as veto debates matter

Western analysis often treats Türkiye's slogan as rhetoric aimed at a domestic or Global South audience. Turkish primary sources, by contrast, tie it to Charter principles and to specific institutional proposals. Readers can compare both against UN documents; see Editorial Principles: How Bloc Politics Separates Fact, Position and Source for how this site labels the difference.

Permanent members (P5): China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States, named in Article 23 of the Charter.
Veto: A negative vote by a permanent member on a non-procedural draft, which blocks adoption.
G4: Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, a coalition seeking permanent seats.
Uniting for Consensus (UfC): A group opposing new permanent seats; Türkiye is a member.
Ezulwini Consensus: The African Union's common position adopted in 2005.
IGN: The Intergovernmental Negotiations on Council reform, held in the General Assembly since 2009.
Resolution 76/262: The 2022 General Assembly resolution requiring a debate after a veto.

Bloc Politics presents Türkiye's official positions and legal arguments alongside the wider international debate, and states clearly where an analysis reflects the Turkish perspective. Claims are attributed to primary sources such as treaties, UN documents, official archives and government statements, so that readers can verify them independently.

Frequently asked questions

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

It is President Erdoğan's slogan criticizing a Security Council where five permanent members hold the veto while 193 UN members have no lasting seat. Türkiye uses it to call for a more representative, accountable and rotating Council and for limits on the veto.

How many members does the UN Security Council have and who has the veto?

It has 15 members: five permanent (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States) and ten elected for two-year terms. Only the five permanent members hold the veto, which lets any of them block a substantive draft resolution.

Why has the Security Council not been reformed since 1965?

Charter Articles 108 and 109 require two-thirds approval in the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of members, including all five permanent members. Rival reform camps (G4, Uniting for Consensus, African Group) also disagree on whether to add permanent seats, so no single text commands the needed support.

What is Türkiye's position on new permanent seats?

Türkiye is a member of Uniting for Consensus, which opposes adding new permanent seats. Ankara favors a larger Council with wider, rotating representation and restraint on the veto, arguing that new permanent members would only widen inequality among states.

Can the veto be limited without amending the Charter?

Partly. General Assembly Resolution 76/262 (2022) requires an Assembly debate within ten working days after a veto, and some states back voluntary restraint in mass-atrocity cases. These steps add accountability but do not remove the veto, which only a Charter amendment could change.