Diplomatic Briefing· UN Security Council reform world is bigger than five

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

UN Security Council reform and why the world is bigger than five: Türkiye's case, the veto, G4, Uniting for Consensus, the African position and stalled talks.

By Region Scope Editorial Team

Published: October 26, 2026

⏱ 9 min read (1,958 words)

The Brief — Key Takeaways

The UN Security Council has been enlarged only once, in 1965, when elected seats rose from six to ten; the five permanent seats and their veto have never changed.
Türkiye's formula 'The world is bigger than five' (Dünya beşten büyüktür) argues that a Council built on the 1945 distribution of power cannot speak credibly for 193 member states.
Türkiye belongs to the Uniting for Consensus group, which opposes new permanent seats and favours more elected seats, longer terms and wider rotation.
Amending the UN Charter needs a two-thirds General Assembly vote plus ratification by two-thirds of members including all five permanent members (Articles 108 and 109), so the P5 hold a built-in veto over reform itself.
Reform has stalled less over the principle than over the formula: rival regional candidates, the question of the veto and the African demand for two permanent seats keep rival camps from agreeing on a single text.

Why It Matters

Türkiye's reform doctrine, summed up as 'The world is bigger than five' (Dünya beşten büyüktür), argues that the UN Security Council's five permanent members (P5) and their veto no longer reflect today's world or deliver on the Council's core mandate. The question matters beyond Ankara: the Council is the only UN organ whose decisions are legally binding on all members, and paralysis over Ukraine, Syria and Gaza has made its composition and voting rules a live issue for diplomats, scholars and publics worldwide. This guide sets out how the Council works, who proposes what, where Türkiye stands, and why more than three decades of talks have produced no agreement.

Background

How the Council is built

The UN Charter (1945) gives the Security Council 'primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security' (Article 24). Article 23 names five permanent members: China, France, Russia (which succeeded the Soviet seat), the United Kingdom and the United States. Under Article 27, substantive decisions need nine affirmative votes and no negative vote from a permanent member. That negative vote is the veto, although the word itself does not appear in the Charter.

Articles 108 and 109 govern amendments. They require a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of member states, including all five permanent members. Any change to the Council's size or powers therefore needs P5 consent at the final stage.

Timeline of reform efforts

Year	Event
1945	Charter enters into force; Council has 11 members (5 permanent, 6 elected).
1963–1965	General Assembly Resolution 1991 (XVIII) raises elected seats from six to ten; amendment in force 31 August 1965. This remains the only enlargement.
1971	The People's Republic of China takes China's seat (General Assembly Resolution 2758).
1993	The General Assembly creates an Open-ended Working Group on equitable representation and increase in Council membership.
2005	The World Summit Outcome endorses 'early reform'; the G4 draft resolution and a rival draft from the Uniting for Consensus group are tabled but never put to a vote. The African Union adopts the Ezulwini Consensus.
2009	Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) begin in the General Assembly; they have since been renewed each session without an agreed text.
2022	General Assembly Resolution 76/262 requires the Assembly to meet within 10 working days after a veto is cast, to debate it.
2024	The Pact for the Future, adopted at the UN Summit of the Future, commits states to continue Council reform, including better African representation.

The General Assembly's 1950 'Uniting for Peace' resolution (377 A(V)) remains a procedural precedent for the Assembly acting when the Council is deadlocked.

Key Players & Positions

Reform discussions revolve around five issues, usually called 'clusters': categories of membership, the veto, regional representation, size and working methods, and Council–General Assembly relations. The main groupings differ mainly on the first two.

Group	Core proposal	Veto
G4 (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan)	About six new permanent seats (two for Africa, two for Asia-Pacific, one for Latin America and the Caribbean, one for Western Europe and Others) plus additional elected seats	Willing to defer its use by new permanent members pending a later review
Uniting for Consensus (UfC) (including Italy, Pakistan, Spain, Argentina, Canada, Mexico, the Republic of Korea and Türkiye)	No new permanent seats; a Council of roughly 26 members with new longer-term elected seats, possibly with immediate re-election	Restrict or limit its use; no new vetoes
African Group (Ezulwini Consensus and Sirte Declaration, 2005)	Two permanent seats for Africa with full prerogatives, plus five additional elected seats	Equal veto rights for new permanent members in principle, while calling for abolition of the veto as the preferred outcome
Small island and Caribbean states (e.g., CARICOM, L.69 group)	Better representation of small and developing states; an expanded Council in both categories	Varies; many back restraint
ACT group, France/Mexico, Liechtenstein-led initiatives	Not about seats but about conduct: a code of conduct on veto restraint in mass-atrocity cases; General Assembly debates after vetoes	Voluntary restraint or accountability

The P5

United States: supports Council expansion in both categories. In September 2024 the US ambassador announced support for two permanent seats for Africa without the veto, and an additional rotating seat for small island developing states. Washington opposes extending the veto.
France and the United Kingdom: back permanent seats for the G4 and for African representation, and favour a voluntary pledge not to use the veto in mass-atrocity situations (a French initiative, supported by the UK in principle).
Russia: says Asia, Africa and Latin America are under-represented and has expressed support for Brazil's and India's aspirations, but opposes any limitation of the veto.
China: says it supports greater representation of developing countries, particularly in Africa, while resisting formulas that would add Japan.

Why reform has stalled

The P5 hold the final lock. Articles 108–109 mean no reform takes effect without their consent, and none wishes to dilute the veto.
Regional rivalries. Every proposed new permanent seat has a neighbour who objects: Italy and Spain with regard to Germany, Pakistan with regard to India, Argentina and Mexico with regard to Brazil, and the Republic of Korea with regard to Japan. African states have not agreed which countries would fill their seats.
No negotiating text. The IGN operates by consensus and has produced compilations of positions rather than a single draft that can be voted on.
Different goals. The G4 and Africa seek permanence; UfC seeks more accountability through elections; the veto-restraint groups want changes in conduct. These goals are not easily combined.

🇹🇷 Official Policy · Primary Sources

Türkiye's Position

Türkiye frames Council reform as a question of legitimacy and effectiveness rather than of national status. According to Turkish official statements, its position rests on the following points.

The Council's structure reflects 1945, not today. In successive addresses to the UN General Assembly, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has argued that the fate of humanity cannot be left to a handful of states and has coined the formula 'The world is bigger than five' (Dünya beşten büyüktür). The point is that a body acting on behalf of all members (Charter Article 24) should be accountable to them. Source: Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye, statements to the UN General Assembly.
No new permanent seats; more rotation. Türkiye is a member of the Uniting for Consensus group. The Turkish Foreign Ministry's published position calls for a Council that is more representative, democratic, transparent, accountable and effective, and prefers additional elected seats, longer terms and broader rotation over new privileged categories. Ankara argues that adding more permanent members would entrench inequality rather than reduce it. Source: Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA), position on UN Security Council reform; Türkiye's statements in the IGN.
The veto as a source of paralysis. Turkish officials have repeatedly criticised the use of the veto to block action on mass-atrocity situations and humanitarian crises, citing Syria and Gaza among other cases. Ankara links this to the Charter principle of the sovereign equality of all members (Article 2(1)). The Gaza dimension is covered in Gaza and Palestine: Türkiye's Humanitarian Diplomacy and Diplomatic Role Explained. Source: Presidency and MFA remarks at the UN General Assembly and Security Council.
A stronger General Assembly. Turkish representatives have argued that, where the Council is deadlocked, the Assembly, where all states have an equal vote, should play a larger role, building on the 'Uniting for Peace' practice and the post-veto debates introduced by Resolution 76/262. Source: Türkiye's statements at the UN.
Reform by broad consensus. Ankara argues that reform should be agreed as widely as possible among members, not imposed through a narrow majority, consistent with the Charter amendment procedure in Articles 108–109. Türkiye cites its own record, including its elected terms on the Council (most recently 2009–2010) and its mediation work, as evidence that middle powers can contribute without privileged status; see, for example, Black Sea Grain Initiative and Türkiye's Russia–Ukraine Mediation. Source: MFA.

Türkiye also argues that some Council decisions, for example Resolution 186 on Cyprus (1964), which treated the Greek Cypriot administration as the sole government of Cyprus, illustrate how Council outputs can shape lasting political realities without balanced representation. For Ankara's reading, see The Cyprus Issue: From the 1960 Treaties to the Sovereign Equal Two-State Proposal. Other governments dispute that reading.

Source Comparison

International media and academic commentary often describe reform as a seat-allocation puzzle among aspirants. Turkish official sources describe it more as a legitimacy and accountability problem. Neither framing is wrong; they emphasise different causes.

Question	Common international framing	Turkish official framing
What is the main problem?	Under-representation of Africa, Asia and Latin America; outdated 1945 composition	A legitimacy gap: a few states decide for 193; veto-driven paralysis
Why has reform stalled?	P5 reluctance and rival aspirants blocking each other	P5 privilege plus a drive for new permanent seats that would deepen inequality
What fix is favoured?	New permanent seats for major powers and regions (G4, Africa)	More elected seats, longer terms and rotation; veto restraint; a stronger General Assembly
Where does Türkiye fit?	A UfC member and a middle power, sometimes treated as a minor voice	A principled reform advocate, presented by Ankara as speaking for the many

For how Regionscope distinguishes fact, position and source, see Editorial Principles and Fact Check: Common Claims About Türkiye in International Media.

P5: the five permanent members (China, France, Russia, the UK, the US).
Veto: a negative vote by a permanent member that blocks a substantive Council decision (Charter Article 27).
IGN (Intergovernmental Negotiations): the General Assembly process on Council reform, running since 2009.
G4: Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, seeking permanent seats.
Uniting for Consensus (UfC): a group opposing new permanent seats; Türkiye is a member.
Ezulwini Consensus: the 2005 African Union position demanding two permanent African seats and five more elected seats.
Uniting for Peace: General Assembly Resolution 377 A(V), 1950, allowing the Assembly to recommend action when the Council is deadlocked.
Articles 108–109: Charter amendment rules requiring P5 ratification.

Regionscope presents global and regional affairs with a dedicated perspective from Türkiye. Sections marked 'Türkiye's Position' reflect official Turkish policy and legal doctrines as stated by Turkish primary sources. — Regionscope Editorial Team

Cross-Publication Dossiers & Sister Desk Perspectives

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

Borders & Blocs: 'The World Is Bigger Than Five': Türkiye's Case for UN Security Council Reform — Why does Türkiye want UN Security Council reform? The veto, G4, Uniting for Consensus and African models, and Ankara's 'world is bigger than five' case.
Horizon of Nations: 'The World Is Bigger Than Five': Türkiye's Case for UN Security Council Reform — How the UN Security Council veto works, what G4, Uniting for Consensus and Africa propose, and why Türkiye says 'the world is bigger than five'.
World Agenda Review: '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.

Frequently asked questions

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

It is President Erdoğan's formula (Turkish: Dünya beşten büyüktür) arguing that the world has far more than five states with a stake in global peace and security. It is a critique of the permanent five's privileged status and veto, and a call for a more representative and accountable Security Council.

Does Türkiye want a permanent seat on the Security Council?

No. Türkiye belongs to the Uniting for Consensus group, which opposes creating new permanent seats. It favours more elected seats, longer terms and wider rotation so that more states can serve on the Council over time.

Why has Security Council reform not happened in over 30 years?

Any Charter amendment needs ratification by all five permanent members (Articles 108–109), and rival regional candidates block one another. In addition, the groups disagree on whether to create new permanent seats and on what to do with the veto. The General Assembly negotiations (IGN) have produced no single text that could be put to a vote.

What is the difference between the G4, Uniting for Consensus and the African position?

The G4 (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan) seek new permanent seats for themselves and for Africa. Uniting for Consensus rejects new permanent seats in favour of longer-term elected seats. The African Group (Ezulwini Consensus) demands two permanent African seats with full prerogatives, including the veto, plus five additional elected seats.

What role can the General Assembly play when the Council is deadlocked?

Under the 1950 'Uniting for Peace' resolution, the Assembly can meet and recommend collective measures when the Council fails to act, though its recommendations are not legally binding. Since Resolution 76/262 (2022), the Assembly also automatically holds a debate within 10 working days after any veto.

Cross-Publication Perspectives & Cited Research

Related Dossiers Across Partner Publications

4 Partner Desks