Instead of expecting justice from the UN, Turkey's style of politics

The world order that took shape after the First World War and acquired its present form when the cards were reshuffled at the end of the Second World War fills its record of serious failures in problem-solving a little more with each passing day. In fact, what we call the world system does not point to an order that operates with justice or by democratic means for the community of the world's nations. The order rests largely on a division of power and influence among the victors of the war, and the efforts of the countries that agreed among themselves on establishing the order to revise their calculations and the balances of power, owing to the losses or declines in power they have experienced over time, lead to disorder, instability and turbulence.

The truth is that people often attribute more meaning than is warranted to the law that is expected to secure the international order; they expect it to act against countries that commit violations of law, to impose a penalty on them and ultimately to deliver justice. Yet at the level of international relations, penalizing countries that violate the law or establishing justice against them is possible only when the countries in relation with them are strong. That is, what is decisive is entirely power. International relations have never operated as a democratic relationship, nor do they. There, there are balances of power. The UN order that took shape after the Second World War was established entirely within a framework in which the victorious countries held veto rights, and yet, owing to the way the General Assembly and the Security Council are constituted, it has claimed to have a democratic functioning. Long debates are held in the General Assembly on the issues on the agenda, but the votes taken there do not carry much value. What is needed is an actual power that can implement the decisions taken and stand behind them, and indeed these decisions are taken by the alliance of one, several or all of those 5 powers. Since no decision can be taken when even one of them vetoes, the UN in practice serves no purpose precisely where it is most needed. For genocides, massacres, war crimes and human rights violations in the world are committed either by one of these 5 states or by a state under the protection of one of them, and so any decision to be taken against them has no operability. Indeed, today, although Israel has committed more rule violations than all violating countries to date combined, nothing can be done about it solely because of the veto protection of the US alone. Even the decisions that could be taken run directly into US protection, and the UN can have no effect in the face of the joint inhuman practices of the US and Israel, at the price of confronting the entire Islamic world with its population of 2 billion. The UN Secretary-General's inability to pass through the Rafah Border Crossing, where he wanted to enter Gaza, and the situation he later fell into when the UN forces in Lebanon were attacked, are in fact the picture of today's world order.

Against the crimes against humanity, fully documented, that a state has been committing against its own people in Syria for 14 years, the UN likewise could not take any measure, failing to overcome the Russian and Chinese obstacle. The blockage of the solution of many other international issues within this system stems from the fact that this system is by its very nature based on a division of power. One would expect the system to be founded on justice, but this too runs contrary to the nature of international balances of power. To put it more plainly and realistically, expecting justice from international relations is futile.

Whatever system is established, it would be too fanciful to expect the system's strongest elements to put justice and humanitarian values ahead of interest politics. In that case, is one to give up and surrender to this realistic picture? Of course not. In fact, what Turkey has done in many areas over the last 10 years provides all the data for the necessary vision on this. The essence of the matter is that those who are just, or who seek justice, must also be strong. As Turkey grew stronger, it set out, without expecting help from anyone else, on the path of what President Erdoğan calls "cutting its own umbilical cord." That is, it produced the solution itself and implemented it itself. The Nagorno-Karabakh problem, which had been abandoned to unsolvability for 30 years within the balances of existing international relations in Azerbaijan, was resolved through the power Turkey had reached and its actual intervention, and now all the conditions have been created for a regional peace and order that includes Armenia as well.

The will that Turkey has shown in Syria, Somalia, Libya and Qatar is also an excellent example of changing international balances by relying on its own strength, human resources and social (national) solidarity. It should be noted that in all of these areas where Turkey has intervened, everyone can appreciate that it has played an order-establishing role that does not deepen but resolves the problem, that builds rather than destroys, that does not exploit but is beneficial and profitable for all. Before Turkey entered with humanitarian aid, Somalia was a place, both as a state and as a society, where no one had any expectations left. Here Turkey established a state and an order in which only Somalis have a say. In Syria, for years there was an expectation that a safe zone would be created through the UN order; it was a futile expectation. Through the Olive Branch, Peace Spring and Euphrates Shield operations that it undertook itself, Turkey established here an order in which at least millions of Syrians can live freely and safely.

In Libya, too, the situation had worsened to something not much better than in Somalia. In response to the civil war and the openly colonialist approach of some countries that set out to pounce on the Libyans' oil and resources, Turkey entered at the invitation of Libya's legitimate government and established a temporary order, and afterward an order in which all parties could take part and Libya is governed only by Libyans. Today in Libya, the situation is much closer to stability and a hopeful future than before.

The foundation of the role Turkey plays in crisis regions has been, above all, self-confidence, a strong defense infrastructure, a strong economy and very skillful diplomacy. However, for this to become sustainable in a democratic society, it is also necessary to be a strong nation, fused together and sharing a vision. It is very important that this nation, which has stood in line behind President Erdoğan for 23 years, adopt this vision as a minimum value, keeping away from the confusing effects of domestic political debates. There is no need to expect fairness from the UN or from the 5 privileged countries there, nor to hope that they will establish a just order. To make every kind of diplomatic relationship with them more effective as well, it is very important to have a strong economy, a strong defense force and a strong nation behind you.

Such a Turkey cannot be a power that anyone can ignore. On the contrary, it would have as much influence as one of the 5 members of the UN, and no decision could be taken by ignoring Turkey.