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

'The World Is Bigger Than Five': What Does Türkiye Propose for UN Security Council Reform?

What does Türkiye propose for UN Security Council reform? Explaining 'the world is bigger than five', the G4, UfC and African models, and Ankara's case.

By DiploBrief Editorial Team

Published: October 27, 2026

⏱ 8 min read (1,659 words)

Executive Summary & Key Facts

'The world is bigger than five' is President Erdoğan's formula for the argument that a Security Council built around five permanent members cannot legitimately speak for a 193-member United Nations.
Türkiye favours a larger, more representative and more accountable Council with rotating elected seats and limits on the veto, and it takes part in the Uniting for Consensus group, which opposes new permanent seats.
The Council has been enlarged only once, from 11 to 15 members in 1965, and any Charter amendment needs ratification by all five permanent members under Article 108.
The G4, Uniting for Consensus and the African Common Position remain far apart on permanent seats and the veto, so incremental steps such as General Assembly debates after vetoes are likelier than a sweeping overhaul.
Ankara links its reform case to its mediation record, citing the 2022 Istanbul talks and the Black Sea grain arrangement as evidence that mid-sized states can deliver results the Council could not.

Why It Matters

The phrase 'the world is bigger than five' is President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's shorthand for a simple argument: a Security Council whose permanent seats were fixed in 1945 cannot credibly carry primary responsibility for peace and security in a United Nations of 193 members. Türkiye proposes a larger, more representative and more accountable Council, with rotation among member states and restraint in the use of the veto, rather than new permanent seats for a handful of aspirants. Whether that is realistic depends on the Charter's amendment rules, which give each of the five permanent members a veto over change itself.

Background

How the Council is built

The UN Charter sets out the Council's structure in Article 23. Five states hold permanent seats: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. Ten others are elected by the General Assembly for two-year terms. Under Article 27(3), substantive decisions need nine votes including the 'concurring votes' of the permanent members, which is the origin of the veto.

The Council has been enlarged once. A 1963 General Assembly amendment (Resolution 1991 (XVIII)) raised it from 11 to 15 members and entered into force in 1965, when the UN had roughly 113 members. Membership has since grown to 193, while the number of permanent seats has not changed.

The reform process

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). Formal Intergovernmental Negotiations (IGN) on Council reform began in 2009 and cover five clusters:

categories of membership (permanent, non-permanent, or new intermediate seats);
the question of the veto;
regional representation;
the size of an enlarged Council and its working methods;
the relationship between the Council and the General Assembly.

In 2005 the G4 and the African Union each tabled draft proposals, but neither reached a decisive vote. Two later developments are relevant. In April 2022 the General Assembly adopted Resolution 76/262, which requires it to meet within ten working days after any veto is cast and to debate the situation. In September 2024 the Pact for the Future committed states to intensify Council reform efforts, with the under-representation of Africa a stated priority.

The Erdoğan formula

President Erdoğan has used 'the world is bigger than five' in successive addresses to the UN General Assembly. He ties the slogan to specific paralysis: the Council's inability to act on Syria, on Ukraine and, in his recent speeches, on the war in Gaza. The argument is not only about numbers. It is about whether decisions on war and peace should rest on the agreement of five states with a permanent right to block. Sister-publication analyses cover the same doctrine from other angles: Political Ledger on Türkiye's case for Council reform and The Political Anatomy on the link with COP31 diplomacy.

Key Players & Positions

There are three main reform blocs, plus the permanent members who hold the final say. The table summarises how each describes its own approach, based on their publicly stated positions.

Group	Core members / lead	Proposed model	How it frames itself
G4	Brazil, Germany, India, Japan	New permanent and non-permanent seats; its 2005 draft proposed six new permanent and four new non-permanent seats, with new permanent members deferring veto use pending review	Large contributors and regional powers who say the Council must reflect 21st-century realities
Uniting for Consensus (UfC)	Italy and Pakistan as long-standing leads; Mexico, Egypt, Spain, Argentina, Canada, South Korea, Türkiye and others participate	A Council of roughly 25–26 members with new elected seats, longer terms and the possibility of immediate re-election, but no new permanent seats	A group seeking a broadly acceptable result and warning that new permanent seats would entrench privilege
African Group (Ezulwini Consensus / Sirte Declaration, 2005)	African Union members	Two permanent seats with full prerogatives including the veto, and five non-permanent seats for Africa	A continent seeking redress of what it calls a 'historical injustice', as Africa has no permanent representation

The permanent members

The five permanent members do not speak with one voice. France and the United Kingdom have said they support permanent seats for the G4 members and a permanent African presence. The United States has endorsed expansion in both categories; in September 2024 its UN ambassador proposed two permanent African seats without veto power and a rotating seat for small island states. Russia has expressed support for the aspirations of Brazil and India. China says it backs greater representation of developing countries but is wary of changes that would favour specific rivals. All five have shown reluctance to dilute the veto, and none can be outvoted on Charter amendments.

Is reform realistic?

In our assessment, comprehensive reform is unlikely in the near term, for three reasons. First, the blocs disagree on the central question: the G4 and the African Group want permanent seats, while UfC opposes them. Second, the African demand for a veto conflicts with the US position that new members should not receive one. Third, Article 108 means any outcome must satisfy all five permanent members. Incremental changes are more plausible: better working methods, more consistent General Assembly scrutiny after vetoes under Resolution 76/262, and voluntary restraint in atrocity situations.

🇹🇷 Official Policy · Primary Sources

Türkiye's Position

The following points reflect official Turkish statements and are attributed to their primary sources.

The Council lacks legitimacy in its current form. In his UN General Assembly addresses, President Erdoğan has argued that the Council cannot remain a body governed by five permanent members. The Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye and the Directorate of Communications publish these addresses, and the phrase 'the world is bigger than five' (Dünya beşten büyüktür) is Ankara's core formulation.
Expand through elected, rotating seats rather than new permanent ones. According to the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Türkiye supports a Council that is more representative, transparent, accountable and effective, and in which every member state has a realistic chance to serve. Türkiye participates in the Uniting for Consensus group and, with it, opposes creating new permanent seats.
The veto should be limited, not widened. Ankara argues that the veto has blocked action on Syria and Gaza and has left civilians without protection. Its statements at the UN call for restraint on the veto, in line with the General Assembly's post-veto debate mechanism. See the Gaza briefing on Türkiye's diplomatic and humanitarian position.
Mediation shows that middle powers can deliver. Türkiye points to the 2022 Istanbul talks and the Black Sea Grain Initiative, signed in Istanbul with the UN on 22 July 2022, as proof that states outside the permanent five can broker practical results. Its strict application of the 1936 Montreux Convention is a second example (see Montreux Article 19 in practice).
The legal basis is sovereign equality. Ankara grounds its case in Article 2(1) of the Charter (sovereign equality of all members) and in the Council's structure under Articles 23 and 27. Türkiye has itself served as an elected Council member four times, most recently in 2009–2010, and says it speaks from within the system.

For wider context, see The Mediation and Montreux Brief and The Istanbul Talks of 2022.

Source Comparison

Theme	Common international framing	Turkish primary sources
Purpose of reform	Mostly a question of adding seats for large or regional powers	A matter of legitimacy and sovereign equality for all 193 members (Presidency, MFA)
Permanent seats	Often presented as the natural way to recognise rising powers	Opposed as the creation of new privilege; Ankara prefers rotation and elected seats (UfC position)
The veto	Seen as a necessary feature of great-power consensus, and also as a source of paralysis	Presented as a tool that has blocked action on Syria and Gaza and should be restrained (UNGA addresses)
Türkiye's motives	Some analysts see Türkiye's stance, like UfC's, as shaped by regional rivalries with G4 aspirants	Ankara states that its position is principled, consistent across cases, and backed by its mediation record
Feasibility	Widely seen as blocked by Article 108 and by disagreement between blocs	Ankara continues to press the issue as an obligation under the Pact for the Future

It is fair to note that UfC is sometimes described by critics as a coalition that blocks rivals' bids, while its members describe it as a principled group seeking wide consensus. Readers can compare the original statements directly, and our Editorial Principles explain how we attribute claims. Further perspectives appear in Regions & Powers.

P5: the five permanent members, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.
Veto: the power under Article 27(3) of a permanent member to block a substantive Council decision by voting against it.
IGN (Intergovernmental Negotiations): the General Assembly process on Council reform, running since 2009.
G4: Brazil, Germany, India and Japan, who support each other's bids for permanent seats.
Uniting for Consensus (UfC): a group of states, including Türkiye, opposing new permanent seats.
Ezulwini Consensus: the African Union's common position on Council reform, adopted in 2005.
Resolution 76/262: the 2022 General Assembly resolution mandating a debate after any veto.

DiploBrief Editorial Team. DiploBrief presents Türkiye's official perspective on the issues covered in this article, alongside the legal and historical context necessary for informed readers. Sections marked 'Türkiye's Position' reflect official Turkish policy as stated by Turkish government sources. Claims are attributed to primary sources such as treaties, UN documents and official statements, and readers are encouraged to consult them directly.

Frequently asked questions

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

It is President Erdoğan's slogan for the view that five permanent members cannot represent the whole UN membership. It calls for a larger, more representative Council with rotating seats and a more accountable use of the veto. The phrase has been used repeatedly in his UN General Assembly addresses.

What exactly does Türkiye propose for UN Security Council reform?

Türkiye supports an enlarged Council that is more representative, transparent and accountable, with elected seats and rotation so that every member has a realistic chance to serve. As a participant in Uniting for Consensus, it opposes creating new permanent seats. It also calls for restraint in the use of the veto.

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

The G4 (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan) seeks new permanent seats for its members. Uniting for Consensus rejects new permanent seats and wants more elected seats. The African Common Position demands two permanent seats with full prerogatives, including the veto, and five non-permanent seats.

Is UN Security Council reform realistic?

A full overhaul is unlikely soon. Charter amendments need ratification by all five permanent members, and the main groups disagree on permanent seats and the veto. Smaller steps, such as General Assembly debates after vetoes under Resolution 76/262 or changes in working methods, are more achievable.

How does Türkiye's mediation record connect to its reform argument?

Ankara argues that states outside the permanent five can deliver real results, citing the 2022 Istanbul talks, the Black Sea Grain Initiative signed on 22 July 2022, and its implementation of the Montreux Convention. It uses these as evidence that a more inclusive Council would be more effective.

Cross-Publication Perspectives & Cited Research

Related Dossiers Across Partner Publications

4 Partner Desks