It looks like the world as a whole has never had such global problems all at once. Can the UN, the most representative body of the international community, tackle these issues with sound principles and functioning mechanisms?I am sure every leader who is in New York these days is pondering this question. But no one knows exactly who has what role in the increasingly complex matrix of global issues. All over the world, order and disorder are walking together. A world with no center, an unintended consequence of the post-Cold War world, is converging with a world with multiple centers. The “new world order” promised by the United States during the first Gulf War of 1991 stubbornly refuses to emerge; instead, it leads to calls for more regulation, more control and more coordination between different nations.
As things stand, the world-system is fast moving from a mechanical to an organic process. Success and failure, power and impact, greatness and weakness are no longer measured by single, easily identifiable factors. More subtle and not easily measurable elements define the flow of world politics. As the only superpower left, the US is struggling with domestic and global issues as much as any nation in the world. Such great powers as China, India, Japan, Brazil and others are faced with enormous challenges in security, unemployment, environmental crises and regional conflicts. Midrange powers are catching up with their rivals at no small cost. Smaller nations are becoming key players in regional conflicts that have a global impact on the world-system.
This state of affairs makes one thing clear: the erstwhile rigid divisions between big and small nations are becoming defunct. Big countries with bigger economic and military power still exert greater influence in real terms. Their ability to impact the world-system, however, is determined not only by the sheer quantity of their brute power, but also by their ability to form functional alliances with other smaller powers. The US, for instance, cannot lead the world by teaming up with a handful of great powers; it needs others on board as well. The same is true with the great powers: they cannot do business by cozying up to their big brother alone at the expense of their smaller partners. They have to be vigilant about equality, power-sharing and legitimacy, just like any other responsible actor.
The current structure of the UN is a good indicator of the shift from the mechanical to the organic process of change in the global power balance: big and small nations all have to agree on some fundamental principles to get anything done for the good of humanity as a whole. That means you cannot treat nations in a hierarchical manner, favoring some over others for the sake of power. Eastern or Western, all nations have to be treated equally and believe in the legitimacy of your actions.
Where is Turkey in all of these tectonic changes? Turkey is among the handful of countries that I believe interpret these new trends correctly and learn the appropriate lessons. Turkey refuses to take refuge in a futile nationalism or regionalism, but it also stands opposed to a globalization without any direction. Turkey's strength comes from its balancing act in regional conflicts combined with an ability to engage the main actors of the global system. Turkey seeks to follow an integrated approach based on fresh ideas, sound principles and sustainable policies.
But most importantly, the Turkish leaders understand the urgent need for a new global order. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan's speech at Princeton University was an elegant statement of this new approach and resonates well with those who believe that the world needs a new global leadership. It is only with a global, integrated approach that we can tackle the global problems of our world today.
