BY BERIL DEDEOGLU
TODAY'S ZAMAN- The way international organizations remain unchanged amid sweeping changes in the international relations scene is the source of many important problems. One of the main problem areas is the United Nations and its most powerful decision-making body, the Security Council.
The five permanent members of the Security Council, the winners of World War II, gave themselves veto rights along with the right to legally acquire nuclear weapons. Under the balance of power during the Cold War, their privileged position was not much contested. Their veto power allowed them to quash any decision that didn't suit them, a situation that opened the door to multilateral bargaining. When a permanent member vetoed a proposal, it implicitly admitted others could also veto its actions; and when a decision was approved by every permanent member, it reflected agreement, shaping the tone of international law and customs.
But today there are more 'global powers' than these five, and this is why decisions made or vetoed are often contested at the international level. The way countries such as Germany, Japan, Brazil, India and Turkey don't have a bigger role in the Security Council's decision-making process gives the impression that UN current policies are still shaped by Cold War parameters, making them difficult to stomach by the entire international community. Furthermore, it's hard to explain some apparent anomalies, such as why France is among these five powers whereas Germany's economic and political clout currently eclipses France's.
This structural problem stirs up many functional problems. As there are now other countries which count in the global balance of power and as the nature of international relations has become much more complicated following the collapse of the bipolar world, we are observing efforts to create international law and customs outside the ordinary channels. That means the UN's influence wanes and other organizations appear - not to replace the UN, but to share its role. A similar problem is also seen with the International Monetary Fund, now seeing a heated discussion over the role of emerging economies in the organization.
Yet attempt to reform the UN Security Council or the IMF could cause bigger problems. As every involved actor may have a different agenda, enlarged decision-making platforms may paralyze these institutions. Perhaps no important decisions can be formulated if every state defends its own selfish interests. That's why determining who is going to be included in decision-making bodies carries huge importance, more so than how we can make international institutions more democratic and transparent.
The transformation crisis of organizations such as the UN and the IMF encourages great powers to look for other platforms to accomplish their goals. That is why they try to substitute NATO for the Security Council or the G-20 for the IMF. In this context, NATO looks for ways to improve its cooperation with Russia and China, while emerging regional powers get a bigger role in the global economy's regulation process. This atmosphere allows countries such as NATO member Turkey to carry out joint military exercises with China or sign free trade agreements with Russia without compromising its European Union accession talks. It is only natural for countries that accelerate the international organizations' process of transformation - such as Turkey - to find themselves in the middle of the debate.