Who Does the United Nations Really Represent?

By Suphi Aksoy | Member of the Presidential Committee of the Bethnahrin National Council It has been 81 years since the United Nations officially began on 24 October 1945. In September 2026, the UN General Assembly held its 81st session. Heads of state and representatives took to the podium one by one to share their views on the situation in the world and in their respective countries with the public. In his address, UN Secretary General António Guterres — whose term in office ends on 31 December of this year — drew attention to inequality, injustice, and proliferating wars. He emphasized the dangers of the reality of our world and the urgent need for solutions. However, since states and major powers have always prioritized their own interests rather than doing what is right, the UN podium served little other purpose than as a vehicle for propaganda. This year’s UN General Assembly was overshadowed by the conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran. Just at this time, diplomatic momentum accelerated as Chinese President Xi Jinping visited US President Donald Trump. In his speech on the UN podium, the American president once again proclaimed his own and his country's global leadership. While numerous summits, meetings, and consultations took place one after another among various states, Trump brought together Gulf countries — including Turkey — to determine the position that must be adopted against Iran. Although government leaders of countries holding UN member status were granted visas to attend the General Assembly, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, holding observer status, was denied a visa for the second time. Because the conflict and hostilities between Israel and Palestine continue in a bloody manner, Mahmoud Abbas did not travel to New York. He instead conveyed his views to the UN General Assembly and the international public via video conference. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan raised his voice on behalf of Palestine and Gaza. True to form, his strongly worded statements will carry no practical enforcement power against Israel. A wide chasm has always existed between appeals to the sentiments of Muslims and certain international humanist circles on the one hand, and the political and commercial policies implemented in practice on the other. Consequently, new alliances are being forged because the plans are largely aimed at ensuring that Gulf and other countries in the region join the Abraham Accords. Against this backdrop, preparations for a strong front against Iran continue, while military forces are being assembled to stop the Houthis in Yemen. Efforts to transfer jihadist groups to Saudi Arabia and onward to combat positions in Yemen are further fueling Sunni-Shia animosity in the Middle East. They might pave the way for a major sectarian war. It is evident that the reactions of the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Shia, Alawite, Ismailis, and allied groups in other countries are intensifying day by day. The drift of the Middle East as a region once again primed to become the theater for interfaith and sectarian conflict is upending social life. As economic crises, political impasses, and social turmoil deepen, the conditions for provoking and mobilizing the opposing sides also mature. Because of the gap between the rhetoric delivered on the UN podium and the actual events unfolding in real life, the UN fails to bring solutions to the problems of peoples. Moreover, there are many nations living under oppression that are neither represented nor heard at the UN. These stateless and unrepresented nations are only brought to the forefront of the global agenda through their own struggles and the occasional overlapping interests of certain international powers. Unless relationships developed tactically and unless the support provided transform into a coherent strategy and political formality, abrupt rupture and frustration can occur at any moment. We have seen this in Northeast Syria. The Syriac people, one of the most ancient peoples of the Middle East, possess neither representation nor status within the United Nations. The reason is that they were left stateless. Their land was partitioned. They were reduced to a minority within their own homeland and put in danger of extinction. Which powers and which institutions will secure this people's future? Another stateless people, and numerically the largest in the Middle East, is the Kurds. Although their identity is recognized internationally as a nation, they face various attacks and dangers because they are not protected by UN status. Besides the Syriac people and the Kurdish people, other vulnerable religious groups exist, particularly in Africa and Asia. Many Christian communities struggle to survive and to maintain their existence because of severe threats and danger. The Druze, Alawites, Mandaeans, Bahais, Ismailis, Zoroastrians, the Yarsanis, the Kakai, and many other ethnic minorities are subjected to targeted assimilationist and genocidal policies. The helplessness of the United Nations, which claims to have been established for global security and human rights, renders its very existence controversial. It lacks the power and initiative to grant the right of representation to stateless peoples. A new structural global framework is therefore urgently needed. An institution must be established in which all peoples, both with and without states, are represented on an equal basis. The views expressed in this op-ed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of SyriacPress.