Ankara Social Sciences University Faculty Member and SETA Foundation Foreign Policy Director Prof. Dr. Murat Yeşiltaş wrote about the regionalized security narratives at the UN General Assembly and the importance of establishing a common security umbrella against globalizing risks for AA Analysis.
In the speeches made at the podium at this year's United Nations (UN) General Assembly, leaders actually said the same thing. The old security scheme is not working. But there are very different narratives about what will replace it. United States (US) President Donald Trump defines security in terms of power and bargaining. French President Emmanuel Macron wants to re-strengthen international law and institutions. Qatar proposes an inclusive regional collective security system. Syrian President Ahmed Shara seeks a new Levant order through a sovereign state and the state's arms monopoly. Iran says no country can be safe alone. Türkiye's position reveals a multi-layered approach to the reform of international institutions, regional ownership and strong national deterrence. The main point that can be seen is that international security has not disappeared and is increasingly gaining regional intensity.
It does not seem sufficient to read this picture only in terms of multipolarity. Multipolarity tells us among whom power is distributed, but it falls short of explaining how security is defined, who produces it, and what means are considered legitimate. A deeper divide emerged at the 81st General Assembly of the UN. Just as states have different policies on Gaza, Iran, Ukraine or Syria, they also think differently about security itself. While one side associates security with superior capacity and deterrence, another side emphasizes law and institutions. While some actors seek regional collective security, others see the re-strengthening of the sovereign state as the main solution. African countries are taking the security agenda beyond war. All of Latin America does not stand in the same place. Argentinian President Javier Milei's harsh criticism of the UN and his reopening of the Falklands/Malvinas issue can be read as an indicator of this. But the strong common thread in the region remains sovereignty, non-intervention and remaining as autonomous as possible from great power competition. Artificial intelligence redefines the actors and strategic resources of security.
The speech of UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who spoke for the last time from the UN rostrum, actually described the common ground of all these discussions. While Guterres said that power is redistributed among states, shifting from states to a limited number of private companies, and that people are increasingly ceding more authority to artificial intelligence systems, he pointed out that global governance institutions continue to reflect the power realities of a bygone era. Therefore, today's problem is not only the rise of new power centers; The actors that define security, the scales at which security is produced, and the sources of strategic power are changing simultaneously.
Security through force and bargaining
Trump's speech most clearly reveals the first security narrative. Here, security is shaped by the superior capacity's ability to change the opponent's behavior. Military power, economic pressure, technological superiority and diplomatic bargaining are turning into different tools of the same strategy.
Iran is the most obvious example of this. While Trump emphasized that he would not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, he emphasized his will to use US military power. In the same speech, he presented taking action in advance, rather than waiting for threats to grow, as one of the fundamental elements of his security approach. There is no sharp distinction here between the use of force and diplomacy. Military and economic pressure increases the costs of the other side, deterrence creates a new balance of power, and bargaining comes into play under these conditions.
It is possible to read the logic of this approach through the chain of capacity, pressure, deterrence and bargaining. In Washington's China policy, trade, Taiwan, semiconductors, critical minerals and artificial intelligence are increasingly becoming parts of a broader strategic competition. Therefore, it would be misleading to describe Trump's approach as simple American isolationism. Rather than withdrawing from the world, Washington is trying to transform its military, economic and technological superiority into a more direct bargaining capacity.
Security through rules and capacity
The European narrative represented by Macron starts from another question: In an international system where the use of force has become widespread, what rules will limit this power and who will protect these rules?
International law, multilateral institutions and state sovereignty remain central to Europe's response. However, the Russia-Ukraine war added an important element to the European understanding of security. In order for the rules to be implemented, there must be military, economic and technological capacity to support them. Macron's consideration of the call for effective multilateral responses in the General Assembly, together with the crises in Ukraine and the Middle East, reflects this approach.
Thus, in Europe's understanding of security, law, institutions, deterrence and resilience have become parts of the same framework. Ukraine's war brings defense capacity, energy crises bring economic resilience, disinformation and cyber threats bring social security, and technological competition brings strategic independence to the same security agenda. Europe retains its understanding of rules-based order, but increasingly recognizes that this order must be backed by power and capacity.
Indivisibility of security and regional common security
The third narrative emerges in the Middle East and constitutes one of the most important dimensions of the current transformation. Although Iran and Qatar have different security concerns and regional policies, the basic idea that emerges touches on a common point. Basing the security of a state on the constant insecurity of surrounding countries does not produce lasting stability.
This idea is also important for Iran. For many years, Tehran has tried to generate regional security through advanced defense, missile capacity and relations with non-state actors. After the US/Israel-Iran War, the indivisibility of regional security and the search for common security with neighbors become more visible in Iran's discourse. This approach does not eliminate the insecurity created by Iran's past policies, but it shows what kind of security narrative Tehran is trying to create after the war.
Qatar, on the other hand, carries this idea to a more institutional level. In Doha's approach, sovereignty, territorial integrity, non-interference in internal affairs, peaceful resolution of disputes and the state's monopoly on legitimate weapons constitute the principles of an inclusive regional security system. Thus, the traditional question of the Middle East "Which state will join which alliance against which threat?" A more comprehensive question is added to the question: On what common principles can regional states produce security together?
Here the distinction between collective defense and collective security becomes important. Collective defense ensures the solidarity of certain countries against a common threat. Collective security, on the other hand, tries to prevent conflict from arising by keeping rivals under certain rules. The future security architecture of the Middle East may therefore move towards a layered structure in which national deterrence, defense partnerships and more inclusive regional mechanisms operate simultaneously.
israeli problem
Israel is at the center of this debate. Criticisms of different actors from Türkiye to Qatar, from Europe to the Global South, towards Israel do not originate from the same political ground. Despite this, there is a growing debate about the regional implications of Israel's security approach. After October 7, Israel establishes its security through greater freedom of military action, suppression of threats away from its borders, and prevention of potential threats before they build capacity. This approach, which aims to reduce fragility for Israel, results in the narrowing of sovereignty and security areas for Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iran. Jordan's King Abdullah II's open and harsh response to Israel shows that Israel has moved from a security approach reduced only to the Palestinian issue to the center of the perception of regional insecurity.
Thus, the classic security dilemma re-emerges on a regional scale. Steps taken by an actor to increase its security increase the threat perception of other actors and lead them to produce more deterrence.
Syrian President Ahmed Shara's approach creates a separate security narrative at this point. From Sharia's perspective, the basic unit of security is the sovereign and functional state. Syria's security problem stems from external threats as well as fragmented sovereignty, non-state armed structures, not fully controlled borders, and Israel's freedom of movement in Syrian territory. Damascus's pursuit of a security arrangement with Israel while maintaining its position on sovereignty over the Golan brings together two elements of this approach.
Here sovereignty, state capacity, arms monopoly, border control and negotiated external security become complementary elements. The new Syrian example therefore raises a broader question: Can a sovereign state-centered order be re-established in place of the Levant's security order, which has been shaped by non-state actors, foreign interventions and fragmented sovereignty for many years?
Africa expanding the scope of security
The narrative coming from Africa emerges as an approach that questions the definition of security. African countries' demand for stronger representation in the UN Security Council is not only an issue related to the structure of the institutions. It also includes a challenge to which issues are considered international security issues.
The war in Sudan, the fragile state structure in the Sahel, the conflicts in the Congo, food security, debt, climate change and economic inequality create direct security problems for African societies. Despite this, the global security agenda is often shaped around geopolitical crises centered in Europe and the Middle East. Africa's demand therefore goes beyond greater representation to include a desire to participate in setting the security agenda.
This approach raises an important question: Who decides what is a security issue? At this point, Kenyan President William Samoei Ruto's speech shows that Africa's objection is not just about demanding more seats in the Security Council. For Africa, security is no longer an area limited to war and military threats, but is evolving into a broader framework that includes debt sustainability, climate vulnerability, development finance, food and energy security and state capacity.
Technopolitical security and new power holders
The artificial intelligence debate adds a new layer of power to all these narratives. Artificial intelligence, advanced semiconductors, computing capacity, data, critical minerals and digital infrastructure have now turned into strategic resources that directly affect the military capacity, economic resilience and sovereignty of states.
The fundamental change here is about the ownership of strategic capacity. In the nuclear age, basic strategic capacity was largely under the control of states. In the age of artificial intelligence, a significant part of the critical capacity is found in the models, processors, data centers and digital infrastructures of technology companies. Guterres's determination that power is moving from states to private companies and from people to machines clearly reveals the political dimension of this transformation. Trump, on the other hand, looks at the same field from a different perspective and puts forward American artificial intelligence superiority as an element of strategic power.
Therefore, the fundamental question of technopolitical security is broader than which country will have more advanced technology. Who will control strategic technological capacity, who will determine the rules of use, and how technological dependence will affect state sovereignty are among the fundamental issues of the new security order. Security thus expands from the balance of power between states to the distribution of power between the state, the corporation, and technology.
Türkiye and its layered security approach
Türkiye's General Assembly speech becomes more meaningful when read through these different security narratives. President Erdoğan's approach is not based on a single security level. A layered framework is emerging that links restoring trust in the international system, increasing the functionality of the UN, implementation of international law, regional ownership, diplomacy, national capacity and technological independence.
The first layer of this framework includes international law and reformed global institutions. In the second layer, regional actors assume more responsibility in solving their own security problems. The third layer is national defense capacity and deterrence. Development and technological capacity take security beyond the military field.
Pluralization of security
The basic picture revealed by the 81st General Assembly of the UN shows that the international system is not only moving towards a new distribution of power, but also experiencing a comprehensive transformation in the meaning and mode of production of security. While the American approach tries to transform superior capacity into bargaining power, Europe tends to support the rules with material capacity. While the search for common security comes to the fore in the Middle East, Africa is expanding the scope of security. Artificial intelligence transforms the actors and strategic resources of security.
To describe this picture, the concept of security pluralism may be more descriptive than multipolarity.
