International organizations

Is the UN (for instance) an extravagance or a bargain? Well, like much else that we study in this course, the answer depends upon whether you buy into Realism, Liberalism, or Marxist (especially one contemporary variant World System Theory).

First cut answers (unsophisticated version):

Realists: UN might be either a bargain or an extravagance depending upon whether it tends to advance the national interest of my state. But to rely upon it or any other international organization for security is a dangerous illusion.

Liberal (2nd image Wilsonian): The UN system (especially referring to those affiliated intergovernmental organizations which promote international trade and investment) is very likely a bargain; the UN itself (what our author calls the central system) has desirable and undesirable features.

World System Theory (post-Lenin): Generally, it is a bargain for the rich and powerful in the world and an abomination to the weak and poor, but perhaps it can be reformed to transfer more power to the General Assembly (one-state-one-vote) and away from the Security Council (with 5 states exercising the veto).  In other words, if the UN itself becomes more democratic, it may offer genuine assistance for the social and economic development of the periphery.

Can we offer more sophisticated appraisals? Certainly, but first we have to explore in more detail the constitution (Charter) and activities of the UN and its many affiliated intergovernmental organizations. That's what this chapter is about.

Major claims:

1. The UN was designed with attention to the purported causes of failure of the League of Nations; the Cold War channeled the UN away from important security issues toward humanitarian and relief issues.
2. The single most important motivation to the UN's founders (mostly Western nations) was to contribute to keeping peace between sovereign states.
3. The central UN (essentially, what you can visit in NYC) is only a small part of the UN system. Arguably, the most important and influential activities of the UN are carried on by its Programmes and Agencies

Central System: Security Council (5 permanent + 10 rotating [elected] members) + General Assembly (190 states, Switzerland the most recent to join) + Secretariat (office of the Secretary General) + Economic and Social Council ([ECOSOC] 54 elected members exercising oversight of other institutions within the UN system)

Funds and Programmes (examples):

• UNDP (economic and social development)
• UNICEF (children's welfare)
• UNFPA (population issues)
• UNCTAD (international trade)
• WFP (food and famine relief)

Agencies (examples):

• WHO (health)
• FAO (food and agricultural production)
• ILO (labour conditions)
• UNIDO (industrial development)
• IAEA (nuclear proliferation)

(See typology of UN activities and problems beginning p. 347. Note that the second category, "Justice within States," seems to impinge upon the principle of state sovereignty.  This is important information in any decision about the value of the UN system. Of course, adherents of different theory-families disagree about whether particular activities are "goods" or "bads.")

1. peace-keeping (as a form of humanitarian intervention)

2. intervention to advance human rights (not aggression between states but more typically ethnic conflict or authoritarian government within states; also "collapsed states" unable to maintain law and order (or markets!)

3. relations of UN as an IGO (intergovernmental organization) to other IGOs and NGOs (nongovernmental organizations): UN as the hub of a loose network of inter-state and trans-national relations

Issues:

1. How does the UN get money to operate? Dues paid by member states; voluntary contributions; ad hoc contributions for particular activities; Ted Turner's philanthropy

2. Can the UN potentially evolve into a system of world government (e.g., federal model)?  To answer this, first decide if "world government" means "state."

3. If the most powerful states refuse to support the UN, will it wither away? Does it therefore follow that the UN can never succeed in being more than a spokes-agency for the interests (if any) shared by the most powerful states?

4. How does the UN relate to other powerful intergovernmental organizations (which are actually part of the UN system), such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund?

5. During the Cold War, bloc politics (bloc voting in the General Assembly and frequent exercise of vetoes in the Security Council) -- the West, the Socialist world, the Nonaligned Nations --limited the activities of the UN. Is it more effective today?

The UN system can be considered as one important element in a broader range of formal international organizations, e.g.,

• UN system, that is, UN headquarters + programmes + specialized agencies
• (other) intergovernmental organizations which address international economics, e.g., (1) long-term investments in infrastructure and other basic ingredients of economic growth: on a world scale, the World Bank (IBRD); on regional scales, regional development banks (European Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the Inter-American Development Bank); (2) short- to intermediate-term lending to facilitate international trade: International Monetary Fund; (3) rule-making and rule-adjudicating organization in international trade: World Trade Organization (formerly, GATT system)
• ? possibly military alliances such as NATO can now be counted here, if one accepts that its post-Cold War purpose is to keep peace in all of Europe. NATO's historic mission was to provide security for its members; only recently has it begun to engage in "out of theater" activities such as sending troops to Bosnia, the mililtary campaign against Serbian occupation of Kosovo. One might claim that these actions are related to its original mission: by suppressing violent conflict in Bosnia, NATO prevents violence from spilling over to neighboring countries, and thus enhances the security of its members.
• regional multipurpose formal organizations, that is, those concerned with member states' security (even though they are not, strictly speaking, military alliances) and with other facets of their members' state interests (such as political non-intervention, stability and development), such as the Organization of African Unity, the Arab League, the Organization of American States, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

These above are all formal organizations, whose home pages are conveniently collected here. They are constituted by treaties among their membership,

The links to the World Bank no longer work.  I'll have to find the new url's.  Sorry.

• with a 'constitution' and/or mission statement (the UN's Charter; NATO's basic Treaty + Memoranda of Understanding + Status of Forces Agreements, etc. (many of which are found here); the World Bank's Articles of Agreement (long enough to be a small book!)
• with a headquarters (permanent location) and staff
• with formal rules of procedure (usually described in their constitutive documents, e.g., the World Bank's rules for voting) and for amendment of the 'constitution'

They typically have regular sources of revenue which enable them to operate continuously. (Where does the Bank get its operating capital? How does the Bank distribute net income? In practice it doesn't distribute earnings to members holding stock in it, but reinvests them in its operations.)

Realists emphasize that IGOs, such as the World Bank, rely upon the financial contributions and political support of member states. Neo-realists emphasize that, once formed, the more influential IGOs, such as the Bank, are largely self-sustaining. They claim that, although member states can withdraw or be expelled, the costs of doing so -- loss of influence over Bank decisions; loss of the ability to apply for bank loans -- tend to discourage withdrawal, so that these organizations appear to be self-perpetuating. Neo-liberal institutionalists emphasize that strong IGOs (and even strong NGOs, which we'll investigate in coming weeks) tend to grow and flourish in those areas of international affairs where states are incapable of acting collectively and/or where states would rather not be directly involved in any official capacity. Next meeting we'll discuss the 'problem' of collective action.

Consider international famine relief: the foreign ministry of a state and its agency for official development assistance (1) may decide that involvement would be expensive, (2) may not be adept at quick action, (3) may not operate effectively in "primitive" or unsettled geographic regions, or -- above all (4) may be wary of getting too involved or involved too long or involved in activities which are very sensitive with the recipient country's government, with no "exit strategy." Yet public opinion, sympathetic to images of widespread suffering, may push the government of the state to try to ameliorate the famine. The government might find it more convenient to work through IGOs or NGOs or a combination of the two. Thus one Liberal-inspired argument for the contemporary proliferation of IGOs and NGOs is that they do things -- perform functions -- that states would rather not do or that states are relatively not good at doing.

Realists generally don't disagree with this in principle. But they maintain that IGOs are really animated by inter-state bargaining; IGOs can never become truly autonomous actors in international affairs because they never acquire their own base of resources; IGOs are, therefore, an inadequate foundation for international order. States may use IGOs and NGOs for their own convenience, but IGOs and NGOs cannot supplant states or (except for the weakest "failed" states) dominate them. If it appears that an IGO is dominating a state -- such as the IMF's insistence upon major changes in the very structure of the economy and policy of Indonesia as quid pro quo for lending Indonesia money -- then what is really happening is that the states which control the policies of the IMF are directing the IMF to adopt this policy toward Indonesia. (World System Theorists agree on this point!  But they look "into" the powerful states and identify a dominant capitalist class as the real agent of influence.)

One thus appreciates that Realists and Liberals disagree about the significance of non-state actors in the world today.