Julia Teitelbaum AP Comparative Government & Politics, Period 4 3/5/09 IGOs, NGOs, Sovereignty, and Developing Countries Atrocious crimes against humanity continue to occur on a daily basis in the Darfur region of Western Sudan. The conflict between the rebels and the jangaweed (government-sponsored troops) has resulted in what some call genocide. Around the world, humanitarians have joined in an outcry to “Save Darfur”. NGOs have been frustrated in their attempts to aid the people of Darfur. Richard Haas, the President of the Council on Foreign Relations explains “more than anything else [the hesitation to intervene] stems from international reluctance to challenge any government over what it is doing in its own territory.” In other words, the world is wavering about violate Sudan’s sovereignty, with sovereignty defined as the right of governments “to do essentially what they want within their own borders”- to rule free of internal and external pressures. As a result, all the cries of “Save Darfur” do little to solve the “recurring international problem” of sovereignty versus humanitarian intervention (Haass, Hauss). On a wider scale, the problem of Sudan reflects the problem of almost all other developing (and developed) nationstates. Allowing international governmental organizations (IGOs) and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to have more influence on a country may benefit it, but with these benefits, the country must accept a more fluid definition of sovereignty. Both IGOs and NGOs undeniably weaken state sovereignty, but while IGOs’ influence has not improved the quality of life in developing countries, NGOs’ influence has had a positive impact on conditions in developing nations. The effects of IGOs on sovereignty and on developing countries are largely dependent on the size and purpose of the organization. Above all else, the most important fact about IGOs is that membership in them is voluntary. In the words of one professor, “the international
community cannot yet force participation in international regimes.” (Jasper) IGOs come in many forms. The UN is the most global, with hundreds of member states. International financial institutions like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) are similarly global in scale. Organizations like the European Union (EU), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the African Union (AU) focus on governance of a region, which in turn can be large or small (Hauss). For example, in addition to the AU, Africa has regional organizations such as the Maghreb Union in Northern Africa (Mwencha). Additionally, there are organizations that draw members from states with shared interests. One such is the Organization of Petroleum Exporting countries (OPEC). Just as IGOs vary in size, they vary in function. IGOs are either political or economic or both. The UN is a political IGO focused on international cooperation and conflict prevention and resolution. The World Bank, IMF, and WTO are economic IGOs. The World Bank improves international trade capacity by lending money to poor and/or conflict-ridden countries for reconstruction and development projects. The IMF’s mandate is to create a stable climate for international trade by synchronizing states’ monetary policies, keeping monetary exchange stability, and providing temporary financial assistance to countries (Odusanya). This last function is highly controversial because the IMF attaches “conditionalities” to its financial assistance. Essentially, taking a loan from the IMF comes with required measures to be taken that are meant to improve overall macroeconomic conditions (Ali). Countries impose conditionalities on themselves by appealing to the IMF for a loan and taking it, but the IMF’s weighted voting procedures favor rich countries so that conditionalities have questionable effects on improving the microeconomic conditions and quality of life within a debtor country (Hauss). The WTO has broad authority over trade issues and generally promotes neoliberal economic reform worldwide (Hauss).
Regional organizations’ roles can be less distinct. The EU started as a “scheme for economic cooperation to usher in peace and stability” but has some political influence as well (Odusanya, Hauss). NATO, as a military alliance, is political, although it does not try to standardize its members' policies. OPEC is economic, coordinating oil producing countries’ policies on that commodity. Still, OPEC membership can influence a state’s politics on issues like global warming and alternative sources of energy since these issues can affect their commodity revenues (Hauss). Like IGOs, NGOs vary in size, purpose, and the issues they address. Amnesty International and Greenpeace are international NGOs. Others have most activity at a local level, but keep ties with other operations around the world. For example, while the Red Cross works more in the Western hemisphere and the Red Crescent in the Eastern hemisphere, they cooperate as part of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) (“Who”). NGOs fall into one of two function categories: service delivery or advocacy. Service delivery NGOs provide services like food aid, medical care, and aid in development projects. Advocacy NGOs like Amnesty and Greenpeace try to educate people, advocate for their issues, and act as watchdogs- reporting threats to their interests or goals. NGOs also fall into categories of issues addressed: human rights, the environment, or development. Service delivery NGOs such as Concern Worldwide address development by helping to build infrastructure, provide education, etc. Advocacy NGOs are usually concerned with human rights and the environment. For example, Amnesty works to end abuses of human rights and Greenpeace tries to raise awareness of environmental issues. NGOs are interconnected with IGOs; some, like the UN World Food Programme, are IFO-sponsored. Moreover, all NGOs depend on private individuals, business, governments, and IGOs for funding. NGOs can also organize to oppose IGOs or and IGO’s
policies. For example, in 1998 the IMF proposed the Multilateral Agreements on Investment (MAI) and NGOs organized protestors to lobby their governments to oppose it (Weir). International organizations weaken state sovereignty not by replacing nation-states, but by turning nation states into member states. How much IGOs weaken state sovereignty depends on the organization, and regional IGOs like the EU have more of an impact of sovereignty. The EU has weakened the sovereignty of its member states by establishing itself as a higher legal authority. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) admitted that “member state have limited their sovereign rights” (Ward). The ECJ has asserted its authority by holding that EU law and regulations take precedence over national law. For example, the ECJ has upheld or created the EU’s standards for products like chocolate over those of Belgium or France. The ECJ also proved itself supreme and its member states less sovereign by enforcing EU human rights policy standards. For instance, an ECJ ruling forced the British to allow homosexuals to join their military. Economic IGOs also weaken states’ economic sovereignty; however, their effect on sovereignty is often entangled with the effect of the faceless force of economic globalization. Since WWII, a main role of the state has been to “reduce economic instability in the lives of ordinary citizens”. IGOs and the changing world economy are diminishing national governments’ “power to shield their citizens form economic adversity” (Maynes). For instance, the WTO’s efforts to open trade markets worldwide have challenged governments who would rather regulate trade to protect their national interests, not improve global macroeconomic conditions. Still, the WTO’s effect on sovereignty is difficult to discern from the effect of economic globalization. Even though the WTO’s policies are an obstacle for governments who would adopt protectionist policies, the increasing interconnectedness of the international economy would make limiting foreign trade more difficult as well (Kingsnorth). The EU and
other regional organizations tend to weaken sovereignty more than larger IGOs. For example, while the EU controls most immigration and migration policy in Europe, the UN has no power to regulate migration (Hauss). Even the most powerful UN body, the Security Council, has relatively little power to act; while the UN has not had much success in convincing Sudan’s government to allow peacekeeping troops in Darfur, more AU troops have been allowed into the region (Haass). Still, the UN does weaken sovereignty. The UN imposes on state sovereignty over foreign policy by making members cooperate and negotiate (Englehart). Furthermore, longterm UN peacekeeping missions have been accused of weakening sovereignty by interfering with states’ monopoly of force, even though peacekeeping operations can only proceed with the acceptance of the “intended beneficiaries” (Jasper, Maynes). As of Wednesday, March 4, 2009 (yesterday), the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for the arrest of the president of Sudan for crimes against humanity in Darfur (Pflanz). Sudan rejected the conviction completely, illustrating how IGOs have clearly not done away with state sovereignty; in contrast to the regional ECJ, the more global ICC cannot assert its precedence over Sudanese law. NGOs weaken state sovereignty by taking on traditional state functions, by holding states’ domestic policies accountable to international standards, and by trying to influence state policymaking; however, their dependence on states mitigates their effects on sovereignty. Even seeming innocuous service-delivery NGOs weaken state sovereignty. For example, when the NGO Concern provides education or builds infrastructure, it takes on state responsibilities. Still, service-delivery NGOs weaken state sovereignty less than advocacy NGOs because they depend on state support for their operations. In Somalia, the civil war made it practically impossible for NGOs to work: "NGOs needed the assistance of states to impose a monopoly of the use of force and create a pacified space" (Englehart). This essentially limits NGOs to offering assistance and
"offers of external assistance do not undermine state sovereignty" because the state can reject them (Soros). NGOs are in a weaker position to resist interference from states than IGOs (Soros). A salient example of this weakness is Sudan’s response to this Wednesday’s ICC ruling -“[ordering] 10 leading international humanitarian organizations expelled from Darfur” (Associated Press). Advocacy NGOs enervate sovereignty by applying pressure to governments to change policies to support the issues that NGOs address. During the 1998 MAI protests, NGOs verified their ability to apply substantial external pressure on governments and stop the Agreement from passing. Nevertheless, the MAI protests also exemplified how NGOs do not weaken state sovereignty. Although NGOs exerted influence on state rule, they did so by directing citizens to their own "respective policy channels", depending on state institutions (Weir). Raising awareness can abate sovereignty: Greenpeace itself stated that “conscientiousness itself can be a form of governance”. Activist NGOs attenuate state sovereignty pressuring states to adhere to human rights standards in conducting their internal affairs and publicizing states’ failures to do so (Englehart). However, NGOs have yet another limit on how much they can interfere with sovereignty because they depend on donations for funding and “as donors, advanced industrialized countries attempt to minimize the effects of NGOs on state sovereignty” (Weir). Overall, IGOs have a negative effect on the quality of life in developing countries. Political IGOs generally neither worsen nor improve the quality of life in developing countries. For example, UN sanctions have not usually improved abuses of human rights in developing nations. Most of the time smaller developing countries can defy the Security Council because larger states do not have a stake in punishing them (Maynes). Regional organizations like the EU have improved the quality of life in the developing member states. For example, the
controversial Common Agricultural Policy has supported farmers in developing Baltic member states, improving their quality of life at least temporarily. However, the CAP faces pressures from lack of funding and legal pressure from the WTO (Hauss). While the EU does improve the quality of life in a few developing countries, the negative effects of international economic IGOs far outweighs that small improvement. The World Bank and the IMF favor economic structural adjustment policies that reflect the interests of a few wealthy countries who have the most clout in deciding the agenda of the organizations. Neoliberal economic policy reform benefits developed countries and theoretically benefits macroeconomic conditions, but the World Bank and the IMF neglect developing countries concerns about poverty and development (Odusanya). Economic liberalization has hurt microeconomic conditions that influence the quality of life of citizens in developing countries, especially the middle and lower classes. IMF conditionalities are hugely unpopular in the third world, partially because while IMF intervention helps the government and the elite, it also results in “aggravation of inequalities in society” and “enhances unemployment”. When the IMF bailed out Mexico in 1995 “the Mexican people suffered a massive decline in their standard of living as a result” and development after the bailout remained distorted, exacerbating the gap between rich and poor (Ali, Hauss). Ironically, IMF policies that were supposed to improve macroeconomic conditions have only aggravated the problems of the current financial crisis. The IMF reported, “poor countries face greater exposure to the current crisis because they are more integrated into the international economy than they used to be”. Even though it recognized this, it has only slightly increased its aid to developing countries even as the quality of life in developing countries further declines (“Poor”). Not only the IMF is to blame: the World Bank’s advice to South Africa to privatize and globalize its economy has had detrimental effects for the quality of life of its citizens (Kingsnorth).
On the other hand, NGOs have had overall positive effects on the quality of life in developing countries. When the government of a third world country cannot meet the basic needs of citizens, NGOs fill the gaps, provide necessities, and assist in long-term development projects. Service-delivery NGOs like the World Food Programme, the Red Cross/Red Crescent, and Doctors Without Borders provide food and medical aid that not only improves the qualify of live in developing nations, but saves lives. Concern also supports quality of life by facilitating continual advancement through education and construction of infrastructure (Weir). Furthermore, advocacy NGOs pressure repressive regimes to respect human rights, rallying “global attention [which] is often the only lifeline available to the oppressed” (Soros). Additionally, NGOs played a “crucial role in convincing states to draft and approve the Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and “pushed states to …create the ICC” (Thomas, Weir). Both the Declaration and the ICC have helped foster an international sense of “justice and humanity” and given legal legitimacy to human rights advocates (Ward). Environmental NGOs help prevent exploitation of resources and environmental abuse. Although in the short term this may hurt the quality of life and microeconomic conditions of a developing country, in the end problems like desertification, deforestation, and soil erosion do far more damage to quality of life in a developing country (Weir). IGOs and NGOs both diminish state sovereignty; however, IGOs’ worldwide influence has lowered the quality of life in developing countries while NGOs’ influence has had an aggregate positive effect on the quality of life in developing countries. The issues surrounding the influence of IGOs and NGOs are extremely relevant now in Darfur and practically everywhere else on land; the decisions countries make about their relationship with IGOs and NGOs remain essential to the drama on the world stage.