Headhunting for peace, among other things: A review (II)
i. Non governmental which voluntarily provide cross border service like Red Cross, Action Aid etc ii. Multinational corporations that are profit oriented like IBM, Microsoft, Exxon oil, Toyota, etc iii. International organizations, created by government to achieve socio-political, economic, military, cultural objectives, etc; goals set by UNESCO, UN, ECOWAS, and the Military respectively. That even […]
i. Non governmental which voluntarily provide cross border service like Red Cross, Action Aid etc
ii. Multinational corporations that are profit oriented like IBM, Microsoft, Exxon oil, Toyota, etc
iii. International organizations, created by government to achieve socio-political, economic, military, cultural objectives, etc; goals set by UNESCO, UN, ECOWAS, and the Military respectively.
That even the UN specialized agencies can be classified based on jurisdiction, geographical reach and funding. Under intellectual flexibility they are subdivided into flexible and political progressive or regressive. Galting’s classification cannot be relied on totally because it does not provide full pick.
Having looked at the various kinds of classification as given by different authorities, the writer classified international organizations into five categories- citizen service, customer country, cartels, law/norm enforcement and political. UN epitomized or possesses these five types. Agencies like WHO, Universal Postal Union, suits for citizens – service group. The regional commissions, UNDP, fit into the customer country group. The IMF/World bank is an external example of cartel while the international Atomic Energy Authority, International Criminal Court typifies the law/norm enforcement and lastly the UN secretariat and other offices away from headquarters are typical example of the political organization.
Although its agencies and organs falls into these different categories, the writer is of the opinion that the UN lacks bureaucratic features that makes it impossible for it to be a model, therefore it is difficult for anyone to explain its pattern of operation or its predictability.
The idealist see international organization as part of the process of evolution and the only antidote to millenarianism, while the realist see them as the contemporary tool used by the powerful nations to protect their interest. The neo-realist sees international organization as a platform for cooperation to combat what an international state cannot face.
Scholars in developing countries (South center) have opposed the fact that UN is actually an egalitarian organization because of the privileges and positions given to developed countries like the Security Council. They equally argue that the world is in a terrible shape.
Some scholars argue that International Organizations are not autonomous but they are used by member states to carry out their whims and caprices. One of such is Mathiason who argued that since states fund and are members of an International Organization. They can as well be in charge.
States delegate power to international organizations that make it to be autonomous.
Delegation of power from state according to the book also gives the international organization a wide range of independence. Delegation also makes the UN to be above the law. That states can withdraw membership when the acts or policy of an international organization does not favour them, and in the same vein an international organization can severe or ban a state even when it does not do what it wants.
In the aspect of international organization mandate, conservative scholars agree that the mandate that increases the expansion of international organization mandate is at the expense of sovereign states while the realists see it as the amalgamation of interest around key areas like security.
This is necessary according to the author because of the interdependence of states and the international organization is the institution to sustain this interdependence.
In the aspect of legitimacy, the supporters like the functionalist stressed the indispensible role of international organization by carrying out functions that states cannot ordinarily do e.g. banking, atmosphere pollution, global threat, disease outbreak, human trafficking.
Also, International organizations are legitimate because they serve as the institution that converge the interest of states for harmony. On the other side, other scholars argue that international organizations are illegitimate because like the UN they encroach into the territory of sovereign states and undermine their sovereignty
WTO and the issue of Sovereignty:
WTO meddles into affairs that are considered strictly domestic e.g. education, health care, tobacco control and as such they duplicate the already provided facilities of the state and undermine the effort of the state.
UN and Resource Management:
According to the book, the UN has not been able to achieve the goal of its founding fathers who aimed at securing peace, closing the gap between the rich and poor countries. The intervention of UN is not in any way significant to developing countries; rather it further deepens their dependency through agencies like World Bank and IMF. Evidences have shown that developing countries grow better when left to develop on their own than when left to be influenced by external economic formula.
It is argued further that the UN also misappropriates money meant for development; they also over advise less developed countries but under nourish them. International organizations try to expand their areas of interest or coverage when they look as if they are losing relevance, sometimes analyst tend to attribute the failure of the UN to it’s bureaucratic nature.
Galting argues that UN does not meet bureaucratic features because its mandate is not from people but government and it imposes its policy on the people. It is not answerable to the people or bound by any contract. This makes high ranking staff to wield unlimited power, like the program manager who holds the life and stability of other staff job in his hand.
The UN also allows the overriding of informal power over the formal due to the ambiguous provisions; that is why the program manager can make decisions based on his personal desires even when it’s against the Charter or the General Assembly resolutions.
It is argued further that access to information in the organization is highly restricted with a lot of secrecy. There is no accountability as the organization by itself set up obstacles that will hinder transparency through the usage of linguistics and semantics.
The author went on and insisted that the UN lacked the ability and has refused to employ staff with the right drafting skill who can translate their thought and imagination into writing. That it is equally silently and diplomatically religiously biased as they give preference to just two major religions (Islam and Christianity) and low acknowledgement to other religions which they refer to as secular. The UN is very conservative when it comes to the receiving of new ideas and transformation but can be radical in the bid to survive and make its point. That is why M.J Balogun said UN is not an intellectual safe haven.
To be continued