In the wake of the
devastating tragedies of World War II, the victorious countries decided that in
order to maintain a lasting peace, regulating organizations would have to be
created. Out of these revelations came organizations such as the International
Monetary Fund, the United Nations and the World Bank. These groups generally
have the same goals set for them in 1944 at the Bretton Woods Conference.
Without organizations outside the control of any one state government, it would
be much harder to keep and maintain world order. These groups are successful at
sustaining such an order because it is in a state of anarchy. Therefore, groups
outside of any nation or state’s government can successfully control the political
and economic world because said groups are politically neutral.
In our state of anarchy, states compete to earn the
status of hegemon. This competition can, as it has in the past, lead to
struggles between countries that can damage our current state of relative
peace. Although there is certainly not a worldwide ceasefire, there has been
this relative peace, in other words, there have not been any more world wars
among nations since the creation of such international organizations. Groups
such as the United Nations were created to regulate world order and have been
successful in doing so. When arguments arise between states, one course of
action it to bring in an outside organization to mediate the struggle and help
the different groups come to a resolution. An example of this situation is the
recent conflict between the United States and Syria. Although there was debate
on whether or not the United States should intervene in Syria and either punish
them for crossing the “red line” by using chemical weapons or aid those
affected by the use of such dangerous weapons, the final result was a
compromise between nations that was mediated by the United Nations. The
compromise came between the United States and Russia, an ally of Syria who did
not want the United States to intervene in the country, and asked that the
Syrian government hand over all chemical weapons to the United Nations to be
safely destroyed. The Syrian government obliged, giving all chemical weapons to
the United Nations where they were safely destroyed. This compromise would have
been extremely difficult to reach had the United Nations, as a politically
neutral organization, not helped create it. Had the world not been in a state
of anarchy, a higher government supposedly would have dealt with conflicts such
as this one, however, it is unlikely such a government would remain politically
neutral. Anarchy is what allows conflicts such as these to arise, and
international organizations are what prevent such conflicts from destroying our
relative peace.
In the case of the United States-Syria struggle, the
United Nations proved to be extremely helpful in having all parties generate a
compromise that would help solve the conflict. The anarchic system allows for
such conflicts to come between states that are struggling for more power and organizations
such as the United Nations, who are politically neutral, preventing said
conflicts from destroying relative peace among the world order. If the world
were not in anarchy, there is a possibility that a compromise would not have
been reached between states because more players would have been looking for
more self-gain.
While I see why you would think this, I also think it is worth addressing that the legitimacy of these "politically neutral organizations" stems from powerful countries addressing the organizations as legitimate. As such, these organizations which you claim to be void of political affiliations actually tend to reflect the intentions and goals of the more powerful countries that align themselves with the international organization. I think that if the goals of these significant state players were not met, we would see a lack of recognition of the organization from these states.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the goals of these organizations may lean towards the goals of more powerful countries affiliated with the organization, however, a non-goernment organization will be much more likely to take into account the goals of smaller, less powerful countries.
DeleteBut if these international organizations address the goals of smaller, less powerful countries as you say they do, the powerful states involved in these international organizations would be prone to abstaining from involvement, as the furthering of a smaller country's goals could ultimately make it a threat to another state's power and influence. A bit extreme, but a possibility nonetheless.
DeleteI do agree with you in this case. I argue that because state's are in anarchy, these international organizations are able to accommodate the goals of many states, not just the more powerful ones. However, I agree with you that they are probably more likely to address the goals of these more powerful states.
DeleteI agree with what pretty much everyone in this discussion has said regarding these international organizations and their goals in aiding the power of smaller less powerful countries; and that being less likely to happen as more powerful countries have more say in everything and are more likely to have their goals addressed and as Sarah said most likely don't want to jeopardize their power by giving more power to smaller countries.
DeleteI think you make a very good point in stating that these international organizations strive to protect the interests of all players in the international system by being separate from one specific government. As you said, because we live in an anarchic system, states are primarily concerned with their own self interest and therefore only politically neutral organizations would be willing to adhere to the interests of smaller nations.
ReplyDelete