The Failure of International Organizations

           In the era of globalization, economic, political, and social aspects of different states are able to connect faster than ever could have been imagined. The homogenization of markets and consumers across the globe due to global economic schemes has led many to believe that globalization is a roaring success of the twenty first century, but I would argue that these successes are lackluster and artificial. Despite the alleged “cooperation” between varieties of states under the guise of globalization, the fact remains that states will never be truly connected due to the inherent state of anarchy which defines the state system. States today are allied and partners in trade, but the innate sense of independence of each state upholds will never truly allow for a functioning international organization.

            While I fully concede that international organizations offer the ideal alignment of states and may provide grounds for state communication and understanding, what is ideal is not always realistic. States may play well together on the international playground when their goals are in accordance, but when the interests of individual states diverge and tension emerges, international organizations do little to act as a buffer or facilitate a compromise. From a realist point of view, each state acts in its own interest, to preserve and perpetuate their goals and successes. These goals are not tossed aside when a country aligns itself with a multi-state body such as the United Nations, and as a result, the core of these corporations may consist of many conflicting viewpoints and aspirations.

            One instance of this breakdown of multinational organization occurred very recently; in the wake of the Syrian use of chemical weapons, many state leaders found it necessary to intervene. Military intervention was proposed in order to respond to the breach of international law, and while many states supported this idea, Russia did not due to a strong alliance with Syria on account of the fact that Syria houses a Russian naval base. Due to the proportionally large amount of power which Russia possesses in the United Nations, they were able to veto any international attempt to right the wrongs of Syria. A terse standoff was reached within the United Nations as state interests conflicted, and in spite of this, the United States proposed acting in Syria on their own accord. Domestic politics aside, the willingness of the United States to act unilaterally truly portrays the fallible nature of international organizations. They are convenient for the states involved until the action they wish to see is not accomplished, and then the legitimacy and effectiveness of the international organization crumbles.

            While there is no denying that our increasingly connected world has an ability to foster relations between populations and economies, this is due to the fact that state interests are being met, not because state cooperation is on the rise. Though in theory international organizations are entirely plausible, and encourage communication and cooperation between states, the reality of the situation is that states seek to serve their self interests. The independent desires of each and every state cannot be met through one organization, and as a result these international organizations will never truly live up to their expectations.