Global Governance of the Post-Cold War - Research Paper Example

How, if at all, does the ‘global governance’ of the post-Cold War era differ from previous periods of international organisation? Beginnings International organisations evolved relatively late in the historical and political context. Archer explains that the term ‘international’ is often confusingly used to describe many different meanings, i.e. the term ‘transgovernmental’ (relations between different governments), intergovernmental (to describe relationships between separate governments and their officials, such as war and diplomacy), ‘transnational’ (to describe relationships not merely involving activities between governments) and finally ‘transgovernmental’ relationships (where, say the foreign ministry of one country is in communication with the foreign ministry of another, without including other bodies of the government). When looking back on the European history since the beginnings of the Renaissance, all relations between countries were conducted between their respective absolute rulers. Warfare was frequent, and national issues did not really play a major role in these frequent wars: the very idea of a national identity which was destined to become of paramount importance during the late 18th and throughout the 19th century did not yet exist. The absolute monarch of any country could even dictate the religion of his people and often a switch by the ruler, say from the Catholic faith to Protestantism would mean that all his/her subjects were obliged to follow their ruler. Such an authoritarian climate is not conducive to the flourishing of international or indeed, I should say, transnational relationships. Archer cites the Peace of Westphalia (1648) as the beginning of international (in the sense of intergovernmental) relationships. The Peace of Westphalia saw the end of a 30 year war which devastated large parts of central Europe and could ultimately not be won by either side. The war was caused by religious differences, or at least that was the pretext, but ultimately was a struggle for influence, land and power. However, European wars within the context of a struggle for supremacy continued unabated, perhaps culminating in the Napoleonic Wars which ended with Napoleon’s defeat and the subsequent Congress of Vienna in 1814. At the Congress all European parties re-negotiated international relationships and re-drew the map of Europe. The Congress of Vienna was followed by a lengthy period of peace (the longest so far in European history) lasting 100 years. This period saw the population in Europe soar and witnessed the change of an economy based on agriculture to an economy based on industrial production and a move of vast sectors of the population from the country to towns and cities. It appears that the time for international organisations outside the transgovernmental sphere had not yet come and the first non-governmental international organisations were founded with the rise of a social conscience within society during the Industrial Revolution. Early Non-Governmental International and National Organisations and their Development The terms INGOs or NGOs for International Non-governmental organisations are now widely used for any organisation outside the influence of government, although they may be still be funded by a government. National non-governmental organisations date back to the mid 19th century (before the term had come into use - incidentally, the term “International Non-governmental Organisation” was first defined in resolution 288 (X) of ECOSOC in 1950 as "any international organisation that is not founded by an international treaty"). Such organisations include the anti-slavery movement and the women’s suffrage movement. The Industrial Revolution brought about the first non-governmental transnational organisations, such as the International Labour Organisation. With growing industrialisation and the increase in international trade volumes, more contact points between nation states were created, which in turn led to the establishment of international organisations to act for the mutual benefit of all parties concerned. Examples are the Universal Postal Union which was established in 1878 to ensure that standard prices were charged for the international transportation of postal items, a vital set of regulations in view of the fast growing trade relations between nation states and increasingly between the continents. Another example is the establishment of the International Office of Public Hygiene in 1907 to establish concerted measures to prevent the spread of diseases. The increasing globalisation of the 20th and 21st centuries provided a climate conducive to the rise of NGOs, in particular as international organisations such as the World Trade Organisation are increasingly seen as acting in the interests of global corporations, whereas NGOs are seen as providing a counterbalance by giving influence to the poor and to less powerful organisations within developing countries.. Although to all intents and purposes independent from government, NGOs still rely on government funding to a considerable extent, and this includes internationally well known and respected NGOs such as World Vision, Oxfam or Médecins Sans Frontières, so their true independence may be questioned. International Government Organisations During the lengthy peaceful interval following the Conference of Vienna, the effects of increasing globalisation made themselves felt as early as the beginnings of the 19th century, even if the term ‘globalisation’ had not been coined at that time. We can probably pinpoint the beginning of the gradual shift of power away from Europe, where it had been held for centuries, to the time of the declaration of independence of the United States of America and the subsequent diplomatic recognition of the US as an independent state in 1783 (The Treaty of Paris). Other countries within and outside Europe signed the Treaty in the late 18th/early 19th century, and the opening up to the West of Japan and China in the 19th century increased that shift away from Eurocentric thinking, albeit beginning at a slow pace. Towards the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century (1898 and 1907) two conferences were held at The Hague at the instigation of Czar Nicholas of Russia, to discuss and explore international disarmament. The second conference in 1907 was attended by 44 nations and sadly did not prove successful in that the arms race leading to the First World War (1914-1918) was not thwarted but continued unabated. However, the foundation for a concept of cooperation between sovereign states was laid and this concept grew in time, leading to the foundation of the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice which ultimately led to the establishment of the League of Nations. The devastation of the First World War and the Russian Revolution caused a combined threat to the political and economic strength of the European nations and an organisation upholding and regulating the relationships between countries and the newly defined Rights of Man was necessary to try and prevent a similar scenario from occurring in the future. The result of industrialisation and the ensuing arms race and national service saw an unprecedented number of casualties, both armed forces and civilian, in the First World War. In order to avoid warfare in future as a pursuit of national interest the League of Nations was given a multitude of responsibilities, including penalties, disarmament strategies, cooperation between nations and increased diplomatic efforts However, ultimately The League of Nations was not given the authority necessary to carry through any of its threats or recommendations, as it did not have its own armed forced and had to rely on the cooperation and goodwill of its member states. With the rise of fascism, in particular in Germany and Italy in the 1930s, the League of Nations was powerless to intervene. The League of Nations was replaced by The United Nations after the Second World War. Post Second World War Developments The allied nations started to negotiate in 1944 in order to create the Bretton Woods currency exchange system. The system led to the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (now World Bank). Each of the 44 nations involved in the negotiations agreed to fix their currency exchange rates by tying their currency to the US Dollar, and the US Dollar in turn was linked to the gold value. After the Second World War, and the dissolution of the League of Nations in 1946, followed by the creation of the United Nations with more powers than its predecessor, the world was primarily divided into two power blocs, namely the capitalist West, including most of the Americas and Europe and the Communist East, in particular the Soviet Union and China. The threats of the Cold War hung over both sides and various crises ensued that could have triggered another world war. In principle, however, although the major players had changed after World War II, the system did probably not feel unfamiliar: there was still the struggle for supremacy between the power blocs, and although Europe did no longer encompass all the major players, as had been the case during the 18th and 19th centuries, the playing field was now larger than before. Gradually, with the increasing economic and political clout, the power blocks might have constituted the US, the Soviet Union, and Europe, but now a united, non-nationalistic European Union. Throughout most of the Cold War era, China and India played minor roles economically, in particular as China was governed by a Communist regime that did not allow its citizen to indulge in free enterprise. Maoist China in particular, drew its strength primarily from its army and neglected to open up to ideas of modern industry and technology. With the fall of the Iron Curtain and the end of the Soviet Union, there has been a monumental shift in world politics and economics. The former member states of the Soviet Union have embraced a system of unregulated capitalism, whereas China, officially a Communist regime, seems to have converted to a form of capitalism that has resulted in a massive leap in economic strength and therefore political influence. The political gain that the previous Western bloc might have anticipated from the dissolution of the former Soviet power bloc did not really materialise and ultimately the world economy will see new powerful players emerge, in particular China and India. In the 21st century we are increasingly forced to think in global terms, leaving national concerns behind for a greater common good. All human actions have a global effect, the rise and fall of the economy has no longer a local or national impact, but will impact the majority of the world population. At the same time the political power balance no longer applies and we will need to adapt to new scenarios in order to stay successful in what looks likely to develop into a post-nationalistic environment. Increasingly, problems facing society must be addressed on a global, rather than a national level, and that is still a new concept that contradicts thinking that had been established over many centuries. The current recession serves very well to illustrate the increasingly weak position of any nation state or government. Finance transactions are made on a global level and on a global scale, and the high risk approach of many US banks to invest heavily in the sub-prime mortgage market, ultimately proved to be the trigger for a near collapse in the global economy. The previous sentence is obviously an over-simplification of what are highly complex matters, but the moneys created by international trade and investment are on such an enormous scale, that no government can prevent the collapse of a market by underpinning the market with its own reserves or by quantitative easing (printing money). The idea of global governance is therefore relatively new and applies to the time after the collapse of the Soviet Union. This new phenomenon has serious consequences for any regulatory bodies operating on a national or international level. Wilkinson argues that with increasing globalisation the authority of national governments has diminished, whilst national states still retain their sovereignty. With global trade on an enormous scale, countries are increasingly interdependent and governments are unable to control the flow of finances and information. But we might still tempted to applaud the freedom of trade and the flow of finance, despite the fact that the unregulated financial markets can get their actions disastrously wrong, with serious consequences for countries and individuals. This does obviously not take into account any illegal global trade, the size of which might actually rival the official figures in respect to regulated trade exchanges. I am thinking of drug trafficking, trafficking in humans, gun running activities to fuel civil unrest or civil wars in various hot spots in developing countries, and terrorism. If the position of governments and nation states is weakened, then so is their ability to regulate, protect, and keep their citizens from harm. If such a scenario arises, who, or rather, which body or organisation will be able to step up to fill this potential vacuum? On a global level, humankind is faced with monumental and unprecedented tasks. If we look back at history we find that it took several centuries to overcome a system of feudal governments with wars waged on the whim of an absolute ruler, regardless of what was in the best interest of their people. In the 21st century, with the world population level rising and currently pushing towards seven billion, the conclusion we have to come to might very well be that we simply do not have the luxury of time to address these issues, but that we must take concerted and decisive action immediately. Murphy states that almost half of the world’s population is forced to live on an income of roughly US$2 per day, and we are in this situation after 60 years of uninterrupted and unprecedented economic growth. After the Second World War the US economy acted as an extremely powerful engine to kick start the growth of wealth in particular in Western countries. The trickle down effect, the actual redistribution of wealth from richer to poorer countries just did not follow suit at the same pace or did not happen at all. On the other hand, we are faced with an unprecedented population growth – the world population grew from 2.5 billion in 1950 to almost 6.8 billion in 2009 (figures courtesy of the US Bureau of the Census). These figures also represent an absolutely unprecedented growth rate and in all probability go a very long way in explaining why so many people are forced to live in abject poverty. Distribution and trade systems simply need time to get established, and the population explosion seems to have outrun the development of such systems. In a way, the population growth has to be counted as a tremendous success for some of the international organisations: in particular, in this case, the WHO (World Health Organisation) who has, with considerable success, eliminated widespread diseases, such as cholera or, most importantly, has been able to distribute vaccinations or provided cures for infectious childhood diseases. The mortality rate of young children has dropped dramatically worldwide, but the birth rate proved more conservative and stayed at a level as if childhood mortality had remained at the previous high levels. The necessary adjustment in human behaviour would have been to reproduce at a much lower rate, as soon as the survival of children was more or less guaranteed. Woods mentions the increasing demonstrations against the practices and lack of accountability of the IMF (International Monetary Fund), the World Bank and the WTO (World Trade Organisation) as an example of the problems with regard to transparency and accountability. The mandate of the IMF and the World Bank was originally to distribute investments to developing areas or regions that needed re-development after a war or civil unrest and to regulate exchange rates, but this mandate has grown considerably since their beginnings. But despite these ever growing responsibilities, their decisions are still not open to public scrutiny and it is arguable whether their influence has not in many cases worsened the economic situation in many poor developing countries. The argument of many poorer nations is that these organisations use a “top down” approach by not including developing nations in the decision making process. The US, still the economically most powerful nation, requires the IMF and World Bank to be more accountable to its government, which is a request mainly based on the fact that the richest nations contribute the bulk of the finances to the institutions. On the other hand, most other nations would like to see the opposite, as their view is that the US influence is already far too dominant. Woods suggests a move away from the traditional thinking of power politics to distribute the decision making process in international institutions more evenly among countries who depend on these decisions. Increased accountability will no doubt help but ultimately neither the IMF, the World Bank or the WTO are elected bodies: this implies that by their very character they cannot have the same level of accountability than a democratically elected body of government does have. Can we define global governance as “the management of global processes in the absence of global government” (Najam)? Many organisations are involved in the processes, not all of them with anything like the power and influence of the above mentioned institutions. Some of these organisations may be formed for the purpose of addressing one particular issue and may dissolve when their objective has been achieved. But there are also organisations which are supported and sponsored by governments, by the private sector or by transnational companies wishing to pre-empt criticism by emphasising their responsible approach to issues ranging from the protection of the environment to measures against the exploitation of workers so that they may appear as “good citizens” and withstand public scrutiny. New Global Issues One of the more recent issues that has not been efficiently addressed and taken on board by international bodies is the issue of climate change and climate control. Again, many developing countries will face the brunt of climate change, either by losing access to water supplies and therefore diminishing harvests or by the threat of flooding through rising sea levels. As the very topical Copenhagen Summit demonstrates, it proves extremely difficult to unite all nations into a common strategy, even if everyone is in principle agreed that changes are necessary. The final summit statement mentions that a "meaningful agreement" has been reached and that the deal was a "historic step forward". I fear that in the context of diplomatic language this is uncomfortably close to branding the summit a total failure as, in short, there has been no consensus on concrete measures to prevent further climate change. Outlook There have been substantive changes in the governance of international organisations since the middle of the 20th century, and again, since the end of Cold War period. The UN is a good example for these changes in that it has been given powers its predecessor did not have. However, the concept of global governance is a relatively new one and comprises many issues ranging from social justice to the effects of climate change. At the same time, some inherent characteristics of the increasingly influential and powerful organisations will still need to be addressed, such as an overall lack of accountability or the lack of a truly democratic system within the organisations. The increasing complexities of global issues are probably more difficult and far-reaching than any issues human society has historically ever had to face. Higgott calls for the creation of ‘… a global domain in which a deliberative dialogue between rule makers and rule takers …. can take place’ (Rittberger). The democratic system needs to be scaled up from a national to a global level, and this process is in all probability not going to be smooth or straightforward. Developing countries are increasingly calling for an equal share of influence so that equal preference may be given to their interests. Currently too many far reaching decisions are taken by bodies who have not been endorsed by any type of mandate from the people. Too many actions taken by the United Nations – as we have seen a stronger, and more powerful successor of the League of Nations – have failed to reduce the difference between rich and poor nations, or have reduced inequality and injustice or indeed even been unable to prevent large-scale genocide (refer the Rwanda Civil War). The lack of political, financial, judicial and internal accountability that still exists within international organisations needs to be addressed to bring these organisations up to the same level of accountability of democratically elected governments. As I mentioned above, increasing globalisation in trade and manufacture, in movement of moneys and people, weakens the concept of the nation state and more and more regimes and organisations are being created with rules and regulations that further limit the sovereignty of many states. The potential vacuum in regulations and safety for the world’s population needs to be filled by democratically answerable institutions and organisations that represent all of the world’s population. To quote Peter Vale: ‘The moral issues raised by the contemporary problems of global governance … simply cannot be understood within conceptual frameworks that focus on states and ignore the fundamental conflicts between the privileged and the world’s marginalized people’. Sources Ngaire Woods, `Global governance and the role of institutions, in David Held and Anthony McGrew (eds.), Governing Globalization, (Cambridge: Polity, 2002). Rorden Wilkinson, `Introduction: Concepts and Issues in Global Governance, in Rorden Wilkinson (ed.), The Global Governance Reader, (London: Routledge, 2005). Craig Murphy, `Global Governance: poorly done and poorly understood, in Rorden Wilkinson (ed.), The Global Governance Reader, (London: Routledge, 2005). Clive Archer, International Organizations, (London: Routledge, 2001), 3rd edition. David Armstrong, Lorna Lloyd and John Redmond, From Versailles to Maastricht: International Organisation in the Twentieth Century, (London: Macmillan, 1996). Susan Carruthers, `International History 1900-1945, in J. Baylis and S. Smith (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), second edition. Len Scott, `International History 1945-1989, in John Baylis and Steve Smith (eds.), The Globalization of World Politics, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997). Volker Rittberger (ed.), Global Governance and the United Nations System, United Nations University Press, 2001. Read More