International organisations

There are many international organisations (IOs) in the modern world, some are focused on peacekeeping such as the UN, others have a more economic purpose such as the IMF, WTO and World Bank. Others contribute towards global health, such as the WHO. Do they achieve this though? Or are member states’ only members to get some other gain from IOs? There are three different ideas that I want to discuss: constructivism, neo-liberalism and neo-realism, and which of the three I'm inclined towards.

When discussing IOs, constructivists argue that the role of IOs is to regulate and modify the identity and interests of states. This is to allow economic prosperity, political stability and peace to be maintained globally. In essence, everything I discuss today will be about what IOs can do to allow economic prosperity, political stability and peace to be maintained globally. If IOs modify the identity and interests of member states so they can better cooperate on political issues, economic issues and humanitarian issues then they would be achieving their aim.

Neo-liberalists argue that the role of IOs is to promote cooperation and stability, as that leads to the three things mentioned earlier. This is because cooperation allows countries to work together for a common goal, and the result of countries working together is greater than the sum of its parts (I will discuss this in another article in the future). Stability allows an environment in which countries can invest freely in infrastructure and education among other services, without the fear of conflict leading them to save more for defence than they would otherwise. This is not only beneficial for developed economies, but also for developing economies as they benefit greatly from even minor improvements in infrastructure etc. This can help to accelerate their growth and lead to the level of global inequality decreasing at a much greater rate than otherwise possible.

Finally, we should discuss the argument from neo-realists, and that is that IOs are a product of state interest and so cannot independently function. This is a somewhat opposite stance to the neo-liberalists, in that neo-liberalists say IOs modify the interests of states but neo-realists argue that state interests govern IOs. To develop this argument further, IOs are a product of state interest and so they are there to provide value to the member states which have more influence in them, naturally western countries due to their greater political and economic power. This essentially turns them into tools for those countries to achieve what they want. An example is the IMF, when giving money to developing countries there are stringent conditions placed upon the use of the money which forces those countries into abiding by rules set by economists who don't know anything about the true situation of the country. This has disastrous consequences, which can lead to the demise of a developing country that was developing well until they were forced to adjust their trade barriers to suit western countries rather than their economic situation. One might argue that IOs are just a tool of western countries for modern 'colonialism' by forcing their economic ideals upon developing countries when they aren't suited to the economies' needs.

As you may have guessed from the last paragraph, I am ever so slightly inclined towards neo-realism. The other argument that I might be inclined towards is the neo-liberalistic argument, however, I will explain now why I believe the neo-realistic argument is the most convincing when thinking about the modern world. In an ideal world, I might argue that the role of IOs would be to promote cooperation and stability as neo-liberalists argue, but I feel the constructivist argument doesn't represent the role of an IO, but rather a global government that then gives power to nations' governments, similar to a federal governing system.

I'm going to be making the case for the neo-realistic argument based on the IMF and the World Bank's approach towards providing aid to developing countries. During the 1980s and 1990s, the advice given to these countries was based upon the Washington Consensus - even the name implying American control. And this wasn't tailored to individual countries' situations, but rather forced upon them in exchange for money. Countries were being forced to exchange their sovereignty for money, and oftentimes the trade wasn't worth it because no matter how much money is available if it isn't accompanied by the correct policies there won't be any progress. Furthermore, the lesson wasn't learned by the IOs, with many countries being forced to exchange their sovereignty for money.

Rather than providing countries with the support and information to make an informed choice about the policies they would adopt, the IMF and World Bank continued to force the same strategy on every country. Countries should have been allowed to consider alternatives, and through democratic processes been allowed to choose one that best suited their economic situation. Instead, what happened was that the IMF and World Bank, conveniently headed by a British and American economist respectively, forced Western economic ideals of on countries at a pace for which they weren't ready and this led to nascent economies being shut down. While I don't fully agree that IOs are a tool for Western powers to engage in modern colonialism, it's hard to say the argument is completely false.

What causes IOs to be vulnerable to manipulation by Western powers though? It's because they have no reason to contribute large sums of money if they aren't getting something back in return, and that's influence over the IO's decisions and actions. In the IMF, due to its large voting power, the USA has a unique veto power, which allows them to control the IMF's decisions as they wish. Furthermore, the UN has 5 permanent countries in the security council with veto powers, and again this goes against the fundamental of democracy that each member has equal representation.

This is caused by each state's interests, countries such as America spend are member states in exchange for power and developing countries are member states for the aid provided. It seems to be somewhat like a corporation, you give more resources (such as America) in exchange for greater influence over the organisation's decisions. It leads to IOs being driven by specific state interests, and thus they can't independently function.

This entire discussion leaves me with a peculiar thought: would developing countries be better off forming organisations to help each other without the developed powers exchanging 'aid' for control over developing countries?