tiistai 7. syyskuuta 2010

The global institutions of peace and stability - the illusion of new world order

1. The failure of the world government will hit the poor

Since the World War II[1], the United Nations has had the responsibility for the collective security in our globe. The UN Charter Chapter VII sets out the UN Security Council's powers to maintain peace. The most famous article 42 allows the Council to determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and to take military and nonmilitary action to restore international peace and security. The UN Charter's prohibition of member states of the UN attacking other UN member states is central to the purpose for which the UN was founded. Theoretically, the UN Charter relies on John Lockes’ ideas that postulate social contracts, first among citizens in order to establish an organized political community (state), and second between citizens and rulers about the transfer of power from the former to the latter, defining their mutual rights and obligations[2].

The UN Charter established a constitutional-like order among member states that is governed by the rule of law and viewed as legitimate by all its member states. The UN Charter is based on the assumption that policies of assertive multilateralism promotes better international order and stability than what would exist under traditional balance-of-power politics. The UN Security Council[3] is the organ charged with maintaining peace and security among nations. The decisions of the Council are known as UN Security Council Resolutions. The legally binding nature of resolutions is the subject of continuous controversy. In the case when the Council cannot reach consensus a resolution, it is possible to produce a Presidential Statement that is non-binding in its nature. This kind of complex decision-making is the reason why the UN Charter has been so difficult to empower.

In the 80s, the end of the Cold War raised expectations that the so called new world order could eliminate new wars. The time of hegemonic wars of superpowers was over. The problem that still remainde is that international conflicts are dramatic and episodic. There are no more traditional wars but terrorism. In the 80s, the Balkan crisis escalated into ethnic cleansing. Since then, there were many multilateral interventions, both by the UN/ EU and by the NATO. The massive interventions by the US and its NATO allies in Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts are examples of military operations through which third parties intervene in civil conflicts to stop the fighting[4]. The problem is that the multilateral intervention of the UN has not prevented militarization and human rights violations. The Serbian government's actions in Kosovo followed the same pattern that was applied by Serb forces in Bosnia[5]. The Serbian government repeated its historical pattern of military actions, and the UN acts in Bosnia can be classified as catastrophic.

Contrary to popular belief, little actual intervention took place. There was a clear contrast between the firm rhetoric of the Security Council resolutions and actions. When enforcement did take place, it was the NATO that acted, not the UN. The reason was the same as many times earlier. The Security Council is reluctant to punish its members of aggressions against civilians. The veto power of permanent members seems to paralyze the decision-making of the Security Council. The interdependencies of the UN member states seem to weaken their capacity to deal with civil conflicts. The UN has simply been unprepared for the complex conflicts like the organised mass murders that characterised the last decades. The legitimacy of the UN to intervene in humanitarian crises is highly dependent on its member states that exercize the legitimate power over their own territories[6]. A new kind of international governance, especially in the field of the protection of human rights is necessary since conflicts are more civilized and less brute[7].

The People's General Assembly of the UN has often indicated a consensus that the time is ripe for reformulating the UN's rules of the game. These top-down approaches is more efficient[8]. Some of the UN’s organizations, e.g. UNESCO, have succeeded well in networking with non-governmental organizations, NGOs[9]. Relying on its vital principles of human rights and sustainable development, the UN is particularly suited to integrating discrete groups into an international collaboration in institution building. Due to the increasing number of intra-state wars, the nature and means of international peace and democracy missions have changed. In complex intra-state wars not only military interventions are needed but multidisciplinary operations which include a wide range of civilian tasks, from coordinating humanitarian assistance and human rights monitoring to supporting institution building. NGOs not only address vital issues of the world environment, human rights, religious conflicts, migration, and refugees, but also have created new methods of collaboration over borderlines. Interventions to a state in crisis can be unilateral (one state takes action) or multilateral (such as UN or NATO action). There are certain conditions[10] associated with multilateral interventions that will increase the likelihood of success.

An alternative model to multilateral legitimacy is the model of dominance. For many years to come, the U.S is the only one reaching the status as a military superpower with global reach, although China and India are expected to be formidable economic powers in the future. The EU is walking in the shadow of the US and the NATO as long as its member states can implement their political union (the Lissabon treaty) as a necessary condition for conducting a single foreign and security policy. Max Boot[11] has noticed that the small war has further strenghened the U.S. position as the world police. The U.S. military force is the only option in regions where diplomatic or economic incentives fail to persuade (e.g. Irak and Afganistan conflicts). Boot sees the U.S. as an altruistic agent in international affairs that is solely responsible for the collective security in our globe. The Pax Americana can be seen as a parallel concept with the Pax Romana and the Pax Britannica. However, the Pax Americana contains return to the UN norms: the peace-keeping, peace enforcement, and humanitarian missions.

Unlike the model of world government, the model of global policy networks is not based on any political doctrine. The network model can be seen as a reflection of new trends in international relations that shows fragmentation of formerly unitary state structures. The recent appearance of NGOs, such as the Greenpace or the World watch, in practically all spheres of interest can be interpreted to signal the dynamics in international cooperation. Some NGOs can be harmful to the G8 countries and multinationals, but these organizations, such as The People-Centered Development Forum[12] ulilize the power of international media to signal worries about globalization and sustainability[13]. A good reason to favor the network-based and bottom-up approach is the fact that the most formidable, global networks like Attac[14] use this approach. Global networks exchange information and coordinate activity to combat crime and address common problems on a global scale. A New World Order can only be based on the network or bottom-up approach instead of the top-down one[15].

Since the 1990s, when the Balkan crises erupted, the EU has been trying to make the transition from reacting to crises on an ad hoc basis, to anticipating and preparing for such crises. The EU has strengthened the civilian side of conflict management. A key issue is the training and rapid deployment of qualified civilians. The EU has established civilian crisis management capabilities in police, civilian administration, rule of law and civil protection. The EU challenge is to link the institutional approach to the network approach of governance. The EU’s special resources and its unique legitimacy as representative of the common interest makes it the outstanding candidate for fulfilling the role of network manager, a role which means arranging and facilitating interaction processes within networks in an open, transparent and balanced manner[16]. The EU brings together the states and societal actors for mobilizing pan-European flows of ideas, knowledge, funding, and people. Attention is given to NGOs[17]. State and civilian actors are involved in networks ranging from the EU-level to decentral sub-national levels in the member states.

In Africa, the major obstacle of institution building is the local armed conflicts[18]. Small arms are the weapons of mass destruction of the poor. The terror over civilians has had a great destructive influence on political and social structures in Africa. The reasons for armed conflict vary. There is a clear need for better analysis of the root causes of conflict and of the early signs of an emerging conflict[19]. In some countries, the government has failed to govern. These governments are unable, or unwilling, to provide security and basic governmental services in their territories. Failed states are first and most humanitarian disasters, where the main victim is the population. Increases in population, collapsing economies, increasing poverty, environmental degradation, injustice, and foreign debts are typical reasons to failed states that are also becoming increased threat factors to international peace and security. Despite all the technological advances, it appears that military means are not any more reasonable to be used. The civilian crisis management initiated by the EU is the best option.

2. The neo-liberalism and welfare of the nations

In the Western countries, a Keynesian macroeconomic theory and a social democrat or a Christian democrat ideology dominated since the war until the 1970s. States had strong roles in the economy and major parts of markets were regulated. When the International Monetary Fund, the IMF and the World Bank were created at Bretton Woods in 1944, their mandate was to lend for reconstruction and development of states. The IMF was meant to stabilize currencies and to help countries to avoid economic crises. The World Bank’s mission was to finance long-term investments in developing countries, to expand and strengthen their economies. The main instrument is loans for development project and infrastructure investments at low interest to correct for the deficiencies of financial markets. In the three decades after the war, the IMF and the World Bank were appreciated as progressive organizations and loyal allies to the poor countries. In the 80s, their policy was opposite to that. Instead of helping countries to protect themselves, they began to work against obstacles to the market liberalization.

The IMF and the World Bank are blamed to be far too neo-liberalistic. According to neo-liberalism, market exchange is an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a guide for all human action[20]. Neo-liberalism is not a force like gravity but an artificial construct[21]. Friedrich von Hayek, the economist and his student Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago can be classified as contemporary neo-liberals. The Chicago school has succeeded to build an ideological cadre that has taken the hegemony in the IMF and the World Bank in which the U.S. is the major shareholder. The Chicago school has made neo-liberalism to seem as if it could be the normal condition of humankind. Two politicians have often been mentioned as forespokers of neo-liberalism. In 1979, when Margaret Thatcher came to power, she undertook the neo-liberal revolution in Britain. Thatcher's doctrine is based on the notion of competition. For her the market is the standard solution to increase efficiency. Ronald Reagan was the one whose neo-liberal doctrine made the Chicago school possible to takeover the IMF and the World Bank. Reagan is the president who changed the U.S. income distribution totally[22]. As the result, the U.S America is now one of the most unequal societies.

A central element of the neo-liberalism is the downsizing of public sector. Privatization was started from Britain and spread throughout the world. In reality, most of the public services constitute natural monopolies[23]. A public service producer often has the optimal size and the lowest possible costs to consumers. Public services require large investments. Public monopolies have not been inefficient because of the public ownership as neo-liberals claim. When a natural monopoly is privatized, the new capitalist owners tend to impose monopoly prices and lower quality on the public services. This kind of structural market failures has earlier been prevented in the EU by state-owned monopolies. Privatization favors capital and moves wealth from the bottom of society to the top[24]. In the developing countries, state-owned monopolies are often the only way to build up the infrastructure for the public services. The state is the only one that can take the risk of lending from the global financial markets.

There is a global trend to greater inequality. The ideological justification for such measures is that higher disposable incomes for the already rich and higher profits will stimulate investments and provide more jobs and welfare for everyone in a nation. The only result is disruptive stock market bubbles and financial crises of poor countries. The neo-liberalistic policy of the IMF and the World Bank has deepen crises by downsizing of the public sector and thereby, decreasing domestic market demand. The IMF need to promote international cooperation to make it possible for people in local communities to control their own economic lives[25]. The WTO established in 1995 trumps for free trade. The original mission was different[26]. Developing countries are disappointed at the WTO’s failure to create fair rules in international trade[27], the most serious case is agricuture[28]. Some sociologists have claimed that the WTO is the major obstacle of the global justice[29]. The industrialized countries have provided developing countries bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs) to win market accesses for more favorable rules. This approach is called competitive liberalization. The EU has declared its intention to use bilateral deals as stepping stones to future multilateral agreements. Bilateral and regional agreements are vital for developing countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific to maintain their access to the EU and U.S. markets in a form that is compatible with the WTO rules.

One of the problem areas is intellectual property rights, IPRs that are most critical in the areas of life-saving medicines and seeds of genetically modified products (GMOs) meant for farmers. The liberalization of science-based products and digitalized services in FTAs threaten to drive local firms out of business, reduce competition, and extend the monopoly power of multinationals[30]. A risk is how to guarantee poor people’s access to essential public services. The US policy is neo-liberal and opens up public utilities in developing countries to foreign investors if the sector is opened to domestic private firms. The US and the EU are pursuing regional and bilateral free trade agreements through FTAs that makes poor countries difficult to get a foothold in global markets. Although developing countries have proved themselves increasingly assertive at the WTO and in FTAs, the balance of power in current negotiations is in favor of rich countries and multinationals. Entrepreneurship is the only way to poor countries to reduce the negative implications of financial volatility, to enlarge democracy, and thereby, to defend human rights and environmental sustainability.

3. The EU: The crisis management as an instrument

The EU Council meeting in Helsinki in 1999 marked a breakthrough. The Council decided to establish a European military capacity to undertake the full range of so-called Petersberg tasks incorporated within the European Security and Defence Policy, the ESDP. The EU will deploy 60.000 soldiers in less than 60 days and to sustain them for at least one year and to complement and reinforce the NATO response force. The EU’s aim is to launch an operation within 5 days of the approval of a crisis management action and to have forces ready to implement their mission on the ground within 10 days of a decision. In 2000, the EU Council in Nice accepted foundations for the ESDP according to the French initiative. The EU has confirmed its policy to carry out the whole range of crisis (military and civilian) management tasks in Headline Goal 2010[31]. Action Plan for the ESDP specifies a broader range of expertise in crisis management missions. The EU prerequisites appropriate policies and policy tools, and well–defined relations with other intergovernmental organizations, IGOs mainly the UN[32].

Since its creation, the EU has engaged in conflict prevention. The EU uses all aspects of its external policy to prevent conflicts in the world, strongly advocating an early tackling of the potential structural causes of violent conflict. The EU tries to learn of the history. The European security context was transformed by the Cold War, the time when the NATO and the Warsaw Pact[33] divided Europe into two blocks. The NATO’s European members worked actively to guarantee their own security by the Western European Union, the WEU[34]. Binding the destinies of the two continents in the Washington Treaty in 1949, the US took the undisputed hegemony in the NATO. Because the US was striving for the global leadership[35], it was reluctant to be properly involved in the European security. The crises in Balkan brought about collapsed states[36]. The NATOs and the UN could not prevent the escalation of crises. The EU’s Civil Crisis Management (CRM) is meant for collapsed states to guarantee a quick return to a normal civilian administration. EU’s CRM is parallel to the UN’s peace operation. The NATO’s crisis management and conflict prevention are much narrower than EU’s concept that includes civilian capabilities in the four areas: police, rule of law, civilian administration and civil protection. The EU is a global actor. The EU affirms the role of supporting an international order based on multilateralism within the UN. The EU’s focus is the CRM.

Compared with the top-down-approach of the UN and the NATO, the EU relies on the network or bottom-up approach. To act fast and effectively, the EU has developed an early warning and rapid reaction system to spot regions in the world where tensions are rising. By an early identification, the EU has a better chance of taking effective action to address the underlying causes of conflict[37]. The EU’s own agency in CRM operations is the OSCE, Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe[38] that has an extensive field presence, allowing a rapid response regardless of its consensus-based decision-making system. The OSCE has developed an in-house capacity in areas like terrorism as a part of the tool box[39].The CRM experts are not only state experts but those with relevant experience and special knowledge. These persons are not easily available for the short-term deployment in international missions. They have their own duties, and they may have little incentive to volunteer for dangerous operations. These persons need to be equipped and requited for international missions[40]. A challenge is to develop a database of trainers from governmental organizations and NGOs that could be mobilised at short notice.

Different organizations, both IGOs[41] and NGOs[42], should engage in a closer cooperation in the future to share the vast experiences that have accumulated over years. The EU Council reports that the CRM mechanism is both increasingly important and becoming more demanding[43]. Although the EU has a number of well-documented successful CRM cases in recent years, still more effort is needed to boost the involvement globally. The major problem is monetary resources allocated in the ESDP and, especially the mission of globally influential CRM. The ESDP is significantly short of funds. It is indeed urgently necessary to increase the ESDP budget and to strengthen national parliamentary scrutiny in this area. The ratification of the Constitutional Treaty gives the EU the instruments it needs to become a global player. The EU must be able to act before a crisis occurs. The EU must retain the ability to conduct concurrent operations thus sustaining several operations simultaneously at different levels of engagement.

The Crisis Management Initiative (CMI)[44] is a NGO aimed to respond to new security challenges by enhancing the conflict prevention and crisis management capacity of the international community[45]. The CMI’s strength is its network of politicians, international organisations, firms, research institutes, and individuals. The CMI’s mission is to bring together the relevant actors. The International Peace Academy (IPA)[46] is another NGO dedicated to promoting the prevention and settlement of armed conflicts between and within states through policy research and development. The IPA works closely with the UN, regional and other international organisations, governments, and NGOs, as well as with parties to conflicts in selected cases. Its efforts are enhanced by its ability to draw on a worldwide network of government and business leaders, scholars, diplomats, military officers, and leaders of civil society.

The current international response to crises is ineffective and there is a need to develop a better civilian toolset for the international community to deal more professionally and effectively with failed states and post-conflict societies. Poor governance and the lack of rule of law are the root causes of conflicts. To avoid “reinventing the wheel”, it was argued that some kind of a basic strategic framework, adaptable to different situations, should be developed, taking the advantage of information technology[47].

[1]This conflict split a majority of the world's nations into two opposing camps: the Allies and the Axis and resulted in the deaths of 60 million people. More than 100 million military personnel from 61 nations were mobilized. However, nearly two-thirds of those killed in the war were civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
[2]Clark, Grenville and Sohn, Louis (1966) World Peace Through World Law: Two Alternative, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
[3]The Security Council is made up of 15 members. The permanent members (China, France, Russia, the UK and the U.S.) hold veto power over substantive but not procedural resolutions. Ten temporary seats are held for two-year terms with memberes voted by the UN General Assembly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council
[4] Regan, Patrick M. (2002) Civil Wars and Foreign Powers: Outside Intervention in Intrastate Conflict, University of Michigan Press.
[5] Pevehouse, Jon and Goldstein, Joshua (1999) Serbian Compliance or Defiance in Kosovo? Statistical Analysis and Real-Time Predictions, Journal of Conflict Resolution 43, pp.538-546.
[6] Weber, Max (1946) Science as a Vocation, in Gerth, Hans and Mills, Wright (eds.) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Oxford University Press, New York.
[7] On 21 March 2005, UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, released his report “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all”.
[8] Falk, Richard, Ruiz, Lester, and Walker, R.B. J. (editors) (2002) Reforming the International: Law, Culture, Politics, New York, Routledge.
[9]Since the World Summit on Social Development at Copenhagen (6 - 12 March in 1995) at Copenhagen, the U.N. itself has fully recognized the persuasive power of NGOs.
[10]Patrick Regan identifies three historically rooted conditions: mutual consent of the parties involved, impartiality on the part of the intervenors, and the existence of a coherent intervention strategy. Patrick M. Regan (2002) Civil Wars and Foreign Powers: Outside Intervention in Intrastate Conflict, University of Michigan Press.
[11] Boot Max (2002) The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power, New York: Basic Books.
[12] www.pcdf.org/
[13] www.attac.org/
[14] See Korten, David (1995) When Corporations Rule the World, London.
[15] Anne-Marie Slaughter points out that not only terrorists, arms dealers, drug dealers, traffickers in women and children, as well as the pirates of intellectual property operate through global networks; government officials, such as police investigators, financial regulators, and even judges and legislators, also work in such networks. Slaughter, Anne-Marie (2004) A New World Order, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[16]Kickert, Walter J.M., Klijn, Erik-Hans & Koppenjan, Joop F. M. (1997) Managing Complex Networks: Strategies for the Public Sector, Sage Publications Inc.
[17]Fisher, William F. (1997) Doing Good? The Politics and Antipolitics of NGO Practices, Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 26: 439-464.
[18] During the 1990’s, there were 111 armed conflicts in 74 locations. Half of these were major conflicts (more than 1000 battle related military deaths). Conflict has directly killed more than 2.5 million people in the last decade, and displaced and uprooted over ten times this number (31 million people). Wallensteen, Peter and Sollenberg, Margareta (2001) Armed Conflict, 1989-2000, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 38, No. 5, 629-644, Department of Peace and Conflict Research, Uppsala University.
[19]There are many factors which are early signals of potential conflict: Poverty, economic stagnation, uneven distribution of resources, weak social structures, undemocratic governance, systematic discrimination, oppression of the rights of minorities, refugee flows, ethnic antagonisms, religious and cultural intolerance, social injustice, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and small arms.

[20]Harvey, David (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[21]Susan George claims that we need workable international taxation, including a Tobin Tax on monetary market transactions, Susan George, A Short History of Neoliberalism, Conference on Economic Sovereignty in a Globalising World March 24-26, 1999.
[22]In the 1990s, the extremely lucky top 1 % of American families could thank Reagan for a 50 % increase. A decade later, the top 1 percent was 115 times as well off as the bottom decile. Phillips, Kevin (1990) The Politics of Rich and Poor, Basic Books.
[23]A natural monopoly exists when the minimum scale of operations equal the actual size of the market.
[24] In Finland, Fortum, the vertically integrated and state-owned monopoly in electricity production was privatized in the beginning of the 2000s. The result was twice higher prices for consumers and huge options for the managers.
[25] A report released by the Independent Evaluation Office (IEO) of the IMF criticises the role of the IMF in managing aid inflows to Sub-Saharan Africa
[26] The WTO is based on John Maynard Keynes’s ideas. Keynes uses the name the International Trade Organisation (ITO), supported by an international central bank, the International Clearing Union (ICU). http://progecon.wordpress.com/tag/wto/
[27]Ikenberry, John (2001) After Victory: Institutions, Strategic Restraint, and the Rebuilding of Order after Major Wars, Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
[28]Farmers in Africa that have difficulties to compete against subsidies in the U.S. and the EU, which has threaten the livelihoods of millions of people dependent on farming in West and Central Africa http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?reportid=57400
[29] Korten, David (1995) When Corporations Rule the World, London.
[30]In some countries like Mexico “liberalized” services are owned by over 80 per cent by multinationals, most of them are US-owned.
[31] They approved by General Affairs and External Relations Council on 17 May 2004 endorsed by the European Council of 17 and 18 June 2004.
[32] Deighton, Anne (2002) The European Security and Defence Policy, Journal of Common Market Studies, Volume 40.
[33] Treaty of Friendship, Co-operation and Mutual Assistance between the People's Republic of Albania, the People's Republic of Bulgaria, the Hungarian People's Republic, the German Democratic Republic, the Polish People's Republic, the Rumanian People's Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the Czechoslovak Republic, May 1, 1955.
[34] Sloan, Stanley (2000) The United States and European defence, Chaillot Papers 39, Institute for Security Studies of WEU.
[35] Cook, Don (1989) Forging the Alliance, 1945-1950, London: Secker & Warburg, Chapters 9-11.
[36] Milliken, Jennifer (2003) State Failure, Collapse and Reconstruction, Oxford, Malden, Blackwell Publishing.
[37] Lindblom, Lina (2004) Democracy and the Evolution of a Culture of Prevention, Lessons from Guatemala 1993-2003.
[38] The OSCE with its 55 member states succeeds the permanent Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE).
[39] The OSCE has improved and simplified its own management, based on IT off-the-shelf systems, and increased reliance on accountability and responsibility. Within the system, responsibility is delegated to fund managers, heads of missions, heads of institutions, and to people on the ground. www.cmi.fi/files/background_paper_3_2006.pdf
[40] To better collaboration, the EU will establish: an EU-NGO peace-building advisory group and the Civilian Response Team (CRT) and operational guidelines. Gourlay, Catriona, Feasibility Study on the European Civil Peace Corps. www.isis-europe.org/ftp/download/ecpcstudy%20fortheweb.pdf
[41] An intergovernmental organization (IGO) is an organization, such as the European Community, the World Trade Organization, African Union and Nordic Council of Ministers, with sovereign states or other IGOs as members. Such organizations function according to the principles of intergovernmentalism, which means that unanimity is required. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization
[42] The term non-governmental organization (NGO) is used in a variety of ways, depending on the context in which it is used, can refer to many different types of organizations. The number of internationally operating NGOs is 40,000. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization
[43] Civilian aspects of the ESDP - reply to the annual report of the Council, DOCUMENT A/1929, June 2006.
[45]CMI’s founder, President Martti Ahtisaari, is the Chairman of the Board, and Ambassador Jaakko Iloniemi is the President of CMI.
[47]Dr. Robert Orr, Executive Director, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, argued that there is no support system for political facilitation. The international community relies on supermen to be the strategic actors that rearrange the pieces and get all local parties to pull the hardest for a peaceful resolution. There is no ready international constabulary, nor adequate policing resources to deploy; there is no cadre of deployable civil administrators, nor tools, nor methodologies for building civil administration capacity. www.cmi.fi/files/background_paper_3_2006.pdf

Ei kommentteja:

Lähetä kommentti