THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM: A PLACE FOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOs)

THE INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM: A PLACE FOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGOs) George Kaloudis, Ph.D. Rivier University Department of History, Law, and Political Science 420 South Main Street Nashua, NH 03060 Tel.: 603-897-8574 Email: gkaloudis@rivier.edu

The Treaty of Westphalia ended the Thirty Years War in 1648; a war between Protestants and Catholics at the heart of Europe. The Westphalian settlement signified the beginning of modern international relations and the plenipotentiaries creatively fused diverse ideas to put international order on a new footing (Kegley and Raymond, p. 128, 2002). This new international system is often referred to as the Westphalian order and dominated world politics for the next 350 years. The Westphalian order was based on two main principles; the principle of statehood and the principle of sovereignty. The Westphalian order was a state-centric system and the rulers of Europe agreed that each had the right to rule their territories without outside interference (McGrew, pp. 23-24, 2014). But over the past few decades the international system has been transformed in numerous ways including the multiplicity of non-state actors which at times cooperate with the state and at other times challenge the state. Among the plethora of important non-state actors are tens of thousands of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In this paper I will explore the reasons for the growth of NGOs, the functions of NGOs, and attempt to assess NGOs. Before such an undertaking begins it is necessary to define an acceptable NGO (as opposed to unacceptable, i.e., Al-Qaeda, ISIS, etc.) because NGOs are often defined in a way to fit the research agendas of scholars. Warkentin defines an NGO as private, voluntary, nonprofit associations whose memberships and organizational activities cross national borders (2001, p. 3). Ahmed and Porter define an NGO as any international organization which is not established by inter-governmental agreement According to them, an NGO cannot be for profit, it cannot advocate violence, and it cannot be a political party, a school, or a university (2013, p. 8).The United Nations definition of an NGO encompasses six principles: an NGO should support the mission of the United Nations; an NGO should be a representative body; an NGO cannot be a profit-making organization; an NGO cannot advocate violence; an NOG must not interfere in the domestic affairs of states; and an NGO must not be established by an intergovernmental agreement (cited in Willetts, 2014, p. 328). Stroup and Wong focus on what they call international nongovernmental

organizations (INGOs), which operate in three or more different countries. For the purposes of this paper I will adopt the United Nations definition of an NGO. REASONS FOR THE GROWTH OF NGOs There is a variety of reasons, both internal and external, for the dramatic growth of NGOs in non-democratic as well as democratic countries. According to Manuel Castells four distinct political crises confront democratic states: 1. Crisis of efficiency: problems cannot be sufficiently managed by individual governments, i.e., global warming and regulation of financial markets. 2. Crisis of legitimacy: [p]olitical representation is increasingly distant. There is greater separation between political representatives and those being represented. A situation worsened by the media with its emphasis on scandals and access to power by the privileged. 3. Crisis of identity: as people see their nation and culture becoming disjointed by the forces of globalization, their claim to autonomy takes the form of resistance identity and cultural identity politics as opposed to their political identity as citizens. 4. Crisis of equity: globalization often increases inequality between countries and among social groups within countries. The absence of global regulatory regimes to manage global inequality places great strain upon welfare states. And countries without welfare states have even greater difficulty to compensate for the increasing inequality. As a consequence of these crises, and the inability of governments to do much about them, non-state actors, among them NGOs, become the voices for the voiceless (2004, p. 10). Kim Reimann provides a lengthier list of reasons for the growth of NGOs in the late 1980s and early 1990s with the end of the Cold War. NGOs have proliferated in numbers because of expanding opportunities for resource mobilization and political access. As international organizations and institutions have expanded to deal with global issues, they have sought the cooperation of NGOs as service providers and as advocates. In addition, greater international funding opportunities has created an environment conducive to NGO growth (2006, 46). NGOs need funding to survive. While individual donors have been an important source of funding, grants and other forms of financial assistance from states, foundations, and other institutions have played an essential role in the growth of NGOs. For example, the United States government has been the world leader in funding non-profit organizations and along with United States-based foundations has much contributed to their growth. The United Nations, since its inception and through many its agencies, has been a major funder of NGOs. United Nations agencies have included NGOs as partners and contractors of services in their programs. Here is a non-exhaustive list of United Nations agencies that have and do cooperate with NGOs: UN Children s Fund, UN High Commissioner for Refugees, World Food Program, Food and Agriculture Organization, UN Commission on Human Rights, United Nations Population Fund, World Bank, International Fund for Agricultural Development, UN Development Program, Global Environment Facility, UN International Drug Control Program, Popular Coalition to Eradicate Hunger and

Poverty, UN Joint Program on HIV/AIDS, and Partnership for Poverty Reduction (Reimann, 48-51). Another intergovernmental organization that has increased its support of NGOs has been the European Union. In addition to the desire of individual European Union members to support NGOs, what has become the European Union has had its own foreign assistance program since the 1960s and began funding NGOs since the mid- 1970s.Western democratic states have also been an important sponsor of NGOs. Industrial democratic states have especially funded NGOs involved in international development and humanitarian crises (Riemann, 51-52). Another significant reason for the proliferation of NGOs has been private foundations. Many private foundations have funded NGOs involved in international development, service, and advocacy. Here is a limited list of only American private foundations which have contributed $billions to NGOs: Alton Jones Foundation Carnegie Corporation Ford Foundation Gates Foundation Global Fund for Women Hewlett Foundation Kellogg Foundation MacArthur Foundation Mott Foundation Packard Foundation Rockefeller Brothers Fund Rockefeller Foundation Turner Foundation Wallace Global Fund (Reimann, 53-54). One of the most intriguing and presently one of the most significant reasons for the growth of NGOs is the number of failed states in Africa, the Balkans, the Middle East, the former Soviet Union, and elsewhere in the world. Failed states have increased the level of chaos and uncertainty to which NGOs and other organizations and institutions have tried to respond. The humanitarian emergencies resulting from failed states are defined by the following characteristics: the collapse of central government authority; ethnic or religious conflict and human rights abuses; food insecurity and starvation; very high rates of inflation and unemployment; and

massive numbers of internally displaced people and refugees. Such emergencies have caused a shift of resources from sustainable development to life-saving humanitarian interventions. As such, the amount of funding provided by the United States Agency for International Development to UN organizations, the International Organization for Migrations, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and NGOs has risen dramatically beginning in the 1980s and 1990s (Natsios, 2005, 381-382). WHAT DO NGOS DO? For many decades NGOs were usually identified with relief and charity work. Although these roles continue to be at the core of the work done by many NGOs, in recent years NGOs have expanded their roles to include work in areas such as economic and social development, advocacy, agenda setting, public education, monitoring of international agreements, and interacting with intergovernmental organizations (Ahmed and Potter, p. 37). Relief INGOs in Europe and North America have their roots in Christian missionary organizations that date back to the sixteenth century. But the modern secular NGO got its start with the founding of the Red Cross in the 1860s. The Red Cross as well as some of the most widely known NGOs grew out of war. Save the Children was founded in 1920 as a result of the dislocations caused by World War I. Foster Parents Plan was created during the Spanish Civil War. Oxfam and CARE were created during or shortly after World War II. Charity and relief remain most important to numerous NGOs. Awarding the Nobel Peace Prize in 1999 to Medicins Sans Frontiers is a clear indication of the significance of this work to the present (Ahmed and Potter, pp. 38-39). Social and Economic Development NGOs have come to realize that relief and charitable work address primarily shortterm needs and does not do much to deal with long-term development issues. As a consequence, more NGOs place greater emphasis on how to rehabilitate communities in the long run. Others have focused their efforts on social and economic development in developing countries as a means to address long-term matters related to poverty and inequality. Some NGOs provide technical support to encourage development and some operate their own development programs (Ahmed and Potter, pp. 40-41). Advocacy and Lobbying Advocacy networks bring together hundreds of NGOs to consider global issues. Such advocacy networks engage in the following: information politics, in which networks provide information on issues under consideration; symbolic politics, which networks use symbols to raise awareness about specific issues; leverage politics, in which networks attempt to gain leverage over powerful actors; and accountability politics, in which networks try to hold states accountable. Lobbying is a related important activity for NGOs. It should not be of surprise to anyone that NGOs

attempt to influence their government, other governments, and different organizations and institutions (Ahmed and Potter, pp. 43-44). Public Education and Consciousness Raising Public education and consciousness raising might be two of the most important activities of NGOs. Lacking the resources available to states, multinational corporations, and other important actors, NGOs more frequently become involved in the area of political socialization. NGOs become involved in outreach activities in order to educate local, national, or international governments and institutions. For example, Greenpeace tries to bring to the attention of people environmental abuse by disseminating information through television, radio, and newspaper stories (Ahmed and Potter, pp. 46-47). Agenda Setting Public education, advocacy, and lobbying are activities utilized by NGOs to influence the political agenda before policymakers. Influencing the political agenda means advocating for certain issues so that policymakers pay attention to them. Framing the issue is an important NGO public education activity. NGOs have had success in regards to many issues when they were able to convince governments and the public that there was a better way to viewing persistent problems. Greenpeace is a good example of an NGO involved in issue framing. Since the whole world is vulnerable to environmental consequences, Greenpeace tries to persuade people and governments to pursue policies that protect the environment. As a result, millions of people and many governments around the world have taken actions to protect the earth. Activist NGOs like Greenpeace are complemented in their activities by think-tank NGOs whose focus is the collection of information through research for public education and advocacy. Two such NGOs are the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the Rural Advancement Foundation International (Ahmed and Potter, pp. 48-49). Monitoring Other Transnational Actors NGOs monitor the behavior of governments as well as the behavior of multinational corporations and intergovernmental organizations in an attempt to ensure that states and organizations comply with laws and international treaties. Among the multiplicity of such NGOs include the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the Women s Environment and Development Organization. In addition, NGOs have formed advocacy networks to pressure international financial institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund for greater accountability and transparency (Ahmed and Potter, pp. 50-52). Online Resource Networks As the internet is becoming even more important in the lives of people in developed as well as developing countries, NGOs help to further fuel this change. Among the NGOs that have played a role in this arena are the Institute for Global Communications and One World. Both of these NGOs are online resource networks which function as a common Internet gateway to NGOs focusing on human rights

and development; offer Internet-based tools and services to their members; provide means for members to communicate with each other; and serve as information resource for the public (Warkentin, 143). DO NGOs WEILD TOO MUCH POWER? As indicated above, NGOs perform a wide array of functions from relief and humanitarian actions, to development advocacy and lobbying to public education and consciousness raising to agenda setting and international security. Based on this non-exhaustive list, the question often asked is whether NGOs have too much power. Kenneth Anderson states that when INGOs join international organizations such as the United Nations on the ground they represent the peoples of the world and claim to represent them, then NGOs have too much power or, at least, they claim power on the basis of a false premise. Anderson goes on to say that if NGOs only attempt to influence governments and international organizations by speaking for themselves and not on behalf of everyone else, then NGOs merit attention by decision-makers. NGOs that are competent, and knowledgeable in the way that good advocates should be merit the not-insubstantial power that goes along with powerful advocacy not as a matter of right, but as a matter of persuasiveness (2010, pp. 364). During the frozen decades of the Cold War, NGOs did not have many reasons to engage themselves with the United Nations. But with the end of the Cold War NGOs have begun to view the United Nations as a fruitful indeed, a rightful place to lobby, advocate, and organize (Anderson, 365).By becoming involved in the United Nations system and by performing the various functions dealt with previously, NGOs are seen as important members of the global civil society. The question raised by Anderson is, who chose NGOs as members of global civil society? The non-state actors claims to representativeness and intermediation are thus gravely suspect, and to the extent that international NGOs rely upon such claims rely upon them and so characterize themselves as global civil society they exercise, or seek to exercise, too much power. Or, more precisely, they seek to exercise power from a source to which they are not legitimately entitled (Anderson, p. 369). Marlies Glasius, on the other hand, argues that NGOs do not wield too much power. To him, NGOs have contributed much to three important characteristics of democracy: transparency, equality, and deliberation. They should not be seen as offering a form of representation of the global demos, however, or at least not representation in its traditional form. Their activism could be conceptualized as a form of participation, but in practice this participation is so limited and so uneven that international NGOs cannot entirely be considered an adequate functional equivalent or alternative mechanism to parliamentary democracy, operating at the global level. NGOs do contribute to making international decision-making processes more democratic than they might otherwise be, but a democratic deficit remains. Another contribution made by NGOs, however, has received much less attention than the democratizing aspect: that of moral values (Glasius, 2010, p. 380).

AUTHORITY OF NGOS Based on what has been discussed until now, there is no doubt that NGOs are able to command attention and influence policy, which in turn attests to their power and authority. NGOs enjoy three types of authority: delegated, expert, and principled. First, NGOs may be asked by governments or international organizations and institutions to monitor the implementation of treaties or to deliver foreign assistance. Such delegation of authority is growing especially in the humanitarian sector (Stroup and Wong, p. 141). Second, NGOs possess expert authority because of experience in the field and because of research they conduct. Their specialized knowledge enables them to make policy recommendations. One such example is the International Committee of the Red Cross. This NGO claims to have expertise on the treatment of prisoners of war, and the access to decision-makers the organization has enjoyed over a long period of time confirms its authoritative status. Expert authority allows NGOs to access the media and policy makers, thus creating political opportunities (Stroup and Wong, p. 141). Access to the media is often essential for NGOs to mobilize people to support their cause. The media becomes the battleground for campaigns sponsored by NGOs. And because these campaigns are global, global media is the target (Castells, p. 13). Third, principled authority is fundamental for NGOs. NGOs that appear to serve private interests lose their principled authority. The principled authority of NGOs thus depends on the perceived legitimacy of their claims, which is critical to how organizations are viewed (Stroup and Wong, p. 141). NGOs that have principled authority also have great popularity and legitimacy. And this translates to more funding and volunteer work (Castells, p. 13). CONCLUDING REMARKS The number of NGOs has grown expeditiously over the past few decades and many have become important players in the international system. To some scholars, the inability of states to manage significant, chronic, and short- as well as long-term problems is the reason for the proliferation of NGOs. To others, the states themselves and international organizations and institutions have encouraged the growth of NGOs to help them deal with global problems. But no matter the reasons for the growth of NGOs, NGOs are here to stay. And they are here to stay because of the services offered by them and what is expected of them. This, of course, should not prevent us from examining NGOs in a critical manner and to point out deficiencies some of them suffer from including absence of transparency, corruption, inefficiency and duplication, and desire for self-preservation which ultimately leads some of them to pay less attention to their original mission.

References

Ahmed, Shamina and Potter, David M. 2013. NGOs in International Politics. Boulder, Colorado: Kumarian Press. Anderson, Kenneth (2010. Do NGOs Wield Too Much Power? Yes. In Peter M. Haas, John A. Hird, and Beth McBratney (Eds.), Controversies in Globalization: Contenting Approaches to International Relations (pp.364-370). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Castells, Manuel. 2004. Global Governance and Global Politics. Political Science and Politics XXXVIII (1): 9-16. Glasius, Marlies. 2010. Do NGOs Wield Too Much Power? No. In Peter M. Haas, John A. Hird, and Beth McBratney (Eds.), Controversies in Globalization: Contenting Approaches to International Relations (371-383). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. Kegley, Charles W. and Raymond, Gregory A. 2002. Exorcising the Ghost of Westphalia: Building world order in the new millennium. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. McGrew, Anthony. 2014. Globalization and global politics. In John Baylis, Steve Smith, & Patricia Owens (Eds.), The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations (pp.15-31). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Natsios, Andrew S. 2005. NGOs and the UN System in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies: Conflict or Cooperation? In Paul F. Diehl (Ed.), The Politics of Global Governance: International Organizations in an Interdependent World (pp. 381-397). Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. Reimann, Kim D. 2006. A View from the Top: International Politics, Norms and the Worldwide Growth of NGOs. International Studies Quarterly 50 (1): 45-67. Stroup, Sarah S. and Wong, Wendy H. (2016). The Agency and Authority of International NGOs. Perspectives on Politics 14 (1): 138-144. Warkentin, Craig (2001). Reshaping World Politics: NGOs, the Internet, and Global Civil Society. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, INC. Willetts, Peter (2014). Transnational actors and international organizations in global politics. In John Baylis, Steve Smith, & Patricia Owens (Eds.), The Globalization of World Politics (pp. 320-336).