International organisations and their roles

International Organizations

L. Jones

The Myth of International Cooperation

NATO, the UN and NAFTA

After the end of the Second World War, much rhetoric has been devoted to the necessity of forming international organizations with the aim of preventing war, improving economic issues of trade and cooperation, as well as in helping the world function as a "globalized" and interrelated unit. However, the reality of the way in which these organizations actually function is merely a personification of the very issues that existed before their introduction. Namely, international organizations are dominated by the most powerful, wealthy, and politically influential nations (usually one or two), while the others are forced to submit to their will. This is illustrated in the history of three of the largest international organizations in the world, the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the North American Free Trade Association.

Many people in North America are quite familiar with the term "NATO." However, few young people today actually know much about the organization. In brief, NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established after the end of the Second World War by Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Great Britain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Luxemburg, Portugal and the United States (NATO, 2005). The intention of these member nations (later joined by several others including Germany and many former Soviet states) was to band together in a kind of military alliance against the threat of the Soviet Union and other Communist forces. Should one member be attacked or threatened (in theory), the organization members would all collectively support and/or respond to the threat.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, however, many assert that NATO has been "taken over" by United States interests, and is "unbalanced...based primarily on overwhelming American military dominance (CPJ, 2004)." This has largely been attributed to the fact that the United States is both the wealthiest as well as the largest member in the organization, and as such "...can afford a substantial military capacity in absolute terms that the others cannot (2004)." Thus, the simple fact is the United States has the greatest brawn, as well as economic influence of all the members. It naturally follows that the U.S. then has the greatest influence to exert on its member nations (many of whom rely on the globalized economy and political alliances characteristic of the modern age. One of the clearest examples of this was the begrudging NATO member support for the war, and the charges leveled by many outside the U.S. that they were being "dragged into the war" against their will and better judgment.

So, too, many consider NAFTA, an economically driven alliance between North American Nations (principally Canada, the United States, and Mexico) to be equally unbalanced, with the advantage going to the wealthiest and most powerful member nations. In this case, many assert that, although the concept of "free trade" between the North American nations is a good one, in practice the natural imbalance of the alliance proves problematic. For example, many within Mexico complain that the agenda of the United States, and secondarily, Canada overshadows any legitimate concerns that Mexico may have. One of the best examples of this was the recent NAFTA meeting in Texas between the three nations -- not only did the United States agenda hold center stage despite legitimate and serious Mexican concerns, but Mexico had literally no choice but to go along with the meeting, knowing full well that it had no alternative (Economist, 2005). Although Mexico is currently taking steps to form other trade agreements with non-NAFTA member nations, this does not lessen the ineffective nature or the imbalance of international organizations like NAFTA.

Finally, and perhaps most famously, the United Nations, supposedly one of the most influential international organizations on earth, has repeatedly been stymied in its efforts to accomplish important international tasks. One of the best examples of this is the continued alliance between the United States and Israel, and the willingness of the United States to use its veto power to stymie any attempts to prevent Israel's violations of international law (as now confirmed by the International Court of Justice in the Hague) (McMahon, 2005). In fact, this imbalance and blatant abuse of power (often in violation of the United States' own ethical principles) has been clearly highlighted by no less than 77 vetoes, with 26 of which expressly aimed at preventing the application of international and humanitarian laws and principles from being applied to Israel (UN, 2005).