This essay argues that major international organizations — NATO, NAFTA, and the United Nations — fall short of their cooperative ideals because power within them is concentrated among the wealthiest and most militarily dominant members, particularly the United States. Drawing on examples such as U.S. military dominance within NATO, the sidelining of Mexican interests within NAFTA, and the repeated use of the U.S. Security Council veto to shield Israel from UN resolutions, the paper contends that these organizations replicate pre-existing global power imbalances rather than correcting them. The conclusion holds that genuine equality among nations in international institutions remains largely aspirational.
The paper demonstrates comparative institutional analysis: rather than examining one organization in depth, it surveys three distinct institutions across military, economic, and diplomatic domains to support a single overarching claim. This breadth-of-evidence approach strengthens the generalizability of the thesis and is a useful technique for essays arguing systemic trends rather than isolated incidents.
The essay opens with a broad thesis about the gap between international cooperation rhetoric and reality. Three body sections then apply that thesis sequentially to NATO, NAFTA, and the UN — each building on the last to show the pattern holds across different types of organizations. The conclusion synthesizes the three cases into a single observation about persistent global power hierarchies and the continued primacy of U.S. influence.
After the end of the Second World War, much rhetoric was devoted to the necessity of forming international organizations aimed at preventing war, improving trade and economic cooperation, and 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 reflection of the very problems that existed before their creation. 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 pattern 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 Agreement.
Many people in North America are quite familiar with the term "NATO," yet 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, Luxembourg, 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 military alliance against the threat of the Soviet Union and other Communist forces. Should one member be attacked or threatened, the organization's members would collectively support and respond to that 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 and the largest member of the organization, and as such "can afford a substantial military capacity in absolute terms that the others cannot" (CPJ, 2004). The United States thus holds the greatest military strength as well as the greatest economic influence over its fellow members — 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 support of several NATO members for the Iraq War, and the charges leveled by many outside the U.S. that they were being dragged into the conflict against their will and better judgment.
The three examples of power imbalances within international organizations illustrate just how difficult it is to achieve any measure of equality on a global scale. Despite many hopes and good intentions, the reality within international organizations reflects the reality of international relationships in general. Although some would hope that things may have progressed beyond a "power to the strongest" mentality, the truth is that it has always been — and continues to be — the largest and most powerful actors that call most of the shots. Currently, the United States is the principal power in all three of the organizations discussed here, and this reflects its political, military, and economic position worldwide. This is likely to remain the case for as long as the United States holds its position as the most powerful nation on earth.
CPJ. Center for Public Justice. "Rebalancing NATO." Web site. 2004. Retrieved on May 2, 2005, from
Economist.com. "Country Briefings: Mexico." The Economist Online. 22 March 2005. Retrieved on March 29, 2005, from http://www.economist.com/countries/Mexico/profile.cfm?folder=Profile%2DPolitical%20Structure
McMahon, Janet. "Hague Conference Considers Ways to Implement ICJ Ruling on Israel's Wall." Washington Report. January/February 2005, pages 12–14.
NATO.org. (Staff). "What is NATO?" Web site. 2005. Retrieved on May 2, 2005, from http://www.nato.int/
UN. United Nations. Staff. "Resolutions." Web site. 2005. Retrieved on April 6, 2005, from http://www.un.org/law
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.