DP1 Students: IA Engagements!

Function and impact of international organizations and non-state actors

The United Nations

Do I need to describe what the UN is!?

The United Nations is a global IGO founded at the end of World War II, as a successor organization to the wildly unsuccessful League of Nations that was founded after World War I. It's a large, complex organization, which can only be expected from an entity that has existed for over 75 years and has like... 200 members.

Security Council

The Security Council is made up of five permanent members (the USA, France, Russia, China, and the U.K.) as well as ten rotating members. The Security Council's main mission is to ensure global peace and security, and it is convened in cases of emergency or urgency (like after the Russian invasion of Ukraine the UNSC got together fast. Little awkward for the Russian ambassador...)

The permanent members of the Security Council hold veto power, which they typically use to uphold their own policy goals or interests, as opposed to those of the UN and the Security Council. Russia and the USSR have issued basically half of the vetos used (143 Soviet/Russian vetoes) while the US comes in second with 83 vetos. Only 293 vetos have ever been recorded in the UNSC.

General Assembly

The General Assembly is the core of the UN; it's the forum where every country is meant to have an equal voice (easily measured by how 1 country equals 1 vote, no matter the population or how influential the state may be.)

The UNGA is essentially the legislature, or the policy-making body within the United Nations. The annual budget is voted on by the GA, the secretary-general is decided upon by the GA, and resolutions that are debated and voted on pass or fail based on members' votes.

Representatives in the General Assembly get those cool headsets and they get to hear instantaneous translation of what's going on in their native language, or whatever language is most comfortable to them. The folks who do the instant translation are seriously impressive.

Other Relevant Organs

Shown up above in green ovals and in the blue box with the different organ and agency acronyms, the UN organs carry out more specialized work of the UN.

These organs typically promote and represent the goals of the UN itself, rather than of the individual member states. The ICC exists to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity; the ICJ is a court designed to resolve disputes between states (or to be used in a hella awkward MUN session via Zoom); other organs like the UN Development Program promote... development, while organs like UNICEF promote children's' welfare around the world.

Agencies like UNESCO oversee cultural preservation and promote access to sites of great importance to human history and cultural development (emphasizing these sites should be known and celebrated by everyone, rather than just one state or culture.) Being labeled as a UNESCO site helps greatly in preservation (unless ISIS wants to blow it up, since ISIS don't care.)

A key factor for IGOs is that they are not state actors, but their members are. So, the IGO itself doesn't represent state power; an IGO does not have sovereignty, but it does represent the will and desires of its member states (or, from a more critical point of view, the will and desires of its most powerful member states.)

IGOs are organizations that can produce binding international agreements, that can subsequently be enforced by its member states using agreed-upon methods. In terms of power, IGOs are often described as having the most power among all non-state actors, both in terms of occasional hard power capability (used mainly for peacekeeping or enforcement of agreements) as well as in their ability to influence global events.

Intergovernmental Organizations

European Union

The European Union has existed in some form since the 1950s, when it started out as a series of trade and commerce agreements. Over time, the organization evolved from a series of agreements into a Community, and now into a political-economic supranational organization. The EU has a parliament, with political parties and representatives elected from member states. The idea is that Europe is stronger as a bloc than as individual countries, and by linking economies together they can better withstand economic ups and downs.

Most EU members have chosen to use the Euro as their currency, and members are expected to adhere to EU policies and agreements though some states get special exemptions (coughUKcough) even though they complain about how they're being treated badly (coughUKcough) despite the fact they get special privileges (COUGHUKCOUGH.)

Not everyone is fully "on board" with the EU, though. Before leaving the European Union, some of the UK's represenatives in EU parliament were from the Brexit party (ironic) and states like Hungary have recently pushed back on the idea of European solidarity and shared liberal values.

International Monetary Fund (an IFI)

The IMF is an international financial institution (IFI) that currently has 190 member states. It's primary goal is to maintain international economic stability (it was founded after the Great Depression) with a particular focus on currency stability, economic risks, and promoting trade and international cooperation. Its funding comes from member states.

The IMF monitors and makes recommendations to each of its member states, and also provides some level of development assistance. A major goal of the IMF is to promote the development of new capabilities in its member states, so it's not just a source of potential financial assistance but also a source of knowledge and expertise that states can draw upon.

Critics of the IMF often say that it reflects the values and opinions of wealthier Western states more than anything else, and that its economic priorities line up more with neoliberal economic ideas rather than states' particular goals.

ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations)

Whether or not ASEAN is really an IGO can be debated a bit; it's a forum in some ways and an IGO in others, but it leans more towards being an IGO since it represents a lot of regional decision-making. Rather than a narrow focus on economic issues, ASEAN also promotes peace and stability in Southeast Asia as well as cultural and social development. Similar to the EU, ASEAN members have a free trade agreement with one another, but they do not share a currency.

This is not a intergovernmental organization, but it is cute (and I wanted to fill this space with something, so here you go.)

Non-governmental Organizations

NGOs are organizations that are unaffiliated with a state or state government, usually with a specific focus on an issue or a slate of policy goals. NGOs typically have a fairly narrow and clear mission and vision. Most NGOs are non-profit, and seek to raise funds to be used directly on their programs rather than remuneration of their staff and leadership. NGOs are a key part of civil society, and often interface and work alongside other organizations, companies, and sometimes even governments.

Human Rights Watch / Amnesty International

HRW and AI are two of the most prominent human rights NGOs in the world. While both organizations tackle and advocate for a wide range of human rights issues, Amnesty has a looong history of work advocating for political prisoners (including here in Taiwan during the White Terror; the first head of the Taiwan AI chapter was cartoonist Bo Yang, who was imprisoned on Green Island for many years.)

You can find an account of what Amnesty International cares about here.

For HRW, one of their biggest contributions to the world of human rights are their in-depth studies on specific ongoing violations as well as annual country reports they publish. This link will bring you to all of their recent reports (I'd recommend just looking at the topics, rather than reading through them in review.)

Greenpeace / The Sierra Club

Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are both international environmental organizations that work to protect the environment and promote sustainability.

Greenpeace is an international organization that campaigns for solutions to environmental problems such as climate change, deforestation, and the use of hazardous chemicals. They are known for their direct action campaigns, such as protesting against oil drilling in the Arctic or advocating for the protection of endangered species. Greenpeace also conducts scientific research, lobbies governments and corporations, and works with communities to promote sustainable solutions.

The Sierra Club is a grassroots environmental organization based in the United States that promotes the protection of natural resources, conservation, and environmental education. Founded in 1892, the Sierra Club works to protect forests, rivers, and other natural habitats, and advocates for policies to address climate change and promote clean energy. They also organize outdoor activities and events to promote appreciation for the natural world.

While the groups are similar in their goals and outlooks, Greenpeace is FAR more confrontational. The Sierra Club is far more comfortable lobbying governments and promoting policy, while Greenpeace does more direct engagement and has a greater "street presence."

Red Cross/Crescent

The Red Cross and Red Crescent are sister organizations (using Christian or Islamic symbols) that provide medical aid in emergencies as well as on the battlefield. In times of conflict, the Red Cross/Crescent monitors prisoners of war and helps them communicate with family members back home, so their mission is not purely medical.

There are typically country chapters of these organizations, and there is also the international federation (found here.)

World Vision

World Vision mainly focused on children and poverty in their work, and they are a truly global NGO with programs and projects on every continent (except Antarctica; screw the penguins.)

They are a religious organization, at heart (one of their goals is "faith and development,") but they do a wide range of things. Education, nutrition, and working to provide access to clean water are among their chief goals.

You can find more about World Vision's work here.

MSF / RSF (Doctors Without Borders, Reporters Without Borders)

MSF (more commonly called "Doctors Without Borders" in English) is an NGO that offers quality medical assistance in some of the most ravaged parts of the world. The idea behind the organization is that everyone deserves healthcare, and MSF doctors boldly travel to even the worst conflict zones to provide aid. MSF is somewhat controversial due to its willingness to push against states' wishes (like... they will totally go to a country where they are not being welcomed by the government.)

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) shares a similar name, but acts more as an advocate for free press and the safety of reporters. It has a bit more in common with a group like HRW than with MSF, despite the name.

Multinational Corporations

BOW DOWN TO OUR CAPITALIST OVERLORDS

MNCs are key actors in international economics, including development. By some arguments, MNCs are the greatest beneficiaries of globalization, seeing their global influence grow and their bank accounts fatten. The largest and most powerful/influential MNCs can even influence countries to adopt lighter regulations and favorable policies in the name of attracting greater investment. Unlike NGOs, MNCs are very much for-profit entities. They want to make $$$$$.

Recent decades have seen a great concentration of power and wealth within an increasingly small number of MNCs. It's become more common for a large MNC to merge with another large MNC to make... like... a super MNC. Some of what you see below under "conglomerates" is a result of these mergers.

Massive conglomerates

A conglomerate is a corporation that, basically, owns a bunch of other corporations. Basically, one company that owns a number of subsidiaries (either in the same industry or in different industries) and oversees their operation. Some of these are well-known while others may surprise you.

Coca Cola Company / PepsiCo: You may think of those red or black cans or bottles of soda, but Coca Cola owns... a surprising range of food and beverage products. Coca Cola and its competitor, Pepsi, own nearly all of the food products in some categories, and PepsiCo even owns the restaurant chains of Taco Bell, KFC, and Pizza Hut. Sometimes, when you're in 7-11 trying to decide what kind of drink to buy, it's a false choice: the money goes to the same corporation no matter what, in some cases.

Proctor & Gamble (P&G) and Johnson & Johnson (J&J): Go to a supermarket with your parents sometime and check out the home goods and bath/shower aisles. There's a good chance that most of what you see there goes back to one of these companies (or Unilever, another competitor.) They even own clothing chains like Lacoste and Hugo Boss.

Nestle: In my mind, the most evil corporation in the world (look up what they do with baby formula and water in developing countries, also they refuse to follow sanctions against Russia and are still doing business there.) Nestle has ownership over food, drink, baby products, pet products, clothing brands, WATER, etc.

Tech Companies

While tech companies may be located anywhere in the world (and they are not all located in Silicon Valley, California) they have a global reach due to the ubiquitousness of the internet. Here's a few examples:

Microsoft: Headquartered in Washington state, outside of Seattle, MS is a computer giant. They make the Windows operating system, Office products, and also run one of the largest web hosting platforms on the internet (though not as big as Amazon.) In addition to consumer products, Microsoft also offers specialized services to governments, developing software and hardware to fit their needs.

Amazon: Originally an online shopping giant, Amazon is also the LARGEST web hosting platform in existence (Amazon Web Services, or AWS.) When AWS goes down for maintenance, most of the web goes with it. Amazon has also branches out into entertainment, making TV and movies for its Prime Video streaming platform.

Meta (formerly Facebook): This is the company that has probably made your grandparents racist. Facebook is the largest social network in the world, and they also own other apps and platforms like Instagram, WhatsApp, and the Oculus VR devices (which, btw, makes them a tech conglomerate.) Facebook and WhatsApp often play a central role in the dissemination of disinformation, as these two platforms are the way that a lot of people worldwide get most of their news and information (which is kinda terrifying.) This has significant political ramifications. Facebook played a major role in the 2016 U.S. election, and WhatsApp news stories have similarly impacted elections in Brazil and India.

The largest food / beverage / product conglomerates.

Taiwanese MNCs

TSMC: The world wants chips, right? Here's an MNC that basically has a stranglehold on the global supply of microchips (remember when we all had to ration water, but TSMC got to tap into groundwater sources?)

ACER, ASUS, MSI: All well-known and well-regarded PC components and computer manufacturers. Taiwan has long had heavy investments into the computers industry, and the quality of these companies products (as well as their more affordable models) speaks to the success of Taiwanese tech firms.

Taiwan also has a large presence of international MNCs. For more on this, and some examples, check out this 2015 report by the American Chamber of Commerce in Taiwan: https://topics.amcham.com.tw/2015/10/taiwan-multinationals-serving-a-broader-role/. There's some discussion of a range of multinational companies and their interests in Taiwan, as well as some info about how they tailor certain products (or the marketing of those products) to the Taiwanese consumer.

WWE (World Wrestling Entertainment)

I'm bringing them in as an example here just to serve one point: MNCs often do business in states with SERIOUS issues and lend a sense of legitimacy to those states.

WWE formed an agreement with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia back in 2018, and has broadcasted several large shows from the country a few times per year since then. Saudi Arabia still has serious issues with women's equality (to the point that female performers were originally not allowed to perform, and even now have to be fully covered when they perform) AND 2018 saw an incident where a Saudi journalist working for the Washington Post was killed and dismembered on the orders of the kingdom's crown prince and de-facto leader, Mohammed bin Salman. WWE doing shows in Saudi Arabia made it ok for other MNCs to continue to do business there in light of serious issues; it shows that sometimes, corporations just seek profit (WWE gets at least $50 million per Saudi show) and don't have any actual values or core beliefs beyond $$$$.

(March 2023 update: WWE is apparently for sale, and Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund is apparently one of the top prospects for outright buying the company.)

Social Movements

Social movements are a key part of civil society. They are made up of like-minded people who share similar goals or have the same list of demands. Social movements can be loosely organized (sort of like Black Lives Matter, which is really made up of a large number of disparate groups spread across the U.S.) or very organized (like Occupy Wall Street, which had a fair amount of organization and planning put into it.)

Some social movements are progressive, in that they want things to progress or move forward, or that they are asking for something new. Womens' movements, for example, tend to be progressive, advocating for a greater role for women in society, better opportunities, equal pay and treatment in the workplace, etc. The same can be said for many movements focused on racial issues or justice for indigenous peoples.

Other social movements are reactionary (this is a kinder word than "regressive") and they may advocate for the status quo (so, no change) or for things to go back to the way they were in the past. Basically, reactionary movements resist change. Movements that are a reaction against globalization (like parts of Trump's MAGA movement in the U.S.) or the movements against LGBT people in various parts of the world are all reactionary social movements, sometimes with official government support or encouragement (a la Russia's Anti-LGBT movement.)

Many social movements are non-violent, using civil disobedience and other forms of protest to promote their ideas and achieve their goals, but some movements (or some parts of certain movements) sometimes do rely on violent methods.

Some social movements are even transnational -- the women's movement, environmental movement, and even the anti-globalization movement are not tied to one specific country, but are manifest in many different parts of the world.

Resistance Movements

Resistance movements are social movements whose goal is to resist or oppose official power (typically the government of a state, but it can also be resisting an occupier.)

Resistance movements can be violent or non-violent. The video (which we've seen before) about the pajama protests against the coup in Myanmar are an example of a non-violent resistance movement, while the video to the right (about FARC in Colombia) would be about a more violent movement.

The Arab Spring was a widespread, multi-national resistance movement (or, rather, a series of resistance movements across the Middle East and North Africa.) In some cases these were very peaceful mass protests, but protests also turned violent (I'm looking at you, Libya...)

Resistance movements can also greatly shape the future of a country; few countries left the Arab Spring in better condition, with only a small number having a peaceful transfer of power. Countries like Syria erupted into civil war, due to the way that the government responded to resistance.

Violent Movements

A key issue with violent social movements is the question of legitimacy. If a movement has a noble goal, but uses violent methods to promote their ideas or to achieve their goals, how do you expect that will affect the way the movement is viewed?

Black Lives Matter is often labeled as a violent movement by critics, and they point to violent acts that happen at some BLM protests (like the burning and looting in Minnesota in the days after George Floyd's death.) One challenge of loosely organized social movements like BLM is how to respond to these violent acts, and how to convince observers that these actions do not represent the heart of the movement.

Other social movements have violence in their core. Some groups labeled as terrorist organizations have their origin as social movements. FARC in Colombia was a movement that resisted the government, and they've become a party to a major civil conflict in the country. Boko Haram in Nigeria is a fundamentalist Muslim movement that has been labeled as a terrorist organization, due to attacks on civilians and the kidnapping of over a hundred girls from a rural school.

A few examples

The Yellow Vests could be considered a violent movement, though they might push back on that idea (get it? Push back? Like it's violent?)

#MeToo and the Climate Strike are great examples of progressive, transnational movements with varying levels of organization (MeToo is loose, Climate Strike is a bit more organized.)

Finally, the Standing Rock resistance is an indigenous movement in the U.S.

Other Actors

Political Parties

Political parties make up the bulk of democratic and non-democratic states' domestic political systems. Even in states like Turkey, Russia, and China, the leader's political party is a significant actor. While it's normal to expect political parties to mainly have a domestic focus, local issues are also a part of global politics. They also usually have a foreign policy platform for national elections (local elections for things like mayor or governor won't have that stuff).

Political parties of similar stripes often interact with one another across countries. The U.S. recently hosted a democracy summit (with Audrey Tang and Freddy Lim representing Taiwan) and "Green" parties around the world typically share similar platforms (that is, countries that are called the "Green Party," so this is not to say that the DPP or "Greens" here in Taiwan are a part of that. "Green Parties" in Europe tend to be very similar, for instance.)

It's also normal for socialist or quasi-socialist parties around the world to have connections to one another.

The Left-Right-Centrist divide is also something worth noting about political parties. Leftist parties often share a similar emphasis on social development and maintaining a "safety net" for the most underprivileged people, why more right-wing parties tend to promote more conservative social policies alongside an emphasis on free-market economics. In different parts of the world, left, right, or centrist parties tend to hold sway. Europe is fairly mixed, with most leading parties being center-left or center-right, and occasional swings either to the right or left (French President Macron, for instance, is very much a Centrist and his predecessor was a left-wing socialist.) The EU, as an institution, is very centrist, which helps to explain why former German Chancellor Angela Merkel played such a big role in European leadership; her party, the Christian Democratic Union, has been a very successful centrist party for much of the last forty years. Here in Taiwan, the typical right-left divide is more focused on attitudes towards China, which the DPP and the greens being more left (and pro-independence, or pro-status quo) and the KMT and the blues being a bit more right-wing (and either pro-status quo or more pro-unification.)

Informal Forums

Informal forums are a bit tricky, since they are attended by state actors and form the basis for a lot of international cooperation. However, unlike a declaration or an agreement issues by an IGO, informal forums are... informal. They present opportunities for discussion and debate and promote cooperation, but don't lead to binding agreements. States may leave an informal forum with an agreement on principle, and they may be disappointed if a few members go astray, but there is no expectation that everyone leaves a forum with a set of rules or agreements they must adhere to.

The G20 (or Group of 20) summit is a great example of an informal forum that promotes international economic cooperation. The world's twenty largest economies, along with representatives from the IMF and other similar organizations, get together annually to talk about economic issues like trade, tariffs, globalization, etc. Think of the G20 as something like a 'club.' A similar thing can be said about the G7 (which used to be the G8 until they decided to kick Russia out -- actually, it's worth noting that states can be excluded from informal forums, but they all have a right to attend IGO summits if they are member states.)

Want a little practice Q? Read the following articles and ask yourself, to what extent can the G7 be considered a powerful actor in global politics?

Source 1

Source 2

How are non-state actors legitimate?

In comparison to state actors, non-state actors need to source their legitimacy elsewhere. They are not actual representatives of citizens in states, but their views and goals may overlap with popular sentiment, which gives a sense of legitimacy. They do not have "power" in the traditional sense, perhaps, but their ability to influence global affairs can also lend an aura of legitimacy. Lastly, these actors' effectiveness is one thing they could point to.

The 1960s Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. pointed to the justness of their cause and their ability to affect change as the source of their legitimacy.

The Climate Strike movement has been successful in raising awareness and getting young people involved in the movement, but it has been less effective in actually achieving meaningful progress on climate issues. So, legitimate in terms of participation, but not necessarily an effective movement.

HRW and AI are seen as legitimate organizations by those who support their viewpoints, but they are labeled as illegitimate by the states and leaders they criticize.

Source 2 up above in the Informal Forum section highlights how the G7 (and by extension other informal forums) may lack legitimacy.

Page updated

Report abuse