How can trans-national actors affect global politics?

Edward Skinner (0349801)

The 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, an agreement between the Holy Roman emperor Ferdinand III, the other German princes, France, and Sweden in many ways laid the grounds for the modern sovereign state. To this day, nation states remain the most powerful entities in world politics. It is their goals, interests and capabilities that shape international politics. However, the influence of states in world politics, whilst remaining the overriding power has in recent years been diminished. For example increased European integration beginning in the 1950’s, continuing with the Maastricht treaty in 1992 and the idea of a single European Constitution reflect slow but steady dispersion of power away from national governments.

World politics are increasingly influenced by trans-national organisations (TNOs). There are 2, main, broad categories; Intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) and nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). IGOs have states as members, whereas NGOs have members that are private individuals. In 1909, there were 37 IGOs, and 176 NGOs. That compares with 251 IGOs and 27 077 NGOs in 2000. However, those figures may understate the truth as to be classed as an IGO, a organisation must not only have states as members but must also meet regularly, have a headquarters, a specified decision making process, and a permanent secretary. Of the worlds TNOs, 87% are NGOs and the remaining 13% are IGOs. There are four subdivisions of IGOs, global multi-role, global single-role, regional multi-role, and global single-role. Examples of the above may be the UN, World Health Organisation, EU, and NATO respectfully.

The UN has 191 member states. Planning for the UN began at the start of the Second World War by the US, UK and Russia. The idea was to create an organisation that would prevent a further World War. It experienced large early problems, with the USSR using its veto power 77 times during the ten years between 1945 and 1955. The US, whilst not formally using its veto, was able to use its financial power to force a majority of council members to vote against certain motions. In the modern post Cold War context, the UN appears to have become a more cohesive effective unit and this was particularly striking when, in 1990, the US and Russia joined forces to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Whether this was a temporary period remains to be seen, as the US and her allies went to war with Iraq in 2003 with no UN support.

The UN is alone in having what it is almost a completely exhaustive list of states as members. The only 2 obvious omissions from its membership are the Vatican and Taiwan. One may argue East Timor is an omission, as it recently voted for independence from Indonesia. Regardless, the over 98% of world states are members, a figure unmatched by any other IGO.

This is a preview of the whole essay

The modern day European Union (EU) grow out of European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) and the European Economics Community (EEC), all signed between 1951 and 1957. It later became the European Community (EC) before becoming the EU in February 1992. There are currently 15 members, but a further 10 are on the way that will increase the EU’s population by 50%.

Like most large organisations, the EU has a complex system of organisation. There are five main institutions of governance, the Council of Ministers, the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the Court of Justice. The Council of Ministers is drawn from the governments of member states. The European Parliament consists of people elected by the people of the EU, and can overturn decisions made by the European Commission. The European Commission consists of 20 commissioners, 2 from each of the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain and 1 from the remaining 10 EU states. The main role of this commission is to propose new EU laws. The Court of Justice ensures member states comply with EU laws. Interestingly, and unlike the UN or most other IGOs, decisions made by the Court of Justice are binding.

A third IGO is the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which has, as of April 2003, 143 member states. It exists to work to remove or at least reduce barriers to free trade that are often imposed by rich countries at the expense of poor countries. The help to mediate between states when disagreements do occur, and try to pass a judgement of whether the barriers are acceptable. One recent case was when the US imposed tariffs on foreign steel imports into the US in order to support the woefully inefficient steel producers in the US. The WTO ruled this to be illegal, and granted the EU permission to impose retaliatory tariffs on certain sensitive US products. The US, on the 4th of December of this year, backed down and the threat of retaliatory action has now gone. This has been seen as a large coup for the WTO, as it shows the IGO being able to change the policy of the world’s one remaining superpower.

But IGOs represent only a small proportion of TNOs. The rest are NGOs whose members are, “private actors whose members are not states, but instead volunteers drawn from the population of two or more states who have formed organisations to promote their shared interests and ideals in order to influence the policies of state governments and IGOs.” There are a large number of NGOs tackling a huge number of issues from landmine removal, to third world development, to women’s rights. Examples of NGOs are Greenpeace, who press for care treatment of the environment, or Amnesty International, who press for justice worldwide. NGOs like this command popular widespread support as most people accept and support what they stand for. But this is not always the case, as some NGOs push for changes that would impact negatively on other third parties. The Union of Concerned Scientists for instance, pushes for a number of changes ranging from missile defence, nuclear energy and so forth. Were the international community to take up their cause then those people who were to lose out would lose masses financially.

One main reason for the increased power which NGOs have enjoyed in recent times is that there are increasing numbers of cases of NGOs who have successfully brought about changes in the international system. NGOs often consist of groups of influential people – their members are likely to be well-paid members of society for example. The aforementioned Union of Concerned Scientists consists of specialists from the fields of science. Other NGOs consist of equally professional and skilled people. As such, they often command the respect of the wider government, and increasingly their concerns are being voiced on the global stage.

Another example of TNOs are corporations. Of the world’s 100 largest financial entities, 51 are multinational corporations (MNCs). General Motors, for the year 2000, had sales of $177 billion. The same year, the GDP of Saudi Arabia was $129 billion. Figures and statistics like that make it immediately apparent as to why MNCs command the respect in the international order that they do. Firms employ people, and they create wealth. If a MNC in France is unhappy at the way the government there is treating it, or representing its concerns on the international stage, then the firm could simply shift to say Germany, or the UK. In the process, French jobs would be lost, people made unemployed, and ultimately their anger may fall upon the government. It is therefore in a governments best interests to help. There tend to be 4 main ways in which a corporation can lobby a foreign government if they feel their ability to trade effectively is being negatively influenced. They may do it indirectly by asking their home government to apply pressure, indirectly by raising the question within an international organisation to which they belong, directly at home through the nations embassy, or directly abroad with foreign government officials.

Possibly the final group capable of influencing global politics are those with a non-legitimate such a terrorist organisations, or organised international criminals. It is apparent to all that terrorist groups such as Al Queda (Arabic for ‘the Base’) are capable to influencing global politics. America has gone to war with two sovereign states, Afghanistan and Iraq, as part of what it calls a ‘War on Terror’, in light of the events we are all familiar with from September 11th 2001. Terrorist groups can arguably do more damage to even the most technically advanced States, such as the US. They spread fear through the population, and fear through the economy as a whole.

On an international stage, regards crime, it is the illicit trade in drugs and weapons that are the most important issues. They are thought to be the two most valuable internationally traded goods. Drugs can damage communities, and are regarded by the West as a hugely damaging problem. The priority attached to stemming the flow of drugs into the UK can be seen by the fact that Royal Navy ships frequently patrol South American waters with the sole aim of catching smugglers. They are often successful – in June 2003, HMS Iron Duke intercepted a ship destined for Europe with £250 million of drugs on board.

To conclude, whilst it remains fair to say that states remain at the forefront of global politics, recent times have seen a shift in power. Countries positions at the forefront have been weakened. World bodies, such as the EU and the WTO are increasingly exerting influence over some of the most powerful nations in the world. Criminal gangs and terrorists can determine foreign policy, and TNCs can exert an ever-stronger influence over their home governments.

Word Count 1622

Bibliography

Kegley, Charles, World Politics, Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2001
Bayliss, John, Globalization of World Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001
Stopford, John, Rival States, Rival Firms, Canada: Cambridge University Press, 1991
Arts, B., “Regimes, non-state actors and the state system: A ‘structurational’ regime model”, European Journal of International Relations, Vol. 6 No. 4 pp. 513-542
“Treaty of Westphalia (1648)” (http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gbrown/philosophers/leibniz/BritannicaPages/WestphaliaTreaty/WestphaliaTreaty.html)
“Growth in UN membership” (http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm)
“How many countries are there in the world?” (http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20010105.html)
“World Trade Organisation” (http://www.wto.org/)
“Union of Concerned Scientists” (http://www.ucsusa.org/)
“Institute for Policy Studies” (http://www.ips-dc.org/reports/top200.htm)
“Navy seizes £250m of cocaine” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3024252.stm)