Who, other than the governments of states, do you consider to be significant actors in the contemporary international system?

Oliver Freeman

EUA307 14/11/02

The Government and Monarchy have long been the only important influence in the affairs concerning the British public. This was of course in the days preceding the communication revolution. Before the internet, before television, and before the telephone, international politics took a very different form. Alliances were nearly always made for border or trade reasons, as the non-technological world seemed too big a place for a global community to exist.

Now in the new Millennium, this global community thrives. The roots of old are still there to be seen, with the government of state being the main power domestically, yet a definite loss of sovereignty is visible, especially in the more economically and politically developed countries.

The organisations responsible for the reduction of domestic state power are varied, from promotional pacifist groups like Green Peace, to the inter-continental security council of the UN. In line with the question, I am going to focus on those I consider to be the significant parties, which are the European Union, the United Nations, and NATO. I will follow the question in terms of the contemporary international system, but I will use Britain as my reference for the effect the above organisations have on state control. I aim to outline their significance in global politics, the role they play and the impact that each has on the way the UK is governed.

The democratic societies that the majority of the developed world has chosen to adopt, gives more potential power to unofficial groups. Although they have freedom to speak out and form these types of organisations, generally they cause only minor problems for the state. They are called pressure groups, and can either be promotional or protectionist. Protectionist groups are likely to be interested its members, and are likely to be closely affiliated to the state, and therefore not an international body. The best example would be trade unions.

The promotional pressure groups are the opposite. Not usually forming a partnership with the government, but often gaining support internationally. Green Peace is an organisation known the world over, with a large support base, yet realistically they carry little political weight. It is the international organisations supported by governments around the world that make up the international system of 2002.

With one-hundred and eighty nine member states, the United Nations is the largest international organisation. The UN is a collective attempting to create what the member states agree to be an ideologically better planet. This is a preface to the United Nations Charter;

This is a preview of the whole essay

‘to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples’

The current aim for the UN is the Millennium Development Goals, an eight point plan to be completed by 2015, which consists of seven aims. For example point 1, the eradication of world poverty, hunger and famine, or point seven, to ensure environmental sustainability. But the Earth improving ideologies are not the only focus for the UN, it is an enormous organisation in which the UK’s government is a part of. The United Nations other main bodies are the Economic and Social Council, the International Court of Justice, and the most topical of the moment, the Security Council.

The security council is a headed by Kofi Annan, and seeks to safeguard the peace of its members. When a dispute leads to fighting, the Council's first concern is to bring it to an end as soon as possible. On many occasions, the Council has issued cease-fire directives which have been instrumental in preventing wider hostilities. The military side of the Security Council is Known as the United Nations peace-keeping force, which usually is only sent to help reduce tensions in troubled areas, keep opposing forces apart and creating conditions of calm in which peaceful settlements may be sought. The Council may decide on enforcement measures, economic sanctions (such as trade embargoes) or collective military action if deemed necessary.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation or NATO, was established in 1949 to be an alliance between sovereign countries. In 2002, NATO has 19 members, but it is not a supranational organisation. The objective of the group as stated on the official website is;

‘a platform which allows member countries to meet and take collective decisions, enabling them to achieve their essential national security objectives through collective effort. The representatives of each member country consult and participate in each decision that is taken within the forum that NATO provides. Members maintain their independence and sovereignty. A NATO decision is therefore the unanimous decision of 19 governments’

Its role is similar to the UN, but without the ideological values or aims. NATO simply is in place to safeguard the peace of its members, again like the UN, through collective security. In terms of the UK governments, NATO does not impose itself on the running of the state, and the Labour party do not have to commit to any common aims, other than peace and security for its members.

It is thought that NATO is an American dominated organisation, despite the fact that the vast majority of members reside in Europe. It is not hard to see why, as the USA are the largest economic and military force in the world, thus keeping them happy and on side may be the best option to safeguard the group’s security. France has recently campaigned for reforms which see more power brought back to the European members, and the recreation of the Central Military Command. Instigated by French President Chirac, he saw this as a way to ‘build a genuine European pillar within’ thus (he thought) making the European Union more powerful in international politics.

The EU is different to both NATO and the UN, in that there is no collective strategy on security amongst its members. It is not a peace-keeping force like the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, nor is it an ideological dreamer in the way of the United Nations, but a more a ‘multi-level political system’. Robert Putman uses a metaphor of the two level game, to describe the relationship between domestic and foreign policy making. Putman sees problems with the ‘two level political game’, in that the government of a nation will be split very much into domestic and international departments. The problem of international legislation and constitutions that come into conflict with domestic institutions like large companies or trade unions is ever increasing.

The wide range of policy issues previously considered solely of British domestic concern has now withered to a small few. Loss of the sovereignty of the EU’s members is becoming more apparent, and some argue that it will lead towards the United States of Europe, similar to our allies across the Atlantic. The British public on the whole seem to be wary of European integration, whereas a lot of other European nations will be the opposite. Already there have been uprisings against the imposition of European law, with the labour markets being hit hard. The UK has had a flexible labour market that has attracted much necessary foreign investment, but with the EU legislation on number of hours in working week, and the pressure put on Tony Blair to introduce a minimum wage, suddenly the thought of investment from abroad into the UK, seems less attractive.

Since the Thatcher Conservative government, there has been a switch to a supply-side policy. This means that intervention by the government is reduced to a minimum, and the market is left to find its own equilibrium, with the state simply standing aside as a referee, making sure that fair practice is carried out. This strategy has been successful, and so much so that Blair’s Labour government have simply adopted the Conservative policy. The economy has benefited greatly from this, and along with good management from the chancellor and the Bank of England, the rate of inflation is currently at 2.2%, the same as the growth rate. But with the EU wanting Britain to become more regulated and more integrated, the UK’s economy may suffer. On the 16th of September 1992, an example of the disastrous effect of non domestic control came about, when the pound was forced out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism. This kind of economic catastrophe could reappear if the UK join the single European currency. The problem lies with the setting of interest rates. The power to set ones rate is lost, and placed in the hands of the European Monetary Union.

The consequences of this are that domestic monetary policy no longer exists. For example, if Germany were experiencing an economic boom, they would wish to slow down their economy in order to prevent the inevitable onset of inflationary pressures. They would do this by raising interest rates, thus making borrowing money or buying goods on credit more expensive, with the desire to reduce demand. At the same time, the UK who we shall say are also in the single European currency, are experiencing an economic slump, and are in desperate need to kick start their economy by raising demand. The main way to do this, would be through monetary policy. But this is the opposite remedy to that that Germany are in need of. So again we see a problem lying at the door of an international organisation, with control taken away from the individual states. Both Germany and the UK’s governments would want to interest rates to fall accordingly to suit their situation, but the EMU would have to go one way or the other, with the final outcome applying to all member countries.

With the technology available to the developed world of today, globalisation is likely to continue, and as communication and information transfers get better and faster, the breakdown of culture barriers will help move towards further international organisations. Already the major international organisations that are in a place, seem politically stable, set only to get stronger. With respects to Britain, being a part of three of the most influential and powerful international organisations, has a lot of benefits. Security is the main aspect, as both the UN and NATO are perhaps the most formidable military alliances, but also these huge international groups can act as a platform for smaller international agreements or relationships. The European Union is perhaps the most conflicting organisation for state governments. The UK is thought to be a net contributor to the EU, therefore the advantages of being part of the union are far less apparent when compared to nations like many of the recent editions like Romania or Poland. Legislation from the EU is frequently seen as a burden, and while the UK is in a great position amongst these significant international organisations, it has become increasingly hard to make a distinction between European foreign and domestic policy in the UK.