|
| |
International organization as a strategy for peace
"Ever since the early 13th century it has been proposed that - in modern terminology - using international organization to bring about structural change of the international system can be used to restrict its principle openness to a certain degree and therefore can represent an important strategy for
peace. (...)
Not only does it serve in making relationships an object of
law, it also influences the policies of the member states by ensuring that such relationships are maintained on a continual
basis. As far as the the systems designed to bring about peace by having a direct influence on interaction between the members of the system are
concerned, the strategy which sets out to establish international organizations turns out to be one of the oldest and,
indeed, the best. (...)
Indeed, it is very hard to overestimate the changes that can be brought about with regard to aggressive
behavior by setting up an international organization. So it's perhaps not surprising to learn that theorists have been wrestling with this issue in Europe for
centuries. It's no coincidence that international organizations were established at the end of the First and Second World Wars as a strategy for avoiding war. This strategy of consciously changing the international
context, that is, of weakening and eradicating the anarchic structure of the international system, was justifiably regarded as one of the most important steps to be taken to ensure
peace. (...)
 |
The foundation of the United Nations in 1945 has to go down as the upheaval in thinking that brought about an ongoing upheaval in the cultural history of the
world. Not only did it elevate non-aggression to a legal norm, it also created the context for making the observance of this norm
easier. Its purpose was put eloquently by Cordell Hull in 1944 "there will no longer be
a need for spheres of influence, for alliances, balances of power, or (to
remove) any other of the special arrangements which in the unhappy past the nations strove to safeguard their security or to promote their interests“.
These thoughts were completely right. Creating a universal
organization that encompassed the membership of all states served in expressing a multilateral
recognition of the right to exist and complemented non-aggression in a positive way.
Indeed, it served in making non-aggression easier by institutionalizing and promoting continual contact at a political system
level. By working together as part of the United Nations organization, states reflected their understanding that non-violence and peace could only be achieved though cooperation and not through
conflagration. |
While this does nothing to reduce
or, indeed, eliminate conflict, it does serve in changing its appearance. Without an international
organization, conflicts are regarded as absolute; they split the opposing
parties, making their destruction an option from each party's perspective. And is exactly this perspective of the situation that an international organization does away
with. Continual communication and cooperation document the continual existence of common
ground, leaving no room for existence to be denied. It links the resolution of conflict to non-aggressive
means, or rather to less aggressive means. Conflicts are also put into perspective to the same
extent: settling a conflict can no longer affect the existence of the opposing
party, but only its ability to develop. (...)
The basic idea of the Abbé [Abbé de Saint-Pierre, 1658-1743] was to change the quality of the international system and in doing so the context of the interaction between them by creating a confederation in which the sovereigns gave an ownership
guarantee. The idea was that the union would provide security and in so doing allow for a change in foreign
policy, that is, the abandonment of war. The plan put forward by the Abbé was actually quite modern in its
approach. It contained 12 basic articles, which could only be altered with the agreement of all
members; article 2 contained the ownership guarantee. The members were allowed to alter the eight following important articles with a three-quarters
majority; these included the seat of the union, the execution of the union etc. Then there were eight „useful articles“, which described the bodies of the international
union.
The sovereigns in the union were represented by permanent
representatives, who convened in Utrecht the „City of Peace“. These representatives were the addressees when there was conflict between the
members. In the case of mediation in a commission failing, a decision was made by the Senate requiring a three-quarters
majority. This decision was binding. Those who either ignored the decision or turned to armed force before it was taken were subject to a federal military
intervention. Article 8 completely forbid the use of aggression; hostilities could only be entered into against declared
enemies of the organization. Permanent representatives of the Senate were posted in all member states to make sure that the
organization's decisions were implemented. The Senate also dealt with trade
issues. It owned chambers of commerce in the participating states and organized trade based on equal and reciprocal
rights. (...)
Even the foundation of the League of Nations and the United Nations did not go beyond the system established by the Abbé,
which, in terms of federal military intervention surpassed the League of Nations
and in terms of arbitration the United Nations.
[Thomas Hobbes´ "Leviathan" 1651 is regarded as a core state philosophical work] |
All of these models are variations on a theme in that they are all confederations and it is their formation as a union of potential enemies that actually represents an act of
peace. Such an organization changes the international system by putting an end to its anarchy and replacing it with clarity and order. To this end, such a confederation can be regarded as
similar, if weaker, to a world nation. Forming a union serves in putting an end to the international political situation that Hobbes
describes, that is, the necessity for everyone to be against everyone. This serves in
eradicating the reasons and, as a consequence, the necessity for war. Now it's possible to replace war with other means of reaching an agreement such as majority
decision, legal interpretation etc. (...)
While international organization
is unable to offer security to a collective to force the non-aggressive resolution of conflicts onto nations and to free the world from aggression
altogether, it can through the membership make a contribution to these goals by presenting and establishing a world in which non-aggression appears to be right and
appropriate. Conflicts between states that are members of an international organization
in which they cooperate and try to resolve their differences goes along way towards providing effective incentives to reduce
aggression levels. This is not to say that the essence of the conflict
changes, rather than the way in which it is resolved in that international organization has a substantial
influence. Indeed, the effect is even greater when the bodies and the institutions of the organization are drawn into to resolving the
conflict; as far as the United Nations is concerned, this means following
Chap. VI and especially article 33 and 37. (...) |
All the General Secretaries of the United Nations have attached a great deal of importance to
emphasizing the importance of these new specific options. In his final annual
report, U Thant underlined the significance of the General Assembly as a global opinion builder and the Security Council's role as a watchman over the world's
conflicts. Kurt Waldheim was particularly careful to point out to the large powers that in actual fact they "had an even greater need for the world organization in that it offers an alternative to the sort of
confrontation, which, in this nuclear age, could prove deadly for all of us". Pérez de Cuéllar underlined the „value and usefulness of the United Nations as a negotiating forum“, while at the same time
criticizing the fact that it was neither used to its full potential nor recognized enough for its
merits. He, too, emphasized the special responsibility of the large powers sitting on the Security
Council, whose "obligation" it is to ensure that this process (of resolving
conflict) remains peaceful so as not to endanger the larger peace“.
All of the UN's General Secretaries have been united in their
criticism of the - increasing - tendency of nations to bypass and keep the United Nations out of firm conflict management
measures. These attempts underline e negativo the value of an international organization in terms of peace
strategy. The expressed commitments of an international organization serves in limiting the freedom of the conflict partners to act, and demands the renunciation or at least a reduction in
aggression. Or, to put it in positive terms, the real influence of international organization on the interaction between nations is primarily created by integrating it into the consciousness of the mutuality expressed through international
organizations, a consciousness in which the changed context of the international system is
reflected. This enables the methods for dealing with conflict to be so much more effective when they have been
institutionalized into the organization. What Castlereagh referred to as "group in" is reflected in the large scale
socialization work of the international organization
today. By carrying this out in practice, states learn a particular way of behavior that becomes the accepted norm. The
institutionalization of these norms and view of the world serve in giving those that follow them a sense of
identity and
confidence, because now they see themselves as part of a comprehensive system of cooperation that is accepted by all
sides.
The consequences of this can be measured, as was discovered by Butterworth in 1978: The "habit of cooperation strengthens the importance of
politicians, who bring about cooperative behavior through consensus rather than compulsion". This change of context brought about by international organization culminates in pressure on the members to make sure that they carry out their daily work according to a "reliable and lasting pattern of
behavior". If Castlereagh knew
it, modern social science can prove it: „that states are socialized towards a certain
(namely more moderate) way of behavior by becoming members of an international organization."
[Taken from: Ernst-Otto Czempiel: Friedensstrategien, Systemwandel durch Internationale Organisationen, Demokratisierung und Wirtschaft, Paderborn 1986, p. 81-87, 103-105]
[Back to top of page]
|
