Ngos_vs._State_Dominance

As reported by Kegley and Blanton (2010), a significant trend seen in international affairs has been the growth of Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) which had risen to 27,723 by 2007. This is certainly a strong indication that NGOs reflect the rise in a worldly political representation that stretches beyond national boundaries while possibly weakening the relationship of the individual to the sovereignty of the state. Yet it is doubtful that state dominance will ever be completely replaced by NGOs and other international organizations. As pointed out in my earlier posting, plainly a gap exists between the institutions of global governance as we understand them today and the transnational challenges and opportunities presented in the early beginnings of the twenty-first century—internal civil conflicts, weapons of mass destruction, deepening poverty, spread of terrorist enterprises, global warming and violation of human rights to name a few. It can be argued that in building today’s global governance, it looks probable that the traditional sovereign nation state apparatus will continue to frame the global canvas and still provide the resources, authority, knowledge and wealth required for international governance. Nonetheless, the broadening leadership and collective responsibility produced by informal groupings like NGOs are taking hold and connecting their work in a corner of the canvas to the global canvas as a whole with widening influence and results. Perhaps then what will work best in the twenty-first century global governance is a wide consensus on norms and standards through coalitions beyond the status quo of like-minded states. NGOs can be seen as coalitions of the willing because they “are inspired to action by their interests and values” (Kegley and Blanton, 2010, p. 192). In other words, NGOs are accountable to themselves and their principles and realize the opportunities inherent in sustain collaboration. Since NGOs do not serve as extensions of Nation-States and are not pledged to any established order, they are capable of attracting a following where “idealism can be fostered rather than unethical compromise” (Ward, 2007, p.58). Benjamin (2009) explains that “NGOs are a vital link between civil society and government within the state and between the dispossessed and the inter-governmental community at the trans-national level” (p. 31). As discussed by Kegley and Blanton (2010), there are many types of NGO non-state actors—ethnic nationalities, clashing civilizations, transnational religious movements, transnational terrorist groups and multinational corporations—each with differing roles and purposes. But perhaps the type most recognizable and envisioned by the UN Charter is the non-profit international organization made up of individual members or domestic organizations from two or more states. In recent decades we have witnessed an increased influence of this type of NGO particularly in areas such as the environment, human rights, peacekeeping, political reform and corporate social responsibility—NGOs such as Amnesty International, CARE, International Committee of the Red Cross and Human Rights Watch have certainly made a legitimate mark on today’s world scene. These humanitarian NGOs have taken on issues such as humanitarian aid and disaster relief that many national governments (specifically the lesser developed countries such as the case in Haiti) have been either unable to or simply unwilling to deal with themselves. While others as conveyed by Turner and Dungan (2004) “act as lobbying or pressure organizations, representing groups and interests which international bureaucrats and corporate executives might otherwise overlook or under emphasize” (Increasing Influence Section, para. 5). These type NGOs are active in scrutinizing multinational firms in advancing responsible corporate citizenship such as the case where a host of NGOs was responsible for consulting and encouraging Nike to raise labor standards in their Asian factories. Likewise, coordinated state-wide protests during the revolutions that overwhelmed governments in Georgia, Ukraine and the Kyrgyz Republic can be attributed to the efforts of NGOs dedicated to political reform (Bremmer, 2006). While NGOs have proven to have cooperatively worked with nation states to pursue and obtain certain national interest; NGOs still face political challenges with certain nations when viewed as a potential base for opposition to their regime—again more prevalent in the lesser developed countries. Similarly as pointed out by Kegley and Blanton (2010), in autocratic governments NGO actions are likely to threaten or upstage state-government authority and control. Many within China’s central government are concerned with the broadening agendas of NGOs and fear that this may incite citizens to demand political change. As such, China forces certain NGOs to submit membership rosters, project ideas and foreign funding sources for state approval greatly restricting the work of these NGOs (Bremmer, 2006). It may be true as suggested by Kegley and Blanton (2010) that NGOs influence is more prevalent in low politics than high politics. Clearly, NGOs have moved into areas where states have been reluctant or incapable of filling and have been competent partners in addressing challenges that were once exclusively in a nation state’s sphere of influence. Yet, it would be difficult to agree that NGOs expanding numbers and influence in global governance is at the expense of the nation state. Like Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs), NGOs are “limited by national leaders’ reluctance to make politically costly choices that would undermine their personal popularity at home and their governments’ sovereignty” (Kegley and Blanton, 2010, p. 186). As the high political challenges presented by terrorist groups and nuclear proliferation increase, the best hope to lead the fight and meet these global challenges will be realized through the authority, power and wealth of the leading nation states. Our concept of sovereignty is for all practical purposes entering a transformation period where it will be necessary to strike a balance between the continuing and vital role played by nation states and the necessity to adapt to the expanding and improving influence of non-state actors in global governance. Finally, as Edwards (2009) conveys, “the over-riding challenge for NGOs in the twenty-first century will be to help re-balance the competitive and co-operative forces that motivate each one of us, whether in economics, politics or social life” (p. 612). References: Benjamin, D. (2009). Protecting the protectors: NGO action and responsibility to protect. International Journal on World Peace, 26(1), 31-50. Retrieved February 4, 2010, from AMU On-Line Research Library. Bremmer, I. (2006, Spring). Thinking beyond States. The National Interest, 83, 65+. Retrieved February 7, 2010, from Questia database: http//www.questia.com. Edwards, M., & Sen, G. (2000). NGOs, social change and the transformation of human relationships: a 21st-century civic agenda. Third World Quarterly, 21(4), 605-616. Retrieved February 7, 2010, from Questia database: http//www.questia.com. Kegley, C. & Blanton, S. (2010). World Politics: Trend and Transformation (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning Turner, L., & Dungan, N. (2004, November). Stepping onto the stage. The World Today, 60, 24+. Retrieved February 11, 2010, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com. Ward, T. (2007). The political economy of NGOs and human security. International Journal on World Peace, 24(1), 43-64. Retrieved February 7, 2010, from Questia database: http://www.questia.com.