Bernard Shiu
The United Nations (UN) has been a wellspring of bold agendas in the 21st century. From the Millennium Development Goals in 2000 to the Sustainable Development Goals in 2016, it has been vocal in articulating the flaws of our world and the solutions required. Yet, in an age of unresolved conflict and inequality, it’s hard to agree that the UN has been effective at implementing its agendas. Why is this the case and is there a remedy available?
The Status Quo
Even amidst rising globalisation and cross-national interests, sovereign states remain the fundamental actors in international politics in two ways. First, states are the only bodies with administrative authority over their territories. To advance its agenda, the UN often requires the endorsement of member states before enacting any reforms in their territories, which in many cases is done through member states as well. Second, state leaders pledge their allegiances solely to the interests of states and their citizens. This presents inherent mismatches of priorities in the international system; the UN pledges to work towards “international peace” and “harmonising the actions of nations”, which often significantly contrasts with the self-centred motives of member states.[1]
These two dynamics often combine to hinder the UN’s ability to realise its desired changes. Taking the example of climate action, the 2015 Paris Agreement was severely handicapped when the United States withdrew in 2020 under President Trump. Trump justified the withdrawal based on its “unfair economic burden” on American workers and businesses – precisely the effects of national representation at play.[2] Yet, the legalities of sovereignty make it difficult to impose a green transition on the US despite the withdrawal. US firms with high CO2 emissions cannot be fined without local legislation, and the subsidies that the UN could provide for clean energy investments would be less than what the US government could if it were willing. Hence, the world’s largest economy was taken out of the equation of the green transition entirely.
The inherent contradictions in UN and state goals clearly show that the UN cannot rely on the support of member states to realise its agendas. Therefore, the question becomes: can the UN act independently of its member states’ wishes?
Non-Governmental Action
In fact, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are viable alternatives as implementors of the UN’s agendas. By designating NGOs as implementing actors in UN programmes, the UN could create impact without having to rely on the support and agency of its member states, therefore reducing the constraint of state’s self-interested motives on the UN’s effectiveness.
NGOs enjoy a distinct advantage as potential UN partners due to their diverse origins and missions. While the loyalty of state leaders is bound to the state, NGOs pledge their allegiances to any cause of their choice. For a significant number of them, this means having a central calling that aligns with the UN’s agenda on international development. For instance, Amnesty International’s mission to fight human rights abuses shares similarities with the UN’s views on human rights and has even earned it consultative status in UN meetings.[3] Moreover, the agendas of many of these NGOs are transnational, meaning that national interest is seldom a priority. This makes their commitment to these causes more reliable and less shaken by political volatility, as could be the case in electoral democracies like the US.
Another advantage that NGOs possess over states in advancing the UN’s development agendas is their ability to create impact in rural or marginalised communities. Some state governments lack the administrative means to effect policies in every corner of their territory. This is especially true for those states which the UN’s development agendas target, since ineffective administration and low levels of development often go hand-in-hand. By placing a greater emphasis on on-the-ground implementation, NGOs could be better equipped to implement UN agendas in these hard-to-reach areas, therefore maximising the effectiveness of such reforms. This is also a reason why the UN should collaborate with NGOs even when states cooperate with global agendas, as their work could very well be complementary.
Granted, the funding and legal powers of NGOs significantly lag behind those of states. However, they can provide substantial contributions nonetheless. With financial support, they can contribute to infrastructure construction and resource distribution in underdeveloped communities, which could advance the UN’s agenda on issues such as hunger. Through educational work, NGOs could also be mobilised to tackle challenges including low human rights literacy and low productivity. In this vision, the UN’s role would be to finance these NGOs’ on-the-ground work and facilitate inter-NGO communication for greater strategic coherence. All in all, this model could more efficiently transform ideas into action and bring tangible change towards needy communities.
From Vision to Fruition
Frankly, while this model is promising, it is difficult to realise because it challenges the status quo of sovereign statehood. When the UN attempts to advance development agendas against the wishes of state leaders, states sometimes claim that their sovereignty is being violated and demand the cessation of related operations. This would be especially true if the UN acted through NGOs, as states have legal tools that could be used against them. For example, NGOs require state authorisation for transporting humanitarian aid to contested regions, and the lack of such authorisation from Israel and Sudan has hindered aid to Gaza and the Sudanese people. Another potential consequence would be the reduction of state funding towards the UN due to this alienation, which would be dangerous as over 70% of the UN’s funding comes from member states.[4]
The UN should mitigate this by starting its NGO partnerships in issues with significant global consensus. With reduced pushback from member states, the UN would have more time to normalise its acting through NGOs. Hence, in the future, even when a member state disputes the UN’s methods in advancing development agendas against its wishes, the precedent of the positive impact of UN-NGO collaboration and the international norm formed as a result would make it difficult for such state to hinder these activities . This strategy would also normalise the UN being an activist body with motives independent of member states, similarly bolstering its effectiveness as a global agent for progress.
The UN should also challenge member states’ claims that they fully represent their citizens when needed. As the modern world becomes more aware of the nuances of demographic interests within national boundaries, it is increasingly difficult for a single government to claim that it takes the diverse interests of all its citizens at heart. This tactic would be helpful especially in situations concerning systemic inequalities, where the complicity of state governments in consolidating injustices would amply justify the UN’s intervention through NGO action that bypasses state authority.
With the clock ticking on many of the UN’s areas of concern, it’s only appropriate that it start seeking to break through the constraints defining the current international system. The right time for it to increase NGO collaboration would be immediately.
Bibliography
[1] “United Nations Charter,” United Nations, 1945, https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text.
[2] Michael R. Pompeo, “On the U.S. Withdrawal from the Paris Agreement,” United States Department of State, November 4, 2019, https://2017-2021.state.gov/on-the-u-s-withdrawal-from-the-paris-agreement/.
[3] Amnesty International, 2019, https://www.amnesty.org.
[4] “How Is the United Nations Funded?,” UN Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office, n.d., https://mptf.undp.org/page/how-united-nations-funded.
Comments