States in Action
The below examples illustrate the continuing importance of states as central actors in global governance.
+ Politics
- Following the September 11, 2001 terrorists attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, the United States quickly secured wide support for the “war on terrorism” and approval from UN.
- March, 2003 number of states cut off funding sources for terrorist groups.
- November 2002, U.S condemned Iraq:
o Chile, Mexico, Cameroon, Guinea, and Angola did not support US to use military action against Iraq.
o Russian, France, Germany, and China used their veto power with US not to use the military action in Iraq but to give more time of inspections as they viewed that Iraq was not immediately threat to internati
o onal peace and security yet.
+ Economics
- September 2003, G 21 led by China, Brazil, India, and South Africa blocked progress toward a new global trade agreement under the WTO.
o They argued that US, EU, and Japan had to dismantle their agricultural subsidy program and open their markets to more developing country agricultural exports if the multilateral trade system was going to serve both rich and poor states.
- States create IGO and international norms and law to serve their needs for order and collective.
The Key Role of the United States
- As the dominant power after World War II, the United States played a key role in shaping the international system structure, including the establishment of many IGOs, from the UN to the Britton Woods institutions and the WB, IMF, IAEA and NATO to maintain peace and security.
- U.S. antipathy to the United Nations moderated somewhat during the second term of the Reagan administration. Changes in Soviet policy under Mikhail Gorbachev created new opportunities for UN action in settling regional conflicts.
- The U.S. blatant willingness to go to war against Iraq in 2003 without Security Council authorization was further evidence that the United States did not consider itself bound by the obligations of the UN Charter.
- U.S. and IGO relationships have depend on at least four dynamic factors. First, the relationship depends on the nature of the issues. Second, the relationship depends on the dynamics of U.S. domestic politics-including presidential leadership. Third, the U.S –IGOs relationships can be partially explained by American political culture. Fourth, from the viewpoint of many both inside and outside of the United States, the exceptional power that the United States currently enjoys explains its unilateralist tendencies.
- U.S. controls almost 20% of the votes on the executive board of the IMF and World Bank; both institutions are located in Washington D.C.
- Concerned about the future of the global multilateral trade system in the early 1990s, the United States embraced the formation of APEC and NAFTA, both of which were also seen as sources of leverage against the EU’s single market.
- The United States has the power to act alone, but by acting unilaterally, the United States risks undermining the very multilateral system that it established, the system that is congruent with American interests.
- It may be tempting to believe that the new unilateralism in U.S. foreign policy under the Bush administration is a consequence of the U.S. ’overwhelming power in the world today.
Other Powerful States
- Russia: The former Soviet Union used to be a rival of the U.S which showed that it was just powerful as the U.S. Specifically during the Cold War period, Soviet Union engaged a lot in global governance, and it played an important role in international affairs. At that time, Russia created two IOs: the Warsaw Pact defensive alliance and Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON). It also used a lot veto powers in UNSC, and supported self-determination. However, after the fall of Soviet Union, the descendent, Russia does not seem to have the capacity to be called a rival of the U.S. Russia does not engage much in global governance as the former Soviet Union even though it is a member of many IOs such as G8 and NATO.
- The two European countries in UNSC have great influences on global governance because of their size and economic resources. Both are active in peacekeeping and enforcement operations. They also support many initiatives including ICJ and Kyoto Protocol. Their role in NATO declined when they removed their troops from this organization, but as for EU they still have great power.
- China is the least active P5 in global governance. The beginning of its UN membership was not noticeable because it did not show much action in response to global problems. Only in 1981 that China started to engage in peacekeeping missions. Although China does not want to involve in global affairs, it does not want to be left out. So China is a member of many organizations even if there are few actions from China. However, its regional responses are somewhat stronger. It takes part in many regional arrangements, and shows more actions than in international affairs.
- Germany and Japan are well known for their involvements in WWII. Both of them have strong economic growth, and their financial contributions to the UN are considerably high. They also participate in many peacekeeping operations.
Middle-Power States
(Canada, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Argentina, Brazil, India, Nigeria, and South Korea)
- They are middle in term of size and power, and they prefer multilateralism. In the Cold War, they were very important because most countries got tired with the two super powers. Like the others, they engage in many peacekeeping missions. During the post cold-war era, they were key actors in solving problems that major powers failed to achieve. They are also very active in regional organizations. However, some also violate the rules like the case of India refused to sign Treaty on Non-nuclear Proliferation.
