Re the great IGOs (such as the League of Nations or the UN) efficient in accomplishing the goals for which they are founded?

The complete topic is:

Are the great IGOs (such as the League of Nations or the UN) efficient in accomplishing the goals for which they were founded? Or to use the words of de Gaulle, is the UN (or any other IGO) a  gimmick that should not be relied upon as a useful institution in political decision making?

VERY IMPORTANT:

” Thesis, antithesis, synthesis
” Structure the arguments to show the approach to the problem
” Rational and well structured : thesis, antithesis, synthesis

The following sources (along with other personal choices) should be used:


” Encyclopedia of the United Nations
” Kelly-Kate S Pearse International Organizations, perspectives on governance in the 21st century
” The University of Michigan s Documents Center s  International agencies and information on the web
” Global Policy Forum


Some of these notes are relevant and should be included (it is very important to include some of the notes in the argument):


” The UN challenges the realist principles for the Americans since an international organization does not fit the realist paradigm. For the USSR, the fact that the US began the UN could have caused problems.
o They both participated in an organization where the benefits outweighed the disadvantages.
o The US does not have as much influence as NATO but a great influence nevertheless.
o For the USSR, as for every country, being there to watch what everyone is doing, to avoid marginalization, to project its image as a power to defend peace, to avoid that this pacifism would go too far.
o Always have the option to leave. In the 1980s, the US actually quit UNESCO. It only reintegrated last week.
o Since you have the option of quitting, then it s ok to join. You can gain influence in an organization that originally did not offer that kind of influence and then you can use it to your own advantage. This is one of the advantages that the USSR found
” What is the main advantage of an organization such as the UN where the main geostrategic world has changed
o Preventing war by maintaining a permanent contact inside the organization
o It allows you an escape route, to exercise a retreat strategy without losing face. You blame it on the UN. If you have committed a great diplomatic mistake, you may have had to look tough in front of your own voters, you can step back without losing face by simply blaming the UN for forcing you to step back. An excellent camouflage for steeping back.
o It is there to take all of the blame when in fact it is impossible for the governments to take the blame themselves. It is the ideal scapegoat. Serves as a scapegoat for certain diplomatic failures.
 Deflects the blow of public opinion or certain extremist political factions that exists within the country
 Was planned as such from the beginning with this kind of problematic in perspective.
 This applies to both powerful countries and small countries.
o The risk is that it will slow down all initiative that do need to be taken against a dictator, a Belasis government. It will also exacerbate public opinion.
o In the atomic age, decisions are not taken in days or weeks but within hours if not even minutes. It is important to have an organization that slows down the process of war to reveal that there would be a misunderstanding.
” What is the criteria that determine a world s super power?
o Economic strength
o Nuclear weapons are the exclusive criteria for membership for the super five of those who are in the permanent seats of the Security Council.
 Consistent with the UN if you view it as a realist creation. Democracy suits the liberals.
o Democratic system. The UN implicitly is committed to democratic types of government. For example: the 1995 Human Rights declaration. It sets a moral criteria that could come into play when you ask the question of can a country join the Security Council.
o The military capacity in general.
o Regional influence and network of friends
 India because of it privilege relation with Russia, would want you to bring India into the council because it could help control certain extremist temptation. India could pacify countries that it has good relations with. It could also play against it because they would fear that it could ally with other countries within the council. The argument goes both ways. Your assets can become your liabilities.
o Population
 Countries like India (1/6 of the globe s population), Brazil, and Japan represent a tremendous weight on the world s population. Can you keep them out of the great decisions?
” The great issue today is the reform of the Security Council. The UN is a realist organization with the acceptance that there are big boys that are the players and that will guide whatever is going on in the UN. They are raising the question  why not them? Why not have permanent seats in the Security Council?
o Germany
 A power to take into account
o Japan (can counterbalance China or support China, especially in North Korea issue).
” Since the Security Council is a leadership and is forum that could coordinate relations, are other countries marginalized?
” Tremendous risk for Nixon to integrate China in the Security Council but it was a greater risk to keep it apart.
o Need of an adversary to lean on and by being so close to an adversary, you can feel his dynamics, the mood, whether they want peace, war, or etc. It is the heart of the diplomacy.
” In the nuclear era, you cannot dismiss the importance of personal contact. Diplomacy is important to study.
” Jean Baptist Duroselle
” Raymond Aron
o Famous for his theory on Cleopatra s nose
” The difference between the apocalypse and being alive can be made by such tiny little details, that we cannot dismiss these details.
” Part of the organizations aim is to look at the adversary face to face. It is important to have contact.
o There s an atmosphere when you are in close contact with your adversary.
o That s why there is a bizarre close relationship between Bush and Putin. It is the need for proximity and for closeness.
” John Nash won a Nobel Prize for explaining group dynamics. This is important in international organizations, especially in the Security Council.
” Group dynamics
o More rational and scientific way
” Game theory
o Goes against everything postmodernists say.
” When you establish a contact, you feel if your adversary is lying or not. Study of the behavior of the other country by assuming that the diplomat might be typical of the entire society of the structure of thinking of the entire country.
” Physical presence is necessary.
” You cannot afford to eliminate territories that represent an important part of the world s populations, great economies, nuclear powers and the desire to participate in global affairs
” It has been mentioned that a set may be given to another IGO instead of a country. This is especially being discussed for the EU because it will be more representative of Europe.
” The most plausible scenario is Japan joining the Security Council because what is happening in North Korea, it might accelerate the process.

The daily work of the UN
” There are Diplomatic means that already existed long before there was anything that looked like an international governmental organization.
” There are four degrees of managing international relations.
o Good offices (Bons Offices) or conciliation
 Offer an opinion
 Fact finding
 Process of seeking agreement between parties without recourse of action.
o Mediation
 Intermediary step between conciliation and arbitration
 An active search for a negotiated settlement in a conflict or disagreement between two or more states or other actors.
 Agenda setting
o Arbitration
 Disputants agree to settle a dispute by using an impartial party or tribunal that will adjudicate a solution
 Whatever is said in arbitration becomes official, it becomes r