A Confederacy of Confederations. … - Brief Article

UN Chronicle, Winter, 1999 by Louk Box

MAKING IT LEANER AND CLEANER

If the United Nations remains just a confederation of States, it may become irrelevant; if it becomes a confederacy of confederations involving global civil society, it might meet the challenges through greater legitimacy.

A confederacy is "a league or compact for mutual support or common action", according to the dictionary. Confederation refers to being united by such a league. Although often applied to States, the notion applies just as well to autonomous associations, like labour unions. The essence lies in actor autonomy and a structured alliance for a common interest. Labour unions are autonomous bodies in civil society; States are assumed to be autonomous in international relations. Both can build confederations at the global level.

The question can be raised: Could autonomous civil society organizations associate themselves with States "for mutual support or common action"? Or one step further: Could confederations of such civil society organizations associate with a confederation of States? This sounds theoretical, but I hope to show that these questions directly affect the United Nations and its legitimacy.

Words incorporate meanings within historical contexts. For an American, "confederate" is likely to be associated with the Southern States in that drama of North American history the Civil War. To a Dutchman, it might be associated with the Golden Age of the Dutch Republic when the United Provinces fought their way to independence. Let us try to go beyond such meanings. A confederation allows its members to gradually transfer specific responsibilities to a common body. State sovereignty is maintained since the confederation is based on the very principle of autonomy. The United Nations follows this model in that States do not relinquish power or sovereignty, they pool it. The International Court of Justice in The Hague is an example; it can only give a verdict in cases which both parties to a conflict are willing to submit to it.

Not only States build confederacies, civil society organizations do as well. Sports, for example, are done in leagues, which can be considered as "compacts for common action". Global public interests are increasingly served by global confederations.

Civil society, or the network of public interest associations, is globalizing just like markets are. Markets are the structured exchanges of private interests; they have always operated under values grounded in civil society and sanctioned by States. The founding fathers of the United Nations recognized this role in the articulation of public interest. They gave some space to non-State representation in the form of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which have been associated with the United Nations ever since its establishment.

The United Nations now faces a plethora of NGOs. It does not know how to deal with them. Which should be the criteria for admission? Should pro-abortion groups be admitted? "No", says the United States Congress. Should the United States National Rifle Association be allowed to plead its case? "No", say other parliamentarians. Representation of non-State public interest groups is therefore a hot issue.

How can it be solved? There is no simple solution, but maybe an indication can be given. The first question to be answered is: Can groups of States deal with non-State actors, like public interest groups? The answer is yes, because they have been doing so for quite some time.

Take the International Labour Organization (ILO), which celebrates its eightieth anniversary this year. It involves States, labour unions and employers' organizations.

The second question is: What changes need to be made in the broader UN system to institutionalize such interaction? I would argue: remarkably few, albeit some radical ones. Let me just mention four, following the ILO model which proved its value:

* reduce the tasks of the sectoral organizations to specific areas of global public interest (in health, education, food, labour, etc);

* reduce the functions of these organizations primarily to expertise, norm-setting and arbitration (skip the many executive or developmental tasks which they have assumed, making them vulnerable to their own interests);

* reduce the number of non-State actors to be dealt with by requesting them to form global confederacies which are legitimated by autonomous national memberships (skip the one-man or one-nation NGOs dealing with a single interest);

* improve information exchange through global networks involving the actors (as happens through the OneWorld.Net portal, which accesses already 1 million documents on international cooperation and global justice).

The third question could be: Who will fund this? I do not think the States will. The most powerful ones have a rather dismal record on a per capita basis; small European States top the list. The United States is best known through its United Nations critics in Congress, but other countries like China or Russia are not doing much better. The mighty stick to their power.