The NGOs as Global Actor

8/14/2019 The NGOs as Global Actor

1/15

Gwanju Human Rights Folk School 2004

The NGOs as Global Actor: Myth or Reality?

Presented by Hae-Young Lee (Hanshin University)

I. Introduction

One of the peculiar trends in the nineties in the international political arena is

doubtlessly the NGOs. With the 1989/90 collapse of the so-called real existent socialism

was boastfully proclaimed the New World Order. The World-Capitalism has

successfully proved its viability once again. As a result, the 'Age of Extremes' (E.J.

Hobsbawm) seems to expire now and forever without knowing its successor. After ten

years of anxious hope are many people now conscious that the "Age of Extremes" is

ended irreversibly but the next century also has nothing to do with the "brave new

world". On the contrary the U.S. as a sole empire on the globe is continuing the

"imperial overstretch" (P. Kennedy). Only the "neo-feudal" international system has

substituted its antecedent. One imperial state assisted by the "knight" states such as G7

dominates the most countries. One used to say that after "September 11" everything has

changed utterly. However, the hard core of the age, in my view, has not changed at all.

Amidstfin de siecle pessimism had J. Habermas 1984 diagnosed our times as

follows :

The future is negatively cathected ; we see outlined on the threshold of the twenty-

first century the horrifying panorama of a worldwide threat to universal life

interests: the spiral of the arms race, the uncontrolled spread of nuclear weapons,

the structural impoverishment of developing countries, problems of environmental

overload, and the nearly catastrophic operations of high technology are the

catchwords that have penetrated public consciousness by way of the mass media.

... The situation may be objectively obscure. Obscurity is nonetheless also a

function of a society's assessment of its own readiness to take action. What is at


2/15


stake is Western culture's confidence in itself.1

On the one hand, the aftermath of "September 11" has reactivated the pessimism of"new obscurity." On the other hand it may imply no other than a warning signal which

urges us to take measures. The "optimism of will" (A. Gramsci) could be justified above

all by the fact that in the nineties the NGOs have increased their capacities at the

international as well as at the national level so dramatically that the national

governments can hardly hold the countervailing power of NGOs under control. The

international institutions such as WB, IMF, WTO must react to them by any means.

Moreover, they are often considered as a recognized actor of world politics and people

demand them to hold even more accountability and morals than the politicians. In thenational politics many assign them to take the role of the "fifth pillar" next to

legislature, executive, jurisdiction and media. One often says, "taking NGOs seriously."

The NGO-activists' catchphrase may be: "Together, we are superpower."

Despite success stories of NGOs in the nineties, there may be still many

unanswered questions for closer examination. For some critics, "NGOs are the most

overestimated actor of the nineties." 22 However, others forecast the "shift of power"

from states to NGOs.33 There are good reasons for the critical review of previous global

activity of NGOs: as many contradictions and divergences as harmonies and

convergences exist between

- NGOs from the North and South

- "Moderate" and "radical" NGOs

- Lobbying-oriented and movement-oriented NGOs

- Rich and poor NGOs

- Large and small NGOs

- National and international NGOs

- "Occidental" and "oriental" NGOs

etc.

The list could last endlessly. Nevertheless, central in my paper is the next

problem: Could NGOs be apoliticalalternative in the future? In other words, are they

1 ) J. Habermas (1989), The New Conservatism, MIT Press; Cambridge, pp.50-51.2P. Wahl (1998), NGO Transnationals, McGreenpeace and the Network Guerrilla,

(www.globalpolicy.org/ngos/issues/wahl.htm)3 ) Jessica Mathews, the head of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, wrote that "the steady

concentration of power in the hands of states that began in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, is over, at least fora while." SeeEconomist, December 11-17, 1999.


3/15


4/15


As mentioned, the dramatic proliferation of NGOs was a reaction against the

neo-liberal globalization realized at the outset as an anti-crisis strategy in the advancedcapitalist countries since the 1970s. It is first of all the globalization of the economy.

The Transnational Corporations are one of its most enthusiastic protagonists. The neo-

liberal offensive enforced the reorganization of traditional nation-states as the

'transmission belt' of world market. With the transition of such nation-states into the

neo-liberal "competition-states", as J. Hirsch conceptualized, was every realm of life

threatened to subordinate into the logic of market. The hegemony of "Neo-liberal

International" (P. Anderson) accelerated, for instance, the shifts of the alliance between

the labor and the industry capital, which characterize the "Golden Age" of postwarcapitalism, to that of industry and financial capital against the labor. But the key

problem lies no other than in the fatal unbalance between the globalized economy and

the nationally structured politics. As a consequence, it is inevitable to reactivate the

critical potentials installed in the civil society and to mobilize its resources to block the

neo-liberal offensive from inside as well as from outside.

The list of achievements by the NGOs over the past decade is quiet

encouraging:

- Promoting agreements on controlling greenhouse gases 1992

- "Fifty Years is Enough" campaign 1994

- Campaign to outlaw anti-personal land mines 1997

- Establish an international criminal court

- Numerous concerted actions to improve labor conditions in the South against

individual corporations such as Nike and to control the genetically modified

organisms (GMOs)

etc.

The protest movement against such international institutions as WTO, World

Bank, IMF and the temporarily failed MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment)

belongs to the latest and most spectacular events in the nineties organized by

international NGOs. If the 1992 UN earth summit in Rio was the first turning-point in

the history of modern NGOs, where for the first time NGOs participated in the global

decision-making process not as protester, the anti-MAI campaign could be estimated as

an epoch-making second turning-point. In this campaign the NGOs as "global player"


5/15


experimented new methods of movement, which is "possibly turning out to be an

alternative to the transnationalization of large NGOs that is quite problematic from a

democratic point of view"55. From now on, the NGO movement gains anotherdimension. The global political terrain changed radically: Seattle (November 1999),

Washington (April 2000) , Prague (September 2000), Quebec(April 2001),

Gothenburg(June 2001), Barcelona (June 2001), Genoa (July 2001), Washington

(September 2001) and now Qatar (November 2001). As C. Fred Bergsten commented

April 1999, "the anti-globalization forces are now in the ascendancy."

Of course, it is not true to say that the failure of MAI-negotiations66 was

exclusively due to the NGO protest. P. Wahl highlights three characteristics of anti-MAI-campaign. First, this campaign has confronted initially not with the so-called "soft

issues" on the international agenda - like as environmental or development issues - but

with the "hard" economic issues. Secondly, the - limited - success of NGOs was "not

achieved by large, transnational NGOs, but by a lose network of both, i.e., small NGOs

together with some large, transnational NGOs." Lastly, "the campaign did not aim at

improving a project promoted by the government, but classified the agreement as part of

the globalization process and rejected it completely."

Furthermore, the experience of MAI campaign could be very useful as a

strategic framework for the future of NGOs:

"- With the issues of neo-liberalism and globalization, NGOs have picked out a

fundamental social problem as a central campaign issue and have overcome their

traditional single-issue projects.

- Refusing the MAI instead of "improving" it did not harm the image of the

campaign in the media.

- NGOs are politically successful when their issues move and mobilize the public.

- Loose networks turned out to be efficient; centralized and hierarchical structures

were not necessary, and would have possibly been counterproductive.

- Small and flexible NGOs played an important role." 77

With the anti-MAI campaign begins the trends to change. The "hard" issues

5 ) See Wahl (1998), op.cit6 ) For the detailed description and critique, see M. Barlow/ T. Clarke (1998), MAI: The Threat to

American Freedom , New York: Stoddart.7 ) See Wahl (1998), op. cit.


6/15


7/15


Especially, P. Bond has devoted his attention to this problem in recent years. He

categorizes five reactions to the globalization since the international financial crisis

around mid-1997 99(See the Table 1). Amongst the above five tendencies, this essay is of

course interested mainly in - following Bond's terminology - the "Global Justice

Movements", that is, international NGO movements. However, except the so-called

"Co-opted NGOs (CoNGOs)", which receive fund from the neo-liberal agency and seek

usually the "dialogue and compromise", there are also each other conflicting and

competing subcurrents within the NGO camp. With regard to the NGOs' global strategycan there be logically two main axes: Pro-Globalist or Anti-Globalist. But the empirical

reality must not be so simplistic. There also can be minute sub-categories. For example,

one could be against the globalization of capital, but in favor of the "democratic"

globalization of people or "from below". To which camp, then, does this tendency

belong? While someone criticizes the present form of globalization, can he or she

imagine or accept at the same time alternative ways to globalization? Therefore, all

strategic models of NGOs must take into consideration such a case.

Ideal-typically, three kinds of approaches to the problem appear, for the

moment, according to the main line of argument and attitude to globalization: 1)

"international reformism" 2) "globalization from below" 3) "delinking."

1) "International reformist" approach:

This view is a global version of social partnership or corporatism at the national

level, which has backed up the 'Golden Age of capitalism" in Western society. It refers

basically to the thesis of "democratic deficit" of international institutions and regimes

that can be covered only by the cooperation with international civil society. The

interests of NGOs as "stakeholder" could be accommodated with the business. The

political legitimacy grounded on the support from the NGOs as junior-partner is a

necessary condition for the viability of global capitalism. Therefore, it aims the

capitalism with "human face".

9

) Patrick Bond (2001), Strategy and Self-Activity in the Global Justice Movements, FPIF DiscussionPaper #5, August 2001.


8/15


John Clark, a former leading Bank critic at Oxfam, issued an email memo now

as chief NGO liaison officer at the World Bank:

"[H]ow to respond to the demo organizers' request to all NGOs to boycott all

meetings with the Bank and Fund ... For some the compromise was to take part in

meetings with Bank staff off the premises (some said this was because they didn't

want to be seen and identified by demonstrators and be accused of cooption); but

others - notably Jubilee 2000 [U.S.] - were quite open that they intended to ignore

the request."1010

The aim of "international reformist" lies not in the abolition of internationalinstitutions but in theirimprovement. From this viewpoint, it is not marvelous to find to

some extent the logical homogeneity with the so-called "Post-Washington Consensus"

of which World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz takes the initiative. Aimed at the

correcting capitalist system's "imperfect markets", he tried to introduce a "new

paradigm" into the neo-liberal economy. J. Stiglitz writes: "The policies advanced by

the Washington Consensus are hardly complete and sometimes misguided. ... The focus

on freeing up markets, in the case of financial market liberalization, may actually have

had a perverse effect, contributing to macro-instability through weakening of the

financial sector."1111 This results in an elite fight between IMF and World Bank. The

World Bank shows, in comparison with its sister organization, the IMF, a relatively high

sensitivity to the activity of NGOs, which is well reflected in its document:

"Consultation with Civil Society Organizations (CSOs): General Guidelines for the

World Bank Staff. Some of lines in the document say: The primary objective of

consultations is to improve the quality of decisions by: capturing the experience of

specialized non-governmental agencies, tapping the knowledge of CSOs that work at

the community level, giving voice to the poor ..., and giving sustainability for proposed

reforms beyond any one government administration."1212 The World Bank's co-optation

strategy may express its changed approach to the integrationist fraction in the

international neo-liberal blocks.

In recent years, the partnership between business and NGOs increased

10 ) Cited from Bond (2001). op. cit.11 ) Cited from P. Bond (1999), Global and National Financial Reforms, Proceeding at International

Conference on Neo-liberalism, Global Capitalism and Civil Alternatives, October 5, 1999,

Sungkonghoe University, Seoul Korea.12 ) See World Bank's homepage http://wbln0018.worldbank.org.


9/15


variously. TheFinancial Times reported:

"For companies, the desire to work with NGOs stemmed from a recognition thatenvironmental and social issues can provide business benefits, ranging from

differentiating products to cutting costs. "In the world of business, environmental

performance is increasingly seen as a competitive and strategic issue for

companies," says SustainAbility. In several instances NGOs have been willing to

endorse products. In 1992 Greenpeace helped launch a hydrocarbon called

"Greenfreeze" that could replace an ozone-damaging coolant in refrigerators. Its

efforts resulted in 70,000 orders."1313

The "symbiosis" between business and NGOs follows, as such, the business

logic: an equivalent exchange between profitability of business and fund-raising of

NGOs:

"The problem with partnerships lies not so much in the nature of the relationship as

in objectives. Despite the grand rhetoric, when it comes to negotiating the terms of

the partnerships, there is a tendency to revert to fundamental organizational aims:

reputation enhancement at the local and international level for the business and

access to financial resources for the NGO. Hence, most NGOs give the

responsibility for corporate partnerships to the fund-raising department, rather than

to their advocacy department."1414

But even such a partnership is inaccessible to the NGOs of the South, due mainly to the

"power differentials":

"The idea of partnership between a multi-billion dollar global corporation and a

poor, marginalized local community group in the South is at odds with the

enormous power differentials and divergent interests inherent in such a

relationship. On the other hand, when larger NGOs establish new collaborative

relationships with business, there appears to be greater scope for shared power and

control. Such NGOs increasingly need to work with business in order to realize

their organizational goals in a globalized economy. Their business partners need

credible independent guidance in order to respond appropriately to concerns about

13 ) V. Houlder (2001), Campaigners Learn Lesson of Business Advantage, Financial Times, July 24,

2001.14 ) Kelly Currah (2000), How Corporations Absolve Their Sins, Guardian, August 28, 2000


10/15


the social and environmental impacts of their products and production processes."1515

As mentioned above, the relationship between two "non-state actors" is recently

interwoven, to a great extent, because not of mutual understandings but rather of mutual

interests. Even though it is for now not proper to judge about it ultimately, one thing is

however not deniable that such an invisible connection could jeopardize all the

achievements of NGO movement. For instance, at the local level, the NGO's

intervention encouraged by many donors of the North, that is also NGOs, was accused

of misleading the outcome:

"By their action and their line of work, NGOs have a strong tendency to take in

charge some tasks or services that are normally of the State' s responsibility. This

attitude often leads peasants to consider the NGOs as being the State or its

legitimate substitute. It also represents a form of justification of the State's

passivity concerning rural development, or even a means of taking away from it its

responsibilities. The extension and generalization of such an attitude can also open

the way for the existence of two parallel States or of a State in the State..."

2) "Globalization from below" approach:

W. Bello, Director of Focus on the Global South, represents one of the typical

positions with regards to the anti-globalization campaign in the NGO community.

According to him, "a classic crisis of legitimacy has struck the multilateral institutions

that serve as key elements of the system of global economic governance: The WTO,

IMF and the World Bank." Therefore, "the focus of our efforts these days is not to try to

reform the multilateral agencies but to deepen the crisis of legitimacy of the whole

system. ... We are talking about disabling not just the WTO, the IMF and the World

Bank but the transnational corporations itself. And we are not talking about a process of

"re-regulation" of the TNCs but of eventually disabling or dismantling them as

fundamental hazards to people, society, the environment, to everything we hold dear."

So, the strategic orientation focused not on the "re-regulation" but on the

disempowerment of TNCs. Bello seeks the alternative to globalization in the "de-

15

David F. Murphy (1998), Business and NGOs in the Global Partnership Process,(http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/unctad16.htm)


11/15


globalization":

"We are not talking about withdrawing from the international economy.We are speaking about reorienting our economies from production for export to

production for the local market;

...

We are talking, essentially, about an approach that consciously subordinates the

logic of the market, the pursuit of cost efficiency to the values of security, equity

and social solidarity. Following Karl Polanyi, we are speaking, about reembedding

the economy in society, rather than having society driven by the economy."1616

Rejecting capitalist globalization radically, Michael Albert also recently

elaborates the alternative strategy to the globalization. The anti-globalization activists

now want to replace the core three institutions of capitalist globalization, such as the

IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, with dramatically new and different structures:

"The WTO trumps governments and populations on behalf of corporate profits.

The full story about these three centrally important global institutions is longer, of

course, but improvements are not hard to conceive. First, why not have, instead of

the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the World Trade

Organization, an International Asset Agency, a Global Investment Assistance

Agency, and a World Trade Agency. These three new (not merely reformed)

institutions would work to attain equity, solidarity, diversity, self-management, and

ecological balance in international financial exchange, investment and

development, trade, and cultural exchange."1717

M. Albert advocates, furthermore, a "bottom-up" method as the organizational principle

of the new institutions:

"And second, ... anti-globalization activists also advocate a recognition that

international relations should not derive from centralized but rather from bottom-

up institutions. The new overarching structures mentioned above should therefore

gain their credibility and power from an array of arrangements, structures, and ties

enacted at the level of citizens, neighborhoods, states, nations and groups of

16

) See Bello (2001), op. cit.17 ) See Michael Albert (2001), What Are We For?,ZNet, September 6, 2001.


12/15


nations, on which they rest. And these more grass-roots structures, alliances, and

bodies defining debate and setting agendas should, like the three earlier described

one, also be transparent, participatory and democratic, and guided by a mandatethat prioritizes equity, solidarity, diversity, self-management, and ecological

sustainability and balance."1818

3) "Delinking" approach:

Yash Tandon, a former chair of CIVIUS: World Alliance for Citizen

Participation, also presents a grassroots-oriented alternative from the perspective of theSouth: "What are the alternatives? Stepping outside of the global economy is hardly a

realistic option. However, the South can do at least two things in relation to the process

of globalization. One: it can slow down the process of its further integration into the

global process. And two: it can strengthen its local- community based systems of

production and marketing, and begin to control local resources away from the hands of

multinational corporations."1919 For him, the governments in the South are not capable

any more of defending against the encroachment of their sovereignty accompanied by

globalization. Furthermore, most of the Southern NGOs are funded by the Northern

counterparts and consequently tend to be either "welfarist or single-issue oriented."

Hence, "by and large it is unrealistic to expect the NGOs (excepting a few) to take the

lead to raise broader issues of development and the effects of capital-led

globalization."2020 Instead, rather how the "ordinary people on the ground who are the

direct recipients of the damage that modernization, and now the globalization" will

become a force for change is a crucial issue for the South. "When they rise", "the NGOs

could become good allies for them, just as when the street kids of townships in South

Africa rose up to single-handedly take on the might of the apartheid state the middle

class intellectual cadre of NGOs became a strong support base of them."2121

In the tradition of Dependency Theory, S. Amin continued to radicalize the

strategy of "delinking" - "not autarky, but the subordination of outside relations to the

logic of internal development and not the reverse".2222 Then he reviewed the most

18 ) Ibid.19 ) Yash Tandon (1997), Globalization and the South: the Logic of Exploitation,Internationale Politik

und Gesellschaft, 4/1997, p. 397.20 ) Ibid., p. 398.21

) Ibid.22 ) S. Amin (1997), Capitalism in the Age of Globalization, London & New Jersey: Zed Books, p. 40.


13/15


radical reform proposals against the "Bretton Woods institutions", which are very

similar to the M. Albert's ideas sketched above: 1) the transformation of the IMF into a

genuine world central bank; 2) the transformation of the World Bank into a fund thatwould collect surpluses and lend them to the Third World; 3) the creation of a genuine

international trade organization, etc. Although these are as such a very fine project for

the reform of world economic and political system, they have the blind spots, too. For

instance, too much "value judgments" are included in the analyses; the transformation

of the IMF or World Bank into new ones ought not to be the objective for the immediate

future in the long transition to world socialism. Consequently, he is afraid that "by

setting the bar too high we are condemning ourselves to failure"; because "the status of

globalization has not always been clearly defined (is it a determining objective force, orone tendency among others?) certain elements of the reform project ... strike me as

doubtful.2323

For him, capitalist globalization is not in itself a way of resolving the crisis. A

simple "rejection" of globalization could not constitute an adequate solution, for it

become, at last, integrated into this globalization and are made use of it. The "delinking

is not to be found in these illusory and negative rejections but on the contrary by an

active insertion capable of modifying the conditions of globalization."2424 It means no

other than the "substituting the unilateral adjustment of the weak to the strong with a

structural adjustment that is truly bilateral" by means of "another type of globalization".

Most important is the problem for the "national and popular democratic alliance". It is

so impossible to bypass the "stage of popular national construction, of regionalization,

of delinking and the building of a polycentric world".2525

IV. Toward the Global Governance of People

Every political process presupposes normally three dimensions: polity,politics

andpolicy. The same applies also to the international political arena. It cant be denied

that in the nineties NGOs act as global player like multinational corporations

successfully as well as unsuccessfully. They contract occasionally the strategic alliances

with each other and form a united front against the "tyranny of market". All these were

obviously political actions or at least "politically-oriented" actions. Like usual political

23 ) Ibid., p. 43 passim.24

) Ibid., p. 75.25 ) Ibid., p.78-9.


14/15


parties, they put pressure upon the government at the national level and contributed

immensely to the further democratization of society. In the public sphere they were

approved as a quasi-political party and gained a considerable "power of influence",namely the "indirect" power compared to that of the administration. With regard to the

environmental and social issues, their positions nowadays are respected and adopted on

a case-by-case basis. If one takes all these processes seriously, she/he may conclude that

NGOs become global political actors. However, still one thing lacks in the NGOs

exactly as the TNCs do. That is democratic legitimacy. They were never elected but

onlyselectedby the people on the basis of beliefs that they are morally superior to the

politicians by profession. If so, they have at best the virtualorad hoc legitimacy, which

would be fulfilled only through their post-factum activity. In essence, peoplesacknowledgement of the NGOs is a kind of social contract that could be broken

anytime. As far as NGOs have never constituted themselves in the "body politic", the

legitimacy problem of NGOs remains unresolved.

Paradoxically the globalization made a favorable condition to create some type

of globalpolity. The globalized economy leads to the selective globalization of society.

Against this background, NGOs were rapidly internationalized. R. Falk and A. Strauss

proposed in Foreign Affairs a formation of "Global Parliament": "As with the early

European parliament, a relatively weak assembly initially equipped with largely

advisory powers could begin to address concerns about the democratic deficit while

posing only a long-term threat to the realities of state power."2626 According to them,

there are two ways to reach it. First, "civil society, aided by receptive states, could

create the assembly without resorting to a formal treaty process. Under this approach,

the assembly would not be formally sanctioned by states, so governments would

probably contest its legitimacy at the outset. But this opposition could be neutralized to

some extent by widespread grassroots and media endorsement." Second approach

"rel[ies] on a treaty, using what is often called the 'single negotiating text method'. After

consultation with sympathetic parties from civil society, business, and nation-states, an

organizing committee could generate the text of a proposed treaty establishing an

assembly."2727

Of course, it may be a too defeatist to reject this proposal only because it

sounds utopian. But it is also problematic to insist that the possibilities exist without

26 ) Richard Falk / Andrew Strauss (2001), Bridging the Globalization Gap: Toward Global Parliament,

Foreign Affairs , January-February 2001.27 ) Ibid.


15/15


probing in detail the concrete conditions of it. Unacceptable is moreover that the idea of

"Global Parliament" is de-linked with any abolition or at least radical reform of neo-

liberal institutions.

Although it is true that the formation of a political unit on a global scale is in

the last instance one of the ultimate solution of legitimation problem, it matters,

however, in thefirst instance if its political contents are well planned and the political

driving forces are sufficiently organized. For instance, the ideological factor plays here

a significant role. To tell the truth, the ideological terrain within the NGO community is

to a great extent confusing and divergent. Especially those at the core of anti-

globalization understand themselves as "anarchist". Following B. Epstein, theirintellectual and philosophical perspectives might be better described as an "anarchist

sensibility than as anarchism per se." In this sense "it is a form of politics that revolves

around the exposure of the truth rather than strategy."2828 The ideological-political

backgrounds of anti-globalization movements vary from Marxism, Trotskyism, to the

Islam. A certain form of movement such as "network guerilla," on which the "anarchist"

mind-set is dominant, could be advantageous to access to the people. Neither the

movement could however vagabondize from here to there perpetually, nor works the

internet always.

The NGOs per se is an expression of a specific phase of history, wherein the

classical labor movement is politically inactive and the "new" social movement

somewhat suffers from tiredness. A. Gramsci proposed once a perspective of

"reabsorption of state into the civil society". This standpoint could be valid at the

national level. However, in the international arena there is no central authority as world-

state. It seems to be also not plausible that in the near future the world-state becomes a

reality. The "governance without government" is seemingly the only feasible alternative

in the world politics for the present. For the global "civil society" - whatsoever it may

be -this constellation might be a chance, for the international NGOs could try to

constitute themselves politically without relatively less backlash of states. In my view,

the future of NGOs depends considerably on whether they will reorganize themselves

anew as political body. Neither NGO-fetishism nor NGO-nihilism helps this project at

all. Anyhow, so true is the following: "There is no alternatives."

28

) Barbara Epstein (2001), Anarchism and the Anti-Globalization Movement, Monthly Review,September 2001.

Documents

The NGOs as Global Actor