terça-feira, 26 de junho de 2012

International Organizations

Talking about something we’re not familiar with is very complicated. Sometimes, we think we have points to talk about some issue, but in the moment we need to type the words, we realize we don’t have arguments to defend the ideas we suppose are the correct ones. This is what is usually called common sense and, even though, we try to run away from it to say we have very critical thought, we cannot comprehend everything and, in some points, we end up having the so-hated common sense.

That’s what happened to me with this composition I should write about International Organizations. I caught myself looking for arguments to defend Greenpeace as a successful international organization, instead United Nations, which for me, was a frustrated one. But, the only argument I could think about was that non-governmental international organizations are the most successful ones because they don’t have politicians and countries involved, so they would have nothing to lose and that’s why Greenpeace was always on the media. On the other hand, in my original idea, United Nations and other governmental international organizations have commitments with their own countries, which always involve politics, economical interests and international diplomacy.

Having this point of view, Greenpeace was for me the best possible international organization. I believed that all their actions we see on television, like the whaling ship they sank, was a victory and, because they don’t have any commitments, they could have these radical attitudes without bad consequences.

Looking for it and talking to people who understand better about International Organizations than me, that was not the case, instead. Although Greenpeace ideology is to make use of direct actions, this method has received much criticism and the world sees Greenpeace now as a group of terrorists. In what Greenpeace indeed succeeded was to call the world’s attention to the environmental issues, but the money they raise to their campaigns is accused of not being for legitimate causes, and the arguments they present for their causes are being considered as failed ones.

On the other hand, despite everything I was thinking about governmental international organizations, I noticed that the World Trade Organization is a very good example of this kind of establishment. Despite the critics accusing the WTO of being a controller on the international trade, which would be one of the responsible for the economical crises we’re facing now, the WTO has been fulfilling their job in insuring the fair prices in exportations and importations. In some points, their main rule of not having any most favored country in tariff barrier is being reached, even though, in practice, some countries try to skip and cheat the international agreement of world trade. Nevertheless, WTO is considered a case of success.

About the United Nations, however, my point of view is still the same. Its beginning was already complicated when it created the State of Israel inside the Palestinian territory. What they have done until nowadays, may have avoided some conflicts, but disputes, invasions, killings and other types of imperialism and violence are still happening. The genocide Ruanda suffered in 1994, the United States’ invasion in Iraqi in 2003, the famine that occurs in Palestine, the rape women suffer in some African countries, and many other examples that could be mentioned just demonstrate how United Nations behavior is much more political than humanitarian.

In conclusion, I saw that the success of an International Organization does not depend on the fact if it is governmental or not, but the role they play in the international scenario and how do they manage their actions to reach what they want. We cannot forget that if administrate one single family is already difficult because everybody is different from each other, to manage the concerns of several countries must be an even greater challenge; not forgetting that the individual interests, sometimes and unfortunately, overlap the collective sake. 


Nenhum comentário: