Phillip Werner

Professor William Akoto

International Organizations
26 October 2016
 Werner 2

Topic One
NGOs and other non-state actors play a key role in raising awareness about violent
actions of States against its citizens. The role of these NGOs and non-state actors in
spreading awareness is crucial to maintaining the right to protest unjust governments.
This role centers on them existing outside of any one government’s control and sphere of
influence. Because of this, oppressive governments can do little to impede and prevent
NGOs and other non-state actors from observing and reporting what they witness at the
hands of oppressors.
NGOs have become increasingly influential and powerful in recent years. This is
due to the rise in globalism throughout the world. This rise has led to the creation of gaps
which traditional states cannot fill on their own. NGOs, non-state actors, and IGOs seek
to fill this gap. NGOs specifically fulfill two key roles in global governance. The first are
service groups. These groups are generally contracted by IGOs in order to provide
additional services such as disaster relief and establish refugee camps. The Red Cross
and Doctors Without Borders are examples of Service NGOs. The Second type of NGO
are advocacy groups. These groups seek to pressure and persuade governments,
corporations, and IGOs to address a specific issue (Akoto).
NGOs serve two very different roles in the international community. On the one
hand they are contracted to assist in humanitarian roles, on the opposite end of the
spectrum they lobby governments to achieve whatever their specific goal is. Despite
these often conflicting goals, both types are well equipped to raise awareness and even
fight corruption and oppression in states such as Turkey, North Korea, Ethiopia, Iran, and
the Philippines.
Service NGOs serve as firsthand observers of the cruelty of States. They are on
the ground providing humanitarian resources to civilians. These NGOs witness firsthand
the violations of human rights at the behest of malevolent regimes. They are able to
catalog and gather evidence proving these violations. This allows other governments of
the world to not only condemn these regimes but it also empowers them to take more
heavy handed approaches to solving the issue, such as sanctions, military action, etc.
Because these NGOs are solely service orientated they can really only act as whistle
blowers to the United Nations instead of actually combatting the oppression directly.
Although service NGOs cannot directly oppose malevolent regimes, they play a
key role in notifying the rest of the international community of the atrocities they have
witnessed. This is crucial in combatting human rights violations in the twenty-first century.
Historically, gross human rights violations were much easier to gloss over and sweep
under the rug. Before the rise of service orientated NGOs, the only way the world learned
about violations of human rights was either from the oppressed or the oppressor. For
example, the American public did not learn about the Holocaust until near the end of
World War II. This only happened after American soldiers stumbled upon them while
moving through Germany towards Berlin. The horrors of those death camps was kept a
secret for several years. Because of service orientated NGOs, the world was exposed to
the atrocities North Korea perpetuates against its own citizens.
Service NGOs may act as excellent whistleblowers in raising awareness about
human rights violations but advocacy NGOs are far better suited to root out injustice. This
is due to them serving as advisors and lobbyist to various governments, corporations and
 Werner 3

other non-state actors. This role grants advocacy NGOs a great deal of influence and
leverage over rectifying human rights violations in states which repeatedly disregard
them.
The vast majority of NGOs were formed to advocate and protect human rights in
direct response to the horrors of World War I and II. Advocacy NGOs advocate their cause
through campaigns championing their cause. Human rights NGOs specifically advocate
the creation of international human rights norm creation. One key strategy utilized is to
focus on one specific issue area such as child labor, and migrant workers.
Despite NGOs being an incredibly influential factor in advocating and protecting
human rights, they do have their shortcomings. Because there are a large number of
NGOs working on an issue at any given time they often find themselves at odds with each
other as each NGO has its own separate agenda which can be counterproductive to say
the least. While the majority of NGOs have a similar broad picture goal, the specific goal
varies tremendously from organization to organization. As NGOs become more and more
integrated into the global governance system, many have bureaucratized leaving them
sluggish and slower to react to changes.
NGOs generally rely heavily on funding from donors, corporations and foundations.
There is concern that taking money from certain groups compromises their integrity.
Because there is so much competition for funding amongst NGOs, they are extremely
short term focused instead of thinking about the long term effectiveness. There is also a
great deal of pressure to produce results quickly leading to corner cutting in an effort to
maximize efficiency. This jeopardizes the long term viability in anything they accomplish.
It can also lead to scandals when things go wrong. Not only do these scandals affect the
individuals involved but they also negatively impact the reputation of NGOs as a whole.
NGOs are becoming a force to be reckoned with when it comes to advocating and
protecting human rights, however as they become more integrated into the global
governance system it is important to solidify a few things. First is accountability. Because
NGOs are private organizations they are really not accountable to anyone which is
extremely problematic given how prone to taking short cuts they generally are. Secondly,
NGOs are generally opaque and lack basic transparency when it comes to providing
information about their operations. This is a recipe for disaster as they become more
essential to the international system. Lastly it is extremely difficult to interpret whose
interests NGOs truly represent due to the wide array of issues they are free to pursue
with little question.
In recent months many NGOs have begun to criticize Russia’s gross violations of
human rights in their military operations in Syria. Eighty NGOs signed a petition calling
for Russia to lose its seat on the UN Human Rights Council. This was mainly due to
questions about Russia’s true intentions in Syria, specifically repeated military actions
against civilians (Reuters). Russia was not reelected to its seat. The actions of NGOs
effectively created the rallying call to remove Russia from the Human Rights Council.
NGOs have a tremendous amount of power to be the force of change in the
international community. Their call for Russia’s removal from the Human Rights Council
being answered shows this. IGOs and States listen to the appeals of NGOs. NGOs are
in fact, taken seriously by the international community despite their faults and
shortcomings.
 Werner 4

NGOs could do so much more in advocating for human rights. The sheer volume
of organizations competing for funding and pursuing their own competing agendas
handicaps what they could accomplish. If NGOs prioritized cooperation and achieving the
best common goal amongst themselves they could do so much more. Instead it is a bunch
of different cogs trying to operate different machines. There is no incentive to work
together since they are all trying to achieve their own goals no matter the cost to other
NGOs. And because they work against each for funding they are unable to live up to their
full potential.
Additionally, NGOs are caught in a constant struggle. They are overly focused on
the short term instead of the long term which leads to their short term successes failing
in the long term and eventually becoming short term problems down the road. NGOs think
only in the short term because they are constantly pursuing funding and long term
strategies do not pay the bills in the here and now.
NGOs have a great deal of potential to make a meaningful difference in the realm
of human rights. They currently find themselves in a quagmire. NGOs have become stuck
in a cycle of applying short term fixes to issues in an effort to garner funding to make the
next short term fix, while also systematically competing with every other NGO over this
same funding. There is no real fix to this, unless the way NGOs are funded changes which
will probably not happen due to the way NGOs are set up.
The future geopolitical world will involve NGOs in a significant way. NGOs fulfill a
specific role in protecting human rights throughout the world. They are essential to
ensuring fundamental rights are maintained in the modern world. Because they act
outside of government mandate, NGOs are able to go where IGOs cannot. This allows
them to blow the whistle on gross violations of human rights and assist in rectifying the
situation.
NGOs play a key role in advocating for human rights and helping IGOs and States
make their enforcement a reality. Though they have their shortcomings, NGOs are crucial
in the modern world. They are essential in safeguarding human rights by acting as watch
dogs for violations. They truly make a difference and their influence can be felt and seen
throughout the world. NGOs will not replace IGOs but they do form a key piece of the
puzzle that is the development of internationally recognized human rights.
 Werner 5

References
Akoto, William. "Forms of Global Governance." Gambrell 201, Columbia. 24 Aug. 2016.
Lecture.
Reuters. "Russia Voted off UN Human Rights Council | News | DW.COM | 28.10.2016."
DW.COM. Deutsche Welle, 28 Oct. 2016. Web. 30 Oct. 2016.