There are certain international institutions that have built reputations that may often appear to challenge or confront the national sovereignty of most countries. Most of these international and regional organisations draw membership from sovereign nations by consent than force. Such are correctly referred to as Supranational organisations than ‘super’ national. The more global organisations concentrate on a particular space like trade, politics or indeed finance with intention to reduce friction among member states in those areas of interest to that organization.
Members states fully understand that, at some point, their policies may reflect the intentions of that organization more than the domestic economy. The reasons for this could be an intention to create standardized policies for member states, such as those against financial crimes so that it becomes easier to prosecute across borders. Another possible reason could be extracting commitment from a country especially in case of financial default, for example. What becomes interesting is when a sovereign state appears at loggerheads with such an organization after initially committing to full compliance of that organization’s regulations.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is one organization that has been at the center of the domestic politics of many a country and forced or proposed policy changes in those countries. Some of those proposals, good or bad, have earned the IMF a less than pleasant reputation, by and large. Other organisations such as the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the United Nations (UN) have similar impact, again positive or negative, on their members unlike others like the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) or African Union (AU) that are more regional than global. It could be that regional organisations compose of peoples with similar history and culture which could resultantly make regional decisions less fractious.
At global level it is less contentious to align organisations to familiar pillars of state such as politics or economics (or finance). For instance, the UN’s mandate appears to concentrate directly on policy and harmonization of that policy through various treaties. The UN has been known to intervene in many a global conflict either to protect refugees or maintain some form of suspension of direct conflict between and among disputing g states. Any intervention requires wide discussion and consensus. Afterall, it is the member states that aid the logistical support of the UN including availing military personnel were necessary.
What makes the IMF slightly different from other international organisations is that it deals with money. Money, in political terms is nearly equivalent to power because without it, nations can barely function. The entire bureaucracy of state, the nature of sovereign power, becomes irrelevant if it cannot fund itself. Where this is occasioned, the state is forced to either borrow or find some way of raising money to maintain the dignity of their independence. The adage that money is power also rings true at state level.
To the last point, some nations found it tempting to invade another nation that had resources that could be converted to cash. If succesful, it gave that nation an elevated financial position from which it could fund its military, the bureaucracy, border security and social amenities. This was partly the reason Iraq invaded and annexed Kuwait in 1990, forcing the United States of America (USA) to marshal international consensus through under the UN, condemning Iraq.
The role, and outright condemnation of Iraq by the UN established a collective condemnation of one sovereign, Iraq, from violating the sovereign integrity of another state, Kuwait. The UN was critical in this respect because its very foundation partly speaks to non-violation of territorial integrity of any state, by another. In other words, there must not be a repeat of World War II where one nation, with superior military might overpowered other countries without their consent. The carnage and social dislocation imposed on those countries by a foreign power led to the second world war for the purpose of rescuing those invaded states and their peoples.
That similar condemnation remains absent for territorial violations of Libya and Iraq that resulted similar -if not worse – social dislocation of those nations and their embattled people. Furthermore, the colonial agreements between France and most of francophone Africa that appears to siphon resources including reserves to France and away from their original and even rightful locale receive little to no condemnation in those institutions. Sovereign authority is not just the mere presence of a localized government made up of local or indigenous representatives of the people.
Indeed, nations that join these organisations understand that their sovereignty is equated to that of other member states, not downgraded. At the very least, they do not expect to join these supernational organisations so that they give up their decision-making authority to non-elected officials of global organisations whose mandate does not fully reflect the complexion of the local population. These institutions should and still do reflect hope, especially the UN, of a just world. It may not be equal in status, but just in delivery. Their supernational status must not be misused to dilute or delete the decision-making authority of the electorate, and by extension the member states.
Author
