Internationally funded organizations have been criticized for failing in their mandates. While such criticism has been dismissed in some quarters as politically motivated, what has been your experience as a researcher in accessing or using their services and products?
Most of international institutions which are found and funded by European Union or United States are falied to act upon those principals which were basic guidelines. Specially UN, UNESCO, WHO, WTO or IMF are failed institutions for poor and needy. These institutions always backed USA point of view and European Union not those who are affected by these countries.
Thank you Wazir Ali for your response. How about citing some examples of where these institutions failed? This will strengthen your argument.
Thank you for the great question! I might be a bit biased as I'm based at the University of Geneva and really love the dynamic atmosphere of UNOG.
The UN and its various agencies are not independent organizations but are intergovernmental organizations led by member states. Mandates are only as successful as the willingness of the member states to take action. Being state-led is inherently political and diplomacy is required to overcome ideological differences.
I would definitely not go as far as Wazir Ali in claiming that intergovernmental organizations are 'failed institutions'. There are definitely some biases in intergovernmental organizations as different states have more interest and funding capacity to take part and fund mandates. That being said, these organizations are also a means for states in the global south to meet, share strategy, and drive change. For the countries where I am most active, the UN and its agencies are vital platforms not only to have a voice in international policy but for technical and humanitarian assistance such as humanitarian corridors during the current pandemic (WHO).
From the Pacific Island point of view, I am very proud of the leadership that the Fijian perm mission has shown as the current chair of the Platform on Disaster Displacement that has coincided with the High-Level Panel on Internal Displacement. While I do agree that the Pacific Islands are often sidelined in regional working groups, the bi-/multilateral meetings that take place alongside various conventions allow the small island states to drive new narratives. I was especially inspired by a meeting that I attended that was the first bilateral meeting of Ministers between Kiribati and São Tomé e Príncipe. The two equatorial countries are geographically on opposite sides of the world form each other. Without a common language, a Portuguese diplomat volunteered her service and bilateral discussions began. For those two countries, that sharing of experiences made the world a smaller and friendlier place. This is my view from working with Pacific Island states at the UN, but perhaps researchers from other parts of the world have different opinions.
Thank you John Marazita III for your response based on your work with Pacific states at the UN. I do agree with you that internationally funded organizations can make "the world a smaller and friendlier place." However, if the implementation of their mandates is dependent on "who pays the piper calls the tune," would you not agree with Wazir Ali that these organizations may be failing to act against those who fund them and, from the perspective of those not favoured by donors, "are failed institutions for (the) poor and needy"?
UN failed to bring peace, either you after world trade center attack's, as USA and allies attacked upon Afghanistan, till today no results came . In 2003 attack over Iraq for nuclear weapons, nothing was found but while country is struggling and fighting against each other. What role UN played nothing, just acted upon dictation of USA.
IMF and world bank were found to help all those needy countries which are backwood in economy. World bank and IMF to provide soft loans to bring their economy back, but these instructions are just working for own profits, none of the examples where these both institutions played a positive role.
Oswell Namasasu I would not say that outcomes are dependent on who pays. States with more funding have an advantage in that they have the resources to participate in a broader range of issues.
I have had a different experience with the World Bank than Wazir Ali . In the Pacific Islands, where climate change could lead to the extinction of low-lying states, there has been heavy investment in research and infrastructural adaptations.
It is important to remember the UN's role is to follow the wishes of member states. If the member states did not want to press the US over the Iraq war, the UN has no power, but I would not say that the UN is a pawn of the US. It was the global south that demanded an end to colonization, resulting in the independence of colonies in Africa and the Pacific. Even today, as the US is embroiled in protests over race, it is the African states that are pushing for action.
I think that we as researchers can help even the playing field between the global south and north. We can offer our expertise to advise the missions in Geneva and New York. For missions that may only have 2 or 3 permanent staff, this would greatly impact the states' ability to negotiate and could further boost the effectiveness of mandates.
Thank you John Marazita III and Wazir Ali for your contributions which, in my view, help us introspect and reflect on what we may have taken for granted.
UN agencies focus mostly on upstream works. It is only when the legislative and institutional frameworks and capacities of the national governments are functioning that the endeavour and efforts of non-state state actors are realised. Ultimately, the national governments should be able to deliver services to their people by working WITH the 'outsiders'.
Thank you Wonder Mafuta for your contribution. However, I wonder if the mandates of internationally funded organizations that are clearly stated in their own documents as applicable to all are only implementable "only when the legislative and institutional frameworks and capacities of the national governments are functioning." What of situations where these have collapsed as in war, failed states, or where some people are refugees or even stateless?
Each of the agencies has a specific mandate, some humanitarian some developmental. There is usually complementarity of efforts to achieve the desired outcomes. In failed states or during crisis, the emphasis is usually saving lives. However, during the transition and development phases there may need to rebuild on the fundamentals to equip the governments to be functional. I think it is when there is a functional government that sifting can be done with regards to what to accept or not. I think it may be helpful to narrow the focus of the question Oswell Namasasu than just generalisisng as some of the agencies are country/context-specific specific
Thank you Wonder Mafuta for you response. The question asks researchers what their experience has been in accessing or using the services and products of internationally funded organizations. The focus of the response and the examples cited depend on the researchers. They are also free to make general comments and defend them. Where such generalizations are unwarranted, it is my hope that other researchers with different experiences will join the debate. In the end we will be all the richer for it.
Cristiano D'Orsi, a research fellow and lecturer at the South African Research Chair in International Law (SARCIL) at the University of Johannesburg, has looked at global changes in refugee policies through the lens of Dadaab in a thought-provoking article published in theconversation.com . He describes living conditions at the Dadaab complex which houses Somali refugees as inhospitable and the life of refugees as hard. He says the camp illustrates "how the changes in refugee policy have worked - and not worked." Raouf Mazou, a former UNHCR representative to Kenya, is quoted in the article as saying that "the camp provides a false sense of normality." The Kenyan government at one time even wanted to close the camp citing "lack of international support - in terms of funding as well as the failure to resettle many refugees in other countries." The link to the full article is:
read:https://theconversation.com/a-look-at-global-changes-in-refugee-policies-through-the-lens-of-daab-140955
I think the article by Minhas Majeed Khan and Abbas Majeed Khan Marwat entitled International Criminal Court (ICC): An Analysis of its Successes and Failures and Challenges Faced by the ICC Tribunals for War Crimes which is available here on ResearchGate is relevant to the debate on whether or not internationally funded organizations are failing in their mandates. The link is:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309842808
I would have to agree with the statement contained within the question. What is being exposed, particularly during this time, is the desertion of these bodies from their mandate. There would appear to be far more focus on politics and dollars than providing sound, prompt action on the vagaries that we see before us. Each of these organizations are branches of the UN, as we all are aware, and thus the problems so evidenced in each of these organizations are rooted in the inability of the UN to do little more than issue broad sweeping statements concerning the issues placed before them, while solving nothing.
I liken the UN Security Council to a ‘hung jury’. The permanent members have only their interests at heart and nothing moves beyond this deadlock. ‘Who gets what‘, is far too often based on what state or country is allied with a particular SC permanent member, not on what is needed for the betterment of the whole. This is the political aspect, the reality.
One need only to view the actions, or rather, inactions of the WHO in the earliest stages of this pandemic and their failure to press China for more information
and clarity, to know that money has consumed the focus of what once was the shining light of the UN’s initiatives.
These organizations have failed in their mandate. It needs a thorough revamping within the UN. Failure to do so may well begin the demise of an organization that was once held in high esteem.
Thank you Paul Hogan for your detailed and frank critique of the UN. I think the improvement of any international organization begins with an open admission of where it is going wrong. Otherwise it will be business as usual.
Brahma Chellaney, a professor of strategic studies at the New Dehli-based Centre for Policy Research and fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin, articulates the view that the WHO has failed the world in its pandemic response in an article published by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. The link to his article is:
https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/the-who-has-failed-the-world-in-its-pandemic-response/
Thank you Ali A. Al-Homaidan for your response. I believe the contributions coming from researchers will assist internationally funded organizations identify areas that are not appropriately supervised.
Universal Noahide code UN in UN HQ for Universal peace...www.Noahide.org
Thank you Yakov D Cohen for your contribution. The full link to Universal Noahide at UN HQ is https://noahide.org/universal-noahide-code-at-un-hq-2/
A research study published in The Lancet journal discusses how a UNICEF programme in West Africa failed to save children. The relevant links are:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41012383 and
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)62060-2/fulltext
I know that I will be unjust for many of worker of this organizations but generally they fail for many reasons;
a) they are big organizations I usually they try general solutions for specific problems
b) They take many time to answer to answer to the burocratic problems of the headquarters instead go to the field and look for the right problem and to avoid their job and his rich salary
c) Once in field, they call national citizens for some jobs and based on salary usually they can recruit the best from the civil service. When you have several agencies and several offices from the international cooperation and international NGO sometimes, you have the best working for international organizations like a really brain drain important. You lost the internal view of the real problems
Thank you Augusto Manuel Correia for your contribution. I have also experienced delays or even no responses when trying to contact them on research issues. Are they self-serving bureaucracies? I think the countries who fund them need to be made aware of the issues that you raise.
While it could be suicidal for any keen observer of the recent activities at the global arena not to join the global outcry for urgent reforms of internationally funded organizations such as UNO, ICC, UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO etc; but I am of the opinion that they are not really failing in their mandates.Rather it is the humanity as a whole that is failing utterly to come together as one big family to rescue our World from the pangs of neo-fascists, far right bigots and other anti-humanistic elements in the shape of political leaders such as Donald Trump and his ilks who have hijacked the World strongest political spaces.Most regrettably, this evil axis has successfully infected global politics with divisions and schisms imported from their corrosive national politics by launching vehement attacks on these global Unions to propagate their anti-globalization agenda even at the period of global pandemic) .This must be resisted more aggressively by the rest of humanity to avoid the possibility of a third world war!
Thank you Soji Oyeranmi for your contribution to the debate on whether or not internationally funded organizations are failing in their mandates.
As a reminder, UNICEF briefly cares for the interests of children worldwide, UNESCO strives at abolishing poverty worldwide through education, science and culture. WHO provides direction in global health.
These are obviously broad-based mandates which are not easily accomplished across the world of diverse peculiarities.
So, it will be observed that on any given case, there is likely to be varied levels of impact felt by different member-countries.
What is important however, is that objectivity should be seen to be displayed in the operation of the organisations, devoid of preferential treatment, not minding the country involved.
As a piece of advice, the respective members of the organisations should domesticate the relevant policies in such a way as to achieve the desired positive impact on their respective citizens.
Dr. Daniel R. Ogbeide.
Internationally funded organisations are supra-national organisations and are faced with a serious challenge related to violating the sovereignty of member nations most of whom truly needed the assistance of these organisations. These organisations are underfunded and short-staffed. However, International Labour Organisation as an example haven't lived to expectation, mostly in the third world countries where labour laws are non-existent. In many African countries, workers still go through 19th century European kind of experience, working long hours, poor working condition, mearger wages and insecurity. These organisations needs to be up and doing, but not without the cooperation of individual member countries.
Thank you Dr. Amoo Babatunde for your contribution. I agree with you that the ILO should be more active in developing countries. Many of them are low wage countries with lax labour regulations and heavy restrictions on labour unions. This is why multinational corporations find them to be more attractive locations than developed countries for their labour intensive operations.
Con la agenda 2030 cambio el paradigma de la Cooperación Internacional y de los ODS. El ODS 17 Alianza Global, ya la cooperación no es Norte -Sur, es Cooperación Sur-Sur y Cooperación Triangular, donde todos los actores están involucrados en el desarrollo. Si la OIT, o cualquier organismos internacional del sistema de Naciones Unidas, como UNICEF, ACNUR, OMS, UNESCO, FAO, necesitan del sector privado y de las ONG nacionales e internacionales para la consecución de sus objetivos. No hay que olvidar que la mayoría de los países han sido graduados, y son países que ya pueden recibir cooperación porque son países que por su PIB son países de Renta Media Alta.
El mapa de la pobreza ha cambiado y las necesidades de los países también, creo que debemos ser consciente ya no hay un norte y un sur . A los organismos de Naciones Unidas se les puede exigir que hagan más de lo que hacen por la cooperación para el desarrollo o ayuda humanitaria, pero hay que involucrar a la Empresas internacionales, a la fundaciones y a la OSC en el desarrollo . Muchos de los países que necesitan ayuda son países muy ricos ( según su PIB) y lo que necesitan es hacer cambios estructurales en sus países y eso no lo pueden hacer ni los organismos internacionales ni las ONG . Creo que si el sistema de cooperación multilateral esta en crisis es por que se han perdido los valores y los principios que dieron origen al sistema multilateral .
It is not easy to satisfy all the stakeholders. These international organizations pander to the wishes of the major contributors. Contributor-driven mandates rather than need-based mandates. I hope they fund more research in developing countries. Those "big" contributors should look at this as a form of aid rather than what they can get out of their contribution.
Si si su cooperación esta basada en que los países la demanden , Todo ha cambiado en la cooperación y todos deben participar y aparir de la Conferencia de Sendai cada comunidad debe hacerse responsable de su propio desarrollo, triste, pero cierto . Lo único que pueden recibir es cooperación Financiera y Técnica ...en el que tendrán un papel relevante los Bancos de desarrollo regional y las Empresas Transnacionales y los Estados ( Alianzas publico-
privadas).
They've taken on a huge committment. I believe they all do the best they can to follow their mandate. It seems politicians would rather criticize these organizations than take responsibility for their own inactions. WHO, UNESCO AND UNISEF take on responsibilities that require an enormous amount of work, and their funding will never be enough to get the job done. I respect and admire the people who work hard for these organizations.
Politicians' decisions matter! When major donor countries like the USA pull out of these organizations, they cannot continue with a "business as usual" approach. They should pull no stops in ensuring that there is transparency and accountability in their operations. Then the rest of the world will be on their side. Personally, I do not think they are being criticised for no reason. There is no smoke without fire. They should not jump to a defence mode, but do serious introspection.
These agencies must look beyond funding and apply a needs-based approach. We cannot deny the benefits of their operations especially in developing and war torn nations but there is need overhaul their approach. For example, so much is spent on maintaining staff because they are usually foreigners in unfriendly terrains.
ليس في كل الأحوال ولكن تفشل في بعض الأحيان ومن اسباب الفشل معارضة الدول الكبرى لبعض القرارات التي أصدرها تلك المنظمات
I think they are doing their best. Although there is some issue. But currently they are doing good. They need financial help and cooperation for improving their work. Yes all member are giving financial help but if anyone gave more money then these organization are following their order because these organization have to survive. I think these organization should make like google, Twitter, YouTube types app which is all person are using.Then these organization can work their duties very well because they can get money from all people and invest money on them.
Yes, unfortunately, international organizations such as UNESCO, UNICEF and WHO fail in their missions because they are too focused on the power of money and the imperatives of "economic development".
They should allow the development of knowledge about what are the true "fundamental rights"...
But instead, they impose the dogmas of monarchist federalist capitalism on this subject.
These organizations forget that beyond the power of money, there is human intelligence which is much more important to develop.
Oui, malheureusement, les organisations internationales telles que l'UNESCO, l'UNICEF et l'OMS échouent dans leurs missions parce qu'elles sont trop focalisées sur le pouvoir de l'argent et les impératifs de «développement économique».
Elles devraient permettre le développement de connaissances sur ce que sont les véritables «droits fondamentaux»...
Mais au lieu de cela, elles imposent les dogmes du capitalisme fédéraliste monarchiste sur ce sujet.
Ces organisations oublient qu'au-delà du pouvoir de l'argent, il y a l'intelligence humaine qu'il est bien plus important de développer.
I think these organizations (WHO, etc) are doing their best, but have to put up with leaders like Trump who stop their financial contributions towards them.
Thank you Michael Issigonis for your answer. The stopping of financial contributions by leaders is not a good reaction to perceived administrative weaknesses. The question is whether these organizations (WHO, etc.) are doing their best in warning, prevention and countering of possible disasters. Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic suggest otherwise; hence the call for reforms from some leaders.
لانستطيع ان نقول انها تفشل في أعمالها ولكن في بعض الأحيان لاتستطيع تطبيق منهاجها نظرا لارائها السياسية التي تخالف البلد الذي تعمل به أو بسبب التأثيرات الماليه
Funding giants have taken control of these institutions to a bad extent. Hence it has become hard to stick to the mandates of these institutions 100 percent. Unfortunately manupulations are taking place by super powers according to their political desires.
Hi Dr Oswell Namasasu . I think so because they deal with international issues by double standards and not by pure humanity and fair.
Dear Dr Oswell, I don't think they fail in their mandate, they have actually done well especially in this current pandemic. Although there are several challenges they are faced with presently, but I think they can do better.
Thank you Osaretin Christabel Okonji and Nawab Khan for your amswers.
Yes I agree with most of the colleagues. These bodies are now unfortunately bound by their sponsors, whether governments or corporate companies. This of course will cast doubts on their judgments, actions and recommendations to other countries.
Dear Dr. Oswell Namasasu.
Unfortunately, most of these non-profit organizations end up wearing out over time and tend to drift into the abstract and formal ... and not only!
My respects.
Dear Dr. Oswell Namasasu,
Indeed, international organizations such as UNESCO, UNICEF, and WHO often fail to fulfill their objectives because they are too focused on the power of money and the imperatives of "economic growth."
Thank you Md. Nayeem Hasan Pramanik and Md. Al-Mamun for your answers.
Check https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738059315300110
Hi Dr Oswell Namasasu . Yes they failed because they are too focused on the power of money and the imperatives of "economic development".
Kindly. see the following link too: Article UNESCO’s Role in Global Educational Development
You are most welcome dear
Dr Oswell Namasasu .
Wish you the best always.
UNICEF and WHO have certainly failed (reality proves this irrefutably).
UNESCO, I wouldn't say it failed.
Thank you Kiprotich Kiptum and Gioacchino de Candia for your answers.
Dear Dr Oswell Namasasu,
There are unfortunately a lot of crisis in the world (which sometimes appears in the same period), and these organizations cannot handle all situations at the same time, due to 2 important reasons; first of all, the financial resources of these organizations are limited, when compared to the type of crisis they are facing. The second point concerns the specific legislative rules of each country. That's why these organizations, cannot directly / efficiently access certain countries, since a crisis requiring a quick reaction in order to control and overcome.
So, it's is not easy to judge these organizations.
Best wishes,
Sabri
International organizations such as UNESCO, WHO, UNICEF, UNEP, UNHRC, WFP, UNHCR, etc., are playing very important and indispensable roles in maintaining global security, massive education, healthcare for all, health without boarders, trust, education, awareness, food security, nutrition security, sustainable environment, sustainable energy resources, sustainable supply chain, among many others. They only need more support from us and our leaders. Not only financial support, but also the technicality and conducive environment to get things done
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publications