© 2010 David Oladipupo Kuranga ALL RIGHTS RESERVED INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS: WIELDERS OF POWER IN THE EMERGING INTERNATIONAL ORDER By DAVID OLADIPUPO KURANGA A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Political Science Written under the direction of Professor Roy Licklider And approved by _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey May, 2010 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION International Organizations: Wielders of Power in the Emerging International Order By DAVID OLADIPUPO KURANGA Dissertation Director: Professor Roy Licklider Do international organizations have power in the international system? This study evaluates the impact of regional international organizations in modern global affairs. The study employs statistical and case study research to uncover the process involved in regional intervention in support of constitutional order. It weighs the impact of regional organizations vis-à-vis regional powers and powerful states at the global- level. The empirical findings show that regional organizations hold power independent and at times greater than powerful states in the international system. Realism remains the dominant theory in international relations, yet current global trends evidenced from this project question the usefulness of realist-based assumptions that states are the sole dominant actors in the international system, even in world filled with international organizations. ii Acknowledgment By the grace of my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ and His never ceasing blessings this work has been completed. This work is a testament of all that He has done for me over the years and so I dedicate this dissertation to Him. I would also like to thank my father, Dr. Abraham A. Kuranga, who advised me through the first few years of my Ph.D. program just as he has done so many other times in the past and who inspired me to pursue a career in academics and teaching. I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Professor Roy Licklider, who moved this project forward to a timely completion, adding his insight, and laboring through several drafts along the way. Special thanks to the other three distinguished faculty on my committee: Professor Macartan Humphreys of Columbia University, and Professor Robert Kaufman and Professor Barbara Callaway of Rutgers University, for all their hard work and input into this project. I would like to thank the Political Science Department for awarding the William and Mary Porte Peace Dissertation Fellowship to aid me in completing this work. I would also like to thank Dr. Michael J. Pazzani for his timely contribution to aid me in my travel to Nigeria. I would like to thank my sister, Kemi Kuranga Esq., who supported me through much of my graduate education. I would like to thank my mother, Eulin Kuranga, and my twin brother, Abraham Kuranga, for all their support in this endeavor. I would like to thank Dean Harvey Waterman at the Graduate School for his support to prepare the final manuscript. This research would not have been possible if not for the generous assistance provided by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of iii Nigeria and the archives of information maintained by the Ministry. In that I would like to thank my mentor and friend Ambassador Dr. C. W. Wigwe for all his help. I would also like the than Dr. Orjako, Director of the Office of the Honourable Minister, Moses S. Eigbire, Director of East and Central African Division, Ibrahim Suleman of the West African Division, M. U. Suleman of the North and Horn of Africa Division. I would also like to thank the ECOWAS Secretariat for all their assistance in this research. Specifically I would like to thank Colonel Kone and Frank Afanyiakossou of Political Affairs, Peace and Security division of the ECOWAS Secretariat. I would also like to thank the ECOWAS Library and all the librarians that so generously offered their time and assistance. Finally I would like to thank my editor, Joanna Siegel for her tireless work in helping me complete this project well ahead of the filing deadline. iv Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgement iii 1 International Organizations 1 2 São Tomé and Príncipe 51 3 The Republic of Togo 93 4 The Islamic Republic of Mauritania 140 5 Wielders of Power in the Emerging International Order 199 Bibliography 218 CV 234 v 1 International Organizations 1 For over three hundred years, nation-states have dominated global affairs. They have also been the focus of scholarship on international relations. The dominant view is that international organizations created by nation-states since the nineteenth century have held a subservient role as instruments of states to facilitate the existing diplomatic, economic, and legal relationships that had been occurring between them for centuries. Following World War II, international organizations increased in number, developing complex structures and increasing their role in international affairs. States remain hesitant to sacrifice sovereignty to supranational authorities, but the complexities of modern international affairs has made these organizations indispensable to the conduct of diplomacy between states. International organizations in this study can also be understood as intergovernmental organizations that are comprised of states as members, 2 differing from nongovernmental organizations with a global presence comprised of nongovernmental or non-state members. Intergovernmental organizations provide a means to facilitate cooperation and dialogue among states, as well as the administrative mechanisms to execute collective decisions and address problems between (and at times within) states as they arise. Breaking with realist-based assumptions, neoliberal institutionalism in international relations embraces international institutions as relevant non-state actors in the international system. At its core the function of intergovernmental organizations in neoliberal institutional thought is that, although states maintain their freedom to participate or comply with agreements made by the majority of an organization’s member states, they often find the growing number of intergovernmental organizations useful to minimize the costs and likelihood of conflict, increase efficiency, and boost international standing. Cooperative agreements among states—such as the facilitation of global mail exchange and worldwide telecommunication networks—have mutual advantages for all states involved, and few disadvantages. Increasing contact across state lines in the modern world requires more complex mechanisms for collaboration to promote common interests across national boundaries (Koehane and Nye 1977, Koehane 1984, Archer 1992, Martin 1992, Goldstein 2000 et al., Hawkins et al. 2006, Barkin 2006, Acharya and Johnston 2007, Dai 2007). Intergovernmental organizations are increasing in number and complexity, and have become indispensable tools of states, especially the most powerful ones, in the conduct of modern global affairs that reduces the likelihood of conflict among states while promoting interdependent cooperation that can impact both international relations between states and their domestic affairs. Today, there are around 3 190 nation-states in the international system, while there are over 300 intergovernmental organizations (Bennett and Oliver 2002: 4). While neoliberal institutionalism embraces the role of international institutions in relations among states—promoting cooperation, reducing potential for conflict, and also having an impact on domestic affairs of states—the question remains, do international organizations themselves have power? While little has been done of the power of international organizations independent of states some studies assert that they have power of moral authority and information because of their capability to gather data from member states (Barkin 2006: 23-24). Moving beyond the core of neoliberal institutionalism the hypothesis of this study assumes a greater power of international organizations in the international system that parallels and rivals the power of states. It also further undermines neorealist assertions that international institutions are simply a new venue for power politics of nation states. Even the most advanced and developed nation-states in the international system do not fully control their most essential bureaucracies, which they established independently and placed under their sole authority (Levy 1986; Allison and Zelikow 1999; Zisk 1993; Halperin, Clapp and Kanter 2006). It is astonishing then that the dominant view in international relations based in neorealism reduces intergovernmental organizations, which are in essence supranational bureaucracies jointly established under the collective authority of several nation-states, as reflecting the influence of just the few powerful states in the organization. This oversimplified notion does not begin to explain the true nature of intergovernmental organizations within global affairs and should not be accepted as remotely reflective of reality. Just like other types of bureaucratic 4 organizations, intergovernmental organizations have standard operating procedures created by the agreements that established them and governed by the rules and procedures developed