The politics of praising international organizations
Several days ago, the Norwegian Nobel Committee bestowed on the World Food Programme the 2020 Peace Prize for “its efforts to combat hunger, for its contribution to bettering conditions for peace in conflict-affected areas and for acting as a driving force in efforts to prevent the use of hunger as a weapon of war and conflict.”
The award generated plenty of accolades for the WFP’s work, but it also stirred up some criticism. For some observers, the decision expanded the definition of peace too far and moved the focus away from the Nobel’s history of recognizing those who settle conflicts. Alfred Nobel seemed to have the reduction of armaments and conflict resolution as his focus for the award. His will dictated that the peace prize be bestowed on those who have “done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
My own complaint is somewhat different. I view the World Food Programme and a number of other international agencies (including the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, twice awarded the Nobel) as being international service providers. They are important and necessary, but they do not deserve special commendation for doing the job they have been assigned. Development expert Mukesh Kapila made the point succinctly: “I really object to awarding prizes to people or organizations who are just doing their paid jobs.” This is not to deny that there are instances of bravery and heroism within the ranks of these organizations, just as there are within national government aid agencies. Their achievements can and should be recognized, but the peace prize is not the best way to do it.
One response to this argument is that effective multilateralism remains a rare commodity, and that it should be recognized whenever it exists (note that this is effectively a slap at the competence of most international bureaucracies). As my former American University colleague Miles Kahler pointed out, the Nobel committee has been picky about the the multilateral organizations and agencies that it selects and has ignored plenty. What’s more, as several participants in a Twitter exchange noted, this might be a particularly good moment to recognize effective multilateralism, given the Trump administration’s plan to pull out of the World Health Organization and its broader inclination to abandon multilateral institutions.
That reasoning seemed to be at work in the committee, which began its encomium to the WFP by noting that “[t]he need for international solidarity and multilateral cooperation is more conspicuous than ever.” If the committee members did intend an implicit message to the United States about the value of multilateralism, the WFP was a savvy choice. The organization owes its existence in part to the support of U.S. president Dwight Eisenhower. It is headed by David Beasley, a former Republican governor of South Carolina who the Trump administration hand picked for the post. The United States is also the organization’s leading donor, having contributed almost $3 billion this year.
The argument for giving effective (and U.S.-supported) multilateralism a high-profile pat on the back is a solid one. But I’m still not convinced. For all the talk about the crisis of multilateralism, many of the central pillars of the international architecture are weathering the populist storm well. I do not see much evidence that the United Nations itself or its related agencies are in existential danger. The WFP’s annual budget is more than $7 billion. UNHCR’s annual budget recently surpassed $8 billion. Even the World Health Organization seems certain to survive the Trump administration’s rage, as new resources pour in for the organization’s vaccine work. The multilateral organization that is in deepest political trouble is probably the World Trade Organization, and the WTO is unlikely ever to get much consideration from the Nobel Committee (although perhaps it should; trade disputes have created plenty of conflicts over the years!)
More broadly, I think that we are passing out of the historical phase in which we should be lauding established international agencies for existing and functioning effectively. It’s true that international organization began as an audacious and ambitious experiment, but multilateral organizations have been with us now for well over a century. There are more international organizations (including courts and tribunals) than ever before. Existing organizations are spawning new ones and expanding their emergency powers to deal with unexpected events. In a world of spreading and sometimes bewildering multilateralism, the peace prize can best be used to shine light on what is a genuine rarity: the skill and courage to avoid conflict and to end it once it has started.