The effects of the International System

Both the WHO and the Red Cross provide humanitarian services to a multitude of countries throughout the world: the WHO has 193 member states, and the Red Cross has a permanent presence in 60 different countries and conducts operations in 80. The dynamic of the international system therefore affects the missions and operations of both organizations.

The liberal perspective of the internation system is the most relevent when considering the purpose and effectiveness of these organizations. It is the only perspective which recognizes IGO’s, such as the United Nations and its medical branch, the WHO, and NGO’s, such as the Red Cross, as legitimate actors in the international system. Liberal theory posits that the various states in the international system are interdependent and learn through mutual interaction. This is one of fundamental beliefs of the WHO, which focuses on “providing leadership on matters critical to health and engaging in partnerships where joint action is needed”. Recent events, such as the devastating tsunami which hit many parts of Asia and east Africa in 2004, have certainly proven that humanitarian efforts, such as those carried out by the Red Cross, are more effective and immediately responsive when multiple states are cooperating on the relief program.

Liberals also focus on economic and social interests and well as security concerns in the international system. Since both the WHO and Red Cross focus on alleviating poverty and providing for basic human needs throughout the world, this perspective accurately describes their priorities. The Red Cross in particular is dedicated to “ensuring humanitarian protection and assistance for victims of war and armed violence”, and therefore has a good understanding of the nature of war and suffering in the world. It seems reasonable to assume that this would lead to a more realist perspective of an anarchic international system, such as the position that neoliberal institutionalists hold towards the international dynamic. However, the Red Cross does not stress the importance of the international system nearly as much as realists do, and is not as concerned with issues of polarity. Rather, the organization reflects a more liberal view that “experience shows that the roots of most present-day armed conflicts lie in a combination of factors at the local or national level”. The efforts of the Red Cross and WHO also reflect in some ways a radical view of a highly stratified international system, since their humanitarian work is focused by necessity in developing countries which experience more turmoil due to a lack of natural resources and economic strength.

…In brief, the liberal view emphasizes the concept of international society rather than a a rigid international system and thus responsibilty between states for the welfare of each other. The WHO, WFP and Red Cross all exist as means through which states can assist each other, should they choose to do so indirectly. Direct assistance is often employed as well: such as the US military directed assistance in a tsunami ravaged Southeast Asia or Australian peacekeeping troops in East Timor. However the existence and success of NGO”s and IGO’s, especially these humanitarian agencies, validates the liberal view of international society: sometimes countries are motivated by more than just their own security interests. These humanitarian agencies help propogate this liberal view  too: bringing people together to help others, regardless of state affiliation.