Wendrik Sandwi Lukito 2101709881

International Organization in International Relations

Final Exam

Liberal literature usually argues that when the states face threat that is transnational in
nature and borderless, cooperation is seems to inevitable. However, the case of COVID-19
shows otherwise? Why is it conflict and mistrust more likely to appear than cooperation in
relation to COVID-19?

Introduction

Novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been a big issue that attracts attention
to every aspects and sectors. Literatures have been trying to portrait the issue politically and
economically, China and United States (US) seems to be the countries that are most highlighted
on this issue. Of course, medical sector has arising its importance in the whole world, and always
pictured in the media. Indeed, in a situation like this, medical somehow become the ‘prominent
actor’. States are also showing diverse responses in handling this issue. One thing that is sure, the
whole world is currently under pressure from this COVID-19 pandemic.

Not only states that are heavily with the news and every outcomes of the pandemic,
media, International Organizations (IOs), Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), public
actors, political leaders, are exposed in this contemporary situation. Notable to this case, the
World Health Organization (WHO) as an IO is playing a prominent role especially during this
outbreak. Even the WHO was acting as a legitimate institution to announce that this COVID-19
outbreak as a global pandemic. With that statement, has influenced the whole world on changing
their policies which gives a direct impact on several aspects. Several states have to close their
airport and transportation line shortly after WHO stated the COVID-19 outbreak as a global
pandemic which has to be fight against as a whole world. These several policies truly give a
direct impact that are often negative for states and the whole world. Economic stability is one of
the issues that is impacted because of this. Not only that, numerous sectors are affected as well
due to this one big obstacle in the political realm. However, the big question is why would states
 Wendrik Sandwi Lukito 2101709881

all over the world would listen to what WHO said? Does an IO such as WHO have such
legitimation to declare a global pandemic that impacts many spheres and parties?

Several authors argued that international organizations have become one of prominent
actors in the realms of international relations and is considered as a notable component of the
international system. Although during the last decade, the explosion of constructivist literature
within International Relations has focused on how norms within the international system shape
states behavior [ CITATION Cor00 \l 1033 ]. The role of international organizations has become a
debate in the International Relations sphere. Debates are ongoing whether IOs has its functions
or no in the international system. Study suggests that IOs are instigators of change in areas as
diverse as development, human rights, gender equality, and scientific practice can teach states
their interest [ CITATION Fin96 \l 1033 ]. Some see IOs as tool of the powerful state, other see it as
an arena, while some others see it as an independent actor. Specific cases and specific IOs will
produce each different role of IOs in the international society. In the case of COVID-19, I argue
that World Health Organization (WHO) as an International Organization (IO) acts as a
prominent actor which harmed the sovereignty of the political realm that leads the world in
contemporary with conflict and mistrust, rather than cooperation.

Discussion

Several authors and states have agreed to categorized IO as a prominent actor. It is shown
through several ontological arguments. IOs are capable in holding meetings for states, which
shows their entity as an actor in world politics. Often time, the system of IO is constituted by
international law as independent entities but separate from the states. One of the criteria to
recognize IOs as an actor in the political realm is to make them recognized by the international
community as actors and in that community, their decisions must have some impact [ CITATION
Hur18 \l 1033 ]. Those criteria of ontological arguments seem to be fulfilled by WHO in this
COVID-19 pandemic outbreak. On 30th January 2020, the WHO declared the Chinese outbreak
of COVID-19 to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern posing a high risk to
countries with vulnerable health system [ CITATION Soh20 \l 1033 ]. Due to that declaration, there
are numerous responses globally, with several states are closing their relations in temporary with
 Wendrik Sandwi Lukito 2101709881

their neighboring and even with states that are far away from them. I argue that the entity of
WHO as an IO that suddenly stepped up as the “legitimized” actor to identify, solve, resolve, et
cetera, about this global pandemic harmed the international political system that lead states tend
to conduct conflict and mistrust rather than cooperation.

Liberal literature usually argues that when the states face threat that is transnational in
nature and borderless, cooperation seems to be inevitable. However, the case of COVID-19
seems showing otherwise. Even in the same “community” itself such as European Union (EU)
and ASEAN, there is unfound cooperation which clearly visible. Conversely, mistrust does
appear in the condition of between states. Varies responses are taken by states due to this
pandemic outbreak. South Korea, for example, acted swiftly to contain its COVID-19 epidemic.
But US President Donald Trump was unmoved by WHO’s warning, downplaying the threat and
calling criticisms of his failure to act “a new hoax” [ CITATION Yam20 \l 1033 ]. Although arguably
US is one of biggest country that highly adduce the view of liberalism, and probably the
predecessor that profound the idea of liberalized world with the “help” from globalization to
globally open free trade and cooperation, are shown in this case that US is “closing” the potential
to face the issue as a whole and refuse to build cooperation. More than that, even neglect the fact
that this issue is important and has made a direct impact to their own people. This might also
have something to do with what Ian Bremmer explain on his own book Every Nation For Itself:
Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World.

G-Zero in a brief explanation by Ian Bremmer is a world order in which no single country
or durable alliance of countries can meet the challenges of global leadership [ CITATION Bre12 \l
1033 ]. Bremmer argued that the international political realm will enter this G-Zero era. The
COVID-19 pandemic seems to be eligible in portraying the era argued by Bremmer. In G-Zero,
where it seems like no one leads the world, whether it is states or institutions such as IOs, or
anything, the states will try to survive on their own and cooperation seems to be blurry. That
condition is somehow pictured in this pandemic. No single country that has been able to find the
cure, or at least succeed in managing the epidemic effectively. Even the most effective states in
handling the issue are still contaminated anyway. What is interesting is the fact that states in this
contemporary are totally working on their own. We have not seen any clear cooperation within
intergovernmental organization or supranational such as European Union, or even regional
 Wendrik Sandwi Lukito 2101709881

intergovernmental organization (IGO) such as ASEAN failed to show the world at least if they
are supporting each other. This case is truly borderless, which usually are cases that could always
be settled in the IGO. COVID-19 shown the same criteria as a borderless case but seems to be
exceptional in terms of the states-handling. As an example, there are several articles from the
media shown that Italy is losing hope in the European Union in solving the pandemic COVID-19
[ CITATION BBC20 \l 1033 ]. Italy became one of country that is most infected by the epidemic and
was at the top tier in February until March yet received less support financially or medically
from the European Union or even the WHO itself. Similar cases with other countries in every
part of the world. Donald Trump, the president of United States (US) several times has stated
that US will no longer put their hope on WHO as the legal institution in handling this pandemic
and even agreed to halt US’s funding to WHO [ CITATION Mah20 \l 1033 ].

Through that several examples, states are neglecting to cooperate with any parties (states,
international organizations, intergovernmental organizations, et cetera) on solving this issue.
States are being pushed to “work alone” and care about themselves on its own. Every nation is
trying to handle the issue for itself. While there is no direct conflict happened during this
pandemic, but mistrust has truly aroused between states and every parties. Ian Bremmer’s
concept portrayed in his book has found its variable on this current issue. However, it is still
uncertain, whether the system of the world created this “G-Zero temporary situation” or the
states themselves created this sphere. But I would argue that WHO in this case has been really
wrong in trying to put themselves as the “legitimate” organization to handle this pandemic
during this worse situation that struck the whole world. Of course, US as the long-reigning
unipolarity feel “contested” with the merely fact that an IO such as WHO try to persuade the
same approach. Not to mention that they would also already feel “rivaled” by China in recent
times. Anyhow, WHO seems to be too much relying upon their special trait, as the specialized
agency of United Nations responsible for international public health [ CITATION KFF20 \l 1033 ].
Because this pandemic is surely a public health issue, WHO are fast to step-up on the issue.

However, I argue that WHO stepped-up in the issue and acting as a prominent actor in
solving the issue is such a bad timing and bad decision. Not to mention that the problem is that
WHO seems like lacking capability to solve the issue itself, as they are rarely pictured
contributing in solving the issue as a whole. That is the paradox that the WHO created for itself,
 Wendrik Sandwi Lukito 2101709881

which triggering the whole world and makes the whole world questioned the capability of WHO.
The thing is that this issue is truly categorized as a public health issue in general. So, in that
extent, WHO surely does holds a role in this issue and in fact states could fail to cope things up
by themselves. Those premises are the one that constructing the “G-Zero pattern” in this
contemporary, which are harmed by what WHO do that makes the situation worse.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper rely upon what Ian Bremmer has pictured in his book. The G-
Zero situation seems to be portrayed clearly by the current COVID-19 pandemic outbreak.
However, the situation where no state could “lead” the condition, or at least solve the issue
perfectly, are truly made worse by the existence of WHO that are pursing its prominent role in
current situation. By these premises, it makes sense that there although the whole world, states,
are currently facing a global threat that is transnational in nature and borderless, shows no
cooperation and support toward each other. On the contrary, mistrust is aroused in every part of
the world within the neighboring states, or even within those even far from themselves.
Although there is no direct conflict aroused in this current situation, but by the mistrust built and
lack of support or help even from international organizations (WHO) and intergovernmental
organizations (ASEAN, European Union, et cetera) concluding that this world in contemporary
is no longer in the liberal world order and rather is moving to the G-Zero situation argued by Ian
Bremmer.

References

BBC. (2020, May 17). Coronavirus: Are Italians losing faith in the EU? Retrieved from BBC
Web site: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52666870
Bremmer, I. (2012). Every Nation For Itself: Winners and Losers in a G-Zero World. New York.
Cortell, A. P., & Davis Jr, J. W. (2000). International Studies Review. Understanding the
domestic impact of international norms: A research agenda., 65-87.
Finnemore, M. (1996). International Organization. Norms, Culture and World Politics: Insights
from Sociology's Institutionalism, 325-347.
 Wendrik Sandwi Lukito 2101709881

Hurd, I. (2018). International Organizations: Politics, Law, Practice. II.

KFF. (2020). The U.S. Government and the World Health Organization. Kaiser Family
Foundation.
Mahese, E. (2020). Covid-19: Trump halts WHO funding in move labelled "petulant" and
"short-sighted".
Sohrabi, C., Alsafi, Z., O'Neill, N., Khan, M., Kerwan, A., Al-Jabir, A., . . . Agha, R. (2020).
International Journal of Surgery. World Health Organization declares global emergency:
A review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19), 71-76.
Yamey, G., & Gonsalves, G. (2020). Donald Trump: a political determinant of covid-19.