The International Labour Organization (ILO), officially founded in 1919, is an economic international governmental organization committed to developing and maintaining adequate working conditions and social justice for people of all nations. Over nearly a century consisting of two catastrophic world wars, periods of worldwide economic depression, and decades of steady universal economic growth, the ILO has prospered and grown to accept membership from 187 member states. Similar to numerous other intergovernmental organizations, critics of economic globalization have pointed out that the ILO is susceptible to being “captured” by Northern governments (referring to developed, Western-industrialized countries) and influenced to give the capturing government preferential economic and political outcomes. While the International Labour Organization’s mission to create humane working conditions for all people would seem mutually beneficial to all member countries and difficult to politicize, it can be argued that it has been “captured”, essentially, by the European Union. In this research paper I will be providing evidence as to how and why the Northern government countries of the European Union have captured the International Labour Organization, and how the EU has used the organization to benefit its member states and the union as a whole.
This research paper intends to inform readers about the European Union’s capture of the International Labour Organization. The essay will begin with some background information pertaining to the founding of the ILO, as well as outlining some the organization’s key characteristics, goals, and accomplishments. It will then transition to the European Union’s involvement within the organization and provide evidence of the union’s capture, including; (a) implemented programs and organizational policies that have facilitated the integration of refugees into EU labor markets, and; (b) the stimulation of Turkey’s economy and labor markets as an “investment” of a potential future European Union member. Finally, I will discuss how international governmental organizations, specifically the International Labour Organization, can be reformed to avoid being captured by Northern governments.
The conclusion of World War I in 1918 left several countries both physically and economically devastated, negatively affecting the lives of millions of civilians across the globe. Determined to prevent such a large-scale war from ever occurring again, leaders of the Allied Powers met at the Paris Peace Agreement to ensure an everlasting worldwide peace between nations, thus creating the Treaty of Versailles. Part XIII of the treaty states that, in order to maintain universal peace, nations must adopt humane conditions of labour based upon social justice. Thus, the International Labour Organization was created, and member countries would pledge to uphold international standards on labour conditions and social justice. The ILO was quick to establish equitable standards, such as the 8-hour working day, and the adoption of the several conventions, including the Forced Labour Convention which globally abolished slavery and debt bondage. However, the organization became turbulent after just two decades, with Germany and Italy withdrawing from the organization prior to the onset of World War II.
Contrary to the fate of its parent agency, the United Nations, the International Labour Organization survived the Second World War- though its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland was destroyed and therefore temporarily moved to Montreal. The Second World War dramatically changed the course of action for the International Labour Organization in reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust, the placement of millions of people into concentration camps, and the brutalities committed against soldiers and civilians alike. The ILO responded with the Declaration of Philadelphia in 1944, which expanded the organization’s mission to include the maintenance of human rights, including freedom of association and freedom against discrimination. Over the next fifty years the ILO accepted dozens of new member countries and adopted several significant declarations which dramatically transformed the workplace. These declarations saw significant changes in the workplace, such as the establishment of equal opportunity and treatment for women in the workplace, and the founding of an international program aimed to eliminate child labour. The International Labour Organization’s efforts towards creating humane working conditions for both developed and underdeveloped countries- and its commitment to social justice and human rights efforts- made it one of the few intergovernmental organizations to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize.
Today, the International Labour Organization is known to have great success in regulating safe working conditions and implementing programs to stimulate labour markets in developing countries. In order to continue its work, the ILO relies on mandatory funding from its members and voluntary contributions from international financial institutions, such as the World Bank. It is when we examine these annual contributions, both mandatory and voluntary, that we begin to notice patterns of capture by the European Union. Although there are several major contributors to the International Labour Organization, the two biggest annual contributions are from the European Commission (which represents all of the member countries of the European Union) and the United States — with the size of the EU’s annual endowment to the organization nearly tripling the United States’. In addition to the required annual contribution the ILO requires from its members, the European Commission completely funds the ILO Development Cooperation program, which directly supports national programs in geographical areas significant to the EU.
With the outbreak of civil war and political unrest plaguing the Middle East, the EU has seen an increasing amount of migrants seeking refuge in European countries. The International Labour Organization recognizes the right of these people to seek refuge and find work in asylum countries, leading to an increasing amount of the ILO’s budget being poured directly back into the member countries of the European Union. Since the onset of the Syrian Civil War in 2011, five employment service centers have been established in refugee camps and industrial zones in Europe to provide employment opportunities and free job training to migrants. In addition, the ILO continues to offer economic support to private sectors across Europe and financial compensation for hiring migrants. Essentially, the majority of money the European Commission contributes to the International Labour Organization is being recycled directly back into Europe’s economies and labour markets, giving the EU a significant economic boost simply due to its geographical proximity to Syria.
Another key piece of evidence exemplifying the European Union’s capture of the International Labour Organization involves the organization’s persistent efforts to stabilize Turkey’s economy. It is no secret that Turkey has been trying to gain membership into the European Union for decades now. Both Turkey and the European Union would greatly benefit from Turkey’s accession into the union. Though once unstable, the Turkish economy is increasingly growing as trade in the country continues to increase, and the country’s young and well-educated population would greatly benefit the EU’s aging workforce. Experts believe that Turkey’s geographical location would provide a much-needed bridge between Europe and the Middle East at a time of political unrest and heightened tensions. Despite all the benefits of accession, however, the EU continues to deny membership to Turkey, citing human rights violations and the country not being up to EU membership criteria in terms of governance and democracy. The International Labour Organization, however, is actively working with Turkey to reform the country’s labour markets and set the foundation for acceptable human rights standards, which could ultimately lead to the EU accepting Turkey’s membership. Similar to its migrant policy with the European Union, the ILO pours money into Turkey’s economy and stimulates labour markets under the condition that the country continues to accept Syrian refugees per the Regional Refugee and Resilience Plan. The ILO has financially supported Turkish labour market governance institutions by financing business development and private sector engagement. Though a sum of this money is funded by the European Commission, the EU will essentially gain from the financial investment they have put into Turkey through the ILO should Turkey eventually become a member of the European Union. The United States and other countries who contribute annually to the organization’s budget will receive no benefits from Turkey’s economic stimulation, giving the EU another financial gain from its membership in the ILO.
It is clear that the European Union has obtained numerous outcomes in favor of its member countries when compared to benefits received by other Northern governments, such as the United States. One of the major reasons why European countries have been able to benefit from the International Labour Organization is due to their geographical proximity to countries characterized by poor labour standards and political turmoil, such as Syria. Political turmoil has lead to an influx of migrants seeking refuge in nearby European countries. In accordance with the organization’s standards on equal working opportunities for migrants, the ILO has dedicated millions of dollars to create jobs in European Union member countries and stimulate the labour market to assist migrants, consequently boosting their economies. The United States is extremely distanced from ILO-assisted countries located in Central and South America, and has an immigration policy which would make it more difficult to accept such a large amount of migrants in a short period of time. Because of this, it is very unlikely that money contributed by the United States to the International Labour Organization would ever make its way back into American labour markets.
As another strategical approach, the European Union has assumed control of the International Labour Organization by maintaining an extremely close relationship with the organization. Aside from frequent monetary pledges exceeding the required annual contribution requirement, the EU has created several bilateral treaties and agreements with the ILO, including the Financial and Administrative Framework Agreement (FAFA), which set the foundation for a mutual cooperation to pursue specific developmental goals in addition to fulfilling the ILO’s usual agenda. In 2004, the ILO and the EU signed an agreement declaring a strategic partnership between the two organizations. The European Union and the International Labour Organization share an unusually close relationship when compared to other Northern governments, such as the United States. In fact, the United States and the ILO’s relationship has been rather rocky over the course of the organization’s history, with the United States withdrawing from the organization in 1977 due to strong disagreements over the ILO’s public condemnation of Israel. The United States would eventually re-enter into the organization three years later, but the ILO’s budget had suffered from the country’s three-year absence and took several years to financially recover. The European Union successfully avoided any member withdrawals by maintaining its close relationship with the ILO and through several written agreements of cooperation.
Going forward, there are certain strategies and approaches that may be taken to avoid the capture of international governmental organizations. One major strategy is for international governmental organizations to avoid politics and remain neutrally dedicated to the organization’s purpose. We saw the International Labour Organization choose political sides in the 1970s over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, which led to the temporary withdrawal of the United States’ membership and an over-dependence on the European Union. Had the ILO remained politically neutral, it is possible the European Union wouldn’t have as close of a relationship with the organization today. Secondly, intergovernmental organizations should be prohibited from creating bilateral treaties with some of its members while excluding others, unless under extraordinary circumstances. Any treaty between an intergovernmental organization should be multilateral and open to any of its active members. Finally, and more specifically to the ILO, organizations should be restricted as to how much money can be given to permanent member countries of its governing body. The International Labour Organization’s governing body consists of ten permanent members — including the United States and four countries representing the European Union. Each of the ten governing body members are considered wealthy, industrialized countries with relatively stable labour markets and economies. The ILO’s priority should be funding the labour markets of developing countries with a legitimate financial need, unless under extreme circumstances. Because the European Union was not forced to accept such a high capacity of migrants and did so willingly, they should fund migrant job development and training on their own budget rather than the organization’s. If one of the governing body members is in serious need of financial assistance from the organization, it should be unanimously agreed upon by each governing body member and allocated a price cap on how much can be given to the country.
In conclusion, it is evident that the European Union has captured the International Labour Organization and used it to financially benefit its member countries at the expense of other Northern governments, particularly the United States. This is exemplified by the EU’s growing relationship with the ILO and influence of Turkey’s labour markets and human rights foundation. This can also be seen by the EU pouring money into the ILO, which is then recycled back into European economies in compliance with the organization’s standards for migrants in the labour force. Looking forward, it can be expected that the EU will continue to give financial contributions in great quantity to the International Labour Organization as an investment into both the union’s current labour markets and into Turkey, an increasingly likely future member of the European Union.