Although many of the details of the violent clash that took place on the morning of May 31, 2010 on board the Mavi Marmara remain in dispute, there is no doubt that it was an affair of profound and far-reaching consequence—and not only for the parties involved. Most of the committees formed to probe the incident have had their say,¹ yet all seemed to lack either the ability or the intention to situate it in its broader context, and to suggest its global ramifications. While investigations of Israel’s decision-making process before—and the Israeli military’s conduct during—the operation are essential, as is the strategic discussion of the situation in the Gaza Strip and the future of Israel-Turkey relations, it is no less crucial to consider what lessons may be learned regarding the objectives and influence of some of the leading players in today’s global arena: the international non-governmental organizations (INGOs).

Indeed, the very next day, alongside announcements of the death toll and the footage of the Mavi Marmara being towed to shore, the media were already reporting extensively on the identity and activities of the organization behind the “Freedom Flotilla”: the Humanitarian Relief Foundation (IHH).² Established in Turkey in 1992, the IHH is a non-governmental organization that purports to offer aid to Muslims around the world. Behind its humanitarian façade, however, lurks an activism of a very different kind. Evidence gathered by security services and research institutes in Turkey, Europe, and the United States points to the IHH’s elaborate connections with al-Qaida and Hamas, as well as the assistance it has provided to Islamic militias in Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Bosnia.³ Clearly, the violent provocation on the deck of the Turkish ship was just the tip of the iceberg.

It is easy to dismiss the IHH as merely one bad apple, but the truth is slightly more complex. The world of INGOs is an exceedingly intricate constellation that operates in different ways and serves a variety of goals. Some organizations act out of a sincere commitment to universal human rights and the future of humanity, while some seek to protect groups or sectors suffering from discrimination and oppression. Others, however, are motivated by an antagonistic ideological agenda, and align themselves with a particular side in various political, social, or economic power struggles. The positions and methods that characterize many of these organizations suggest that the Gaza flotilla may well herald a significant escalation in their activities—and not just against Israel. We would therefore be wise to undertake a careful examination of the normative status and legitimacy of INGOs, whether as independent entities or as part of the general matrix of “global civil society.” The findings, as we shall see, leave much room for concern.

 

 

The rise of INGOs can only be understood against the backdrop of the fundamental changes that have taken place in the global order in recent decades. Academic and popular literature frequently refers to such changes as “globalization” or “globalism”—and, of late, “glocalization,” an amalgam of globalization and localization. This widespread use of in-vogue concepts might create the mistaken impression that they have a generally accepted meaning in academic discourse and public debate; in fact, these terms are highly obscure, and subject to a multitude of different interpretations.⁴ What is clear, however, is that they reflect certain trends whose influence on our lives is vast and inescapable.

One of the prominent characteristics of the current era is the collapse of the barriers of awareness that have hitherto divided nations and cultures. Mass media and the Internet have transformed the world into a “global village,” to use Marshall McLuhan’s famous phrase.⁵ A Norwegian fisherman whose grandfather knew nothing about the goings-on outside his village can now receive news of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict via his local TV broadcast; an Argentinean student is informed about riots on the streets of Tehran through the real-time “tweets” of young Iranians; and the Israeli reader can follow the Mexican drug wars in the pages of his daily newspaper. Through intensive, cross-border traffic of information, more and more people are becoming increasingly conscious of—and consequently, involved in—events taking place beyond the confines of their immediate surroundings. “International public opinion,” which in the past was but a vague phrase, is gaining a scope and stature that can no longer be ignored.

One cannot overstate the importance of this mass awakening and its impact on the global arena. Once the loci of power and legitimacy, countries are now forced to re-examine their traditional position and role. The paradigm that governed international politics over the past centuries, which centered on the state and privileged its concerns, has gradually ceded ground to an attitude that grants greater significance to the well-being of the individual on the one hand, and the welfare of humanity (or the planet) on the other. Naturally, this approach has no reverence—or even much concern—for considerations of “national interest.” The state, in many people’s eyes, is no longer the supreme authority, the source of identity, or the object of identification.

Thus was the groundwork laid for a sweeping change in the role played by non-state actors in the global scene. These actors—which include transnational corporations, international media agencies, religious movements, guerilla groups, terror networks, and a growing number of INGOs—gnaw away at the authority of nation-states, effectively exploiting modern information channels and confidence gaps between citizens and their governments for their own needs. If in the past one could measure these actors’ strength based on the weapons or assets they possessed, today their power must be assessed by their success in rallying public opinion in their favor.

A well-known example of this trend is the public scandal that erupted following the sinking of the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior on July 10, 1985, under the direct orders of French President François Mitterrand. The incident caused France great embarrassment: It was obliged to pay heavy compensation to the government of New Zealand, in whose territory the sabotage took place, and to the family of photographer Fernando Pereira, who lost his life in the operation. Moreover, the incident halted—albeit temporarily—nuclear experiments in the Polynesian region, against which Greenpeace had been protesting, thereby bolstering the organization’s image as a force of goodwill capable of reining in a major Western state.⁶

 

 

To be sure, the vigorous activism of INGOs contributes to the decentralization of power and hinders the oppressive conduct of states. However, in contrast to most of the governments with which they clash, these organizations are not elected bodies, are not founded on the principle of representation, and are not in any way accountable to the public. This fact raises serious concerns regarding the legality and legitimacy of their activity, and calls into question their ability—and willingness—to obey the rules of the democratic game.¹²

If that were not enough, a number of INGOs are not content simply to express sympathy for terrorism. Instead, they offer support to hordes of militant anarchists who do not hesitate to sow violence and destruction.¹⁵ We may recall, in this context, the violent outbursts directed against the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle in late November and early December 1999, and the G8 conference in July 2001 in Genoa, which resulted in extensive property damage and even the loss of life. Moreover, experts point to the possibility that the INGOs are exploited by terror networks as easy points of infiltration into the civic space.¹⁶ It is not for nothing that former UN secretary general Kofi Annan—an enthusiastic supporter of global civil society—emphasized in a speech delivered in Brazil in July 1998 that “Not all effects of globalization are positive; not all non-state actors are good.”¹⁷

And yet, even with a number of disturbing precedents in mind, the Gaza flotilla constitutes a significant development. Though allegedly an act of defiance against Israel’s policy toward the Palestinian population of Gaza, the flotilla was in fact something far more dramatic: It was a challenge to the fundamental principles of world order.

The term “world order” often arouses a sense of discomfort, and with good reason. After all, humanity has not yet achieved a peaceful state of stability; for millions of people, the reality is one of chaos, subject to the constant threat of civil war, tribal violence, plagues, and starvation. For the majority of the world’s population, however, anarchy does not prevail. The international system is governed by an impressive, if not infallible, order. This order—which took over four hundred years, two world wars, and countless bloody struggles to achieve—is based primarily on the recognition of equality between sovereign states, and the demand that their territorial integrity be respected; on the understanding that conflicts must be resolved through peaceful means; and on the perception of the state as the agent that holds the monopoly on the use of force.¹⁸

The calculated provocation of the Freedom Flotilla flew in the face of these principles. The cooperation between “peace activists,” who view themselves as the sole legitimate representatives of the “global human conscience,” and terror organizations, which saw a golden opportunity to elevate their status in international public opinion, led to a head-on collision with a sovereign state—Israel—despite that state’s explicit efforts to avoid any confrontation. Worst of all, the IHH activists on board the Mavi Marmara not only prepared for, but provoked, a fatal showdown with Israeli soldiers, who were caught off guard by the lethal violence directed against them.

The dire outcome of the incident—nine protesters dead and thirty people (including ten Israeli soldiers) wounded—received enormous attention in the global media. Countries and international organizations with an anti-Israel agenda, both governmental and non-governmental, were quick to present the clash as an example of Israel’s brutal use of excessive military force against courageous peace activists, who sacrificed their lives on the altar of humanitarian aid.¹⁹ Unfortunately, disinformation and media manipulations obscured the fact that the bloody skirmish between IDF troops and the flotilla activists reflected an inevitable collision between two conflicting systems of value—the traditional, state-centric approach, which has guided world politics for hundreds of years, and a radical approach that challenges the authority of the sovereign nation.

 
 

Of course, the positive contribution of INGOs to protecting human rights and improving the lives of the poor and disenfranchised around the world cannot be denied. The commendable activity of Doctors Without Borders (MSF—Médecins Sans Frontières) and the coalition of organizations behind the International Campaign to Ban Land Mines (ICBL) is obvious to all. Movements such as these come to the aid of populations that have been abandoned by the state; they enter a space where law and order do not apply, in which people’s lives are exposed to arbitrary violence or forces of nature, and provide irreplaceable humanitarian aid.

Nonetheless, in the virtual realm of global civil society, something rather alarming is under way. Anarchist groups and radical elements are exploiting the supranational space in which INGOs operate to destabilize the foundations of world order. They do not recognize the normative boundaries that even the most arrogant of dictators must respect. They are willing to drag countries into bloody confrontations, to sow political chaos, and to disrupt the delicate system of checks and balances that form the basis of international relations. The violent tactics employed by these rogue actors threaten not only to besmirch the philanthropic enterprise of INGOs, but also to transform it into a weapon of global terror.

We stand at the advent of an era in which non-state actors have the power to wreak havoc on an unprecedented scale. Just recently, Wikileaks, a non-governmental organization of relatively meager resources, managed to embarrass the United States on the world stage by means of no more than the shrewd use of the Internet and mass media. Yet the potential damage caused by exposing classified information pales in comparison to the destruction wrought by determined rabble-rousers such as the activists aboard the Mavi Marmara, who waited for IDF soldiers with knives and steel pipes.

The threat posed by incidents such as that of the Gaza flotilla—an act of armed sabotage in the guise of a humanitarian gesture—demands a re-examination of the fundamental principles of international relations. The legal doctrines and security concepts that suited the “old” world order simply cannot contend with a reality in which the big, clumsy leviathan of the state is surrounded by swarms of small, quick, and at times more aggressive bodies. To prevent such an onslaught, the result of which may be cataclysmic, we must formulate new rules and conventions that can limit the more dubious non-state actors and establish clear boundaries for their conduct. Such a move, which will require a diplomatic, legal, and political effort of global proportions, is not only a military necessity—it is also a humanitarian interest.