Posted by Dr. Demarche
Now that I have settled into my new quarters at American Future it seems like the time is right for another group blog project. A quote in Marc’s recent post The Same Old Song and articles such as Iran’s Suspected Nuclear Weapons Program Key Issue for World Community reminded once again how much I am bothered by the phrase “international community.” The second article linked to above states:
Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program remains a key problem for the international community.
What, exactly, do they mean by that? Who exactly makes up this “international community” and what role does it play in the foreign affairs arena? As an example, in Fahrenheit 911 Michael Moore made fun of the smaller nations that are members of the Coalition of the Willing, such as Palau- are they not members of the international community, seeking to aid another member state of that same community? Marc and I have kicked this idea around a bit, and without spoiling his ideas for a post, I can say that he and I have similar views on this subject (surprise!).
My questions for the project are: is there such a thing as “the” international community? If so who are its members? In what arenas does this community act? What is America’s role in this community, and that of the U.N.? Finally, what is the future of such a community when Iraq is terrorized by those who oppose democracy and no “community” reacts, genocide in Rwanda goes unchecked and N. Korea is still run by a madman?
I plan to have a post ready by the 28th for this project, if you are interested please e-mail me and Marc by December 28 so that we can link to you. Please post your contributions starting on December 29.
There seems to be a number of the world’s nations who wish to be seen as an international community. Their titular headquarters is the United Nations buildings in New York City, where rules a so-called Security Council of nations who rule by veto.
This body of nations is made up of three groups of political governments who speak through their ambassadors. One group is made up of countries that complain about the United States of America, trying seemingly always to embarrass and eter the US from being effective in world matters, yet will accept its contributions of foreign aid and charitable offerings.
The second group are those nations headed by governments represented by ambassadors who abstain from criticizing the US so as to be seen as rising above world socialist politics, accept what foreign aid the US offers, yet don’t wish to stand behind the US in its efforts to keep the world from blowing up; and the third group is the United States of America, which holds the world together through it’s military might, and keeps the world’s poor countries from bleeding to death through it’s foreign aid programs.
The UN will continue to exist in its present form, unless the US decides to pull out of membership, and stops paying the lion’s share of the cost. At which time the UN will dissolve into a Dark Ages existence of the strong nations praying on the weak nations, and chaos will reign.
The International Community consists of all nations aside from the United States. The arena of its activities is using all international agencies created by the US to preserve peace and promote prosperity to take whatever action necessary to protect its member governments from their citizens’ drive to become Americanized (aka Globalization). This includes hamstringing the United States from taking any action, however otherwise beneficial or benign, that might increase its power, as well as setting up trans-national structures that circumvent whatever rights thier citizens may have in their native country. The future of this community is that it can only delay the inevitable and that is why they will ally with, at worst, and ignore at least, even Kim Jong Il.
“community (noun) – a unified body of individuals: as (a.) the people with common interests living in a particular area; broadly : the area itself (b.) an interacting population of various kinds of individuals (as species) in a common location (c.) a group of people with a common characteristic or interest living together within a larger society ” (Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.)
Using the definition above, “International Community” would appear to be an oxymoron. There is neither “unity”, nor “common interest”, nor “common characteristics” regarding any international subject I can conceive of. Only subsets of a supposed International Community can ever have unity or common interests (consider: global warming, nuclear proliferation, free trade, democratic government, etc. etc.).
I don’t doubt you are troubled by the term “international community.” The primary problem is that it is perhaps the most variable term ever used, meaning whatever the user wants its to, and usually that definition goes unchallenged. I would suppose that you want to challenge all such definitions. Good luck!
As Victor Davis Hanson has pointed out, the Nazi invasion of the USSR was as international as anything that has ever been done, with Germans, Austrians, Czechs, Italians, Bulgarians, Romanians, all participating and with Finland as an ally. It is usually not cited as an effort by the “international community.”
The U.S. invasion of Iraq had a number of nations signing their support via that famous letter in the Wall Strret Journal, and many of that number actuially sent troops. But since France Germany, and Russia did not support it verbally – (and did not opose it militarily), it was a key plank in the Kerr Campaign
that the “international community” opposed the war.
In short, I would recommend you turn your fact funding and analysis skills to something that traditionally has been handled with a greater degree of logic, sobriety, and intellectural rigor.
Say, for instance, the study of UFO’s…......
Hi –
The International Community?
It’s whatever anyone damn well wants it to mean, i.e. it means nothing. Just like International Law. There is no such thing as international law: there are only judicial decisions that lawyers and judges accept, as well as numerous bilateral agreements, some of them even multilateral. But there is no book of international law that you can pick up over at Amazon that will tell you what the rules of conduct are across the world and what laws apply.
It’s simple: the world is anarchistic. No country is willing to give up its souvereignity to any sort of supranational agency or government. None whatsoever. Anyone telling you elsewise is at best a fool and at worst a tool. There are accepted patterns of behavior when nations are at peace and accepted patterns of behavior when nations aren’t, and given the nature of the world today it’s hard in many cases to discern between the two states.
But in any case there is no international community. Except by those who desperately wish, for their own purposes, that there was one.
Why? Because there is no reason for there to be one. All those idealists – I once was one – who think that if we get everyone to sign on to a common set of principles, like those over at the UN, then the World Will Become A Better Place, are fools because there are too many people in charge of too many countries that are at best liars and at worst pathological murderers. The international community is a fiction that allows those unwilling and/or unable to deal with the reality of nations besmirched with the blood of their own citizens and complicit in violations of all forms of civilized behavior – and here I do not merely mean the French – to adopt a fiction, to believe in the Keebler Elves, the Tooth Fairy and Glinda the Good all rolled into one, and to deny the elemental fact, the one true constant of international relationships.
That there are evil people out there and the only thing keeping them from slitting your throat and molesting your children is the fact that there are Marines, soldiers, airman and sailors out there scaring the sh*t out of these guys and making life safer for Joe Sixpack and Mary Soccermom.
When the “International Community” realizes that the only way to world peace is to understand that the UN needs to have a body of troops that is as good and intelligent as the US military is, and that they must not only decide that tyranny and repression are no longer acceptable and that human rights do not cease at any country’s borders, and that they listen to their military trained to uphold these concepts, well, then there might be an international community worth speaking of.
Until then all you’ve got is a way to tell someone who doesn’t know sh*t from shinola: anyone talking of the “international community” is telling us right then and there that they are on the south side of clueless and stuck on stupid.
John
The point of international institutions is that they only work as a framework for states to achieve their goals. The most powerful state is the U.S., and American interests are closely related to the current world order. America has a kind of monopoly of power, and globalisation is in a way an American project. So it’s the U.S. that guarantees the world order. Sometimes the U.S. does use international institutions, sometimes not.
But nobody likes to see things like that, Americans don’t want to rule the world, and non-Americans don’t want America to rule the world. So everybody prefers to talk the language of state system, enshrined in the U.N. charter. The “international community” is the community of the 191 states in the UN General Assembly. Sometimes the notion “international community” is evoked as a means to counter American action, and sometimes it’s evoked by Washington in order to legitimize it’s actions.
I think that “international community” is part of the pseudo-realist view of international affairs that most people accept for beeing real.
I once told my father that the world would be a more peaceful place if everyone took a nap every afternoon. My Dad said he thought that was a great idea because he would be able to do all sorts of things while everyone else slept… Kind of reminds me of the term “International Community”!
An international community
Dr. Demarche has started another cross-blog conversation (as he does so well) over at American Future. This time around his topic is the “international community”. Is there such a thing? What is its scope of action? Blog-friends Mark S…
[...] Last week I proposed a new blog project regarding the International Community (IC): My questions for the project are: is there such a thing as “the” international community? If so who are its members? In what arenas does this community act? What is America’s role in this community, and that of the U.N.? Finally, what is the future of such a community when Iraq is terrorized by those who oppose democracy and no “community” reacts, genocide in Rwanda goes unchecked and N. Korea is still run by a madman? [...]
The Majestic International Community
Dr. Demarche of the American Future has asked “What is the international community?â€
“My questions for the project are: is there such a thing as “the†international community? If so who are its members? In what arenas does this community ac…