Posted by Dr. Demarche
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?
This question immediately drew several responses in the comments section (click on the link above and scroll down to read them in full), at least two of which saw the IC as largely a group that exists only in opposition to the United States. Others indicated that the IC has no real meaning or form, and that it exists only tangentially or in times of crisis. I agree, at least in part, with both of these sentiments.
I developed this idea after noticing that the phrase “international community” seems to be popping up with increasing frequency in both the media (MSM and blog-type) and at work. While searching for info on this trend I came across an article in the Foreign Policy archives entitled “What is the International Community” (subscription), a collection of essays by “nine notable thinkers, activists, journalists and policymakers from across the ideological spectrum” that has influenced my thinking on this subject. (FWIW, I truly enjoy Foreign Policy, the magazine, and highly recommend it.) Reading these essays prompted me to wonder—what do my fellow travelers think of the IC? After all, globalization of the economy and the Internet are binding us closer together every day in some ways, while ideology and religion (often one and the same thing) are working to keep us apart.
I believe, in fact, that there is an IC, and that it was the first “virtual” community in the world. The concept of an IC was born in the aftermath of World War One, as evidenced by the proposal for the League of Nations. The global battle against the Axis powers in World War Two solidified the idea of a planet-spanning community, resulting in the United Nations as the tangible manifestation of the IC. Most of the time, however, the IC lies dormant, its member states withdrawn into domestic or regional cares. The planners and founders of the UN ( i.e. the true believers in the IC) failed to take into account that for every nation the struggle to feed, clothe and protect its population takes a position of primacy. In times of relative peace and prosperity the IC dissolves into its constituent member states, each looking after its own worries. To be sure, the world does manage to occasionally come together and act as a community- after the tsunami last year, for example, and, briefly, after 9-11. But those moments of togetherness are separated by long periods of aloof complacency, to say the least. Absent a truly global threat such as outright war raging across the various continents, most nations are content to deal with their own problems.
Is the IC, then, as Kofi Annan proposes, “a work in progress” composed of “many strands of cooperation”? The Secretary General of the UN asserts that “in the new century, the international community can and must do better”, but he offers little in the way of real recommendations, as to how or even reasons why, the various nations should do so. In today’s parlance the IC has become the global “they” as in “they say….” The press, pundits and leaders of nations unable or unwilling to act on their own use the idea of the IC as a crutch—“The International Community should…” intervene in Darfur, oppose George Bush, you fill in the blank. From time to time groups of nations with sufficient common interest unite into a subset of the IC, such as continental Europe’s opposition to the war in Iraq, and as the only combined group on the world stage they assume the mantle of the IC. The reality is, however, that the IC exists primarily as idea today, and less as an entity.
None of this is to say that the thought of a brotherhood of man expressed through an IC is a bad idea. My point is simply that in practice, absent a global threat or reason to unite, the IC is simply that, a thought or an idea without true manifestation. It is fruitless, then, to point to the failings of “the international community” in resolving problems such as poverty, famine or even disaster relief. While these issues may evoke pity, or occasional outbursts of guilt, they do not offer a concrete reason for the nations of the world to shake off their torpor and come together in action. For just that fact it is pointless for us, the United States, to overly concern ourselves with what the IC thinks of our actions and policies. We should certainly be concerned with how our policies affect specific constituencies, such as the Middle East, or the EU, but we should not confuse the bitter resentment of a few nations banding together to complain that we are not fulfilling our role in the IC with the fact that they do not have the means to or gumption to take our place.
After all, a community based on enmity of the sole nation that has the power to lead the rest of the world is not much of a community. The inability of those who oppose our policies to set aside their hatred for President Bush and, as the Secretary General might say, to connect Iraq into “the many strands of cooperation”, tells me that the IC, virtual as it is today, is doomed to a very real fate—irrelevance.
____________________
Other posts on the International Community:
- Marc Schulman at American Future
- Dave Schuler at The Glittering Eye
- Callimachus at Done With Mirrors. Also, this.
- Mark Safranski at Zenpundit
- Daniel at tdaxp
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…
If the Axis powers had won WWII, I think that they would have formed an organization similar to the United Nations in order to govern the world they had conquered and prevent the German, Italian, and Japanese empires from rubbing up against each other with too much friction – and even in victory there would have been some. For example, the facist nations of Spain and Italy disagreed quite strongly with Hitler’s Final solution for the Jewish population and there very likely would have been other points of contention, even assuming that the two Empires and the Reich would have not began to prey on each other.
The result would have been an “international community” of nations that might well have gotten along much better than occurs today. The facist, militaristic and brutal powers that controlled the world would have exercised a brutal authority that probably would have even ensured that, say, Chile and Argentina did not come to blows.
But as well organized and cordial as such discourse might have been, the fact remains that such an community would have not operated in accordance with Judeo-Christian values nor embodied the bold principles put forth by the founders of the United States. It might have been a true model of successful international cooperation, but that would have meant nothing in terms of its moral authority and basic decency.
There may indeed be honor among thieves, but it is a relative degree of honor and not one that can be compared to true standards of decency.
International amity means nothing if it is merely a handshake between evil.
Having lived in 12 countries and visited many more, I find the concept of an IC, acting in any semblance of altruism or unanimity, with anything close to a common perspective, to be absurd.
Countries are, and always have been, groups of people acting in what is percieved to be their own best interest. The only difference is that today, technology and economic links demand a more global focus than what was the case up to the first quarter of the 20th century.
Europeans speak to poverty elimination for Africa but maintain agriculture barriers that guarantee lack of meaningful progress. Many Asian countries talk about the need to reform, yet maintain the very institutionalized systems of corruption that guarantee lack of successful reform. Latin America continues to swim in the backwaters of development, permitting pervasive corruption to impede real progress, while railing against the avarice of the developed world.
The only countries with any history of altruism in the conduct of their foreign policies are the English block of USA, UK and Australia. These are often criticized by the IC for not being altruistic enough.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
See: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2005/12/re-international-community.html
All: I received the below e-mail from Joerg at Atlantic Review, and am posting it as comment with his permission- enjoy!
Dr. D
Dear Dr. D,
Dear Marc,
Is there such a thing as “the” international community? If so who are its members? In what arenas does this community act?
I can send a letter for less than 2 $ to some 200 countries and more often than not the letter arrives. I can also call many folks around the world and send faxes. How is the money for my stamps and my phone card distributed between all those countries involved in delivering my letter or fax? I find that a pretty amazing piece of cooperation between those 200 sovereign countries. These basic functions of muliteralism/international community/United Nations are often overlooked.
One international community that should play a bigger role is the Community of Democracies:
http://www.state.gov/g/drl/c10790.htm and http://www.ccd21.org/
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 international community does not care much about Iraq. It also does not care much about the folks in Uganda, Congo, Darfur and many other places, who are much more terrorized than the Iraqis are.
Does the US care about terrorism, freedom, democracy and human rights in Uganda, Congo and Darfur? Congress rejected Secretary Rice ’s impassioned appeal to provide $50 million for African troops trying to keep peace in Sudan’s Darfur region. 50$ million is all that Congress was asked… There you have America’s role in the international community.
One big debate in the US seems to be “the war on Christmas.” Well, Christmas is about helping the homeless, the refugees, the poor… Most members of Congress consider themselves good Christians and go to church every Sunday…. Well, Maria and Joseph would have difficulty finding shelter this year, too.
Now the EU is paying more to prevent the African Union mission from getting bankrupt, which still is not enough to really help folks in Darfur. Do they know it’s Christmas? For the record: Germany and the EU are NOT at all doing enough to help in Darfur and many other parts of the world. Often they make things worse.
How much does the US pay as a share of GDP per person for other international problems, like poverty, in comparision to Germany, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands and the UK? This will tell you who is acting like a responsible member of the international community and who isn’t?
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/74-To-alleviate-extreme-poverty-the-G8-have-to-make-international-trade-more-fair-and-increase-aid.html
but don’t forget:
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/76-The-US-helps-poor-countries-more-than-the-amount-of-aid-suggests.html
Joerg, your comment has a lot to chew on some of which I agree with and some with which I disagree violently.
In particular you appear to have a misconception about the nature of the society in the US. Nearly all Europeans and even many Americans do. In general Americans don’t equate “action” with “government action”. When a problem arises the typically American reaction is to organize to handle it not to expect the central government to take care of it. Neighborhood, city, county, and state governments are not departments of the central government.
When you add individual donations, corporate contributions, NGO donations, and donations from all of the various governmental entities in the United States (including the federal government), the US ranks right up there in generosity with the Scandinanvian countries you noted. Both the approach and the generosity are consistent with out national values.
The exception to this approach is the military. Our military is basically under federal control. And that’s why the most visible sign of US federal government participation in many “international community” activities is via the military—it’s what our federal government has to offer. I suppose to many in the EU (who expect their national governments or the EU to shoulder these responsibilities) that makes the United States appear militaristic but that’s just looking at the US through EU-colored glasses.
[...] There are some great comments on Dr. Demarche’s contribution to the discussion. One—from Joerg”was particularly interesting. Here’s the part of his comment to which I responded: How much does the US pay as a share of GDP per person for other international problems, like poverty, in comparision to Germany, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands and the UK? This will tell you who is acting like a responsible member of the international community and who isn’t? [...]
Happy New Year everyone!
The new year is three hours old here in Berlin. I wish you all the best.
I just came back from a party. Let’s see how sober I still am.
Dave wrote:
“I disagree violently.”
Please, don’t hurt yourself
“When a problem arises the typically American reaction is to organize to handle it not to expect the central government to take care of it.”
I admire this can do spirit. I hope Europeans learn from it. However, I do have the impression that Americans expect quite a lot from their government. Less than Europeans, but they do expect a swift response when the weathermen say that a hurricane is coming… Many Americans were disappointed by the governement’s reaction to Katrina.
Why are bringing up this topic? What’s the context with Dr. D’s post or my comment?
“When you add individual donations, corporate contributions, NGO donations, and donations from all of the various governmental entities in the United States (including the federal government), the US ranks right up there in generosity with the Scandinanvian countries you noted.”
How many Scandinavian countries do you count?
The US is not the leader of the world, but ranks at 15th. And there are certainly less than 14 Scandinavian countries…
Dave, I have linked to a Foreign Policy article. The article was written by someone who worked for President Bush as deputy assistant secretary of the treasury from 2000 to 2002….
Here’s a quote:
Combining public and private donations puts total U.S. development assistance in the range of $35 billion per year, or about 0.32 percent of U.S. income. In other words, for every $3 of income, the United States provides about one cent in development assistance. Even with this broader measure (and using the larger estimate of U.S. private assistance without making a similar adjustment for other countries), the United States ranks, at best, 15th among the top donors.
15th is still pretty good. But most Americans think that they are much more generous. Same article: “Surveys show that most Americans believe the federal government devotes 15 to 20 percent of the country’s expenditures to aid. The actual figure is far less than 1 percent; that’s less than one fourth of the budget share of 1965.”
Apparently Americans misperceive their contribution. They think that their government spends up to 1/5 of its money helping people around the world. Americans think they do a lot for the international community, but they don’t do as much as they think they do.
Americans are angry that other countries do not support their international policies and they think that the world is not grateful for the large amount of foreign aid they think the US government is spending…. The fact is that the government and the private charities do not spend THAT much money. The US does not support sooo many international policies.
You write: “The most visible sign of US federal government participation in many “international community†activities is via the military”
I think you are a bit sloppy with your expressions here.
Yes the US military is very active around the world. The US military is a stabilizing force and appreciate most of the missions the US does. I hold US soldiers in high regard. I know many.
Dr. D. wants to discuss the US role in the international community. So let’s talk about it. You write ‘participation in many “international community†activities.’
Your words give the impression that the US military participates in UN peacekeeping missions. What peacekeeping missions are these? Could give me a list of UN peacekeeping operations the US participated in, please. I am not sure whether this list is very long.
The US military is often active after a UN resolution gave them the okay. But I am not sure if there are many US peacekeepers.
How many US generals have led a UN peacekeeping mission? (This is not a rhetorical question. I don’t know the answer right now.)
Has there ever been a US soldier under UN command? I don’t think so. Thus, I am not sure, how you want to defend you statement concerning US military participation in many “international community†activities.
If the UN passes a resolution authorizing a war, then the UN is just approving that the US military gets active. This is not “participation in an international community activity.”
Again, it is the Scandinavian countries, who particpate most in UN activities I think. I heard, Bangladesh and Nigeria are very active as well, but that has monetary reasons.
I read your post at Glittering Eye. You wrote: “Joerg is perptetuating a widely held misconception with this.”
Ooops, I did not yet want to hit “submit.” I guess, my fine motor skills are not so good anymore this new year’s eve.
Anyway, I think I have made my point. Read my posts in the Atlantic Review on foreign aid. Link above. Especially the article in Foreign Policy I linked to.
Besides, I don’t want to be too harsh on you guys: A major concern of Europeans has always been US isolationism. I am concerned that if we Europeans criticize US foreign policies too much, then isolationist sentiment will grow in the US and you will not help us in the next world war or wait a long time till you come to our rescue. If you like it or not, so far the Europeans could not do without the US as every student of history knows. We wrote a couple of days ago about the rise of isolationist sentiment:
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/222-Isolationism-on-the-rise.html
Note the comment by Chirac in the mid 90s…
Happy new year!
A lot of good questions, Joerg, to which I believe I have some good answers. However, they’re substantial enough that I’ll be writing a complete post on my own blog.
Dave, thank you for appreciating my provocative questions and for your plans on writing a complete post on your blog.
I think Dr. D.’s efforts in promoting a cross-blog conversation are great.
The goal, I believe, isn’t to agree, but to questions one’s own assumptions and broaden one’s own horizon. And if others learn some new perspective, that’s a good thing as well.
The world is complicated. For many questions there is not one straight and simple answer that can be expressed in a couple of sentences. Therefore I appreciate it that you are planing on writing a complete post.
I have the impression that most bloggers write many posts a week and cover many different topics and move from topic to topic. This is often at the expense of a good and solid indepth discussion. I think Dr. D.’s projects are great initiatives to bring bloggers together for a more indepth discussions that lasts longer than a couple of days. So, please take your time. Hopefully others will join this debate in the next couple of days and add their two cents.
One new thought on the IC:
Isn’t the blogosphere an international community as well? Like the UN members, every blog is sovereign (more or less). Some bloggers band together to constantly bash Cindy Shehan, Dr. Dean, the cheese eating surrender monkey and the other weasels in Old Europe. Other bloggers join force to constantly bash President Bush, Republicans and Walmart.
None of those two groups is producing much meaningful and useful service to the real world.
Then there are those bloggers, who try to unite (or disagree respectfully) rather than divide others. They promote productive and constructive debate to increase more international understanding, empathy and cooperation. Dr. D’s efforts fall in this category, which are similar to some of the better Security Council discussions.
Then there are the do-gooders who use the blogosphere to increase awareness to humanitarian causes. This blog from NZ has organized a spotlight on Darfur: http://allthings2all.blogspot.com/2005/12/spotlight-on-darfur-3-christmas_17.html
This spotlight is similar to Dr. D’s cross-blog projects or the Atlantic Review’s Carnival on German American Relations, which we organized in cooperation with a blog from Texas and in which some 20 bloggers participated:
http://atlanticreview.org/archives/179-Carnival-of-German-American-Relations.html
If bloggers as well as governemtns resist the temptation to bash each other and please their egos, then the blogosphere as well as the United Nations could be useful and promote real peace, security, freedom, democracy and all the other good stuff. If we bloggers fail in doing so, why should we expect the UN to do better? Amen.
[...] Joerg of Atlantic Review has posted a very thoughtful comment in our ongoing friendly debate on the international community. I started to post a response but soon recognized that the response had reached post length. The three subjects I want to respond to are “stingy United States”, the US participation in international peacekeeping activities, and Louisiana. [...]
[...] the ic — time to put up, or shut up [...]