Why do they continue to talk about “international community”? Does not exist

Journalism must speak in words that everyone understands, and if they are not understood, it must explain them. It’s an axiom (axiom: proposition so clear and obvious that it is admitted without demonstration). There is no discussion. The journalist is a specialist in telling the news in a way that everyone understands.

For some strange reason, I find in the media a lot lately an expression that seemed old-fashioned to me: “international community”. Here are some examples from the last six months:

They make the headlines in national and international media. You may also hear this phrase on radio and television talk shows. I do not say this with ulterior motives or with the intention of doing, not yet, political readings: when I hear a journalist say “international community”, I do not know to whom he is referring (it is as if he were saying “axiom”). ). However, one thing is clear to me: whatever the position of the international community, it must do things that it does not do or say. The case of the condemnation of Iran is an exception: the entity expressed itself quite clearly there. In general, when it comes to Israel, the entity does not do what it should.

I wonder if the term “international community” refers to the UN. We know that it has collapsed since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Its security council stumbles into paralysis due to the veto of the five permanent members every time something really bad happens. As for the General Assembly, it carries out an important vote from time to time. Of course, without consequences. These are all the symptoms of the zombie: it seems alive, but it is dead. If the “international community” is the UN, its inaction ceased to be relevant about 30 years ago, more or less when it should have been reformed.

Sometimes I doubt he’s referring to the European Union, but no. Because often, the same journalist claims that the “international community” did one thing and that the EU did another. Furthermore, within the EU there are all sorts of different voices when it comes to the Middle East. It is impossible for a single entity to speak with different voices or contradict itself, unless it is crazy (this could be the case of the EU).

It doesn’t appear to be the United States either, since the columns clearly show American support for Israel and then explain that “the international community” remains paralyzed by rising war tensions in the Middle East. That’s not it either.

I am beginning to suspect that the international community does not exist. It’s just a journalistic invention. I am looking for a source of authority to enlighten me. He Panhispanic Dictionary of Legal Spanish can be used. His definition of an international community is as follows: “Legal community based on the protection of essential collective interests and values ​​shared by all its subjects, which seeks the joint realization of an international public order by virtue of the recognition within it of peremptory norms of law“.

Now everything is clear. In fact, this legal community does not exist. Because many countries do not believe in a world governed by rules. And because, even those who say they believe, use so many exceptions when their allies violate the rules, that we can’t count them. If we wanted to draw up a precise list of countries which belong to this legal community, I think that there would not be half a dozen left in the end. There are collective interests, such as the fight against the climate crisis, but they are postponed more than they are defended. There are no shared essential values. Or maybe yes. The inhabitants of the planet are much closer than their governments to sharing values ​​and interests. The community of States does not exist. However, I have the impression that the global community of reasonable people is becoming more vibrant every day.

Source