Guilty Parties

Those of us thinking about global public policy have brooded over the meaning of the term "international community." Personally, I avoid invoking it because the term seems too amorphous both conceptually and in practice. And yet I find it widely used as if it represents a reality that no one dares question. But does the international community actually exist? If so, what does it really represent?

It seems clear that the term does not stand for any specific geographic area or population group. Arguably, the United Nations — the most universal international organization with 190 member states — is the closest embodiment of the international community. True, when the United Nations aspires to eradicate poverty, promote disarmament, or protect the environment, its efforts are often perceived as expressing the position or wishes of the international community. In this sense, when a multilateral agency pursues what might be widely considered as the common good, such an effort tends to be enshrined in international community terms. As a concept, then, the international community comes to life more on account of the substance to which it aspires rather than the entity it represents.

An alternative view of the international community relates to the policy impetus the term can provide. Since the concept assumes positive efforts toward some widely held objectives, the challenge for policymakers is to turn specific causes into generally accepted goals. Very often, international conferences attempt to force compromises in the name of some vague consensus. (Recall the Monterrey Consensus document that followed from the March 2002 International Conference on Financing for Development held in Monterrey, Mexico.) At the end of such gatherings, leaders then can claim success in the name of the international community.

Consider, too, the U.S.-led war on terrorism. Following the shock of the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings and the Pentagon and the widespread sympathy over the victims, a vast range of states supported U.S. military action. One might even say that the international community joined in the war against terrorism. However, as the war has continued, questions have emerged: Is this war not really an American war? Is the execution of the war not violating aspects of international humanitarian law? More such distinctions, nuances, and arguments have emerged as analysis of the war effort has deepened. The world’s understanding of the conflict may have become more accurate, but the international community consensus in favor of the effort has become weaker. A new rationale and a new impetus would be necessary to pursue the original war on terrorism.

In my decade (1991– 2000) as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, my constant goal was to build global consensus for the protection of refugees — that is, of those individuals fleeing religious, ethnic, or political persecution at the hands of their own states or by groups engaged in internal conflicts. The principle of refugee protection is enshrined in the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, which entered into force in 1954. Although the number of signatories to the convention increased from 104 when I took office to 141 today, I nonetheless faced great difficulties seeking to ensure that states lived up to the provisions of the convention, even regarding the acceptance of people in desperate flight.

I sought to enlist governments and the global public for support in my efforts, insisting that borders be kept open, asking that asylum seekers’ claims be fairly examined, and soliciting funds to cover victims’ needs. But obtaining a positive response was never easy. The international community did not seem to exist even in the face of human tragedies. Indeed, this community only emerged when human crises hit the international media, when scenes of misery — whether involving the Kurds, the Rwandans, or the Kosovars — flashed across living room television screens in the developed world. Such episodes taught me the crucial role of the media in transforming specific humanitarian causes to more generally shared concerns.

Ultimately, the international community does exist, but only as a potential source of power, to promote common cause or legitimize common action. It is essentially a virtual community. However, the international community can be brought to life in response to vital callings, with conscious or unconscious inputs. It thus represents a useful conceptual tool that political leaders, activists, and the media can deploy to move policy thinking closer to what might be construed as the common good. Why not, then, mobilize greater efforts for building the real international community?