Tunisia and the Definition of the International Community

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

The phrase “the international community” recurs on the tongues of many of the world’s rulers, European and American rulers especially, and on the tongues of many Arabs, and in the various media outlets. The phrase repeats so often that most people have come to believe there truly is an international community, whose requirements, sentiments, and positions must supposedly be respected.

Some people have become prey to the phrase, such that its unclear content has become binding and obligatory, and whoever defies it has stepped outside the bounds of understanding and rationality — as though it had become a kind of fate, with violating it carrying criminalization and punishment.

I asked my university students whether any of them could define the international community. All of them failed to come up with a definition, even though some spoke of a gathering of states, or some states in the West and East. One said the international community is all people in the whole world.

They had heard the phrase again and again, but never arrived at a clear definition, nor at this community’s requirements, or its commands and prohibitions. Perhaps if we asked some of the media outlets that repeat the phrase, they too would fail to define what they have long used.

Was Tunisia part of the international community, or was it on the margins of this community? Perhaps the Tunisian government was not, but the Tunisian people is an entity, and proved its role in making history, and great powers clinging to the so-called international community stood before it helpless, unable to do anything. Colonial states and the Zionist state had long sat enthroned over Tunisian decision-making, but the people’s will created an international community different from the one they imagine.

The Legal Definition

Some jurists of international law define the phrase “international community” as all the member states of the United Nations, with every UN member state automatically being a member of the international community.

This is on the assumption that the United Nations is the broadest global organization in terms of membership, and no other international or regional organization accommodates as many states as the United Nations does.

Under the UN Charter, every member state is an independent, sovereign state, and its geographic territory must be respected, as must the laws it issues to organize its internal affairs. And as long as a state has agreed to be a UN member, it respects the organization’s charter and defends its implementation.

If it is permissible to speak of international law, then the international community includes every state bound by the UN Charter, on the assumption that this charter is the foundation of international law — meaning Tanzania, Niger, Guatemala, Nepal, Bahrain, Czechia, and others are UN members, and all states are supposed to enjoy the same respect and the same worth. In other words, the saying that people are equal before the law can be slightly transformed to say that states are equal before the law.

The international community also includes other international and regional organizations that emerged from the United Nations, or whose charters are bound by the UN Charter, or that rest on covenants and declarations respecting states’ sovereignty and not contradicting the UN Charter.

Amnesty International, UNESCO, and the International Court of Justice are supposed to be part of the international community legally speaking, or on the permissible or accepted margin of the international community, and the Arab League, the European Union, and the Organization of African States are also supposed to be part of the international community, or on the permissible or accepted margin of this community.

Movements and organizations working to liberate their homelands and lift injustice from people are also supposed to enjoy the status of permissible or accepted by this community.

For example, the Palestinian and Lebanese resistance movements are supposed to be legal under the UN Charter, because they fight an occupation rejected by international law.

The Iraqi resistance and the Taliban are also supposed to be legal, because they fight the American occupation. But is this accepted by the so-called international community at this historical stage?

The Legitimacy of the Law

But the question that arises concerns the extent of the legitimacy of the UN Charter, or, more broadly, the legitimacy of international law.

If we look at the origins of international law, we find that the powerful states are the ones who drafted this law, whether at the level of the League of Nations or the United Nations.

The states victorious in wars are the ones who set the law and covenants, while the defeated or weak states had no effective role in setting the law, playing only a very marginal role that did not rise to the level of influence.

It is historically well known that the powerful set the law, interpret the law, and pursue their own interests in writing the law. Historically, law reflects the viewpoint and interests of the powerful, even though it may attend to the interests of the weak out of mercy and pity.

And if the law conflicts with the interest of the powerful, the powerful breach it, ignore it, or amend it, possessing various means of doing so, finding no one to stand in their way. The weak, meanwhile, usually resort to philosophizing matters, giving them moral dimensions, and demonstrating the inhumane aspects of the powerful’s practices.

The states victorious in the Second World War are the ones who drafted the UN Charter, and I do not see that Jordan, Nigeria, Albania, or Portugal contributed to the deliberations effectively, or had an influential voice in its drafting.

The powerful are the ones who drafted the charter, and they decided each of them would have veto power in the Security Council.

They granted equal membership in the General Assembly, but without the General Assembly having any enforcement power without the will of the powerful, and the greatest evidence of this is Resolution 181, which decided the partition of Palestine, with Israel obtaining more than its share, and Resolution 194, which decided, in one of its clauses, the return of Palestinian refugees, and never found a path to implementation.

The first resolution was backed by the powerful, and the second rested only on the cries of the weak.

This means international law is a drafting of the powerful — meaning it reflects the law of the jungle, not the law of the wise, rational human being seeking justice.

International law does not rest on the principles of justice, but on the principle of power, which is why it is an illegitimate law. Accordingly, what many in the world persistently describe as “international legitimacy” is nothing but the legitimacy of the powerful, or the legitimacy of wolves, and this description cannot be true unless it rests on foundations of justice not set by the leaders of powerful states, but by independent experts in philosophy, law, and ethics, working according to humanitarian dimensions, not exploitative or opportunistic ones.

What Is the International Community?

If international law is the law of the powerful, then the international community is the community of the powerful. The powerful are the ones who decide, who grant and deny, who give and prevent, who punish and reward, who install and dismiss, and are accordingly the masters, while everyone else is enslaved, or perhaps some remain on the margin without enslavement.

It can now be said, figuratively, that the international community is the United States, Russia, China, Britain, and France, on the assumption that these states hold veto power at the United Nations. Some other states may hold some standing, but most states do not come close to this standing.

If we review the matter of who holds standing throughout history, we find that the powerful and wealthy in various societies are the ones who held decision-making power, while the rest of the people were mere subjects who obeyed and listened, or else met with calamities and horrors.

This world we live in now is no different from the historical tradition in which the weak do not constitute a fundamental player in drafting law, making decisions, or governance. The weak are not the community — they are the tool of the community, which is formed by those who decide.

On the international stage now, there is a decline in the standing and influence of some powers, such as France, Britain, and Russia, and a great rise of the United States’ star, which has stood alone as the first or sole power since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

This means the phrase “international community” is now nearly confined to the United States, in that its influence is strong over most of the world’s states, and largely pervasive.

But on another note, American policy is influenced by the opinions and positions of other states, allied and non-allied, but is influenced directly and strongly, in certain fields, by Israel’s policy and positions.

It is true Israel is not among the great powers, but it possesses the ability to influence American policy because of its special standing in American society, and because of the tools of pressure it and its supporters in the American arena hold over the American decision-maker. This is what makes us often see a match between American and Israeli positions on the international stage.

For this reason, I define the international community through the following circles — that is, through a structure, not through a legal or legitimate dimension:

1. The heart of the international community: the United States of America is the heart of the international community in various fields, but Israel shares this role with it in certain fields, such as the Palestinian cause, the spread of nuclear weapons, and technical development at the Arab and Islamic levels.

When we say it is required to put forward ideas that satisfy the international community, we essentially mean the United States and Israel. This heart is what now greatly controls the crafting of terms like “resistance” and “terrorism,” and how conflicts are managed, wars are waged, and unrest is stirred.

2. The heart’s shell: following the heart is a shell consisting of most Western European states, which share with America many foundations and historical and cultural dimensions, and many economic and political policies.

These are states with influence, but it is not independent influence — it must integrate largely with American influence, and often with American and Israeli influence together.

3. The third circle consists of large, powerful states that are not decision-makers, and whose influence remains very limited, such as Russia, China, Japan, Brazil, India, and Turkey.

These are states that command some respect, but are not of the first rank that would qualify them for tangible influence on the international stage, and they suffer from hesitation and self-doubt about their own capabilities.

4. Compliant states: most of the world’s states fall within this classification — states that control very little of their own affairs, to the point that they lack independence in managing their internal affairs.

Many of these states fall under the sway of the American ambassador, and often look to American aid to help their government run the state, meet people’s needs, and pay salaries. These are states skilled at applause and justification, skilled at obedience and the art of defeat, like most Arab states.

States Outside the System

There are states that do not want to be part of this international community, and can be classified as:

1. States keen on their full independence, or working entirely outside the system controlled by the heart of the international community, such as Cuba, North Korea, and Iran — states that do not want to be part of the system, and are also not accepted by the system.

2. States keen on their independence, but prepared to maneuver, such as Syria and Venezuela. These are states not accepted by America, considered outside the system according to American standards.

Peoples Outside the System

The powerful assume that peoples are herded like sheep into the pen, that they ultimately do not decide, and that their fate is tied to manufactured leaders who serve their masters in exchange for remaining in power.

This assumption is largely correct, and there are many Arab and non-Arab rulers who repress their peoples and squander wealth, yet enjoy the protection of the Western states, the United States especially. These rulers know America is capable of bringing in others in their place if they decide to side with their peoples.

Despite the strength of this assumption, it is not absolutely true, and the greatest proof of this is that the Tunisian people did not care about the will of the so-called international community, and its will rose above the will of the United States and Israel.

Organizations Outside the System

There are a number of organizations working outside the system, spread across many parts of the world, but the most prominent and influential are Hezbollah, Hamas, the Taliban, al-Qaeda, and the Iraqi resistance.

These are organizations that do not want to work from within the system, which they consider corrupt, despotic, and unjust, and which must be confronted. They are Islamic organizations, not unified, and perhaps sometimes even at odds with one another, but rejected by the international community, according to the structure above.

Conclusion

The international community is nothing but an expression of an illusion manufactured for the peoples, creating an illusory impression that there are universal values resting on humanitarian principles and respect for human rights that must be honored.

The international community is those powers expressing private interests unrelated to humanity except to the degree that serves the powerful’s own interest, and if there are those, among those without decision-making power, who cling to this community, this falls under the weak deceiving himself, convincing himself that the mercy of the unjust will not be long absent.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “تونس وتعريف المجتمع الدولي” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.