Who appoints the 'International Community?'
There was a time when newspapers used to have the figure of a man
wearing a hat on his head which resembled the earth's globe and was
meant to signify World Opinion. This figure has now disappeared and
newspapers refer instead to an 'international community.'
United Nations has 193 member countries
Unlike the earlier figure which readily made you think of world
opinion, the phrase which has replaced it restricts itself to an
Who appointed this body is not clear; if it was by democratic will,
as usually happens in democracies, then, the United Nations would have
been the appropriate body to do it. According to an American source -
"It has been claimed that the superpower nations... use the term to
describe organisations in which they play a predominant role, regardless
of the opinion of other nations."
From which we may conclude that this 'international community' is an
exclusive body which has set itself apart quite arbitrarily from the
rest of humanity in passing judgements on the rest of us.
Let us see whether we may, at the least, award any character
certificates to the members of this self-appointed community. In the
first place this body is represented by countries which are
And nearly all of them have exercised colonial power in one way or
another. The countries they colonised got their liberation only recently
but they have been treated since then as poor relations. Hence they have
been left out of this self-elected body called the international
A good example of the way they act is the case of Iran. Some leaders
of Western countries have been quoting the 'international community' on
what Iran is doing about its own nuclear programme.
They say, "Iran is defying the will of the international community by
continuing uranium enrichment." How dare, this poor relation, do this to
the international community! If you take the United Nations which
represents 193 countries, which is nearly the whole world, a 122 of this
total have said that they see nothing wrong with what Iran is doing.
While well over 60 per cent of the world body has endorsed Iran's
action, we can see where the 'international community' stands when it
comes to a count in the democratic vote. We were given to think once,
that only the Soviet Union that was, could do this and get away with it.
What all this shows is that members of this 'international community'
who were once ruling over 'subject races' have not forgotten their old
iron-fisted ways. Behind this facade of acting as a brains trust for the
rest of the world, the motive is clear, to guide and lead us to eat out
of their hands as we once did when we were categorised as 'subject
' That past may be recalled for just a moment. Let's get back to the
practical minded Robert Knox and hear what he said about our country in
his own style of speech and spellings.
'Thus plentifully has Nature stored this Island that they neither
need nor have many manual operations, except making tools to till the
ground to sow Cotton for Clothing and for rice; for they reach not for
more than food and raiment and drink the water of the brooks.
Thus with these natural helps they live with little labour; having
less riches and Care than we in England, but are healthful, Cheerful and
Careless and so live with their wives and children well worned out with
'Thus they eat to live (not for wantonness) and live to eat, for they
use not sports for recreations when grown up, but their Chief diversion
is to sit and talk with their friends and neighbours.
'This kind of life have I had many years experience of having but
little and wanting less - I mean such things as are absolutely necessary
for man's subsistence - and so could very well have Continued myself to
That was the kind of life that we had before one of the current
members of our 'international community' took over our land and instead
of letting this happy state of affairs continue substituted a way of
life where we live only to eat in what is called the consumer society.
That was not all the damage it did. Our national treasures were
removed to stuff their museums with, not to educate their people on the
different ways of living, but how 'backward and strange' their subject
races were. Somewhere around the Seventies India realised the danger to
her national treasures and passed an Act preventing their removal.
That, however, was like locking the stable door after the horse had
bolted. Nonetheless the list of items that may not be removed from India
The banned items were jewellery, furniture, arms and armour, metals,
coins, ivory, wood, paper, palm leaves, metals, terracotta, stone,
manuscripts in all media, paintings and sculpture. The Koh-i-Noor,
India's prized diamond, removed to Britain as booty still remains there
despite India's plea to return it.
This report roused the interest of a columnist on the Daily News at
that time who made the following comment, so very revealing in many ways
of how even the House of Lords in its own supercilious way react to the
ways of their subject races:
The columnist says that "Collectors of these items are now being
looked upon as thieves, which may not be a bad thing, because there is
something essentially barbarous in the removal of objects from people
who look upon them as being sacred if not their soul.
The British, I am sorry to note, have a particularly distasteful
record in this field, their empire being larger and wider than anything
else before. Even the heirs of the empire builders in Britain today,
should be aghast at the horrors perpetrated by their civilised
"Theft by them was one thing, but the destruction of things of beauty
like the Porcelain Pagoda in Nanking and the burning down of the Summer
Palace in Peking under Lord Elgin's personal direction must be regarded
as the high water mark of savagery.
"The British House of Lords sometime ago, echoed with peals of
laughter or should I say hoots of delight or was it savage glee, when
the question of returning the Regalia of the Ashanti in Ghana was
Lord Goronway-Roberts replying to the question raised said how the
British Government had absolutely nothing to do with the objects of the
British Museum or at the Wallace Collection, neither of which, he was
quick to point out, may legally dispose of these exhibits.
But why not a law to release these objects? inquired Lord Montagu, to
which Lord Goronway-Roberts replied that he could not promise such a
thing nor could he advise that they should do so.
"Perhaps the consequences of such a law were to be feared because, as
Lady Lee pointed out, 'When it comes to returning booty from this
country we should tread warily because it may turn into a strip tease.'
At which point the report goes the Lords guffawed heartily. For Lord
Goronway-Roberts it must be said that he put on a brave stand, as brave
as the British soldiers who were killed by the King of Ashanti 'in
horrible conditions in that part of the world.' And on whose behalf the
Ashanti Regalia was taken as part of an 'indemnity' agreed to by the
defeated king so that the dependants of those killed could be
Lord Goronway-Roberts was not actually putting his handkerchief to
his streaming eyes when he said that he sympathised with the motivation
of the question that had been raised, but if it was to promote good
Commonwealth relations returning the regalia was not the best way to do
It was at this point that the laughter rose once more when someone
asked whether it was possible to keep the booty in Britain and return
the soul of the Ashanti people (which reposed in the footstool of the
regalia) to Ghana."
And to end this note, here's a testimonial from a respected European
philosopher of recent times, Frithjof Schuon, on the doings of the kind
of people now sitting in judgment in the 'international; community.'
"Apologists for the White invasion and its consequences" says Schuon,
"are only too ready to argue that all people in all ages have committed
acts of violence; violence, yes; but not necessarily acts of baseness,
perpetrated, what is more in the name of liberty, equality, fraternity,
civilisation, progress and the 'rights of man.' The conscious,
calculated, methodical, official and by no means anonymous destruction
of the Red race, its traditions and culture, in North America and partly
also in South America, far from having been an unavoidable process - and
as such, possibly excusable in the name of natural laws, provided one
does not oneself claim to have outgrown these laws thanks to
'civilisation' - this destruction it must be said, certainly remains one
of the greatest crimes and most noted vandalisms of all human history."
Such an observation makes me wonder, who should be really sitting in
international judgments and over whom?