Caroline Glick's latest article is headlined "Unmasking the international community". Whether you agree with the specific points made in it is a separate matter but the general thesis is abslutely sacrosant: the "international community" is at best an abstraction.
What post-modern liberals and their media hacks have for the past 20 years represented as the "international community" is nothing more then a collection of individual states with it's interests that sometimes converge, sometimes do not. And when enough of them find themselves on one side(or are coerced or bribed to pick one) one gets the illusion one country defying a supposedly reasonable world with it's stubborn irrationality.
It's a shame, though, that this is a fallacious asrgument. The truth is not a matter of numbers or masses behind it. Otherwise, we'll need to re-write history books in order to set the record straight because it is true that Socrates was corrupting the youth of Athens, that Copernicus was a crackpot and 80 million Germans could not have possibly been wrong about Hitler.
Part of the problem of defending Serbia during the 1990-ties was the unwillingness of even those in official capacity to tackle this issue as well as, propably unconsciously, accepting the terminology which included the phrase "international community". I believe it was Orwell who explained the importance of controlling the language and that once you begin speaking like the enemy you implicitly admit that his cause, and not yours, is just. Thus, with seemingly innocent slips of tongue we were undermining our position.
It is time someone in Serbia, even if belatedly, exposes what really stands behind this abstract, ambiguous term "international community" as well as the real meaning of other post-modern terms.