PhotoDude.com

Fri. Feb 07, 2003

Please, Define Unilateralism

Please, Define Unilateralism – Matt Welch asks, “I wonder how many times in the 1980s, and also the 1960s, the United Nations and NATO were declared ’dead,’ and France was declared ’not an ally’? My eyes have long since glazed over at the rhetorical overreach-slash-wishful thinking of the multilateralism-bashers.”

Multilateralism-bashing? When did the sky become green? When did unilateralism come to mean, “the US and every nation that agrees with it,” and multilateralism come to mean “those who oppose the US”?

How many nations must sign on before the word unilateralism stops being misused? More than 18? That’s the number of European nations supporting our efforts: “White House aide Pete Wehner, in an email: ’Last week a letter of support for the United States’ position was signed by the prime ministers of Spain, Portugal, Italy, the U.K., Hungary, Poland, and Denmark, along with the President of the Czech Republic. And just yesterday another significant statement was signed by the foreign ministers of Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Lavia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia—countries, it is worth noting, that have had recent experiences living under tyranny. ... By my count that now makes 18—18—European nations that support the U.S. position on Iraq. It raises a couple of questions: precisely how many countries must express their support of our position before the term ’unilateral’ is retired? And just which countries are closer to holding a unilateralist position—the United States, or a few of its vocal critics?’”

I’d love to see a tally (thought this subjective map comes close). So far as I know, there are 18 European nations on one side, with France, Germany, Belgium, Greece, Norway, and Finland opposed. And that’s just Europe. So when someone says the US is acting unilaterally, that person is either making a sloppy usage of that word as it is defined, or they are deliberately trying to color the facts.

The US negotiated a unanimous resolution in the UN Security Council, and is going back for a second. Why? We could have tipped over Iraq by ourselves months ago, if we really wanted to act unilaterally. It’s too bad that facts, numbers, and accurate definitions of loaded words don’t enter into this discussion very often.