Newspeak Dept.: 'Unilateral' clarified!

[alexpgp]

I guess it's official. On Sunday, NPR regular Mara Liasson and NPR commentator Juan Williams set Fox News Sunday host Brit Hume - and the rest of us - straight on what it means to act "in a unilateral fashion" (at least, if you're the United States).

As Liasson went on and on about how important it was to have the international community "singing from the same page" on Iraq (shame on NPR, by the way, for using an expression with such blatantly pro-religious roots), Hume interrupted to say:

[...] people keep talking about going it alone. At last count, there were 34 nations prepared to help in this.

Unfazed, Liasson replied:

Hold on, Brit, I'm talking about without the United Nations Security Council [...]

A few minutes later, Williams indicated that he, too, did not share the common dictionary definition of 'unilateral' that the rest of us understand. He started talking about how the U.S. was isolating itself and how NATO (i.e., France, Germany, and Belgium) felt "that the United States is basically acting in a unilateral fashion."

Damn. Apparently, having 16 NATO members support us (of 19, and no credit will be given if you guess who the three non-supporters are) is also evidence of 'unilateralism.' Hume brought the point up, but Williams did not rise to the bait.

Peoples of the English-speaking world! Listen to me! We must put together a petition to add another meaning to 'unilateral' in the dictionary, posthaste:

uni-lat-er-al, adj., [...] 5 : done or undertaken without (a) the approval of the United Nations Security Council, or (b) the unanimous consent of all other countries [only when used in regard to the United States, as in: "The United States and 34 other countries unilaterally decided to..."]

Such a move would, doubtless, reduce the level of confusion and uncertainty in the world, don't you think so?

Cheers...

Comments

[alexpgp.livejournal.com]

In my view, I guess the reason the proposed military action against Iraq appears 'pre-emptive' is because, after 12 years of giving the Hussein government 17 'last chances' to disarm, any move to finally react to the situation might easily be viewed as an act (i.e., pre-emptive).

As I understand the situation, the inspectors have not said that there is no immediate threat; only that they have not been able to find anything, which is a problem in itself. Iraq's capability to produce WMD was well-established by 1998, when inspectors were shown the door, and has not been accounted for in the December 2002 report, as was required by Resolution 1441. (That resolution, by the way required complete cooperation lest "serious consequences" ensue. Currently, these might take the form of another resolution demanding Iraqi disarmament, unless I miss my guess).

I agree that starting a global conflict is a scary proposition. Yet so, in my opinion, is the appeasement of a megalomaniacal dictator who has a history of aggression against opponents he considers weak.

Cheers...

Cheers...