Unilateral refers to action. If the UN Security Council voted to invade Turkey next week, in the absence of any actionable cause, then the action of the UN would be unilateral. The policy of the United States is, today, officially unilateral. We have decided that we can attack anybody at anytime, and we can do it without an actionable cause -- unilaterally. If we recruit partners in such an action, the action is still exactly the same -- unilateral. Having partners might make it seem more legitimate to some people, but it changes nothing. Murder and lynching, for example, differ in the number of people involved, but the outcome and character of the act is the same.
Self-defense, on the other hand, is NEVER unilateral. Any country has the right to defend itself, but no country has the right to unilaterally invade and occupy another country -- not even a superpower. BTW, the excerpt you posted does not dispute this -- it simply states that US unilateralism can be made to seem more palatable if it is given a multilateral face. Multilateral in this context refers to the number of people "on our side", but there is still no "other side" (an actionable cause, or reciprocity) and the action is still unilateral. |
