Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Vitas who wrote (456419)	9/10/2003 8:16:52 PM
From: GST	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The usage of uni and multi lateral differ significantly. In foreign policy, prior to Bush, unilateral was most often used in reference to disarmament -- indeed, in many dictionaries unilateral disarmament is the phrase used to exemplify the use of the word. During the cold war, if the US disarmed, then it would be called a unilateral action. If both the US and the Soviets disarmed, then it would not be unilateral action, but nor would it be bilateral or multilateral -- it would be reciprocal or responsive (one party disarming in repsonse to the willingness of the other party to disarm). If both parties are prepared to disarm, by mutual action or mutual agreement, then the acts of disarmament are no longer unilateral. There are many actions characterized by behavior on TWO SIDES. Rape for example. If you rape a woman, the act is unilateral. If you call a friend and the two of you rape the woman, it is gang rape, and it is still not multilateral, as you would have it. No matter how many of your friends you invite to join in the rape, it is still rape. Rape is always, by definition, unilateral -- a one-sided action, without consent and without legitimacy. If on the other hand the woman invited you over to her house for sex, either alone or with your friends, then the act would no longer be unilateral -- it would be mutual, and it would also not be rape. As the article you pointed to discusses, the US sees itself in a unipolar world, able to act on its own without being challenged -- hegemony. Unilateral acts however stem not from acting alone, but rather from their one-sided character. The US can, in fact threaten unilateral action to force adversaries and allies to act as we want them to -- up to a point. But our ability to act without restraint, and to gain some allies or even the approval of the UN, does not change the nature of the act, any more than gang rape is different in nature from rape by one person. We had no actionable cause to invade Iraq. The invasion was unilateral. The UN had an actionable cause -- the terms of the cease fire in the wake of freeing Kuwait. An attack led by the UN would not be unilateral because it had cause, and not because of its multinational membership. If the UN had no cause and invaded, then the action of the UN would also be unilateral.