Ja: Making sense while toeing the liberal line

A major incident in a "neutral" country would, of course, alter this calculus. Until then, many European countries are trying to find a way to combat terrorism which does not entail backing US policy in the Middle East. Either way, the US administration is facing a difficult time, as the diplomatic cost of its recent unilateralism comes home to haunt it.

Almost as serious as the loss of some 200 lives in the train attack is the political influence on the elections which took place three days afterwards. This must be seen as a twisted victory for Islamic terrorism which has succeeded in using violence to change policy and the course of events in a major European country.

Jamaica cannot remain aloof to these events. Although there are, in our view, good reasons to oppose certain clauses in the proposed anti-terrorism legislation, we cannot afford to become complacent in playing our part in the war on terrorism. Nor should we allow any increase in anti-American sentiment by much of the population to blind us to the realities involved and our own vulnerabilities.

How is it that the writer of this peace can describe U.S. policy on terror as unilateralist when he's said this -- "For now, the most likely candidates are other countries which have supported the US in Iraq" -- a couple of paragraphs earlier? If other countries support the U.S., is the U.S. still acting unilaterally? Really, what does "uni-" mean?