|
Investigate the history of weapons inspections in Iraq
November 14, 2002
Web posted at: 2:37 AM EST (0737 GMT)
Overview: In New York, Iraq's ambassador to the United Nations, Mohammad Al-Douri, delivered a letter of acceptance to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, telling reporters that it said, "Iraq will not have any mass destruction weapons. So we are not worried about the inspectors when they will be back in the country. Iraq is clean."
1. Who is Mohammed Al-Douri? What message did he deliver in a letter to U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan? How do Iraqi officials feel about weapons inspectors entering their country? What do Iraqi officials say inspectors will find?
2. With whom did Mr. Annan meet after receiving the letter from Iraq? Remind students that following his meeting with President Bush, Annan said, "The issue is not acceptance, but performance on the ground." Ask students: What do you think Annan means? Why is the secretary general concerned about whether or not Iraq will allow weapons inspectors to do their job?
3. Inform students that the United Nations Special Commission, UNSCOM was originally formed to carry out weapons inspections in Iraq after the Gulf War. Direct students to the Web sites below and other multimedia resources to investigate previous weapons inspections in Iraq. Pose the following questions to guide the students' research:
•What is UNSCOM and when was it formed?
•When was the last time U.N. inspectors were in Iraq?
•Why did weapons inspectors withdraw from Iraq?
•How would you categorize the problems inspectors encountered in Iraq?
After students present their findings, point out that Mr. Bush recently stated that, "The U.S. will have a zero tolerance policy if inspectors are blocked in any way." Then ask: What do you think President Bush means by "zero tolerance"? Based on what you know about the history of weapons inspections in Iraq, do you agree that "zero tolerance" is an appropriate approach for Bush to take with regards to the forthcoming weapons inspections? State your rationale. If you do not agree, what approach do you think should be taken?
|