Analyze the language of diplomacy

Overview: The White House has completed its evaluation of Iraq's report on its weapons programs and plans to tell the U.N. Security Council that Iraq's declaration falls far short of a full and complete accounting, as required by the U.N. While government officials are not using the problems with the report as an immediate trigger for war, the Bush administration is making it clear that "delay and defiance will invite the severest of consequences."

SPECIAL REPORT •  War Tracker •  On the Scene Map •  Commanders: U.S. | Iraq •  Weapons: 3D Models •  Coalition casualties | POW/MIA •  Special Report RESOURCES • White House on Iraq: A Decade of Defiance and Deception  • CNN.com: Text of U.N. Resolution on Iraq  • CNN.com: White House: Saddam has missed 'last chance'

After students read "U.S. gives Iraq's weapons report an incomplete grade" present the following:

1. Why did Iraq deliver a declaration of its weapons to the United Nations? How did the White House react to Iraq's weapons declaration? What concerns do U.S. government officials have with the declaration? Now that the Iraqi weapons declaration has been analyzed, what is supposed to happen next?

2. Responding to the Iraqi declaration, White House press secretary Ari Fleischer stated, "The president is concerned about Iraq's failure to list information in this document. The president is concerned about omissions in this document, and the president is concerned with problems in this document." President George W. Bush declared, "Zero tolerance. About as plain as I can make it. We will not tolerate any deception, denial or deceit, period...should [Saddam Hussein] again deny that this arsenal exists, he will have entered his final stage with a lie. And deception this time will not be tolerated. Delay and defiance will invite the severest of consequences." How do you interpret the language and tone used by the White House in its public response to the Iraqi weapons declaration? How might this public reaction compare with U.S. government officials' private reaction? How do you think Iraq and the international community will interpret Mr. Fleischer and the president's words? How important do you think the specific words used by government officials are in the developing Iraq situation? Explain.

3. Explain to students that governments place a high level of importance on the language of international diplomacy. Also, inform them that, according to CNN, White House senior officials say there is no recommendation to the president that he use the term "material breach", which is the language in the U.N. resolution that is the trigger for possible "serious consequences," including military action at this time. Ask students: Why do you think the White House did not respond with a more immediate or severe threat? Encourage students to suggest other ways that the U.S. could have responded, and the potential international interpretations and consequences for each alternate response. Then, have students brainstorm possible reasons for the U.S. government's choice of words in its response at this time. With these possible reasons in mind, students should predict the course of action the White House and the U.N. will take in the weeks and months ahead, with regard to the Iraq situation.