The United States V. the United Nations

World Geography The United States v. the United Nations: Examining the Bush Doctrine

After losing the first Persian Gulf War (Operation Desert Storm), the United Nations forced Iraq to disarm. U.N. Weapons Inspectors oversaw the destruction of Iraq’s arsenal of WMDs. Iraq also had to agree to allow weapons inspectors to periodically monitor the country to ensure that Iraq did not attempt to “re-arm” itself with WMDs. In early 2000, the actions of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein began to raise suspicions that he was once again producing WMDs. After being inaugurated in January 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush began pressuring the United Nations to increase its efforts to search Iraq. Bush demanded that Iraq allow the U.N. weapons inspectors “unfettered access” to search the country. Throughout 2001 and 2002 the United Nations tried to negotiate a resolution with Iraq. The United States believed that the time for peaceful resolutions had passed. They pressed the UN to threaten Iraq with military action if they did not agree to allow weapons inspectors to do their work.

In late 2002, Iraq agreed to allow weapons inspectors to begin searching their country once again. Over the course of a couple months, the U.N. inspectors did not find any WMDs or any evidence to suggest that Iraq was attempting to produce WMDs. The lead inspector, Hans Blix, reported back to the U.N. that Iraq was cooperating with the inspection process and he believed that the inspectors would be able to confirm that Iraq was “WMD-free” within a matter of months. However, Blix also told the UN that Iraq had to prove that it had destroyed a supply of anthrax.

A Change in Policy…

Despite Blix’s report, the United States believed that Iraq was hiding its WMDs. In September 2002, U.S. president George Bush issued the Bush Doctrine. The Bush Doctrine outlined the United States new perspective on foreign policy. Bush believed that the US needed to take a new approach in defending itself after the September 11th attacks. Below is an excerpt from the Bush Doctrine:

The security environment confronting the United States today is radically different from what we have faced before. Yet the first duty of the United States Government remains what it always has been: to protect the American people and American interests. It is an enduring American principle that this duty obligates the government to anticipate and counter threats, using all elements of national power, before the threats can do grave damage. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction – and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy’s attack. There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense. The United States will not resort to force in all cases to preempt emerging threats. Our preference is that nonmilitary actions succeed. And no country should ever use preemption as a pretext for aggression. The Bush Doctrine was a departure from previous U.S. foreign policy. If you examine America’s military history, you’d see that the U.S. used its military to aid allies that had been attacked (i.e. The U.S. came to the aid of Kuwait in 1990) or after being directly attacked themselves (i.e. the U.S. entered World War II only after a U.S. Naval Base, Pearl Harbor, had been attacked by the Japanese). The Bush Doctrine informed the world that the U.S. was willing and ready to use military force against any nation (or terrorist organization) that it perceived to be a threat to the country’s national security. A Split from the United Nations…

In January 2003, Hans Blix went before the United Nations Security Council. This time he reported that, once again, Iraq was being uncooperative with his weapons inspectors. The next month Colin Powell, the U.S. Secretary of State, went before the United Nations and remarked that he believed Iraq was using mobile labs, hidden in trucks, to transport its weapons away from areas that were being inspected by the United Nations. He also believed that Iraq had acquired conventional missiles which were aimed at the Colin Powell speaks before the UN (2003) United States. Powell urged the United Nations to given Iraq a deadline for cooperation or to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

Given all of the information presented by the UN weapons inspectors and the United States, the U.N. Security Council did not believe they had adequate evidence to justify an invasion of Iraq. They wanted to continue to negotiate with Iraq to allow weapons inspectors to conduct a more thorough investigation of the country. France, Germany, Russia & Canada were all very opposed to the use of force. They believed an invasion of Iraq, without sufficient evidence would damage the reputation of the UN and would also be unfair to the people of Iraq. Diagrams of mobile labs that US suspected were used to hide WMDs In the meantime the United States began forming a coalition of nations who agreed that an invasion was necessary. Great Britain and a handful of other nations supported the United States and promised to lend military support. President Bush informed the United Nations that the US and its coalition would be giving Hussein a deadline to leave the country. If that deadline was not met, the U.S. would lead an invasion of Iraq. This invasion began on March 20, 2003 and it became known as Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Name: World Geography Date: Core: Examining the Bush Doctrine: Reflection Questions Directions: Use the United Nations v. the United Nations: Examining the Bush Doctrine handout to answer the following questions.

1. After losing the Persian Gulf War in 1991, Iraq was forced to disarm. What does the word disarm mean? ______2. Why did the President George W. Bush and the United Nations become suspicious that Iraq had begun rearming itself with weapons of mass destruction? ______

3. Which of the following best defines the “Bush Doctrine”? a. It was the United States’ new foreign policy that stated that we would never “throw the first punch”. It stated that the U.S. would only use force against another nation if they used force against us first. b. It was the United States’ new foreign policy which stated that we would end the “Oil for Food” program that began in 1995. c. It was the United States’ new foreign policy which stated that we would no longer buy oil from Iraq and we did not want other countries to buy oil from Iraq either. d. It was the United States’ new foreign policy which stated that if we thought we might be attacked by another country, then we had the right to attack them first.

4. Why did the United States decide it would be necessary to invade Iraq in March of 2003? ______

Critical Thinking…. 5. Identify 2 ways in which the Bush Doctrine could both help and harm the United States.

Ways the Bush Doctrine Could Help the US Ways the Bush Doctrine Might harm the US Name: World Geography Date: Core:

Mental Warm-Up: Defining Self Defense…

Directions: Answer each of these questions to the best of your ability. They are designed to help you participate in today’s discussion and better understand today’s reading.

1. Jimmy and Bob are on the same baseball team. Jimmy has been verbally teasing Bob. He has been telling everyone at school that Bob is the worst player on the team. Bob hears about this and punches Jimmy in the face.

I ______(strongly agree, kind of agree, disagree, strongly disagree) with Bob’s actions because: ______

2. John purposefully pushes Joe in the hallway and knocks Joe’s books out of his hands. Joe turns around and punches John in the face.

I ______(strongly agree, kind of agree, disagree, strongly disagree) with Joe’s actions because: ______

3. Beth starts punching and kicking Ellen. Ellen yells at Beth to stop, but she will not. Beth continues punching and kicking her and Ellen decides to fight back. Ellen punches Beth in the face.

I ______(strongly agree, kind of agree, disagree, strongly disagree) with Ellen’s actions because:______4. Kyle hears a rumor that Sean wants to beat him up after practice. Kyle also heard that Sean was going to bring a weapon that he had hidden out behind the fields. Kyle tells his coach, but the coach says he needs to make sure that the rumor is true. The coach searched the field but cannot find any weapon. Kyle thinks that Sean hid the weapon somewhere that the coach didn’t look. He decides to attack Sean first. During a water break, he walks up to Sean and punches him in the face.

I ______(strongly agree, kind of agree, disagree, strongly disagree) with Kyle’s actions because: ______

Quick Follow-Up to Number 4….

6. Think about how others might view Kyle if the rumor he hard about Sean was wrong…How might his actions affect his reputation? ______7. What might have happened to Kyle if he waited until after practice instead of acting first? What could have been the consequences of waiting, instead of acting? ______