Powell States To The United Nations example essay topic

After the recent terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the United States government has been in a difficult position of relaying information to the United States citizens to ensure their security and attempting to maintain in good relationships with other nations. In the months preceding Colin Powell's February 5, 2003 address to the United Nations the communications between the United States, its citizens, and other nations had become even more essential due to the ongoing war on terrorism and the threat of war in Iraq became increasingly probable. Although war was a possible solution to the problem with Iraq (What problem? State the problem), it was not a unanimously agreed upon position either in or outside of the United States.

In fact, there was very strong opposition to the proposition among both the citizens and the officials of both the U.S. and other countries. As Colin Powell, a well-respected former soldier and general of the U.S. army and the current Secretary of State, spoke to the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003, he could not forget the emotion that was felt on that dreadful day in September, nor could he forget that the United States was not alone in their desire to disarm Iraq; rather, it was a situation that involved all the countries of the United Nations although no other country was so fiercely impacted as the United States by the al-Qaida terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center. In order to make an effective case for war against Iraq, Powell uses the structure of his speech to provide facts and to present a line of reasoning that the council and citizens can follow while also appealing to the emotional level of his audiences. The language he chose to frame this speech also had considerable impact on the message he wanted to convey to the United Nations.

By using various persuasive speech techniques, Powell hoped to achieve multiple goals: (1) informing both the United Nations and U.S. citizens about the history of relationships with Iraq, (2) remind the audiences of the present situation which affects each country individually and collectively (3) and finally to persuade the U.N. to change their attitude toward war and effectively take action against Iraq. (Deleted first part) Powell initially sets the stage for the future argument (deleted) by indicating the basis for his argument - Iraq's refusal to disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction ("WMD"). He claims, just three paragraphs into the speech, that the council had passed Resolution 1441 in order to disarm Iraq of WMD. Powell then continues this argument by bringing to the council's attention that "Iraq has already been found guilty of material breach of its obligations, stretching back over 16 previous resolutions and 12 years".

It is this information that continues to resonate as Powell then moves into Iraq's deceit of the United Nations and its weapons inspectors as Iraq claims to have no WMD, but have instead, hidden the WMD so carefully as to evade the finding of any evidence by UN weapons inspectors. Powell then plays an audio tape for the council that takes place between two senior officials from Iraq's Republican Guard. In this conversation the council hears one of the officials say " We evacuated everything" (Powell, p 3. ). Powell reasonably infers from this information that the officials meant the WMD were evacuated so that when the inspectors showed up, no WMD would be found. Again emphasizing his point of Iraq's refusal to comply and attempt to deceive, Powell mentions the 12,200-page deduction (?) (these were the documents that Iraq produced claiming they had no WMD, right?) that Iraq presented that was lacking in information and devoid of almost any new evidence.

It was by these actions / in actions that Iraq strategically planned to overwhelm the US and the inspectors with futile information about permitted weapons Iraq possessed so that the prohibited WMD would be ignored or overlooked. It was an attempt to give council "the false impression that the inspection process was working" (Powell, p 4). According to Powell, Resolution 1441 gave Iraq "one last chance-one last chance to come into compliance" (Powell, p 1), but Iraq has made "no effort-no effort to disarm as required by the international community". (Powell, p 2).

Notice here the paralleling of structure he uses as a symbolic tie between the UN and 1441 with Iraq's refusal to comply. The UN has given "one last chance-one last chance" and Iraq has made "no effort-no effort". The claims Powell makes all pertain to the United Nations council and the compliance attempts that Council has made to Iraq that continually have been disobeyed. This has not been one isolated incident but has been numerous incidents of Iraq intentionally hiding information from UN inspectors. By presenting this information to the United Nations and using repetition to emphasize his point that Iraq has and continues to deceive the U.N., Powell draws the attention of the United Nations council and seeks to evoke an emotional and physical involvement of the council in the situation at large.

By placing the burden of these events on the Council itself, he makes the situation a "shared diplomatic experience" (Strategic, p 90), and promotes further involvement in the issue. As he furthers his argument, Powell moves from a less serious and threatening subject of concealment of WMD into the reality of the feasible threat of biological, chemical, and nuclear warfare. By doing so, he maintains the idea that this threat is not limited to the United States; it has the potential to affect the entire world. Powell makes the claim that Saddam Hussein has used these WMD on another country and on his own people. He implies with this statement that Hussein is not just out to attack the United States, that he will attack other countries that limit him and his ruling efforts as well. By refusing to admit openly that he possesses these WMD, he continues to pose this massive and worldwide threat.

Powell's evidence and line of reasoning present this threat as his implicit claim for the reason that United Nations should involve itself in further tactics to disarm Hussein and his regime. This unstated claim is important in the furthering of Powell's message because by not directly stating what he believes, he allows the recipients of the message to develop a conclusion for themselves and create their own response (Human, p 31). The cognitive responses the message triggers also allow the audience to make interpretative transformations of their own from the arguments presented in the message (Human, 17). Yet, Powell has guided, with his facts and analysis, the reconstrctuion of the various messages in the minds of the audience and can therefore believe at this point in the argument, the same meaning and reasoning is now being shared and that the response the officials have reconstructed is similar to the one he has intended to evoke (Human, p 31).

Thus, a persuasive effect becomes more achievable (Human, p 17). In the final section of Powell's message, he focuses on a threat that is more unique to the United States at this point in history, terrorism. Although he does focus on the effect that terrorism has had on the United States, he also maintains a worldwide position on the threat to security as a result of the connection between Iraq and the al-Qaida network. He claims that Saddam's own intelligence service has been involved in dozens of attacks and assassinations throughout the 1990's on various countries and officials from other countries. It has not a single incident which has been targeted against the United States, he implies, but rather, a worldwide threat to safety and security of every nation. He relies on common knowledge to say that terrorist actions have been plotted against such countries as France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Russia.

Again, this mentioning of specific countries affected by terrorist activity is a further reminder of the worldwide threat Saddam and his regime along with the al-Qaida network impose upon the nations. Through the structure of his speech, Powell elicits numerous persuasive effects. He makes assert ations that have some relationship between them (?) that "satisfies the audience's readiness to receive them, relate them, and accept these claims (Strategic, p 7). His structure does not overwhelm the audience with information, but instead, each section of his speech progressively builds the argument to provide a deeper, more complex reasoning as to why Iraq poses a threat to all of the world. Powell also recognizes that his main audience, the Security Council, operates on a highly educated level with a tightly formed schemata about their values, about Iraq and about the present situation. Therefore, it is difficult to change their beliefs since they use central reasoning to evaluate the statements and claims made in the speech (Simons).

In order to penetrate the already existing schemata, Powell supports his claims with strong evidence and develops a line of reasoning that is logical. This is necessary for an audience with a high educational level because these individuals have a stronger desire than persons with a low-medium level of education to solve cognitive dissonance (Simons). These same individuals are also more willing to follow the path of logic and will believe, if reasoning permits, that a mutual danger does exist (strategic, p 97). Therefore, presenting strong evidence becomes crucial to the persuasive effect of the argument. Powell cites evidence from scientists, from intelligence sources, various countries, as well as people working within the Iraqi system. He uses visual evidence as well as auditory.

These sources of evidence, as well as the evidence itself, are an important underlying component for increasing the probability that immediate concurrent and long-term attitude change will occur (Human, p 230). With such various types of evidence, it is difficult for the UN officials to deny that this information is falsified or misrepresented. This long-term attitude change is essential in gaining support for the proposition because when the council makes their decision, they can not turn back and must therefore be fully committed to the decision and action that are choosing to engage in. Furthermore, the officials must be able to defend their position in the face of future communications and opposition.

While using evidence of phone conversations, pictures, and well-known facts for support, Powell also relies on past events to make a case for his present goal. Powell mentions that in the 1990's, Iraq was using intelligence capabilities to hide illicit activities and continues to actively do so even today. Later he mentions Iraq's 1995 admission to having vast quantities of biological weapons; this evidence took four years to surface. In addition, he cites Iraq's battlefield experience with chemical weapons in World War I and once mentions the Gulf War in regards to the Saddam's intentions to use missiles with chemical warheads to strike his neighbors and those beyond his boundaries. By using these past events to make a case for his present and future situations, he is providing an example that is more removed from emotion than any current incident would be. He implicitly claims with these references that "if these warnings [of these past events in relation to future events] apply, heed them" (strategic, p 90).

Furthermore, these references to the past allow Powell to shift the burden of the present situation to another time (strategic, p 90). By doing so, he allows the UN to see his ideas not as irrationally and emotionally motivated by the previous attacks on the United States, but as ideas based on the past circumstances that have threatened the world and its security as well as present conditions that continue to illicit the same effects as those in the past. In acknowledging past encounters with Iraq, Powell states to the United Nations: "How much longer are we willing to put up with Iraq's noncompliance before we, as a council, we as the United Nations, say: 'Enough. Enough' " (Powell, p 8). It is a situation that has been going on for years and Powell claims to the council that it has gone far enough and something should be done to regulate this behavior. While structure and evidence are important in constructing a persuasive speech for the audience, Powell also emphasizes the use of language to frame his position against Iraq and to invoke emotions in his audience.

Powell uses language such as "deeply troubling" (p), "disturbing" (p), and "cold-blooded" (p) to describe the patterns of behavior of Hussein and his regime. He continues to use strong words throughout the speech in phrases such as "not dealing with an innocent party" (p), chemical weapons are "equally chilling" (p), and " Intimidation, coercion, and annihilation [will be used] on all those who might stand in his way" (p). It is through this use of language that Powell represents his attitude toward Iraq. His selection of words provide an obvious representation of his position, yet these words also serve a secondary purpose... they deflect attention from the other, positive, view of Iraqi government and its officials (Simons).

By choosing the words he does, he makes a conscious decision of the attitude he wants to present to his audience. It is through words that attitude is best defined (strategic, p 61) and Powell takes advantage of this in his choice of words. While structure, evidence, and the selection of words are all important in establishing a strong foundation for his persuasive message, Powell furthers his attempts to persuade by triggering emotional responses through the use of fear and value appeals. Powell appeals to these two aspects because threats and values make issues a personal matter and even those who are disinterested can not afford to ignore the fact that they are supposed to be emotionally involved (strat, p 52).

Powell relies on this as he makes the claims that Iraq has admitted to more than 8,500 liters of anthrax which is inconsistent with UNSCOM's estimation of 25,000 liters. He goes on to put this in more relevant terms for his audience as he explains that it was less than a teaspoon of anthrax that shut down the US Senate in the fall of 2001 and forced several hundreds of people to undergo emergency medical treatment. The emotional appeal continues when he announces that Saddam's missiles far exceed the 150 km missile range set forth by the UN. Powell asks the council: "Who will these missiles target and affect?" (p) These facts and questions arouse the fear of the UN officials as it causes them to recognize the possibility of attack on their own country.

The threat no longer seems so distant after putting it into this perspective. In other words, this fear arousal causes one to feel more insecure and is therefore more likely to yield to persuasion (human, p 231). Powell also strategically uses these stronger fear appeals throughout the speech. By doing so, he reintroduces the audience to these high fear appeals which are more likely to produce lasting effects than moderate fear arousal (Strat, p 231). Powell seems to place some emphasis on these fear appeals throughout his speech which is an important strategy for persuasion. As stated in Strategic Persuasion: Facts don't penetrate bureaucracies or, for that matter, the minds of individuals, with the same effectiveness as do statements with some tone: summary judgments of those one respects, incriminating assertions of those one fears; warnings, threats or promises (166).

This emphasizes the importance of emotional, specifically fear, appeals in persuasive discourse. It is also effective because people will pay more attention to the negative information and weigh it more heavily than the positive information (Fiske, 1980 & Convert & Reeder, 1990). Fear appeals do just that... present the negative information. As a result of both the attention paid to negative information and the emotional attachment an individual feels, the concepts are more likely to continue to resonate within the person after the speech has ended than will the exact facts and statistics. Furthering his appeals to emotions, Powell also relies on value appeals that penetrate to the heart of United Nations policies and beliefs. The principal value Powell appeals to in his speech is the United Nations value of human rights.

He cites incidents where Saddam had 1,600 death row prisoners tested with chemical weapons to see how effective the results of them were. Furthermore, he mentions the assassination of Mr. Lawrence Foley who had gone to Jordan with the peaceful intention of assisting the people of Jordan. These two incidents, along with others, show what the UN would consider an "utter contempt" for human life (website). In concluding these statements, Powell puts in one last reminder of the value of the United Nations that Saddam continues to violate as Powell states: "Saddam Hussein's humanity, inhumanity has no limits" (15). Through these value appeals, Powell reminds the council of their commitment to human rights, a value that their council strongly identifies with, and which is incorporated into the individual self and into the group concept of self. Therefore, these values should remain strong, persistent, and consistent among the members.

By explicitly reminding the group of their values with these examples, Powell calls on the group individually and collectively to recall this value and implicitly asks the group to remain consistent in the reinforcement of this value. By Lindsay Potrafke.