VCE Stuff > VCE Global Politics
Structuring essay tips
dbraid:
--- Quote from: Yi on November 16, 2011, 09:17:57 pm ---OK that second essay was 1,210. Are you really going to be able to write that much content (not to mention evidence!) in that space of time? Cos if so, I am beyond farked.
--- End quote ---
I wrote this in about 70 minutes, which is too long to spend on it in the exam. I'm trying to limit myself to 45 minutes in the exam, so we'll see how that goes. And relax, my 45 minute timed pieces are a lot shorter than that as well, so you should be right.
chrisjb:
--- Quote from: dbraid on November 16, 2011, 09:37:37 pm ---
--- Quote from: Yi on November 16, 2011, 09:17:57 pm ---OK that second essay was 1,210. Are you really going to be able to write that much content (not to mention evidence!) in that space of time? Cos if so, I am beyond farked.
--- End quote ---
I wrote this in about 70 minutes, which is too long to spend on it in the exam. I'm trying to limit myself to 45 minutes in the exam, so we'll see how that goes. And relax, my 45 minute timed pieces are a lot shorter than that as well, so you should be right.
--- End quote ---
I'm aiming for about 1,000 words for the essay question. I figure that I'll get a boost of adrenaline knowing that it's the last 55 minutes of my schooling life and write a little bit faster :P
Peter123742:
--- Quote from: chrisjb on November 16, 2011, 08:11:57 pm ---
--- Quote from: Peter123742 on November 16, 2011, 05:42:25 pm ---PS did you like the essay?
--- End quote ---
Your essay was good man, you certainly know a lot of facts. But I don't agree with your view that PRC 'flexing their muscles', so to speak, has been as successful at avoiding a degraded international standing.
--- Quote ---It has also demonstrated to the world that China’s military capabilities put it on the cusp of superpower status evidently enhancing its international clout, without threatening its international standings.
--- End quote ---
I think that US offshore balancing and (without wanting to use the term containment) attempts to re-impose a regional influence are significant examples of how PRC sabre rattling has resulted in significant degradation of international standing. So has the view of most ASEAN nations over the heavy handed handling (hey! alliteration!) of the Spratly Islands dispute.
--- End quote ---
Very good point on the offshore balancing. Usually, I'll discuss how it has created somewhat of an arms race, with India purchasing three aircraft carriers to strengthen its geopolitical standing (as well as the obvious competition with Pakistan) and more recently with the US moving into Australia. It could be argued that a lot of states are trying to counter China's growing strength and its creating unease within the region. Regardless, I do think it enhances their diplomatic standing, to an extent and affects international standing less than more direct forms.
Peter123742:
With the relationship dot point, its always good to bring in AFP knowledge. Think about what occurred in The Solomon's - here we have a situation where Australia, and NZ have to clean up China's mess. Moreover, their 'checkbook diplomacy' - undermines the liberal democratic values which the US and Australia are so adamant about following. Then you have Japan and South Korea who have frequent disputes on the borders of the ocean, so here we have China exercising its power, but the competing interest of the states involved causes a natural clash. US then cashes in, calls up Australia tells us he will station an additional 2,500 troops by 2016, along with aircrafts etc, designed to counterbalance and preserve Mari time security.
Then we have their use of military power, as well put by the gentlemen who responded to my post, which angers the world creates almost a cold war style military build up, pop out the India example etc etc.
Then Aid for Oil, draws condemnation from America, and the entire world for that matter, why? because they are funding the Junta who have killed 400,000 people - hence they are becoming dependent of the IMF and other multilateral bodies which supposedly promote 'good governance'.
Then the 1996 Taiwanese missile crisis - US directly intervenes, but it has also set an international precedent, the US sells Taiwan arms yearly.
Then the positives, and yes, there are some :P
China contributes 70% of North Korea's aid, is the largest foreign direct investor running a monopsony. Hence, they get NK to the negotiating table. This being said, diplomatic cables from Wikileaks suggest other wise blah blah blah, regardless this heightens China's diplomatic standing
Hope this helps. Best of luck all!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version