Global Politics 2014

[AmericanBeauty]

I'm thinking something like "military power is more effective than economic power" discuss or something got to do with the effectiveness of power in pursuit of national interests.

That would actually be a really good question and would fuck so many people up, but no other powers (except diplomatic) would work for a 20 marker. Military power you can talk about like militarisation, strategic placement of armaments, troop deployments and economic power would be like trade, fdi, then china you could do like three direct links policy. That would actually be such a good question and everyone would get stumped because most people wouldn't realise the links between foreign policy instruments. Good thinking Reus!!

[AmericanBeauty]

would it ever be as specific as to discuss the effectiveness of 2 of its national interests or uses of power... or more on general terms as to the effectiveness of its power or national interests?

In some company practice exam there was one that said 'to what extent has the state in asia-pacific achieved their national interests and then it said you had to talk about at least two. Effectiveness is pretty much an evaluation, you just have to talk about successes and failures.

With powers, I really don't see it happening unless they are like 'analyse the use of diplomatic, cultural, economic and military power by a state in the asia pacific' which just seems like four 5 mark questions into one.

[christianb]

That would actually be a really good question and would fuck so many people up, but no other powers (except diplomatic) would work for a 20 marker. Military power you can talk about like militarisation, strategic placement of armaments, troop deployments and economic power would be like trade, fdi, then china you could do like three direct links policy. That would actually be such a good question and everyone would get stumped because most people wouldn't realise the links between foreign policy instruments. Good thinking Reus!!

for that question i would say that military and economic power are equally important, though there still needs to be an equal use of soft power
therefore i would do:
P1- effectiveness of military power
P2- effectiveness of economic power
P3- effectiveness of diplomatic power
What do you think??

[AmericanBeauty]

for that question i would say that military and economic power are equally important, though there still needs to be an equal use of soft power
therefore i would do:
P1- effectiveness of military power
P2- effectiveness of economic power
P3- effectiveness of diplomatic power
What do you think??

With the question Reus posed, no you don't bring in diplomatic power nor any other soft power. I was just saying that diplomatic power was the only other power that could be used for a big mark essay kind of question.

I'd argue economic power is more important than military power in achieving my states national interests (China) typically because economic power is a prerequisite for military power, and China uses economic power for its 5 national interests compared to military power. This would differ on a state to state basis but I'd assume most states would have economic power > military power in the pursuit of national interests.

I'd say what economic power is, how china uses its economic power. Then I'd get specific saying the effectiveness of probably two parts of its foreign policy instruments like aid and foreign direct investment. Honestly because I'm favouring it I'd probably be doing 8 effective stats and 3 (just to be safe) ineffective stats for the two together so 11 in total across aid/investment. I usually write for marks, rather than writing an answer judged on quality. You have to choose your own style but I find mine is a lot better.

Similarly, I'd talk military power then get into things like militarisation and strategic placement of armaments. Would do probably 5 stats that make it effective in achieving national interests, and 5 (or more if i could) stats that make china's use of military power limited in achieving national interests.
i.e. Two of China's national interests is to improve the perception of china's regional role and Peaceful rise. the south china sea incident with China storming the sea with naval presence utilises military power, but negates these national interest, deeming military power as ineffective in achieving the national interests.

For the sake of it I'll talk about diplomatic as well. This is where for China I would say whether or not things like chequebook diplomacy, use of veto in UN, public denouncements and/or panda diplomacy is good or not in achieving national interests.
i.e. China's use of chequebook diplomacy enables the recognition of state sovereignty of China over Taiwan by paying states to recognise them and stop them recognising (agnosia) Taiwan, which helps them in achieving the national interests of peaceful rise, but also negates the perception of chinas regional role.

so yeah. there you go.

[christianb]

thankyou..that was a big help 

[christianb]

sorry one last question...can you please help me answer this question in a paragraph or a couple of sentences please, just having trouble with it:
Describe Chinas ineffective use of political power in achieving its national interests

[AmericanBeauty]

sorry one last question...can you please help me answer this question in a paragraph or a couple of sentences please, just having trouble with it:
Describe Chinas ineffective use of political power in achieving its national interests

I don't think you can be asked that? I'm pretty sure you can only be asked to evaluate the effectiveness of it, or analyse the user of power but not specifically 'ineffective.' But anyway sorry I've only got notes on effectiveness and not the cons.

[Reus]

Yep @AmericanBeauty pretty much summed it up.

[christianb]

if asked to define ethics and justice and provide an example, what could be an example for each that could be used please?

[AmericanBeauty]

if asked to define ethics and justice and provide an example, what could be an example for each that could be used please?

Justice could be ICC and thomas lubango dylio.
Ethics could be the UN addressing issues of global importance such as initiating peacekeeping missions to stop ethnic cleansing in south sudan. (not 100% sure on this one haven't really done much study yet).

[christianb]

thankyou!   any don't worry i haven't started to study as much for this either.

[christianb]

could you please outline the varying interpretations of chinas national interest please

[achre]

could you please outline the varying interpretations of chinas national interest please

At a guess of what this question is asking, I think it's looking for how China's national interest (and the pursuit of its national interest) could be characterised as either idealist or pragmatic. So you'd look to your examples of chequebook diplomacy and provision of aid in advancing an idealist interpretation of China's national interest (this might tie into its peaceful rise, or the one element of national interest common to all states: image), and its exercising military power to suppress rioters in separatist regions as a more pragmatic interpretation of its national interest (here, territorial integrity). I'm sure you have loads more examples off the top of your head than I do, but that's how I would approach that question. It's worded funnily, for a second you think they're asking you to bring in individual interpretations from commentators and stuff 

gosh, isn't glopol revision exciting?

[Reus]

Are you both doing China for powers in the Asian Pacific?  I've focused on Australia tbh...

Also any other predictions for SA questions or essay prompts? 

[Vermilliona]

could you please outline the varying interpretations of chinas national interest please

The way most school teach it/the way that some examiners have said to approach it is similar to what achre said re: individual commentators, except it's focusing not on individuals, but rather groups. You're looking at how different groups within Chinese society interpret the national interests in a different way from how the Chinese Communist Party interprets them, and sometimes you also give reasons as to why this interpretation is different. So for territorial integrity, for example, there's the official 'One China', the Chinese people are one and united, our sovereignty is inviolable etc, and then there's the way, say, an East Turkmenistan Independence Movement member sees it, that religiously and culturally separate ethnic groups such as the Uighurs deserve their own state and don't benefit from being part of China. For the other national interests what I focus on is:

Economic development: CCP - growth most important; Critics: environmental + welfare considerations important

Harmonious society: CCP - we are just nice people trying to make you all happy, why won't you be happy; Critics: plz cut the crap you are just using this as an excuse to repress us

Peaceful rise: CCP: just trying to help the world be a better place while rising in power, yakno; Critics: it's all a cover for an attempt at a Chinese hegemony!!! Confucius institutes suppress academic freedom!!

Perceptions of regional role: pretty much the same as peaceful rise, but on a regional level and with the added element of "you are supporting dictatorships and aiding exploitation and human rights abuses in other states under the cover of it being for the development of those states!!" from the critic.

In your answers, the critics should be specific groups but not like super-specific, just 'dissidents who criticise the lack of freedom' for harmonious society, worker welfare groups for eco devel. etc.

Also good to have a look at how these differing interpretations inhibit China's ability to effectively pursue its national interests, that would be a good thing to integrate in a 'interps of nat interest' essay or a an 'achievement of nat interest' essay. Eg the different interpretations of territorial integrity give rise to terrorism, use of violence to supress riots, difficulty exercising effective control over those areas, so they inhibit the pursuit of territorial integrity and harmonious society

Hope this helps, let me know if anything is unclear