F a large part of a country's foreign policy is deciding how it will deal with other countries through trade, etc. T

True/False: If the statement is true, type in T. If it is False, type in F, then correct the statement.

1. Canada, being a democracy, uses a simple process of setting foreign policy goals. F

2. A large part of a country's foreign policy is deciding how it will deal with other countries through trade, etc. T

3. Individuals and groups in Canada have equal influence on determining foreign policy. T F

4. Having definite goals can make the development of an action plan easier. T

5. In the past few decades, government and diplomats have exerted less influence in international affairs. F T

6. All nations and states are equally concerned with the effects of globalization and are affected by it in some way. T F

7. There is a definite correlation between economic stability and peace; therefore many countries try to help poor countries. T

8. Everyone supports the idea of economic sanctions as a form of promoting peace. F

9. The most powerful branch of the UN is the General Assembly. T F

10. When the International Court of Justice makes decisions, all countries abide by them. F

Multiple Choice: Put the correct letter beside the number on your answer sheet.

11. Which important country has consistently refused to abide by decisions made in the World Court since 1986?

a. Britain
b. France
c. Iraq
d. U.S.

A

12. What is MOST true of the International Law of the Sea in regards to Canada?

a. Since Canada is a coastal country, it retains the right to control a certain amount of the surrounding waters
b. Canada was content to abide by the law because it gave it a lot of control over a large amount of ocean
c. The government does not want control over the entire continental shelf of the Grand Banks area
d. Many Newfoundlanders have become extremely rich from fishing in the waters

A

13. What is the MAIN reason that scientific activity has increased in the Arctic?

a. Countries want to increase the plant life and thus, the fish life in this area
b. Countries want to seek ways to stop the environmental pollution of the area
c. Countries want to prove that their continental shelves are geographically linked to the Arctic seabed
d. Countries want to prove that other countries' shelves are not geographically linked to the seabed

C

14. Which of the following would NOT be an example of tied aid?

a. Issuing credit on the understanding that the money will be used for a specific purpose
b. Shipping tractors to third world countries to aid in farming
c. Sending in Red Cross workers with vaccines for sick children
d. Giving the leader of a developing nation a cheque for $1 million

D

15. What is not a drawback to the removal of land mines?

a. while the mines are cheap to make, they are costly to remove
b. some countries still refuse to comply with the International Campaign to Ban Landmines
c. many armies and terrorists continue to plant them
d. the technology does not exist to effectively find and remove them

D

8/15 I could only give half marks for the correct False answers, as you were to re-write the statement correctly.

PAPER PLANNING

1. What is the main issue? Re-write the issue in your own words.

Based on peace keepings past sucesses and failures, should peace-keeping should be continued in the world?

2. What is your main position on this issue?

I think that peacekepping should be continued beacuse even though there have been failures, mainly beacuse they cannot use force, they are still helping though aid or some form. Many people think that the UN is doing nothing but standing around, but they are risking there lives to stand bewteen the aim of fire to try and stop violent uroptions peacefully. They do not always succeed, as many of the people on the opposing forces just see them as people comming in and just telling them to play nice. I agree that they should be contiuned beacuse they do donoate aid to those in need in the middle of conflicts like the rawandan genocide, Congo, give 3 example names , but I also think that they should be aloud to use force, on those who need to be used on. Many people believe that force should not be used beacuse it would end up being biased, I deffinitly agree with that but I think that they government should come up with a plan in these type of situations where the voice of the government, the people, and all countries have a say and come to an agreement which side is in the wrong and therefore, give peacekeepers to use force, but only if needed. Example, If they see a Tutsi going to kill a Hutu, they make take the force needed to stop the death. The UN works to keep the peace, even though it might be a failure, I think that the UN should work on ways to make them more successful, or a better plan to keep the peace. I believe that peace keeping should remain in our world beacuse even though they may not be able to stop everything bad in the world, they still help a little bit. That being a sucessfull mission or aid to countires in need. It would be stupid to get rid of something that helps, even if it may be in little ways.

-should be able to use force on the sides that need to sbe stoped

-They may not help alot, but they still help in aid.

3. Give three main arguments you will use to prove your position. AFter each argument, give at least one concrete example that will support the argument.

First argument -In the Rawanda conflict, the UN did not prevent a genocide, beacuse they are not permited to use force. Even though they were not permited to use force, they still did help. They provided aid to the injured Hutus and Tutsis, and gave medical help. If the UN was aloud to use force, they might have able to stop the genocide from occuring. In this situation, it was clear that the Hutu's were at fault. They were the ones who interigated the other side and everyone knew and could see that. In these type of situations when it is so clear that the oppsing force is at wrong, The UN should be permited to use force to stop them. The down sides and the upsides in this sistation if the UN was permited to use force, they would have been able to posibly prevent a genocide from occuring. The downside could have been if the UN was permited to use force against the enemy, some people could have seen it as biased and that posibly the UN just picked that side out of hatred or a reason that was not to benifit peacekeeping and stop a genocide.

example -Rawandan genocide

Second argumnet - Congo was unprepared for political freesom when independance was granteed in 1960. Congo's army then mutinied and the Belium forces then went in to try and restore order. When thw belgium forces failed, they were asked to withdraw and give the UN a try at it. Their mission was to restore law and order, protect lives and improve Congolese army by using force only when needed for self deffence. Over the next few years there was no government in the Congo and fighting had erupted between Tshombe's military force to try and resolve the chaos. UN forces were withdrawn but personel was left behind to give technical aid and traning. The UN was credited with giving stability to this region. The UN was sent it not being aloud to use force. Any disturbance has a chance it will listen to peace keepers and agree with what they are saying and stop fighting, but there are alot of hard headed people in the world who do not like to listen to authority and therefore, do not care what there words are. The UN was sent in to try and resoter law and order, protect lives and improve the Congolese army by using force only when needed for self deffence. The UN was pulled back beacuse they did not complete these missions. Well they would have been a little bit more successful if the government of other countries would have sat down, looked at the situation, analized it, and figure out which side could be used force upon. If the UN was permited this, they could have stoped the chaos. The UN may not have completed all these things, but one thing they did was gave forgein aid to those in need in this reign. The UN risked their lives to stay behind when pulled out, to stay and provide technical aid and traning. This was helpful to the Conganlese people, therefore, the UN did not just stand around. They helped people who needed help and if they were permited to use force against the right side, they could have been sucessful in their other tasks.

example -Congo

Third argument

The UN was sent in to aid the South Koreans when North Korea invaded the south. They were sucessful due to the Soviets boycott of the security council. They were boycotting as a protest against the UN’s refusal to allow Communist China into the UN. A seasaw battle resulted over the next three years with a result being the way it was before the conflict. North Korea remained communist above the 38th parallel with South Korea remaining democratic below it. After this war, the UN changed their mission to peacekeeping more then military intervention. The UN realized in these types of missions, that it is mirey imposible to tell which side of a country to be like and what not to be like. The battle ended and the North and South went back to being the way they were before the conlict. If the UN was permited to use force, maybe they could have made the North and South be together as one, but that wouldint have solved anything. The diffrences would always be there and there would be a high chance a conflict would happen again. In this situation, I think it shows that we should keep peacekeepers beacuse they do not get to involved in situations like telling a country what to be like, which if they had the power to, it would not do well and they would probably just get power hungry. I think it is a good thing they are now focused on peacekeeping and proving aid instead of military intervention beacuse that way they do not half to deal with affairs that should be resolved by themselfs, and focus more on the people that are more in need.

example -The Korean war.

4. Give one counter argument (an argument that the other side might present), then refute or disprove it.

5. Wrap up your thoughts in a conclusion of two to three good sentences.

The UN should be permited to use force in circumstances where a panel of individuals have assesd the situation and agreed on which side of the conflict the force should be permited to be used on. This way, this could provide a solution to posibliy prevent genocides from occuring. Alot of people think that the UN dosent do anything but stand around, they are wrong. They risk their lives in the middle of danger to help people who are hurt or need medical help. They might not always scuceed at peacekeeping but theres always a chance they will. There is no good reaon to rid peacekeeping, there is only bad reasons.

5/5

I think that peacekepping should be continued beacuse even though there have been failures, mainly beacuse they cannot use force, they are still helping though aid or some form. Many people think that the UN is doing nothing but standing around, but they are risking there lives to stand bewteen the aim of fire to try and stop violent uroptions peacefully. They do not always succeed, as many of the people on the opposing forces just see them as people comming in and just telling them to play nice. I agree that they should be contiuned beacuse they do donoate aid to those in need in the middle of conflicts like the rawandan genocide, Congo, and the Korean war but I also think that they should be aloud to use force, on those who need to be used on. Many people believe that force should not be used beacuse it would end up being biased, I deffinitly agree with that but I think that they government should come up with a plan in these type of situations where the voice of the government, the people, and all countries have a say and come to an agreement which side is in the wrong and therefore, give peacekeepers to use force, but only if needed. Example, If they see a Tutsi going to kill a Hutu, they make take the force needed to stop the death. The UN works to keep the peace, even though it might be a failure, I think that the UN should work on ways to make them more successful, or a better plan to keep the peace. I believe that peace keeping should remain in our world beacuse even though they may not be able to stop everything bad in the world, they still help a little bit. That being a sucessfull mission or aid to countires in need. It would be stupid to get rid of something that helps, even if it may be in little ways.

(Start with a general, main argument...this is your support) In the Rawanda conflict, the UN did not prevent a genocide, beacuse they are not permited to use force. Even though they were not permited to use force, they still did help. They provided aid to the injured Hutus and Tutsis, and gave medical help. If the UN was aloud to use force, they might have able to stop the genocide from occuring. In this situation, it was clear that the Hutu's were at fault. They were the ones who interigated the other side and everyone knew and could see that. In these type of situations when it is so clear that the oppsing force is at wrong, The UN should be permited to use force to stop them. The down sides and the upsides in this sistation if the UN was permited to use force, they would have been able to posibly prevent a genocide from occuring. The downside could have been if the UN was permited to use force against the enemy, some people could have seen it as biased and that posibly the UN just picked that side out of hatred or a reason that was not to benifit peacekeeping and stop a genocide.

(As above) Congo was unprepared for political freesom when independance was granteed in 1960. Congo's army then mutinied and the Belium forces then went in to try and restore order. When thw belgium forces failed, they were asked to withdraw and give the UN a try at it. Their mission was to restore law and order, protect lives and improve Congolese army by using force only when needed for self deffence. Over the next few years there was no government in the Congo and fighting had erupted between Tshombe's military force to try and resolve the chaos. UN forces were withdrawn but personel was left behind to give technical aid and traning. The UN was credited with giving stability to this region. The UN was sent it not being aloud to use force. Any disturbance has a chance it will listen to peace keepers and agree with what they are saying and stop fighting, but there are alot of hard headed people in the world who do not like to listen to authority and therefore, do not care what there words are. The UN was sent in to try and resoter law and order, protect lives and improve the Congolese army by using force only when needed for self deffence. The UN was pulled back beacuse they did not complete these missions. Well they would have been a little bit more successful if the government of other countries would have sat down, looked at the situation, analized it, and figure out which side could be used force upon. If the UN was permited this, they could have stoped the chaos. The UN may not have completed all these things, but one thing they did was gave forgein aid to those in need in this reign. The UN risked their lives to stay behind when pulled out, to stay and provide technical aid and traning. This was helpful to the Conganlese people, therefore, the UN did not just stand around. They helped people who needed help and if they were permited to use force against the right side, they could have been sucessful in their other tasks.

(Argument) The UN was sent in to aid the South Koreans when North Korea invaded the south. They were sucessful due to the Soviets boycott of the security council. They were boycotting as a protest against the UN’s refusal to allow Communist China into the UN. A seasaw battle resulted over the next three years with a result being the way it was before the conflict. North Korea remained communist above the 38th parallel with South Korea remaining democratic below it. After this war, the UN changed their mission to peacekeeping more then military intervention. The UN realized in these types of missions, that it is mirey imposible to tell which side of a country to be like and what not to be like. The battle ended and the North and South went back to being the way they were before the conlict. If the UN was permited to use force, maybe they could have made the North and South be together as one, but that wouldint have solved anything. The diffrences would always be there and there would be a high chance a conflict would happen again. In this situation, I think it shows that we should keep peacekeepers beacuse they do not get to involved in situations like telling a country what to be like, which if they had the power to, it would not do well and they would probably just get power hungry. I think it is a good thing they are now focused on peacekeeping and proving aid instead of military intervention beacuse that way they do not half to deal with affairs that should be resolved by themselfs, and focus more on the people that are more in need.

The UN should be permited to use force in circumstances where a panel of individuals have assesd the situation and agreed on which side of the conflict the force should be permited to be used on. This way, this could provide a solution to posibliy prevent genocides from occuring. Alot of people think that the UN dosent do anything but stand around, they are wrong. They risk their lives in the middle of danger to help people who are hurt or need medical help. They might not always scuceed at peacekeeping but theres always a chance they will. There is no good reaon to rid peacekeeping, there is only bad reasons.

I know you struggled with this paper, and there are some good points to it, but things to work on as well. First, your planning was fine, but you need to use the format sheet to help you structure the actual paper, to keep it from straying off-topic. You spent a lot of time discussing the use of force, rather than discussing whether peace-keeping, as it is, should be continued. The examples you gave were good, though.

There were also so many errors that I didn’t bother highlighting them...it is very distracting for the reader. Try to pick up some of these errors, as they are usually under-lined.

EXPLORATION OF ISSUE 3/5

DEFENSE OF POSITION 6/10

QUALITY OF EXAMPLES 7/10