w
w
ap
eP
m
e
tr
.X
w
om
.c
9777/03/PRE
GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES
Paper 3 Presentation
s
er
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS
Cambridge International Level 3 Pre-U Certificate
October/November 2011
INSTRUCTIONS (Pre-Release Material)
To be given to candidates
* 1 3 9 0 1 8 2 0 6 1 *
READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST
Guidance for Teachers
This Resource Booklet contains stimulus material to be used by candidates preparing their presentation for
9777/03. One copy should be given to each candidate.
Presentations must be prepared in a four-week period. This may take place at any point before 31 October
2011, by which date all presentations must have been submitted to CIE via eRepository.
The Presentation is marked out of 40.
Instructions to Candidates
•
You should use the enclosed stimulus material to help you identify the subject for your presentation.
•
Your presentation should attempt to answer a question.
•
Your presentation must address alternative perspectives on the question you select and must engage
directly with an issue, an assumption, a piece of evidence and/or a line of reasoning (explicit or implicit)
in one or more of the documents within this Booklet (i.e. you should not just pick an individual word or
phrase which is not central to the reasoning in or the issues covered by the documents).
•
Include in your presentation an explanation of how it relates to these pre-release materials.
•
Your presentation should be designed for a non-specialist audience.
•
Originality in interpretation is welcomed.
•
Your presentation may be prepared in a variety of formats (e.g. PowerPoint, weblog or web pages) and
should normally include an oral presentation or commentary. Where this is not possible, accompanying
written notes must be provided.
•
The speaking or running time of your presentation should be a maximum of 15 minutes.
This document consists of 14 printed pages and 2 blank pages.
DC (CB (NB)) 29812/3
© UCLES 2011
[Turn over
2
Document 1
Adapted from ‘Veiled threat or good neighbor?’
People’s Daily Online, a newspaper from the People’s Republic of China, 19 June 2009
Li Hongmei
Some are afraid that a fresh border dispute between China and India would become the spark plunging
the two neighbors again into a ‘partial military action’. And India seems to have been conspiring to
create the picture of an imminent war by deploying 60 000-strong additional troops and four SU-30
fighters along the 650-mile unfenced border with China.
The Sino-Indian border dispute dates back to almost half a century ago, when in 1962, China and India
fought a serious border war, with Indian troops retreating with a complete defeat. And in 1986, the
region, referred to as Southern Tibet since China laid claim to it, suddenly flared up again, as a result
of India’s continued and enhanced presence in the Chinese territory.
Decades have elapsed since the border war, but Indians still look on China through the tinted lens,
which could merely produce untrue pictures and even distortions. As an Indian military official put
it, ‘Indians maintain the same national sentiments towards China as the way the Chinese do at the
mention of Japan and Japanese,’ many Indians actually have very subtle impression upon China, which
has been translated into a very complicated mindset – awe, vexation, envy and jealousy – in the face
of its giant neighbor.
The reason for this mentality is multi-faceted, and brought about by both historical factors and reality.
In 1947, when India freed itself from the British colonization and won independence, it was one of
the global industrial powers, ranking Top 10 in the world and far ahead of the then backward China.
But today, China’s GDP has tripled that of India and per capita income doubled, which turns out to
be a totally unacceptable fact to many Indians. And with China’s galloping economic growth since its
adoption of the reform and opening up policy in late 1970s, the wealth gap between China and India
has increasingly widened.
On top of that, some Western powers have been inciting India to challenge China, and even insidiously
convince India that China would be the ‘greatest obstacle’ threatening India’s rise. To feed its ambitions,
the West has gone so far as to devise ways to extol India as a potentially No.1 democracy in Asia, but
meanwhile intentionally play down China’s social and economic progress.
India, on the other hand, draws the Western hint trying for dear life to surpass China. For years, it has
also attempted, but in vain, to suppress China by taking advantage of its ‘friendship’ with the West.
Obsessed with the crazy idea of ‘enemy’s friend being enemy’, India has gone out of its way to blemish
the brotherly ties between China and Pakistan, which India regards as its arch-foe, even staking out a
position that Pakistan would have no courage to challenge it without the back-up of China.
Indian people have heavily relied upon its media coverage to learn about China. Unfortunately, the Indian
media have long been so accustomed to calibrating to curry favor with the Western anti-China forces that
they invariably present their readers with biased information and fabricated stories about China. This will
further deepen the gap between the two peoples, and fuel the national discontent against China among
ordinary Indians. Additionally, India media seem always overzealous in spreading the so-called ‘China
Threat’ theory, manipulating its audience and fanning up an intense feud over China.
Indian government, instead of working in a constructive direction to clear up its people’s
misunderstandings about China, which has gravely hampered the normal development of the bilateral
relations, has consistently adopted a hostile foreign policy toward China, in an effort to win the support
from its hawkish MPs. Under the pretext of ‘China Threat’, India finally launched a nuclear test in 1998.
Only in recent years, Indian government shifted to a more pragmatic stance in dealing with China with
the aim to enhance the bilateral cooperation.
© UCLES 2011
9777/03/PRE/O/N/11
3
Emerging from the dust of border dispute, Chinese President Hu Jintao and India PM Manmohan
Singh appeared hand-in-hand Tuesday on the same arena of the first ever BRIC [Brazil, Russia,
India, China] summit, hosted by Russia. This seems to deliver a message to the outside world that,
plagued by the global financial crisis, both of the Asian giants need to reach out to each other seeking
more cooperation rather than confrontation. ‘Both sides should make a steady progress in pushing for
dialogue and cooperation,’ as President Hu was cited as saying.
[http://english.people.com.cn/90002/96417/6682302.html]
© UCLES 2011
9777/03/PRE/O/N/11
[Turn over
4
Document 2
Six online responses to ‘Veiled threat or good neighbor?’ (Document 1 above), posted by six
different people of more than one nationality
People’s Daily Online
PD User
This is a very thoughtfully researched article. The media on both sides – both the state controlled media
in China and the commercially oriented media in India – should help in fostering closer understanding
between the two neighbours rather than driving a wedge. The people of India have a very good opinion
of the Chinese people who they consider as kind and culturally similar. Similarly, the Chinese people at
large view the Indians favourably.
PD User
As an Indian I am really amazed to see this article. If there is any problem with China, it is simply
because of the backstabbing in 1962.
PD User
India’s military moves is danger.
PD User
We need to look at the opportunities … the chino-india relations offer … trade ties, cultural bondage,
manufacturing partnerships … so on and so forth … rather than the bizarre perceptions of war,
threats, incursions … we as human race should think way ahead … India-China, brothers in arms … a
superpower in the making … Please let it flourish.
PD User
Brother, I agree. Both China and India need to see common ground and also agree to disagree with others.
Both were victims of colonialism and invasion. As victims we know the pain and suffering as well as the
humiliation.
Today both China and India are rising. It is better to have mutual respect, understanding cooperation
friendly and peaceful co existence. If there is any area of competition then it must be peaceful,
purposeful and of course beneficial.
PD User
Average Indian does not normally think about China let alone feel awe, envy etc. Because of the 1962
war they generally do not trust China. Apart from that China does not enter much in average Indian
consciousness.
[http://posts.people.com.cn/bbs_new/filepool/htdoc/html/4fa9516fd3347dc3563bf2a61daa8c5da7eb05
c6/b3600853/l_3600853_1.html]
© UCLES 2011
9777/03/PRE/O/N/11
5
Document 3
‘China’s protest against PM’s visit to Arunachal is disgusting.’
A blog on the website of The Times of India, 13 October 2009
Kingshuk Nag
http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/masala-noodles/entry/china-s-protest-against-pm
Content removed due to copyright restrictions.
© UCLES 2011
9777/03/PRE/O/N/11
[Turn over
7
Document 4
‘Western media show double standards again.’
People’s Daily Online, opinion article from this newspaper of the People’s Republic of China,
13 July 2009
The Chinese government has followed the principle of openness and transparency to provide
assistance and convenience for reporters traveling to Xinjiang, hoping that international media could
report the truth based on facts in an objective manner. However, some Western media’s reports fell
short of objectiveness and fairness.
More than 1,000 people were killed and injured in the violent crime and tremendous property losses
were inflicted. In a number of Western media’s reports, however, the violent crimes have become
“peaceful demonstrations”, “clashes caused by discriminative ethnic policies” and “military suppression”,
marking their noticeable bias. Some Western media consistently look at China through their shaded
glass and distorted the facts in their reports, using misleading photos, images, details and wordings.
These western media even issued distortive and false reports without on site investigations or reliable
sources. They neglected the pains of numerous victims and their families, publicly or semipublicly take
sides with rioters, and purge their criminal acts. This behavior indicates that they have lost the basic
professional ethics that are essential for the media.
Echoing this, some Western politicians and organizations have acted hypocritically. For instance,
certain governments in the West urged that “each side should exercise restraint and disclose the truth
as soon as possible”, while some politicians staged “protests” at various places. Some “human rights”
organizations said that those detained might “face unfair treatment”. They are deliberately blurring the
fact, diverting the public’s attention, and inciting conflicting sentiments among people.
Different media agencies and different individuals might have their own perspectives on some issues.
However, if they attempt to distort the truth and disseminate false reports and commentaries by
adopting double standards, it is far from fairness and objectiveness. An insight into how Western media
and politicians acted when facing violent incidents in their own nations will reveal the inconsistency. In
2005, unrest occurred among ethnic minorities in suburban Paris. Western media, on the one hand,
greatly condemned the violence, and on the other, strongly supported the French government to
dispatch militaries to maintain order. There were no reports stating that this was the “evil consequence
of long-term ethnic discrimination”. Furthermore, no one called on “each side to exercise restraint”. As
to the Los Angeles Riots of 1992 in the US, the US government at the time used all necessary powers
to restore order. For these rioters, no Western media or politicians advocated the concepts of “peace”
or “human rights”. The most typical example is that after the September 11 terrorist attack, the US even
launched wars in the name of fighting against violent terrorist activities, and nobody stood out and
called for “restraint”.
Conflicts and some extreme incidents might happen in any country around the world. Neither media nor
politicians should, motivated by their own interests or bias, take pleasure in the misfortune of others,
and even intend to mislead and intensify the conflicts. It is against the basic principle of human ethics to
express sympathy for people who violate social order and abuse violence, and disregard human rights
of innocent victims and pains suffered by their relatives. In light of the global terrorism, stereotyping
another country’s internal affairs, using news reports as a political tool, and holding an ambiguous,
self-contradicting attitude toward anti-violence and anti-terrorism, will not only harm others, but also
damage themselves.
[http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90780/6699512.html]
© UCLES 2011
9777/03/PRE/O/N/11
[Turn over
8
Document 5
Adapted from ‘Sarah Palin: The media have been unfair to me, but that’s the price of
democracy.’
The Independent, a British newspaper reporting the remarks of Sarah Palin, unsuccessful US
Vice-Presidential candidate in 2008. She was making a speech to an association of journalists
in Washington DC, 8 December 2009
To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, this has to be the most extraordinary collection of people who have
gathered to viciously attack me since the last corporate gathering at CBS. A lot has been made of a
few campaign relationships (in the media coverage of my autobiography). The closeness. The warm
fuzzy feelings. John (McCain) and I both agree all those staffers should just move past it. It’s history.
I don’t want to say that the US government is taking over the role of the private sector, but I have to admit,
on the flight here, thumbing through a magazine and looking at a photo of President Obama with the
President of China, the person next to me pointed at it and said, “Hu’s a communist”. I thought they were
asking a question. When I see this administration in action, I can’t help think of what might have been.
I’ll close by reading a final passage from my book. Page 403: “I’ve been asked a lot lately, ‘Where
are you going next?’ Good question. Wherever I go I know that, as with anyone in the public eye, I’ll
continue to have my share of disagreements with those in the media. Maybe even more than my share.
It will come as no surprise that I don’t think I was always treated fairly, or equally.
But despite that, I respect the media very much. It’s important. A free press allows for vigorous debate,
which is absolutely vital for democracy. As hard as it can sometimes be, we must all look past personal
grievances. We must move beyond petty politics. We must allow these incredibly talented and hardworking women and men to ask the hard questions and hold us, and our government, accountable.
Their mission is as true as the sun rising over the Talkeetna and Susitna Mountains.”
Ok – so none of that is actually in the book. Not a word. But I do believe it.
[http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/sarah-palin-the-media-have-been-unfair-to-mebut-thats-the-price-of-democracy-1836078.html]
© UCLES 2011
9777/03/PRE/O/N/11
9
Document 6
‘Iran suicide attack fuels tensions with Pakistan.’
News report from UPl Asia, a website of United Press International, an international news
service based in Washington DC, 20 October 2009
Susenjit Guha, a freelance writer living in Kolkata, India
A deadly suicide bomb attack in Iran’s Sistan-Baluchestan province, near the Pakistan border, has
triggered another round of the blame game with Pakistan, the alleged mastermind and villain. The
attack last Sunday killed 42 people, including five commanders of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard.
The incident makes it even more difficult for the United States to kick start negotiations with Iran.
Washington is seen as placating, appeasing and buying Pakistan to help fight its war on terror in
Afghanistan. Regional players consider Pakistan the epicenter of the very terrorism the United States
purports to be fighting.
Iran’s Fars News Agency quoted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying that security agents
in Pakistan had cooperated with militants in Sunday’s attack. “We were informed that some security
agents in Pakistan are cooperating with the main elements of this terrorist incident. We regard it as
our right to demand these criminals from them,” Ahmadinejad said, without giving details. He also
reportedly told Pakistan not to waste time cooperating with Iran in apprehending the perpetrators.
This type of accusation is not new. In the past, Iran has accused Pakistan of harboring members of the
Sunni insurgent group Jundallah, or the People’s Resistance Movement of Iran. Based in the Pakistani
province of Balochistan, the group claims to be fighting for the rights of Sunni Muslims in Iran. According
to Iranian media, Jundallah has claimed responsibility for Sunday’s bombing.
India and Afghanistan have also accused Pakistan of harboring terror groups that cause mayhem in
their nations.
Pakistan’s English language daily, Dawn, in June quoted Iran’s Fars News Agency on comments by
General Hassan Firouzabadi, chief of Iran’s armed forces, saying Iran had located the roots of Jundallah
and had passed on the information to the Pakistani government.
Despite the intelligence passed to Pakistan, attacks in Iran have continued. Jundallah has claimed
responsibility for close to a dozen attacks in Iran, including one at a mosque in the city of Zahedan. The
group’s method is simple – create terror in Iran and then cross over to neighboring Pakistan. According
to the article in Dawn, Tehran had warned Pakistan to take action against the terrorists; otherwise it
would be forced to employ military forces to track and hunt them down.
Like the terror groups allegedly nurtured in Pakistan to destabilize India, Jundallah had the blessings
of both the Taliban and Pakistan’s spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence, and shifted loyalties
between the two while creating unrest in Iran.
After the Sunday attack, Iranian officials immediately summoned a Tehran-based senior Pakistani
diplomat to inform him they had evidence of the attackers’ links to Pakistan and were sealing the border
between the two countries. Again, the demands and accusations are not new.
India initially asked Pakistan to hand over the perpetrators of last year’s terror attacks on Mumbai, in
which nearly 200 innocent lives were lost. Later it provided evidence and demanded that Pakistan arrest
them and put them on trial so justice would be done. But the evidence from India was stonewalled, and
Pakistan said its courts could not find enough evidence to convict the alleged masterminds.
© UCLES 2011
9777/03/PRE/O/N/11
[Turn over
10
Pakistan surely will not track down the perpetrators that killed Iran’s Revolutionary Guard commanders.
And the problem does not end there. Operating from Pakistan’s Balochistan province, Jundallah is
alleged to also have a presence in Pakistan’s Punjab province.
Pakistani analysts believe Punjab is a fertile recruiting ground for the local Taliban, al-Qaida, and the
country’s armed forces. Pakistan’s civil society is worried about the rogue elements in Pakistan’s army
and the ISI that have natural loyalties to terrorists and terror groups.
According to Pakistani media, Jundallah is believed to have links with another anti-Shiite Punjab-based
group, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, as well as the Pakistani Taliban and al-Qaida. Their mandate to foment
terror is clearly demarcated. Names do not matter; members of such groups hide under the cloak of
humanitarian organizations and flip-flop from one to another when the going gets tough.
The main objective and the modus operandi of these terror groups are still fuzzy, but the danger is clear
and present. This was evident in the attack on the Pakistani armed forces base in the city of Rawalpindi
last week. Early this year the Long War Journal, a blog on U.S. security, reported that the al-Qaida top
brass were toying with the idea of spreading jihad to neighboring countries including Iran.
But Sunday’s suicide attack in Iran could place the United States on rough ground. The Iranian armed
forces believe that Jundallah is the creation of the United States and Britain, with the purpose of
weakening Iran. And like most anti-US tirades, this too might be believed by many Iranians, making it
difficult for US President Barack Obama to enlist Iran in the war on terror in Afghanistan.
It may also be difficult for the United States to explain to Iran that its planned shipment of F-16 combat
aircraft to Pakistan is appeasement for Islamabad accepting the conditions in a US aid bill that demands
the government maintain control over the military.
After all, F-16’s would not be used by Pakistan’s armed forces to fight al-Qaida and the Taliban in
Waziristan or to deal with Jundallah. Or would they?
[http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/10/20/iran_suicide_attack_fuels_tensions_with_pakistan/6068]
© UCLES 2011
9777/03/PRE/O/N/11
11
Document 7
‘FACTBOX: Obama hearing range of views on Afghanistan.’
News report from Reuters, an international news agency based in New York, 20 October 2009
Caren Bohan and Adam Entous, Reuters journalists in Washington DC
US President Barack Obama has not decided whether to wait for the results of an Afghanistan
presidential election run-off on November 7 to announce a new war strategy.
Meetings among his senior advisers will continue next week. The debate has exposed divisions over
what to do next.
Here’s where some of them stand:
GENERAL STANLEY MCCHRYSTAL, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has
recommended an increase of 40 000 troops as the minimum necessary to prevail, according to sources.
There are already 65 000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan and another 39 000 from allied nations.
McChrystal has also given Obama the option of sending more than the 40 000 additional troops – up
to 80 000 according to some sources – and has described the option of sending no additional troops
as “high risk.” McChrystal has spoken in grave tones about Afghanistan, warning that success in the
campaign against the Taliban could not be taken for granted.
McChrystal took charge of the Afghanistan operation after his predecessor, General David McKiernan,
was ousted in May by Obama. McKiernan’s exit signalled a shift from a conventional strategy to a
counter-insurgency plan aimed at reducing civilian deaths.
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN is the leading skeptic within the Obama administration of McChrystal’s
recommendation for a troop increase.
Behind the scenes, Biden sometimes plays the role of devil’s advocate. Though he is known for his
public gaffes, Biden is considered within the White House a knowledgeable voice on foreign affairs,
given his longtime status as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Biden’s approach on Afghanistan would involve narrowing the counter-insurgency mission and
concentrating more heavily on the counter-terrorism mission of pursuing al Qaeda targets in Pakistan
and along the Afghan border. This option would involve little to no change to US troop levels for now.
WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF RAHM EMANUEL is described in media reports as sympathetic to
Biden’s view. Those media reports cite a worry among Obama’s domestic advisers that the Afghanistan
war could become a Vietnam-like quagmire if the administration were to commit itself more deeply to the
effort and that it would overwhelm other priorities such as healthcare reform and fixing the economy.
DEFENSE SECRETARY ROBERT GATES, whose views could sway Obama’s decision, has signalled
he would be reluctant to scale back the counter-insurgency campaign in Afghanistan and would
be open to a troop increase. Gates has blamed the Taliban’s resurgence on a past failure to deploy
enough troops and said the United States could not afford to give al Qaeda and its Taliban allies the
propaganda victory of a US retreat in Afghanistan. He has expressed reservations in the past about
increasing the US footprint in Afghanistan but has since said that many of those concerns had been
addressed by McChrystal.
© UCLES 2011
9777/03/PRE/O/N/11
[Turn over
12
SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY CLINTON, also considered an influential player behind closed
doors, has said little to tip her hand about where she stands on a troop increase, but she is said to have
developed a close rapport with Gates and could side with him in the internal debate. In an October 6
interview with CBS, Clinton warned that if the Taliban were able to retake control of Afghanistan or big
swaths of it, “there is every reason to believe” al Qaeda would once again secure a sanctuary there, a
concern shared by Gates but that the White House national security adviser has sought to downplay.
WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER JAMES JONES, whose job it is to mediate among
the foreign policy voices within the administration, has said that McChrystal’s recommendation was
one of several options under consideration and was not a fait accompli. He has said publicly that he
does not foresee a risk that the Taliban would regain control of Afghanistan and emphasized that the
United States has made big strides against al Qaeda militants there. His comments differ in tone from
the much more ominous view of Afghanistan that McChrystal has offered.
RICHARD HOLBROOKE, US SPECIAL ENVOY FOR AFGHANISTAN AND PAKISTAN, has said little
publicly about the issue of a troop increase for Afghanistan but has privately voiced concern about
the risk of under-resourcing the military mission, particularly along the border with Pakistan. He is
frustrated by what he and his advisers see as Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s refusal to seriously
tackle corruption.
PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA has cast himself as a skeptic when it comes to sending more troops
and has said he would ask “tough questions” of his advisers. Obama, who has described Afghanistan
as a “war of necessity,” told senior lawmakers in a recent White House meeting that he would neither
substantially reduce US troop levels in Afghanistan nor shift the strategy focus mainly on hunting
militants, suggesting he is looking for a middle ground approach. Obama’s aides have emphasized that
his strategy deliberations will be guided by the overriding goal of defeating al Qaeda.
[http://www.reuters.com/article/joeBiden/idUSTRE59J3R920091020]
© UCLES 2011
9777/03/PRE/O/N/11
13
Document 8
‘Past and present: a correspondent in Iraq.’
News report from Reuters, an international news agency based in New York, 9 October 2009
Tim Cocks, a Reuters correspondent in Iraq
This month we reported that the number of civilians dying violent deaths in Iraq had hit a fresh low
since the 2003 US-led invasion – about 125 for September.
Sounds like a lot, but for a country that only two years ago was seeing dozens of bodies pile up in the
streets each day from tit-for-tat sectarian killing, it was definitely progress.
And as I prepare to end my assignment in Iraq this week, I need no argument from numbers to convince
me that things are better here than when I arrived in Feb. 2008.
During my first few months, militants loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr were raising hell in
Baghdad, firing mortars and rockets at the Green Zone almost every hour. We could hear or feel them
thud on impact, especially when they fell short, on our side of the Tigris.
A rocket hit the BBC building opposite us, causing a blast loud enough to shake our windows, although
thankfully no one at the BBC was hurt by the strike.
US airstrikes on Baghdad’s Sadr City slum were killing many civilians. Roadside and car bombs were
erupting all over the place and the streets were largely deserted after dark.
Eighteen months on and things are hardly back to normal but, as any Iraqi will tell you, Iraq feels safer
than it was.
Security forces have been purged of Shi’ite militiamen and are doing a better job of stopping suicide
bombings, enabling US combat forces to largely pull out of Iraq’s cities in June.
We rarely hear explosions in Baghdad. A semblance of law and order seems to be taking shape.
Reporting from Iraq, as a Westerner or an Iraqi, has been a tough business for some time. For
Westerners, apart from the fact that few foreign correspondents here speak passable Arabic, the big
headache remains security.
Ever since insurgents started kidnapping Westerners and beheading them in 2004, the foreign press
corps here have been living in a kind of semi-incarceration, behind rows of concrete blast walls that
make you feel a bit like a lab rat in a maze.
It varies from media organisation to the next, but all of us are pretty restricted in our movements.
We generally keep a low profile, moving around Baghdad in low key armoured cars. We don’t wander
the streets for long periods of time or frequent bars and nightclubs after work.
The assumption is that any Westerner is a prime target for kidnappers – for political reasons or for a
juicy ransom.
And this is not to say there are no dangers to Iraqi media workers. More than 130 have died in violence
since the beginning of the war.
Seven of our colleagues from Reuters have been killed in that time, most of them Iraqis.
© UCLES 2011
9777/03/PRE/O/N/11
[Turn over
14
Security restrictions have left us heavily dependent on dedicated local journalists who can visit places
we cannot and help us cobble together stories we send to the wire.
That’s perhaps as it should be in a global news agency with strong local talent, but it’s hard not to miss
roaming the streets as I would in almost any other country.
As a military correspondent, embedding with US troops has been an experience, though it can hard to
get the full picture that way — for instance, persuading a nervous bystander in the street to talk to you
when you’re surrounded by heavily-armed American soldiers has proved a real challenge.
As security improves, our leash has been lengthened. I’ve been able to travel to places that were once
off-limits, like many parts of northern Iraq.
Will it continue getting better? No one can claim to know the answer to that question. Many Iraqis are
pessimistic, as well they might be after decades of war, dictatorship, brutal sanctions and sectarian
bloodshed. But since Iraq was pulled back from the brink in 2007, it has defied gloomy predictions.
But I’m reminded of comments by the head of the Red Cross Iraq delegation Juan-Pedro Schaerer
about avoiding the temptation to write off Iraq’s persistent violence as “normal”.
This week, one of our journalists, Ahmed, was awoken in the middle of the night by loud gunshots.
Gunmen had stormed the house of his neighbour and family doctor, and shot him in the head. Ahmed
took him to hospital, where he remains in critical condition. He may never walk or talk again.
Clearly, that feeling of nearly normality is fragile.
[http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate-uk/2009/10/09/past-and-present-a-correspondent-in-iraq/?p=36
16?tempedition=debatehub]
© UCLES 2011
9777/03/PRE/O/N/11
15
BLANK PAGE
© UCLES 2011
9777/03/PRE/O/N/11
16
BLANK PAGE
Copyright Acknowledgements:
Document 1
Document 2
Document 3
Document 4
Document 5
Document 6
Document 7
Document 8
© Adapted from Li Hongmei; Veiled threat or good neighbor?; People’s Daily Online; 19 June 2009.
© Online responses; People’s Daily Online; 19 June 2009
© Kingshuk Nag; China’s protest against PM’s visit to Arunachal is disgusting; The Times of India; 13 October 2009.
© Western media show double standards again; People’s Daily Online; 13 July 2009.
© Adapted from Sarah Palin; The media have been unfair to me, but that’s the price of democracy; The Independent; 8 December 2009.
© Iran suicide attack fuels tensions with Pakistan;
http://www.upiasia.com/Security/2009/10/20/iran_suicide_attack_fuels_tensions_with_pakistan/6068/
© Caren Bohan and Adam Entous; FACTBOX: Obama hearing range of views on Afghanistan; Reuters; 20 October 2009.
© Tim Cocks; Past and present: A correspondent in Iraq; Reuters; 9 October 2009.
Permission to reproduce items where third-party owned material protected by copyright is included has been sought and cleared where possible. Every
reasonable effort has been made by the publisher (UCLES) to trace copyright holders, but if any items requiring clearance have unwittingly been included, the
publisher will be pleased to make amends at the earliest possible opportunity.
University of Cambridge International Examinations is part of the Cambridge Assessment Group. Cambridge Assessment is the brand name of University of
Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES), which is itself a department of the University of Cambridge.
© UCLES 2011
9777/03/PRE/O/N/11