41/50
Unit 3 Lesson 2
1. True/False
1. F – Countries that are ruled by dictators, absolute monarchs, or military juntas use
a simple process. Canada, being a democracy, is influenced by the citizens and it
is therefore not at all a simple process to set foreign policy goals.
2. T
3. F – The prime minister, the Cabinet, and members of the Parliament who belong
to the party in power are much more influential.
4. T
5. F – They have exerted more influence in the past few decades.
T
6. F – they are not all equally concerned, but they are all concerned and have been
affected in some way
7. T
8. F – Many nations say that the sanctions hurt the citizens rather than the
governments
9. F – The most powerful branch of the UN is the Security Council
10. F – Some countries choose not to recognize the authority and refuse to abide by
its decisions.
11. d
12. a
13. c
14. d
15. b
d
13/15
2. Position Paper Choice One
PAPER PLANNING
Based on its past successes and failures, should peace-keeping be continued in the
world?
1. What is the main issue? Re-write the issue in your own words.
Based on how peace-keeping has fared in the past, should it be continued?
2. What is your main position on this issue?
I think that although peace-keeping has not been as faultless as many would like, it has
had many successes. There have been many occasions in which the peace-keepers were
unable to do what people wanted to the extent that was wanted, but they have done as
much as they could. I think that if it weren’t for the peacekeepers, many countries that are
now in peace would instead be in pieces.  Therefore, I of course, think that peacekeeping should definitely be continued in the world.
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 – Peace-keepers try to keep the peace without violence
Example – Peace-keeping not peace-making
Second argument – Peace-keeping has been successful
Example – Suez crisis
Third argument – The UN are willing to spend money to further the peace-keeping
impact
Example - Congo
4. Give one counter argument (an argument that the other side might present), then
refute or disprove it.
Peace-keeping should not be continued because, although it has succeeded occasionally,
it has done more harm than good. People are depending on the UN to get them out of
situations, and are therefore unprepared when they fail.
People are going to hope for outside help whether it comes from the UN or not. It is
definitely preferable that they have a chance of receiving that help peacefully.
5. Wrap up your thoughts in a conclusion of two to three good sentences.
I think that peace-keeping should be continued because it is a non-violent way to prevent
wars. Though it is not always successful, it has succeeded more often than it would have
if it didn’t exist. Even one success is preferable to none.
5/5
Position Paper
Based on its past successes and failures, should peace-keeping be continued in the
world?
Based upon how peace-keeping has fared in the past, I think that it should
definitely be continued. Peace-keeping is not entirely faultless, but it has succeeded
before, and it is probable that it will succeed again. I understand that there have been
occasions in which the peace-keepers were unable to succeed to the extent that was
expected, but often the expectations were too high to even be achievable. I believe that if
the peace-keepers did not exist, many countries that are now in peace would instead be in
pieces. It is better to have a few successes when opposed to none at all.
One reason that I believe peace-keeping should be continued is because peacekeepers try to maintain peace and cooperation, without violence. Unlike peace-making,
peace-keeping is an approach to peace that does not involve much brutality. To me, it
does not make sense to approach peace in a violent manner, and therefore, peace-keeping
is preferable to the alternative.
There have been occasions in which peace-keeping has successfully prevented
potential world wars. An example of this was the Suez Crisis in 1956 and 1957. When
Britain and France got involved in the dispute over the Suez Canal, a third world war
could have begun. The General Assembly got the peace-keepers involved and they were
able to prevent further super power involvement. Without the UNEF, it is likely that
super powers other than France and Britain would have gotten involved and we would
have another world war in our history.
The UN is willing to spend money to further the peace-keeping impact. I think
that this shows that they are devoted to preventing another world war, and will spend
whatever amount of material goods necessary. The UN did just that in Congo from 19601964. The UN was able to contribute to stability in Congo at a $400 million expense.
This illustrates that the UN is capable of sacrifice when it comes to preventing violence.
(True, though they wouldn’t have had to spend so much had they done a better job
initially)
Some people believe that peace-keeping should not be continued because it has
done more harm than good. Since the UN began, nations have been depending more and
more on the world’s main powers, and are therefore unable to fend for themselves.
(example?) They think that it is similar to giving a man food rather than teaching him to
hunt. I believe that although this may be true in some cases, the majority of the world
would prefer to get themselves out of trouble before turning to the UN for help. As for
the nations that do rely on the UN more than they should; it is preferable that they have a
chance of receiving the help they need, rather than no help at all, which is what they
would get if the peace-keepers did not exist.
I think that peace-keeping should be continued because it is a non-violent way to
prevent violence. Though it is not always successful, it has succeeded more often than it
would if it had never been created. I think that even if the peace-keepers only succeeded
in one mission, it would be worth the effort they have gone through simply to exist.
For the most part, this is a strong paper, with a couple good examples. I would have
liked your Intro to start with the main issue, and the various viewpoints, then your own
opinion or thesis.
An example of nations that are unable to fend for themselves due to UN dependence
would also have been applicable.
EXPLORATION OF ISSUE 4/5
DEFENSE OF POSITION 8/10
QUALITY OF EXAMPLES 7/10
MECHANICS/FORMAT
4/5
TOTAL: 23/30