Alienation Based on Unilateralism - my paper on unilateralism for English

[Sean Reynolds]

This is my first draft, so I'm sure there are a few errors in it. Anyway, thought I'd get some DUers opinions on this.

Alienation Based on Unilateralism

Unilateral advocating of world issues creates a daunting task of alienation between one nation and the globe. This is ever prevalent with how the United States has attacked international problems head on. Subsequently America has not only angered the world, they have hampered needed efforts to rally the people of this planet in a joint fight to continue the bettering of their lives. If America continues to isolate itself off by a unilateral approach, they will undoubtedly distant the world community and create a large rift.

People share many different views on the subject of unilateralism, but the common base of each person’s different interpretation of that subject comes back to the same consensus, whether they agree with unilateralism or not; that being the United States will continue to separate from the global community if it does not revert away from a unilateral foreign policy.


Kristin Dawkins’ essay “US Unilateralism: A Threat to Global Sustainability” creates the base that the United States government under the Clinton presidency acted in ways to violate the TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) council in an effort to curb multilateral negotiations to advance the cause of patent rights in other nations. Dawkins main example is Thai legislation allowing Thai healers to register traditional medicines. In response to the legislation, the United States government sent a letter to the Royal Thai Government stating that such a registration system could violate TRIPS and would hinder medical research into these compounds. In response to the US government letter the NGO (global negotiating processes) sent a letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In their letter they stated that the United States was undermining the TRIPS agreement and that the US government was trying to facilitate the transfer of traditional Thai knowledge to US researches. In doing this the US sought the patents on this knowledge.

Dawkins’ essay proves the notion that unilateralism only sustains the best interest of America and not the world. For far too long the United States has discouraged other nations from advancing their cause because the US deems them a threat. This is not the foreign policy that is consistent with American values. As a community we must share our resources with the world, but we also must accept that other nations will not conform to our set belief. Dawkins points out that the United States breached TRIPS not only once, but on many occasions. The US can’t create a sustainable trust with hypocrisy as its foreign policy.

The Center for International Policy’s piece “Danger of U.S. Unilateralism” states a number of pressing issues with America’s international policy. In its case for multilateralism the CIP states that if the US does not implement multilateralism the US foreign policy would be “crippled”; crippled because the United States would try to convey legitimacy in its affairs, even though the international community may not be willing. It would cripple US policy because in the long run it may actually turn the world against America. If that were ever the case the United States would have a very difficult time in garnering support for its future advances to ‘better the world’. In fact the more alienation of the world could also be an onslaught for more aggression.

This seems to be the core argument against unilateralism. The fact that the United States can fully bully the world and get away with it shows the reckless power of other world leaders. As the most powerful country in the world the United States has abused its powers in the form of totalitarian dictation of world problems. They have continually managed to shutoff America from the world by creating walls, walls built by a unilateral approach. It is time we break down these walls and cast a light upon the world that the United States will take multilateral approaches to not only better the needs of its country, but the world.

Kyle Lohmeier has a different belief. In his essay, “The Joys of Unilateralism – It’s Best to Just Go it Alone” Lohmeier states that the United States should not be willing to do what is right for the better of the world, but what is right for its nation. It is his belief that America should take any approach necessary to safeguard the nation from world problems. Though he may be commended for his belief that America should stay safe, Lohmeier seems to be missing the big picture.

We all are people on this planet; we all feel pain, we all strive to better our lives. Whether we are American, or Canadian, or Indian we all are members of one global community. We must live amongst each other, in a viable community that is not only better for Americans, but for the citizens of this world. Lohmeier truly believes that the president of the United States should put his country’s matters above the rest of the worlds. Even though he was elected president of the United States; it’s his duty, as it is every world leader’s duty, to facilitate the world and rid it of its problems. The only way you can even remotely come close doing that is by acting as a whole. Coming together and fighting the needs head on as one. The United States can’t better its cause by isolating itself from this global community. As we have seen with President Bush’s reckless war in Iraq, the world can turn against America. After September 11th the United States had the world’s support. Many nations rallied to show their support for a damaged America. Today that support is no more. President Bush has squandered it away with a brute like foreign policy. A policy based on the belief that doing it alone is the right thing, even though recent history has proven otherwise.
---------

Wow, double spaced it's 5 pages - looks so small here. :(

[arcane1]

1. hey, that's prety damn good!

I can't critique it because I abuse and molest the languag anyway, lol

but I enjoyed the hell out of reading it! Would make a good DU home-page article

:toast:


and yeah, it looks a lot less than 5 pages online!

[Nikia]

2. This is for English?

I would have thought government, but it is great that you are encouraged to write papers on different subjects for English class. You seem to be comparing three different essays on unilateralism:One saying that it is good for the U.S. but bad for the world (bad overall), one that it is bad for the U.S., and one that it is good for the U.S. You might want to better clairfy each of the positions before providing commentary on them. Your final paragraph should tie up everything and provide a conclusion based on the entire paper. You might also want to state the three essays that you are examining earlier in the paper and their basic positions, before you jump into them. Is this paper for high school or college? What exactly was the assignment?

[Sean Reynolds]

3. Thanks for the advice.

I'm kinda wary of what to do because my teacher has a set format and she doesn't want you to spend too much time on summing up the three articles you used for your essay. Like I said this is my first draft, she'll look over it and change some things.

[Nikia]

5. OK

Could you explain to us a bit more about the set format? Why wouldn't she want you to sum up the three articles for a coherent paper? I like the commentary below. That should help you.

[markses]

4. Alrighty: Here we go

Alienation Based on Unilateralism

Unilateral advocating of world issues creates a daunting task of alienation between one nation and the globe.

(Needlessly pompous prose that actually makes the sentence sound worse. Here's what I think you're trying to say: "Unilateral action by any nation alienates it from the world community." What is a "daunting task of alienation"??? Not even sure how "alienation" is a task, much less a "daunting task." Clean up the construction. You don't need 4 syllable words to sound smart.)

This (THIS WHAT? Of course, since the first sentence is unclear, "this" hardly functions as a transition at all!) is ever prevalent (EVER PREVALENT WITH HOW??? Say that out loud!) with how the United States has attacked international problems head on. Subsequently(comma) America has not only angered the world, they (NOUN PRONOUN DISAGREEMENT - America is a singular noun, so how could you use a plural pronoun "they" to refer to it?) have hampered needed efforts to rally the people of this planet in a joint fight to continue the bettering of their lives.


If America continues to isolate itself off (OFF is redundant here: "isolate itself" is sufficient) by a unilateral approach, they (America is an IT, or a SHE) will undoubtedly distant (distance?) the world community and create a large rift. (Is this your thesis statement? What kind of paper is this? A proposal? An evaluation? A definition?)

People share many different views on the subject of unilateralism, but the common base of each person’s different interpretation of that subject comes back to the same consensus, whether they agree with unilateralism or not; that being the United States will continue to separate from the global community if it does not revert away from a unilateral foreign policy.

(HUH???? People share different views, but they have one in common? What?!? Also, semicolon used incorrectly. Try a colon, and edit out "that being" - it's an awkward construction, in any case. What are you trying to say here? Say it out loud without looking at the page. Be aware of your breathing as you speak it. Forgot it? So did your reader.)

Kristin Dawkins’ essay “US Unilateralism: A Threat to Global Sustainability” creates the base that the United States government under the Clinton presidency acted in ways to violate the TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) council in an effort to curb multilateral negotiations to advance the cause of patent rights in other nations.

Preposition phrase piled supra infinitive! An intolerable sentence. Enough.

++++to violate the TRIPS (trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights) council
++++in an effort
++++to curb multilateral negotiations
++++to advance the cause of patent rights
++++in other nations

This is even after the bizarre choice of verbs: "create the base that..." What does that even mean???

Dawkins main example is Thai legislation allowing Thai healers to register traditional medicines.

EXCELLENT SENTENCE!!!!!

In response to the legislation, the United States government sent a letter to the Royal Thai Government stating that such a registration system could violate TRIPS and would hinder medical research into these compounds. In response to the US government letter the NGO (global negotiating processes) sent a letter to Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. In their (WHO? Is the NGO a PLURAL NOUN???) letter they (WHO???Who is they???) stated that the United States was undermining the TRIPS agreement and that the US government was trying to facilitate the transfer of traditional Thai knowledge to US researches. In doing this the US sought the patents on this knowledge.

PRETTY GOOD - Are you citing this information appropriately? How much of this is Dawkins' writing?

Dawkins’ essay proves the notion that unilateralism only sustains the best interest of America and not the world. For far too long the United States has discouraged other nations from advancing their cause because the US deems them a threat. This is not the foreign policy that is consistent with American values. As a community we must share our resources with the world, but we also must accept that other nations will not conform to our set belief. Dawkins points out that the United States breached TRIPS not only once, but on many occasions. The US can’t create a sustainable trust with hypocrisy as its foreign policy.

Very nicely done. But can you move from the specific example of the TRIPS Agreement to your broader claim about unilateral action in general? And have you really made the case for the TRIPS Agreement argument? Couldn't somebody say that the Thai group was in fact restricting the flow of their knowledge while the US was trying to open up the knowledge to global markets? Doesn't this contradict your argument?


The Center for International Policy’s piece “Danger of U.S. Unilateralism” states a number of pressing issues with America’s international policy. In its case for multilateralism the CIP states that if the US does not implement multilateralism the US foreign policy would be “crippled”; (INCORRECT USE OF A SEMICOLON) crippled because the United States would try to convey legitimacy in its affairs, even though the international community may not be willing.(CONFUSING: Can you state the source's argument more fully?) It (I'm starting to forget what "it refers to here!) would cripple US policy because in the long run it may actually turn the world against America. If that were ever the case the United States would have a very difficult time in garnering support for its future advances to ‘better the world’. In fact the more alienation of the world could also be an onslaught for more aggression.

This seems to be the core argument against unilateralism. The fact that the United States can fully bully the world and get away with it shows the reckless power of other world leaders. As the most powerful country in the world (COMMA) the United States has abused its powers in the form of totalitarian dictation of world problems.

Totalitarian dictation??? Hmmmm. First of all, using "dictation for "dictator" is, well, awkward. You should avoid it. Second, is this claim even accurate? Are you hurting your credibility with most audiences here? BTW: Who IS YOUR AUDIENCE for this paper??

They have continually managed to shutoff America from the world by creating walls, walls built by a unilateral approach. It is time we break down these walls and cast a light upon the world that the United States will take multilateral approaches to not only better the needs of its country, but the world.

They? Who is "They"? Unclear pronoun use.

Kyle Lohmeier has a different belief. In his essay, “The Joys of Unilateralism – It’s Best to Just Go it Alone” Lohmeier states that the United States should not be willing to do what is right for the better of the world, but what is right for its nation. It is his belief that America should take any approach necessary to safeguard the nation from world problems. Though he may be commended for his belief that America should stay safe, Lohmeier seems to be missing the big picture.

Nicely done. Goood move to the "refutatio" section of the argument. Strong arrangement here.

We all are people on this planet; we all feel pain, we all strive to better our lives. Whether we are American, or Canadian, or Indian we all are members of one global community. We must live amongst each other, in a viable community that is not only better for Americans, but for the citizens of this world. Lohmeier truly believes that the president of the United States should put his country’s matters above the rest of the worlds. Even though he was elected president of the United States; (SHOULD you use a semicolon after this dependent clause?) it’s his duty, as it is every world leader’s duty, to facilitate the world and rid it of its problems (WHO SAYS? You? Have you demonstrated this?). The only way you can even remotely come close doing that is by acting as a whole. Coming together and fighting the needs head on as one (SENTENCE FRAGMENT). The United States can’t better its cause by isolating itself from this global community. As we have seen with President Bush’s reckless (BE CAREFUL? ARE YOU ALIENATING YOUR AUDIENVCE HERE?) war in Iraq, the world can turn against America. After September 11th the United States had the world’s support. Many nations rallied to show their support for a damaged America. Today that support is no more. President Bush has squandered it away with a brute like foreign policy. A policy based on the belief that doing it alone is the right thing, even though recent history has proven otherwise.

(Is that your conclusion? it seems like you are introducing new arguments in your conclusion. Will that confuse your audience?)

Comment: Overall, you have a thesis, and some good development. I would have liked to see a more explicit integration of your source material, and more coherent movement from one argument to the next. As it stands, this argument can be confusing, since it merely throws together a few sources without signalling your arguments in each case.

The conclusion is also confusing. First, it begs the question of the entire argument: Should we practice unilateralism? The conclusion seems to say "No, because I said no!" Or, it falls back on a fairly trivial "We're all one people" argument without fleshing out the implications of this claim. It's a strong claim: You should work on it in revision! Second, the conclusion seems to start on another line of argument (namely, the Iraq War reaction as yet more "empirical evidence" for your claim), then ends abruptly. A conclusion for a persuasive piece like this one should end strongly with some repetition or emotional appeals.

Grade: C- (In my first-year writing class, anyway...:-))

REVISE REVISE REVISE!!!!!