The Extension Task Structure

Introduction (2 mins)

-Explain the issue (or the case) clearly. Keep it very simple at first. Explain it to us the way you would explain it to someone who has never heard of this issue before.

-Then explain it in a bit more depth. Tell us a few key facts of the case (ie. statistics or important historical events) to help us understand the case better. Help your audience to appreciate the context around your issue before things get complicated.

-Give us at least one reason why this issue (your case) is important to understand.

-Tell us which (one) Global Political Challenge (GPC) your case is related to and explain this link. (The GPCs in IB Global Politics are Environment, Poverty, Health, Identity, Borders, and Security.)

-Explain why your case study is related to this GPC. For example, convince us that your issue the Catalan referendum is definitely related to your GPC Borders.

-(Remember: If this is your second presentation, please make sure you choose a different GPC than the one you did last time).

-Finally, discuss how your issue can be explored on at least two different levels of analysis. Our “levels of analysis” are Global, Regional, Community, International, National, and Local). For example you could explain some national implications of the issue and some local implications of the Catalan referendum. You can link back to these levels later (in the main body) if you have time.

The Main Body (7 mins)

Your Main Body of your presentation should be organized into 3 aspects. Choosing your 3 aspects is a bit tricky. You won't be able to choose them until you know a fair bit about your topic, so you'll need to do some reading and Youtube-watching before you can settle on these. The point here is to find 3 aspects that are interesting about your case, which relate to global politics. 

(Once you've chosen your aspects, use the 7 areas to develop your  writing about them). 

How to organize the main body part  

These are popular and useful ways that students organize their ET aspects:

• How the case relates to BIG GLOBAL TRENDS.

  • Explain how your case relates to 3 different global trends and use various other areas of the course to explain and explore these. 

  • For example, Catalonian separatism is just one of many separatist movements around the world. And you can then explore and make sense of this. For example you could compare Catalonian separatism to separatism elsewhere (sharing some similarities and differences), and use foundation theories and course concepts to clarify what is going on and why).

• What the case shows us about THE NATURE OF THIS Global Political Challenge (and why it's hard to manage). 

  • Use your case to explore 3 different aspects of why your chosen GPC is more complicated than it might at first seem and use various other areas of the course to explain and explore these aspects. 

  • For example, The Catalonian independence movement shows us several ways that Borders are not a simple concept. (Multi-nation states, semi-autonomous regions, post-colonialism, etc.). For example, there are differing ways of thinking about legitimacy (and different sources of legitimacy).

Go with the approach that makes the most sense to you, for this case, using the different ways we analyze things in this course to make sense of your case.  

Then build-out your three aspects like this 

Look through your textbook and consider the different foundation and critical theories. Try to develop insights using all of the different 7 areas of the course and then ultimately go with the ones that make the most sense and add the most intellectual value to your presentation.

Your job here is to make sense of the case (using course approaches) and to impress us (make us think that you're the smartest person who's ever taken this course). No pressure. ;) 

Examples of what you could actually say

-Explain how the case relates to a course concept. For example, explain how Sovereignty is a key issue in the Catalan referendum). Use some key words from that part of the course (i.e. The Sovereignty chapter) in your explanation.

-Explain how your concept relates to one of the main foundation theories of the course --Realism, Liberalism, Relativism, Universalism, or Capitalism.

-Explain a conflicting opinion on the issue. Explain a conflict related to political orientations (i.e. stakeholder perspectives), or critical perspectives. For example, you could contrast the views of liberalism and realism in your case.

-Explain a relevant economic, social or political factor and then (if you want to) link it to a level of analysis and/or a course concept to your concept.

For example, how Catalan Sovereignty would have economic implications for Spain (on a National level) because Catalonia is one of the richest and most industrialized regions of the country. 

Or, how Spain recognizing the Legitimacy of Catalan claims could have political implications for the EU (international level).

Or, how the Conflict between the Catalan separatists and non-separatists has had social effects among residents of Catalonia (Local level).

You might be tempted to include as many links as possible (to different levels of analysis, concepts, theories, etc). But actually, less is often more. We appreciate deep explanations, which really dig into what's going on at a particular level of analysis (or 2). Similarly, it's better to take some time to explain how your issue is well-explained by feminism or constructivism, if there are several interesting things to say about it. 

Conclusion (1 min)

-Summarize what you think are the most important insights from your Body Section (your analysis). Try to synthesize these insights, pull together aspects of different aspects of your presentation to create new insights.

-Share a final thought on what your case has shown us about the GPC. For example, what has Catalan separatism taught us about Borders overall? 

-Explain why it is important that we understand both this issue in particular and cases such as this in the future. 

And that's all you have to do. Easy right?! ;) 

Also... practice  

Actually there's one more thing. Please make sure to practice your presentation several times to make sure you are able to make it through everything within 10 minutes and to make sure you can do it just using your bullet point notes.

Of course, you won't be able to read out your perfectly written prose during the presentation, so go easy on yourself. You don't have to be perfect up there. Enjoy yourself and do your best. 

Hexagon Mapping

Use this sheet at the end of the research process to help clarify your ideas. This should then allow you to begin the write-up with confidence.

Sample A  Presentation Script 2

For this speech I have chosen to base it in the sphere of identity politics and will discuss to what extent systematic oppression exists in the United States legal system and is an example of cultural marxism. 

In order to understand what cultural marxism is we must first know what the marxist ideology is which cultural marxism is based off. Marxism is a theory based upon the ideas of the philosopher Karl Marx. It is what is known as a “conflict” theory as it suggests that because societies are in conflict with each other. And Marxism claims that this conflict is between the rich and the poor. It has communist ideas behind it, to make it a more fair society where individuals are treated equally rather than the bourgeoise oppressing the proletariat by economic means as is in our modern capitalist society.

However with cultural marxism this belief extends past economic oppression and it claims that those who are oppressed are also oppressed are also oppressed due to their their differences in culture, race, sexuality, and gender. Examples of this include Judaeo-Christianity versus Islam, or straight versus gay. 

This ideology essentially gave birth to multiculturalism which is the coexistence of cultures and political correctness and also antiracism. Someone who is politically correct believes that the language and actions that which could offend others, especially regarding racism and sex, should be avoided. Therefore my case study will look at how oppressed these people are in the US legal system, especially black and latino Americans. 

Systemic or institutional oppression is the systematic mistreatment of people within a social identity group supported by a society and institutions. Stakeholders include the United States and other affected cultures said to be involved in the country. 

This case study clearly raises political challenges, as it refers to the political positions based on the interests and perspectives of a social group with which people may identify and also racism. Now although controversial, and classed as many as a moral issue, racism can be viewed as a political issue due to the way in which people’s politics are shaped by identities via aspects of their identity through loosely correlated social organisations such as class and culture.

The impression of the way that certain races are treated in the United States legal system and prisons  depicts why this is a huge political challenge and also as it raises human rights issues. For example, blacks who are arrested are seven times more likely to be imprisoned than what whites are. They are sentenced to death four times more often and also the average prison sentence for a black male is approximately 10 months longer than what it is for a white.

As the focus of this speech is on cultural marxism, we should consider the situation in America with the death penalty and this racism that surrounds it. An in depth study by researchers called “Prison Nation” has called that whether someone is given the death penalty or not is dependent on the quality of the legal defence not the facts of the crime. Most of those on death row have not been able to afford their own lawyers so the death penalty is also a class issue and no one on death row is rich. This is a clear representation of marxism as it shows that those who are oppressed are more likely to be incarcerated which would likely lead to unemployment and poverty and therefore prove cultural marxism to be more correct.

On the other hand, a model called the ‘realistic conflict theory’ offers an explanation for the negative attitude to racial integration and to promote diversity. This is illustrated in data collected by The National Michigan election study survey. It can be concluded that  attempts towards racial integration was due to a perception of blacks being a danger to valued lifestyles, goals and resources rather than symbolic racism and the prejudiced attitude formulated during childhood.

In regards to the responses and reactions of individuals and actions, there have been many that could be argued for and against systematic oppression. At the time, President Obama claimed that racism is deep within our DNA and that effects of Jim Crow didn’t just go away. He suggested here that racism will always be a part of our society and therefore proving cultural marxism to be correct. 

This could be supported by the election of Donald Trump as it could be a reaction against movements like Black Lives Matter. But Trump being pro-police, pro-America and pro-white supremacy is only seen logical and accurate. Whereas on the other hand we have Hillary Clinton who was relatively progressive with 80% of her supporters being under the age of 25 and voting overwhelmingly for her. And also Bernie Sanders who had most of his support base in the younger generation. This could mean that although it is  currently with the right and more realist, the demographic is moving more and more to the left. Therefore, this increases the chances of a society where cultural marxism and communism are more prioritised important. 

Living in this modern day society, the social impacts are far greater than what they were in the past. Due to the mistreatment of coloured people there has been uproar and anger across the world with the United States’ legal system and the brutal acts committed by their police. This has led to the proliferation of movements such as Black Lives Matter which have caused millions of people to become unsettled socially and engage in intense disagreement and even riots. Now, these riots not only can these cause economic damage through infrastructure, but another impact also lies within the actual oppression itself. 

One in every 15 African American men and one in every 36 Latino men are incarcerated in comparison to one in every 106 white men. This more likely chance of being incarcerated leads to unemployment. After being incarcerated these people are less likely to be employed and which could lead to being unemployed for long periods of time which ultimately means poverty.

Now with over one million of the two million people in the United States prison being only Black excluding other colours, this is very unhealthy for the United States economy and GDP per capita. As we know, this issue of coloured races being treated as inferior to the white people in the USA has caused a massive negative portrayal on the media across the world of the United States due to globalisation.

Many across the globe have had their say in this matter and either through social media platforms such as twitter, or even more physical ways, such as strikes. For example, with the death of teenager Mzee Mohammed in Liverpool after confrontation with Merseyside police, Black Lives Matter sent a statement of solidarity to activists in the United Kingdom which read “we send you solidarity as we see the death of Mzee Mohammed we also see the 1558 people killed in the UK by police in your struggle to gain justice for them.” This example shows us how the political challenge is in other parts of the world and it is not only in the United States the struggles of this oppression. 

In 2014, Black people made up 10% of the United Kingdom’s prison population whereas it only made up 3.5% of the general population. There is a great disparity between the proportion of black people in UK prisons and what there are in the general population. There are more then than in the United States and this shows how this is not a problem just for the United States but for the world. 

Another example to show the global implications which of this oppression in America is in the Cold War how the USSR used American oppression as a tool to say how the United States truly isn’t a free country. And how their essentially being hypocritical as they are preaching for freedom to the other states around the world but are denying it to their own citizens.Therefore we can see how the oppression of coloured people has been a global challenge over the years no matter what the way.

To conclude, I believe that there is definitely systematic oppression in the United States legal system. Statistics and facts do not lie and due to the ones I have given, it is difficult to turn a cold shoulder on this issue. The NYPD had only shut down their racial profiling system in 2014. With something this large happening only so recently it is easy to understand why many people viewed that prejudice and oppression is still occuring in the country as it takes a lot longer than three years for society to change as a whole. However many believe that this oppression is built into the fabric of our society and can never be abolished. I also believe that this is the unfortunate scenario as although we have come a far way since slavery, there is still some sort of underlying hatred and fear of other races which can be seen through states’ unwillingness to take in refugees or Donald Trump’s plans to build a wall or immigration plan. Now in regards to cultural marxism the United States oppression can definitely be used as an example due to the number of coloured people being incarcerated compared to the number of people that are white. The mere fact that organisations such as Black Lives Matter even exist confirms this systematic oppression as we as a society have now accepted it and taken matters into our own hands. 

Thank you for listening. 

Sample B Presentation Script 1

For my first case study I have decided to focus on the Mali conflict and the Danish military intervention, as well as the UN military intervention connection. So my research question is: to what extent do national interests of Denmark affect the country’s involvement in Mali?

In terms of the global political challenge, we see that national interests often effect the international community's ability to promote local security. So this is individual national interests of different countries.

In terms of the situation in Mali it started in 2012, when Tuareg nationalists in Northern Mali, which is the country next to Mauritania, started a rebellion as well as with other extremist Islamic groups in Northern Mali and one or two established their own states. So they started moving south, trying to take the capital of Mali. The conflict can be actually attributed to the Arab Spring of 2011 which occurred in Northern Africa. Here we see the general countries that have been affected, through different civil wars, different protests and we see that Mali is right next to two major ones, so in that sense a lot of people say that the Arab spring actually bled over borders and therefore affected Mali.

Islamic extremism is also an important factor in considering the conflict in Mali. Al Qaeda for example, affiliates itself with the Ansar Dine which is one of the extremist Islamic groups that are part of the whole Tuareg rebellion. Gaddafi’s fall also caused the Al Qaeda to be able to have a gun trade along the Sahel region in Northern Africa which also prompted or promoted the rise of rebels in Northern Mali. 

In terms of international intervention, in October 2016, Denmark responded to the UN call to arms, donating 30 special troops, 30 staff officers, as well as other support, and also talks of extending that aid. The nature of the unrest is a threat to global security therefore the stakeholders are the UN, and Denmark, as well as the P5 in general. When regarding Denmark’s involvement or intervention, we can regard it through two different perspectives. 

Firstly from the international communities position, this is when we regard the involvement from a liberalist perspective. So Mali can be viewed as a ‘global threat’ in this case. When we talk about regionalism, we talk about regional trends. So here we say, we see that this general regional trend of insecurity in Northern Africa, as well as extremism, which again moves over borders to Mali. 

Mali is actually one of the severest conflicts in terms of peacekeeping for the UN. So in this sense promoting security in Mali would actual provide regional security, as well as security for the whole world. So in that sense, Mali can almost be regarded as a proxy conflict. 

In terms of international interests, in this case we see that the UN is an important stakeholder as they would like to promote global security and the security council is therefore also an important stakeholder and actually passed a resolution in 2164 which initiated the start of MINUSMA which is the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali. Their initial goal was actually to safeguard citizens, so it was actually to promote peace. This means that they were supposed to use non-violent methods, such as peaceful discussions with rebels. However this started in 2013, but in 2015 and 2014, the conflict actually escalated. The current toll is 53 from the start of the peacekeeping mission which is the highest of all peacekeeping missions for the UN. So we see that this is because of the rise of jihadism and the spread of general unrest in Mali. Aas a result this changed the MINUSMA’s mission to “eradicate violent insurgents” according to Jeff Lorenti (spelling?) who is a UN specialist. So we see here that primarily the UN troops in Mali are peacekeeping troop so again non-violent methods. However, given the situation, we could argue that hard power is needed. Therefore there might be also a need for foreign troops as peacekeeping troops are not equipped to deal with the situation. So given the idea that the international community acts together, and Denmark is a part of the international community, this justifies their military involvement in Mali.

In terms of human rights, this is a foundation of the international community and has been a core purpose of the UN since its foundation. So the violations of human rights in Mali are not always documented but they are generally discussed. So in that sense the military involvement of the UN in Mali is due to the fact that they are duty bound to uphold and protect human rights in order to promote global peace. 

This is also connected to the idea of legitimacy as the UN would be defending their own values. Denmark as a valid international actor, and a part of the international community of the UN, would therefore also argue for the military involvement as a defending human rights and defending the international community’s values.

Denmark in the past has been very militarily active in terms of international affairs that they are in global security. We see this for example in Afghanistan where proportionate to their population, the action had a higher death toll on soldiers than the US and the UK. However this trend of military activism, as well as the idea of promoting global security, can also be seen from a realist perspective. In this case we see that Danish legitimacy can be argued form a national perspective Denmark can be seen as an actor on the global level. So military activity and the use of hard power which promotes their influence. Additionally we see that military budget cuts have actually influenced Denmark’s military ability. As a result this undermines their legitimacy and power. So military activism in Mali would promote legitimacy on a global scale.

We actually see Denmark in NATO, that their position has been threatened due to lack of capabilities, due to budget cuts, according to former chairman for NATO military community. So Denmark’s legitimacy is also importance in terms of self-interest, in order to promote future security. In that sense, in order to promote the well-being of their citizens and this is where we see the idea of bandwagoning. This is when smaller nations support larger nations in order to promote future security in case they need it. So here we see that France has colonial interests in Mali, as well as US in order to expel jihadism, so Denmark by supporting these major countries would actually be securing their future security from the great sphere of Russia who they have a lot of tension with as of late. 

We can also regard the situation from the national interests perspective on a refugee crisis level. So here we see in general that conflicts in north Africa for example, Libya, Sudan, they have actually prompted a refugee crisis and the Malian crisis could also as well prompt a similar crisis. And according to the 1954 convention of refugees, we see that nations actually are supposed to give financial support, the same financial support they give to the citizens, as the refugees in their country. Denmark is a socialist country and gives a lot of financial support to its citizens, therefore a refugee crisis would adversely affect them. 

In conclusion we see that national interests, in terms of legitimacy, self-interests to promote security, so bandwagoning and the refugee crisis would prompt Denmark to militarily intervene in Mali. However, from the liberalist it can also be argued that the initial intervention, can also be argued in terms of the international community’s intervention. So from the liberalist perspective, and this is where regional trends might focus effect global security, addition there is the responsibility to protect and the responsibility to defend community rights. In terms of the challenge faced elsewhere, we see that the international community elsewhere relies on the international participation of everyone to donate troops as well as other types of support and national interests the effect of countries of involvement in several UN missions. And from a realist perspective we see that the bandwagoning, so when smaller nations supporting larger nations, is a foundation of the international community’s intervention in other countries and therefore national interests play a huge role in the international communities involvement. 

Introduction

For my first case study I have decided to focus on the Mali conflict and the Danish military intervention, as well as the UN military intervention connection. So my research question is: to what extent do national interests of Denmark affect the country’s involvement in Mali?

In terms of the global political challenge, we see that national interests often effect the international community's ability to promote local security. So this is individual national interests of different countries.

Background -

Student gives major features of the conflict and the issues involved- Islamic extremism, terrorism. 

In terms of the situation in Mali it started in 2012, when Tuareg nationalists in Northern Mali, which is the country next to Mauritania, started a rebellion as well as with other extremist Islamic groups in Northern Mali and one or two established their own states. So they started moving south, trying to take the capital of Mali. The conflict can be actually attributed to the Arab Spring of 2011 which occurred in Northern Africa. Here we see the general countries that have been affected, through different civil wars, different protests and we see that Mali is right next to two major ones, so in that sense a lot of people say that the Arab spring actually bled over borders and therefore affected Mali.

Islamic extremism is also an important factor in considering the conflict in Mali. Al Qaeda for example, affiliates itself with the Ansar Dine which is one of the extremist Islamic groups that are part of the whole Tuareg rebellion. Gaddafi’s fall also caused the Al Qaeda to be able to have a gun trade along the Sahel region in Northern Africa which also prompted or promoted the rise of rebels in Northern Mali. 

In terms of international intervention, in October 2016, Denmark responded to the UN call to arms, donating 30 special troops, 30 staff officers, as well as other support, and also talks of extending that aid. The nature of the unrest is a threat to global security therefore the stakeholders are the UN, and Denmark, as well as the P5 in general.

Clear signposting 

When regarding Denmark’s involvement or intervention, we can regard it through two different perspectives. 

1st point: 

From a liberal perspective Mali is a proxy conflict to generate regional stability (I don’t agree with her point!)

Firstly from the international communities position, this is when we regard the involvement from a liberalist perspective. So Mali can be viewed as a ‘global threat’ in this case. When we talk about regionalism, we talk about regional trends. So here we say, we see that this general regional trend of insecurity in Northern Africa, as well as extremism, which again moves over borders to Mali. 

Mali is actually one of the severest conflicts in terms of peacekeeping for the UN. So in this sense promoting security in Mali would actual provide regional security, as well as security for the whole world. So in that sense, Mali can almost be regarded as a proxy conflict. 

2nd point:

UN troops are nonviolent and therefore there is a need for hard power to compliment UN efforts so Denmark is justified in its involvement. (Again I disagree with her logic). 

In terms of international interests, in this case we see that the UN is an important stakeholder as they would like to promote global security and the security council is therefore also an important stakeholder and actually passed a resolution in 2164 which initiated the start of MINUSMA which is the UN peacekeeping mission in Mali. Their initial goal was actually to safeguard citizens, so it was actually to promote peace. This means that they were supposed to use non-violent methods, such as peaceful discussions with rebels. However this started in 2013, but in 2015 and 2014, the conflict actually escalated. The current toll is 53 from the start of the peacekeeping mission which is the highest of all peacekeeping missions for the UN. So we see that this is because of the rise of jihadism and the spread of general unrest in Mali. As a result this changed the MINUSMA’s mission to “eradicate violent insurgents” according to Jeff Lorenti (spelling?) who is a UN specialist. So we see here that primarily the UN troops in Mali are peacekeeping troop so again non-violent methods. However, given the situation, we could argue that hard power is needed. Therefore there might be also a need for foreign troops as peacekeeping troops are not equipped to deal with the situation. So given the idea that the international community acts together, and Denmark is a part of the international community, this justifies their military involvement in Mali.

3rd point: human rights 

In terms of human rights, this is a foundation of the international community and has been a core purpose of the UN since its foundation. So the violations of human rights in Mali are not always documented but they are generally discussed. So in that sense the military involvement of the UN in Mali is due to the fact that they are duty bound to uphold and protect human rights in order to promote global peace. 

Key concept link- legitimacy 

This is also connected to the idea of legitimacy as the UN would be defending their own values. Denmark as a valid international actor, and a part of the international community of the UN, would therefore also argue for the military involvement as a defending human rights and defending the international community’s values.

Denmark in the past has been very militarily active in terms of international affairs that they are in global security. We see this for example in Afghanistan where proportionate to their population, the action had a higher death toll on soldiers than the US and the UK. However this trend of military activism, as well as the idea of promoting global security, can also be seen from a realist perspective. In this case we see that Danish legitimacy can be argued form a national perspective Denmark can be seen as an actor on the global level. So military activity and the use of hard power which promotes their influence. Additionally we see that military budget cuts have actually influenced Denmark’s military ability. As a result this undermines their legitimacy and power. So military activism in Mali would promote legitimacy on a global scale.

We actually see Denmark in NATO, that their position has been threatened due to lack of capabilities, due to budget cuts, according to former chairman for NATO military community. So Denmark’s legitimacy is also importance in terms of self-interest, in order to promote future security. In that sense, in order to promote the well-being of their citizens and this is where we see the idea of bandwagoning. This is when smaller nations support larger nations in order to promote future security in case they need it. So here we see that France has colonial interests in Mali, as well as US in order to expel jihadism, so Denmark by supporting these major countries would actually be securing their future security from the great sphere of Russia who they have a lot of tension with as of late. 

Perspective of national interests

We can also regard the situation from the national interests perspective on a refugee crisis level. So here we see in general that conflicts in North Africa for example, Libya, Sudan, they have actually prompted a refugee crisis and the Malian crisis could also as well prompt a similar crisis. And according to the 1954 convention of refugees, we see that nations actually are supposed to give financial support, the same financial support they give to the citizens, as the refugees in their country. Denmark is a socialist country and gives a lot of financial support to its citizens, therefore a refugee crisis would adversely affect them. 

Conclusion

In conclusion we see that national interests, in terms of legitimacy, self-interests to promote security, so bandwagoning and the refugee crisis would prompt Denmark to militarily intervene in Mali. However, from the liberalist it can also be argued that the initial intervention, can also be argued in terms of the international community’s intervention. So from the liberalist perspective, and this is where regional trends might focus effect global security, addition there is the responsibility to protect and the responsibility to defend community rights. In terms of the challenge faced elsewhere, we see that the international community elsewhere relies on the international participation of everyone to donate troops as well as other types of support and national interests the effect of countries of involvement in several UN missions. And from a realist perspective we see that the bandwagoning, so when smaller nations supporting larger nations, is a foundation of the international community’s intervention in other countries and therefore national interests play a huge role in the international communities involvement.