posted
And tell me how stupid I am. This is a piece I'm considering sending in to the NY Times for my class about it, but I don't generally know much at all about politics. I did do research, but I'm afraid it's not enough. On top of that it's meant to flow well, and I'm not sure it does. Please anyone tell me whether my opinions are valid in the essay, and whether I've made any gross missteps in grammar or punctuation. You will be my utter heroes.
All Right, But What Are You Going To Do Over There?
The democratic primary elections are fast approaching, and it is becoming important for the candidates to take a position on the issues, and make them known through the debate and through the campaign. Much of the critical debating has already been done, most of the candidates have already placed themselves on each side of each of the national issues, but perhaps the domestic policy and homeland security concerns aren’t what should be dominating this primary race. Of course, knowing what the candidates would do with our homeland is vitally important when deciding who to elect, but more and more in our advancing world, we’re finding that international boundaries are dissolving. For this reason, it is important to consider what each candidate will do politically to preserve our relations with the countries of the world, something for which President Bush has not necessarily been known. With Asia’s main powers, China and Japan, coming closer and closer to being international economic and political powers, keeping cordial relations around the world is essential to U.S. interests.
East Asia has historically been a difficult area for Westerners to relate to; however, it is becoming clearer and clearer that keeping relations in that area could shape the international atmosphere for years to come. China’s recent space launch should be signal enough that they’re coming into their own, so to speak, as a technologically advanced nation. The economic growth the country has been experiencing also shows us that it’s a country that will likely become very influential and important in the future. More countries in Asia are looking to China as their benchmark as opposed to the U.S. The second Asian superpower, Japan, is changing as well. It is trying to catch up with China, and more importantly, trying to shed some of the more self-destructive and introverted tendencies it has had as a country in the past. Prime Minister Koizumi is trying to goad the Japanese public into changing, putting radical reforms into Japan’s economy and cracking down on business corruption. For the sometimes stolid and unchanging Japanese public, this is a big change, and there’s no telling what effect it will have on their economic future. Since the yen has recently had such an effect on the dollar this is becoming quite an important area, one that our politicians should be keeping an eye on.
But the Democratic Primary candidates, one of which could possibly become the Commander-In-Chief and chief agenda-setter for our foreign policy, have been lacking in the presentation of their ideas for future international relations. There is rarely a mention of foreign policy on the campaign trail except to expound on the topic of the war in Iraq, and how the candidates expect to resolve the issue. The candidates are paying scant attention to one of the reasons the issue exists, the fact that we had little international support and less international backing for our foreign policies. In addition, after the impact the Iraq war has had on the perceived efficacy of the United Nations, it will take shrewd attention on the part of American leaders to keep it together and working efficiently.
For the candidates to win our vote, they must make sure we know about their proposed policies at home, but for them to succeed in office, it will be overwhelmingly important to understand that America is not an island, and cannot survive on its own. But even more so it is important for the voters who will be putting the future president into office to understand that, and to make sure to put into the running not only the one who will do well by us at home but also the one who will be able to handle things abroad, especially in a sometimes difficult-to-handle area like East Asia.
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it read fine. I will refrain on political comments as East Asia is not currently my area of expertise. Give me a couple more years of international affairs classes and I'll let you know.
posted
Okay, Ryuko, looking it over, let's start from the beginning.
1. The title. Over where? When you say "over there" in the current climate, we're thinking the Middle East, most likely Iraq, not Eastern Asia.
2. Opening paragraph. Get to the point. One sentence if at all possible -- set out what you want to say directly: Democratic candidates need to look at East Asia as a foreign policy issue.
3. Main body: Wishy washy, not strong enough on a particular issue. What is your issue? What do you want readers to feel or do after reading your article? Start asking the democratic candidates what their Asian policies will be? State it simply and straightforward.
4. You address mainland China and Japan, but what about the Koreas and Indonesia -- areas that are more the trouble spots than the two industrial nations? What about the Micro Dragons (Singapore, Taiwan, Macao, Hong Kong)?
5. Ahhh, there's Iraq, down in the body, near the end. The UN as well. Umm, might want to ditch this or ditch the Asia. One topic is your best chance of getting an editor's attention and column inches.
6. The end. You might want to go for the short, sweet and clear ending here. I read it a third time to make sure I had it right. That's twice too many times.
You've got some good ideas there, but you really need to coalesce them into a single thrust, not a flurry of suggestions and warnings. Focus is the key.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: more and more closer and closer clearer and clearer
At least one of these has got to go and go, maybe all 3 repetitons.
quote: something for which President Bush has not necessarily been known. With Asia’s main powers, China and Japan, coming closer and closer to being international economic and political powers, keeping cordial relations around the world is essential to U.S. interests.
The 1st phrase is a little weak, it could be rephrased. "something which is not Bush's forte" or "not known as Bush's strong suit"?
2nd phrase: Closer and closer? China and Japan have been major players economically and politically for many decades. China has a permanent seat on the UN Security Couincil, with veto privledges. Japan defeated Russia in a war 100 years ago! Granted, China has become more key to geopolitics in recent years since the breakup of the USSR. But this sentence must be changed. If you said Asia as a whole is becoming more important most would agree.
quote: it is becoming clearer and clearer that keeping relations
it’s a country that will likely become very influential
one clearer is enough, and keeping relations is too vague--countries keep diplomatic relations even with countries they are at war with. I would change very to even more. China is already very influential and important.
quote: It is trying to catch up with China
catch up to China how? It already surpasses China in technology. Trade volume? What? Be specific. I agree with the 2nd part of the sentence.
I agree with Sopwith, Iraq and the UN partially blur your focus. But the UN's loss of prestige is important--maybe you should keep both in, as long as they support your thesis. It needs some work, but it's better than I could have written at your age, Abby
I might add more edits later--feel free to at them if you disagree.
quote: 4. You address mainland China and Japan, but what about the Koreas and Indonesia -- areas that are more the trouble spots than the two industrial nations? What about the Micro Dragons (Singapore, Taiwan, Macao, Hong Kong)?
He has a point here. You could make the essay about Asian foreign relations in general, with China and Japan being key players among a group, and could also mention in passing India and Pakistan (in my opinion probably where the 1st nuclear war will be held, before 2010) or Afghanistan or the ex-Soviet Asian republics. And you could always trot out that old war-horse, the "free Tibet!" movement. Not trying to mock that movement, it's just that more than rallies will be required before China gives up Tibet. China hasn't given up on regaining Taiwan after 50+ years!
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo already pointed out the one thing that most bugged me as a reader -- the repetitious words. I try to never use the same word twice in a sentence, or even in the same paragraph if there is another way to say it.
Now I'll go back and see what I think about the subject content....
Posts: 9538 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, Morbo, I agree with you on the nuke war between India and Pakistan before 2010. The old MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) deterrant may night work out for two populations whose religious doctrines don't hold a lot of stock in this life, here and now. If you believe in reincarnation and it all goes up in a fireball, you'll be back, somehow, someway. If you believe that in a holy war, your own death gets you immediate entrance to paradise, you have nothing to lose either. Compare that to the Communist and Capitalist systems, both which basically say, this is your one and only trip on planet Earth...
And Tibet, well, honestly, Tibet doesn't exist as a place anymore, just a memory. The Chinese relocated a good portion of its population and then forced immigration to the area. What we think of as Tibet is more about the Dalai Lama in exile than what is truly there any more. The language has changed, the culture is gone, the people are no longer Tibetan. It's a sad, terrible thing and no one started complaining until it was too, too late.
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Tibet doesn't exist as a place anymore, just a memory. The Chinese relocated a good portion of its population and then forced immigration to the area.
All true. Yes, how sad the Tibet situation is. Its unfortunate they didn't have allies strong enough to deter China, which I suppose is why China seized it. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(beams) I'm glad everyone had such useful suggestions. I'm going to implement them as soon as I get a free moment, and then I'll repost for you guys to look over again if you so wish. I'm surprised I got so much positive feedback, being as I wrote this from 2:30 to 4:00 this morning....
Thanks so much Soapy, Mormo, AR, and Farmgirl!!
Posts: 4816 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:All Right, But What Are You Going To Do Over There?
Others have already said it—the title needs work. It's not clear that "you" refers to the politicians that you're talking about. "Over there" isn't clear, either. I would make the title more descriptive of the article. Also, lowercase conjunctions and prepositions ("All Right, but What Are You Going to Do Over There?").
quote:The democratic primary elections are fast approaching, and it is becoming important for the candidates to take a position on the issues, and make them known through the debate and through the campaign.
Remove the comma after "issues."
quote:Much of the critical debating has already been done, most of the candidates have already placed themselves on each side of each of the national issues, but perhaps the domestic policy and homeland security concerns aren’t what should be dominating this primary race.
Suggested revision: "Much of the critical debating is over, and most of the candidates have already chosen a side on national issues." I don't quite see how the clause following the "but" relates to the rest of that, so I'm not sure how to tie it in.
quote:Of course, knowing what the candidates would do with our homeland is vitally important when deciding who to elect, but more and more in our advancing world, we’re finding that international boundaries are dissolving.
Change "more and more" to something like "more often." Also, you should probably explain what you mean by dissolving international boundaries.
quote: For this reason, it is important to consider what each candidate will do politically to preserve our relations with the countries of the world, something for which President Bush has not necessarily been known.
The clause starting with "something for which" is dangling (the "something" doesn't actually correspond to something in the sentence). I think I might say something like ". . . our relations with the countries of the world, especially since President Bush has suffered in this area." Or something like that.
quote:With Asia’s main powers, China and Japan, coming closer and closer to being international economic and political powers . . .
Like someone already said, they really are powers already.
quote:. . . keeping cordial relations around the world is essential to U.S. interests.
East Asia has historically been a difficult area for Westerners to relate to; however, it is becoming clearer and clearer . . .
Cut out "and clearer."
quote:. . . that keeping relations in that area could shape the international atmosphere for years to come.
I would change it to "good relations." I would also change "that area" to "that region." "Area" sounds vague.
quote:China’s recent space launch should be signal enough that they’re coming into their own, so to speak, as a technologically advanced nation.
Lose the "so to speak"; it's not really adding anything.
quote:The economic growth the country has been experiencing also shows us that it’s a country that will likely become very influential and important in the future.
Suggested revision: ". . . also indicates that it will be very influential in the future.
quote:More countries in Asia are looking to China as their benchmark as opposed to the U.S.
"As opposed to" doesn't quite fit; I'd say "instead of."
quote:The second Asian superpower, Japan, is changing as well. It is trying to catch up with China, and more importantly, trying to shed some of the more self-destructive and introverted tendencies it has had as a country in the past.
"As a country" is kind of useless. I'd cut it.
quote: Prime Minister Koizumi is trying to goad the Japanese public into changing, putting radical reforms into Japan’s economy and cracking down on business corruption. For the sometimes stolid and unchanging Japanese public, this is a big change, and there’s no telling what effect it will have on their economic future. Since the yen has recently had such an effect on the dollar this is becoming quite an important area, one that our politicians should be keeping an eye on.
Put a comma after "dollar."
quote:But the Democratic Primary candidates, one of which could possibly become the Commander-In-Chief and chief agenda-setter for our foreign policy . . .
Lowercase "primary" and the "in" in "Commander-in-Chief." "Chief agenda-setter" sounds a little awkward. I'd change "chief" to something else so that you don't repeat say "chief and chief." I'm not sure what I'd do with "agenda-setter."
quote:. . . have been lacking in the presentation of their ideas for future international relations. There is rarely a mention of foreign policy on the campaign trail except to expound on the topic of the war in Iraq, and how the candidates expect to resolve the issue.
Remove the comma after "Iraq."
quote:The candidates are paying scant attention to one of the reasons the issue exists, the fact that we had little international support and less international backing for our foreign policies.
I don't know if this is just me, but "support" and "backing" sound like the same thing. If they're not, you need to reword it to make that clear.
quote:In addition, after the impact the Iraq war has had on the perceived efficacy of the United Nations, it will take shrewd attention on the part of American leaders to keep it together and working efficiently.
I'd insert a "that" after "impact." And what does the "it" in "keep it together" refer to? The U.N.? It doesn't seem clear.
quote:For the candidates to win our vote, they must make sure we know about their proposed policies at home, but for them to succeed in office, it will be overwhelmingly important to understand that America is not an island, and cannot survive on its own.
Suggested revision: ". . . but for them to succeed in office, they must understand that America is not an island and cannot survive on its own." Making the statements more parallel strengthens the connection between the ideas.
quote:But even more so it is important for the voters who will be putting the future president into office to understand that . . .
I'd change "even more so" to something like "above all." That could just be personal preference, but I think it sounds stronger. I'd cut "who will be putting the future president into office." It's understood that voters do that. The "that" after "understand" seems a little unclear. If you're talking about the fact that America's not an island, then I'd probably repeat the idea in different words. And remove the comma after "that."
quote:. . . and to make sure to put into the running not only the one who will do well by us at home but also the one who will be able to handle things abroad, especially in a sometimes difficult-to-handle area like East Asia.
Cut out "to make sure." It's unnecessary and a little wordy. For some reason, I don't like the phrase "do well by us." I'm not sure why.
I'd move the "not only" after "the one who will." Then you can cut out the second "the one who will." The way you have it phrased, you're actually referring to two individuals (both the one will do well by us and the one who will be able to handle things abroad).
I think you need a stronger conclusion. It feels odd to end on "East Asia." I was expecting more. Look back at your introduction to see what you started talking about, and if there are any loose ends, tie them into the conclusion.
Feel free to ignore my comments or reword things in your own way. But if you ignore the comma rules, you shall surely be cursed!
Posts: 586 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
at them if you disagree.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
