American Government Policy Paper
This project is an opportunity to carefully examine a contemporary foreign policy issue between the United States government and one other foreign government.
Completing this activity is a mandatory component of this course. It serves as the standard course assessment for all GOVT 2305 students and is a college requirement. Failure to submit and complete this project in its entirety will result in a failing grade for the course.
There are four steps to completing this project:
Step 1 – Identifying the Issue
The policy paper will address a US foreign policy concern toward a country or specific topic. Only one of the topics listed below may be selected. Pick one and begin your research immediately:
• The future of the NATO alliance
• Deforestation of the Amazon
• Political development in Afghanistan
• The use of sanctions as an effective tool of diplomacy
• Political development in Venezuela
• The threat of nuclear proliferation
• The status of Palestinian refugees
• Nigerian political instability
• Economic development in El Salvador
• Support for Saudi Arabia in light of human rights concerns
• Military aid to Egypt
• Military aid to Ukraine
• Turkey’s membership in NATO
Step 2 – Gathering Sources
Conduct research to locate three academic journal articles (aka: peer-reviewed or scholarly sources) that specifically address issues within the foreign policy relationship you selected and meet the following criteria:
• The articles must be no more than ten (10) years old.
• The article must have more than five (5) pages of actual content (without graphs, charts, footnotes, citations, etc.).
• Books will not count toward the scholarly source minimum requirements.
• Carefully choose sources that provide a variety of perspectives on your selected topic.
• In addition to the minimum research requirements, you should use high quality sources for essential current events information relevant to your topic. These may include academic sources that are not peer-reviewed (position papers), newspaper articles, magazine articles, and other quality or reputable sources.
• The course textbook, encyclopedias (including Wikipedia), and almanacs, are reference materials and are not to be listed as sources on the collegiate level.
Step 3 – The Proposal
Submit a one to two page proposal to the appropriate dropbox by the date specified in the course calendar. The proposal must:
• Identify the topic in one or two paragraphs:
- Summarize the foreign policy topic you will be addressing
- Describe the current status of the policy or topic
- Describe why this policy is important to the United States
Cite each of your academic journal articles at least once in the paragraph using correct MLA in-text citations.
• Include the Works Cited or Reference section with the three (at a minimum) peer-reviewed academic journal articles that will form the basis of your policy paper.
• These three references must be cited in the final policy paper.
• Additional sources can be added (and should if a good grade is desired), but they cannot be changed without permission after the proposal is approved.
• In-text citations and the Works Cited or Reference section must be formatted using MLA citation style. Other MLA formatting elements (e.g. header, page number format, etc.) are not used in this assignment.
• Do not use block quotations (or any quotation that exceeds three lines of text) or first person in the proposal or final policy paper!
References provided in the proposal cannot be changed at a later date without approval (see Step 4 below).
An example of a good policy proposal is provided in eCampus.
A fundamental expectation of college writing is that all key arguments, facts, assertions and claims are supported with research (i.e. parenthetical citations). When a source has been cited, you are expected to acknowledge the source in the body of your text and on a Works Cited page using formal MLA citation format. The paper must be completed using the formatting guidelines provided in the syllabus as “Guidelines for all Coursework.”
I do not allow students to recycle or use essays from other courses. You must receive consent from me in order to do so and you will need to provide a solid justification. Please do not simply submit an assignment that you’ve used in another course as it will not be accepted unless approved.
Revise and Resubmit Policy
The purpose of the proposal process is for your instructor to confirm that 1) you have selected three appropriate academic journal articles, 2) that you have selected an appropriate topic, and 3) that you are able to correctly cite your sources. Additionally, it allows your instructor to give you feedback on your writing (grammar, sentence composition, punctuation, and spelling) as well as your use of proper MLA citation formatting.
Should you submit a proposal that does not meet the minimum assignment requirements, you will be asked to “revise and resubmit” the assignment. In such cases, a minimum letter grade deduction is always applied to the resubmitted assignment. The instructor will inform you of the due date and conditions of resubmission.
The Revise and Resubmit applies only to policy proposals that are submitted by the due date. Only one “Revise and Resubmit” will be allowed. Failure to resubmit the revision before the provided due date, or failure to correct the identified issues in need of revision, will result in a zero for the proposal grade. More seriously, students that do not successfully complete the proposal assignment are in high danger of failing the course if their policy paper topic and sources do not meet minimum requirements.
Step 4 – The Policy Paper
Prepare a formal research paper regarding the selected policy. The assignment must be between 5-8 pages excluding quotations, cover page, and Works Cited page(s).
The essay should address the following:
• An introduction and brief overview of the current issues facing the countries.
• The reasons for initiating changes to existing policy.
• The possible policy options or alternatives to be considered (discuss several).
• The pros and cons of each policy option or alternative (costs vs. benefits).
• The best policy option or alternative (pick one).
• A summary and conclusion
Do not use first person in the proposal or final policy paper!
The paper body must be a minimum of 5 and a maximum of 8 full pages in length, double-spaced. No more and no less is necessary for this activity. Keep direct quotes to a minimum; do not use block quotations. All key arguments, facts, assertions, and claims must be supported with research. The references approved in the policy proposal must be used in the policy paper: you may add additional sources (and should if you seek an A on the assignment), but you must seek approval from the instructor at least 72 hours before the policy paper due date if you intend to change any of the scholarly sources approved in the proposal.
There will be no opportunity to revise and resubmit this assignment. Failure to meet the minimum research and writing requirements will result in a zero for the entire assignment (no partial credit will be awarded as this is a formal institutional assessment). A zero on this assignment will result in a failing grade for the course.
Finally, add a cover page and include the References (also known as Works Cited) page at the end. Submit all pages together as one file to the assignment dropbox.
Special Notes:
The grading standards used to assess the quality of your work for this project will be detailed in a grading rubric, which will be provided during the semester.
It is strongly suggested that every student read ahead and use the library database during the first days of the course to begin researching a topic. This project requires carefully planning throughout the semester.
Refer to the course calendar for the specific due date. The final product is to be submitted as a single file via the submission guidelines identified by the instructor.
Procrastination on this project has resulted in some students, who were otherwise passing, having to fail and repeat the course.
Duong 1
Duong 2
Nuclear Proliferation
Policy Proposal Paper
Ngoc Duong
GOVT2305 Spring 2020
Prof. J. Mark Skorick
Word count (264)
International concern about nuclear proliferation has rapidly increased since the end of the Cold War (Karl). In the 1960s it was widely assumed that there would be 30-35 nuclear weapons states by the turn of the century (World Nuclear Association). Even more troubling, this threat is only one of several risks imposed on humanity by the existence of nuclear weapons (Panofsky). These risks fall into three classes: the risk that some fraction, be it large or small, of the inventories of nuclear weapons held by eight countries will be detonated either by accident or deliberately; the risk that nuclear weapons technology will diffuse to additional nations; and the risk that nuclear weapons will reach the hands of terrorist individuals or groups (Panofsky). The Treaty on the Non – Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) entered into force on March 5, 1970, with 43 Parties, including three of the five nuclear-weapon states: The Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States (U.S. Delegation to the 2010 NPT Review Conference, 2010). While accepting safeguards at declared facilities, Iraq and Iran had set up elaborate equipment elsewhere in an attempt to enrich uranium, in Iraq’s case, to weapons grade; North Korea used research reactors (not commercial electricity-generating reactors) and a reprocessing plant to produce some weapons-grade plutonium (WNA). This policy paper will mention the optimism and pessimism of the proliferation, in addition to pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the NPT. It will find out various ways to reduce the spread of nuclear weapons so that the pact between countries will be closer and lead to peace.
Works Cited
Panofsky, Wolfgang K.H. “Nuclear Proliferation Risks, New and Old.” Issues in Science and Technology, vol. XIX, no. 4, Summer 2003, issues.org/panofsky/
Karl, David J. “Proliferation pessimism and emerging nuclear powers.” International Security. Winter96/97, Vol. 21 Issue 3, p87. 33p. EBSCOhost,
dcccd.idm.oclc.org/ehost/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=8c99e750-9b0e-4cb5-ba14-e321ce7b0a2f%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#anchor=AN9702062905-2&AN=9702062905&db=a9h
“Safeguards to Prevent Nuclear Proliferation” Safeguards to Prevent Nuclear Proliferation, September 2018,
www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/non-proliferation/safeguards-to-prevent-nuclear-proliferation.aspx
Extra source:
“Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapon” U.S. Delegation to the 2010 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference, 2009-2017.state.gov/documents/organization/141503
Strengthening the United States Cybersecurity Relationship with China
Policy Paper Project
Jane Doe
GOVT 230
5
-2XXX
Dr. J. Mark Skorick
Spring 2018
Word Count (1636)
The United States and China are intense competitors for global dominance. The U.S. and China are the two largest economies in the world and the two nations are in constant economic competition. The two nations also compete politically and ideologically, with China being a communist state with harsh restrictions on freedom of speech and the U.S. being a representative democracy with strict protections for freedom of speech. As China seeks to surpass the United States in economic dominance, they have also become strong competitors in cyberspace (Maker 16). Nations and people around the globe have become increasingly interconnected via cyberspace. This has led to cybersecurity becoming fundamentally necessary for nations to address. Although the United States and China have already implemented an agreement, the U.S. should work to implement a more robust cybersecurity agreement with China.
In the United States, it is estimated that losses due to cyber espionage are approximately $338 billion dollars and that between 2015 and 2017 Chinese cyber attacks targeted numerous industries including Infrastructure, Energy, Healthcare, and Technology (Iasiello 57). United States federal organizations have investigated numerous incidents of Chinese attacks on American corporations (Maker 16). In 2014, a United States grand jury even indicted five members of the Chinese military’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) for hacking major U.S. companies (Lindsay 8). Despite these documented incidents, the U.S. has been hesitant to publicly attribute cyber attacks to China (Maker 16-17). Even after it was discovered in April 2015 that Chinese hackers had infiltrated the systems of the United States Office of Personnel Management and gained access to the information of more than 22 million government employees, then President Barack Obama, the White House, and the United States government would not formally acknowledge China’s involvement in the cyber attacks (Maker 17-18).
In September 2015 just a few months after the discovery of the breech at the Office of Personnel Management, U.S. President Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping entered the two nations into a cyber agreement. This agreement stated that “neither country’s government will conduct or knowingly support cyber-enabled theft of intellectual property, including trade secrets or other confidential business information, with the intent of providing competitive advantages to companies or commercial sectors” (Iasiello 69). Essentially the brief agreement was stating that the two governments would not hack corporations or the commercial sector of the opposing government for economic gain and they would corporate with respective investigations by the other government into any hacking that was discovered.
One major flaw of the US-China Cyber Agreement is that it only addresses hacking in the commercial sector for economic advantage. It also fails to specifically address hacking for governmental purposes (Maker 19). This is especially troubling for two reasons. First, China had already conducted a breech in the government sector when its’ hackers attacked the Office of Personnel Management. This agreement does nothing to address that cyber attack. Second, the lines between the commercial and government sectors are blurred in both China and the United States. The Chinese government owns 12 of the largest companies in China (Steinberg). In the United States, 80% of the nations critical national infrastructure (CNI) is owned or operated by commercial industry (Stoddart 811). In addition, the United States awards contracts for defense, supplies, information technology, etc. to commercial sector corporations. It can be inferred that this agreement, would protect not only China and America’s commercial sector but also a portion of their government sectors. However, if either country were hacking a commercial sector business, they could easily state they were not hacking it for economic advantage but instead for governmental purposes, which are not covered in the agreement (Steinberg).
Other flaws in the US-China Cyber Agreement are that the agreement does not define terms or standards, there are no clear methods for enforceability of the agreement, and there are no measurements to confirm each nation is adhering to the agreement (Steinberg). This leaves a wide opportunity for “misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and abuse” of the agreement (Steinberg). Overall the US-China Cyber Agreement simply does not do enough to curtail China’s continued cyber attacks on American commercial and government interests. As noted by Chris Porter, an intelligence strategist for FireEye, “the total threat from China didn’t decrease [after the agreement], it just changed shape” (Greenberg). China has continued to push the limits of the agreement by not only hacking American government and commercial entities but also by pursuing numerous spying initiatives (Greenberg). With China continuing to pose a cyber threat, the United States needs to reexamine and strengthen the existing policy regarding Chinese cyber attacks.
In any policy regarding China in cyberspace, the United States’ first course of action must be to strengthen its’ own cyber defenses. Strengthening of the nations cyber defenses needs to include working with key technical experts and lawmakers to establish best practices, standards, and protocols to deal with cyber threats (Maker 3). Technical experts can provide assistance in the upgrading of systems, the use of new tools or applications in cyber defenses, and threat assessment (Maker 3). Strengthening America’s cyber defenses and establishing strong cybersecurity practices at home allows America to have a strong foundation for establishing cybersecurity foreign policies (Iasiello 68).
In addition to establishing strong cyber defenses in America for dealing with the cyber threats from China, there are two possible ways in which the United States can address the issue further. First, the United States could take a militaristic approach to cyber attacks. In a NATO meeting held in Warsaw, Poland in July of 2016, NATO allies agreed that cyberspace was the fifth domain of warfare (Stoddart 827), adding to the already established domains of land, sea, air, and space (Maker 6). In the Second Edition of the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense’s “Cyber Primer”, it is argued that any cyber operation that results in an equivalent effect as a physical operation would meet appropriate qualifications for reactionary armed conflict under the international Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) (Stoddart 831). With this interpretation the United States could take military actions to stop, to prevent, or to retaliate against cyber attacks made by China or any other government.
Although military action or the threat of military action in response to cyber attacks may solve the issue, there are considerable drawbacks. First, the response time to a cyber attack is delayed due to the complexity of investigating the cause and origin of the attack. Second, once a cause and origin are identified it is difficult to determine the motivation of the attacker. Third, attacks conducted by nonstate organizations like terrorist organizations from inside the country of origin are problematic when it comes to where to aim the military response (Stoddart 831-832). The U.S. aiming an attack at a nonstate organization within a country, could potentially cause a response from the state itself. Finally, the biggest problem with a militaristic approach to cyber attacks is the military action itself. War is always expensive, in both money and lives, so approaching every cyber attack with a military response could be extremely costly.
The second way the United States can address cyber threats from China after establishing strong internal cyber defenses is to enter into a more robust cybersecurity agreement with China. This agreement would fix the shortcomings of the current agreement. The agreement would not only limit cyber attacks on the commercial sector but also on the government sector. The agreement would clearly define what attacks would be viewed as cyber espionage into government entities, cyber espionage into commercial entities, and what attacks would be viewed as an attempt to take down critical national systems of both countries like power grids, military installations, or government offices.
The agreement would also provide clear consequences for violation. Cyber espionage by either country on any level would result in economic sanctions (Maker 37). Both nations would agree that cyber attacks aimed at taken down critical national systems would be met not only with harsh sanctions in all areas but also possible military force, should the attack be deemed sufficient in scale. The idea being that of the “Cold War stability-instability paradox”, “mutual vulnerability to nuclear retaliation inhibits nuclear war” (Lindsay 46). In this instance mutual vulnerability to harsh sanctions and military force, inhibits the cyber attacks of either nation.
In addition to the first action of strengthening America’s cyber defenses at home, entering into a revised cybersecurity agreement with China is the best of the two options to deal with Chinese cyber attacks. The approach is best for ensuring non-physical confrontation, loss of life, and is the most cost effective. The revision of the agreement will take extensive time and would involve not only both nations governments but also key representatives from their commercial sectors. This will ensure that the agreement is drafted to meet the needs of all parties. While this agreement is being revised, the United States needs to invest money and resources into strengthening the nation’s cyber defenses. In addition, this new revised cyber agreement between the United States and China could serve as a basis for similar agreements between other nations.
The United States should not continue to tolerate Chinese aggression in cyberspace. Chinese state actors have already been indicted on cyber espionage against U.S. corporations and have attacked U.S. government entities like the Office of Personnel Management without being held accountable for their actions. China continues to make cyber attacks against the United States even after the two nations entered a cyber agreement. The ramifications of the United States failure to stop Chinese cyber attacks on U.S. entities and failure to punish China when they have been proven as the originator of a cyber attack, may lead to China taking bolder steps to attack more critical United States targets in the future. The United States must act now to protect the nation’s cyber landscape.
Works Cited
Greenberg, Andy. “China Tests the Limits of Its US Hacking Truce.” The New York Times, 31
Oct. 2017.
Iasiello, Emilio. “China’s Three Warfares Strategy Mitigates Fallout from Cyber Espionage
Activities.” Air & Space Power Journal: Afrique Et Francophonie, vol. 8, no. 4, 2017 4th Quarter, pp. 56-77. EBSCOhost, dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=126727003&site=ehost-live.
Lindsay, Jon R. “The Impact of China on Cybersecurity.” International Security, vol. 39, no. 3,
Winter 2014/2015, pp. 7-47. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00189.
Maker, Simran R. “New Frontier in Defense: Cyberspace and U.S. Foreign Policy – A National
Committee on American Foreign Policy Report.” The National Committee on American Foreign Policy, May 2017.
Steinberg, Joseph. “10 Issues with the China-US Cybersecurity Agreement.” Wired Magazine,
27 Sep. 2015.
Stoddart, Kristan. “Live Free or Die Hard: U.S.-UK Cybersecurity Policies.” Political Science
Quarterly, vol. 131, no. 4, Winter 2016/2017, pp. 803-842. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1002/polq.12535.
5
Conflicts Affecting Economic Trade Between the United
States and Mexico
Policy Paper Proposal
John Doe
GOVT 2305-2XXX Spring 20
1
8
Dr. J. Mark Skorick
Word Count (206)
On January 1, 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) became law. NAFTA is an agreement between the United States, Mexico, and Canada that allows free trade across its borders and brings economic growth between the three countries (Hymson et al. 220). The policy paper will speak specifically on the economic trade between the United States and Mexico. Currently, there are worries about the security of the United States border due to several detrimental matters that have occurred. Some major issues that have occurred since NAFTA became law include: drug smuggling by criminal cartels, human smuggling into the United States, money laundering and sex trafficking, to name a few (Cooper 471-2). While there are some risks that pose a threat to US border security, the United States has greatly benefited from the economic free trade with Mexico (Gallaher 331). Such benefits include: reduced costs of goods, increased job growth, and Mexico becoming one of the largest auto exporters to the United States (Gallaher 332). This policy paper will outline the advantages and disadvantages United States and Mexican foreign policy concerning economic trade policy. The paper will investigate various ways that both the United States and Mexico can improve the border’s security so economic trade can continue seamlessly.
Works Cited
COOPER, JAMES M. “The Rise of Private Actors along the United States-Mexico Border.” Wisconsin International Law Journal, vol. 33, no. 3, Winter2015, pp. 470-511. EBSCOhost,
dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=113657684&site=ehost-live
.
Gallaher, Carolyn. “Mexico, the Failed State Debate, and the Mérida Fix.” Geographical Journal, vol. 182, no. 4, Dec. 2016, pp. 331-341. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/geoj.12166.
Hymson, Edward, et al. “Increasing Benefits and Reducing Harm Caused by the North American Free Trade Agreement.” Southern Law Journal, vol. 19, no. 1, Fall2009, pp. 219-243. EBSCOhost, dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com.dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=48238274&site=ehost-live.
1