History 478    Fall 2011                        Essay Two Assignment
Due via turnitin.com before 4:20 pm on Thursday, 27 October

Please answer one of the following two questions in four to five typed, double-spaced pages (about 300 words per page).

Context:
One pillar of successful diplomacy involves finding ways to avoid conflict through effective communication and negotiation with other nations, all while preserving one’s own interests.  Chapters 2, 3, and 4 in Hunt’s Crises volume provide examples of international relations breaking down, leading to war (Chapters 2 and 4) or to tense and dangerous rivalry (Chapter 3)

Question:
Select two of the above-mentioned three chapters to analyze in detail in your paper.  Then answer these questions: How much blame do U.S. policymakers deserve for the breakdown in relations?  Could U.S. policymakers have communicated and negotiated better, or were their words and actions generally laudable?  For your thesis statement, summarize your analysis by presenting one or two general rules or lessons for effective diplomacy.

Rules of Evidence and Citation:
There is no need to conduct outside research.  You should draw heavily on brief quotations and details from Hunt’s primary sources from the two chapters that you select.  Wherever possible, draw on Hunt’s primary sources rather than his introductory summaries.  You are also encouraged to draw on any class lecture material relevant to the two Hunt chapters you select.  

So long as you use only our class materials, you do not need a formal bibliography.  Parenthetical page citations are sufficient.  Example: (Hunt, 89).  


Other Advice
As you develop your argument, be sure to think about important opposing points of view.  Think about ways to weave into your analysis an awareness of those opposing points of view, while explaining why you see your main interpretation as the more valid one.  For instance, if you argue that U.S. policymaking in Korea was generally good, identify the strongest critiques of U.S. policy toward Korea and explain why you find that interpretation, on the whole, less compelling than your main interpretation.  Do not try to develop an all-or-nothing interpretation.  Instead, show balance and even-handedness while still taking a clear stand.

As with our first one-page essay, you should work hard to incorporate a wide range of examples and brief quotations (especially quotations from historical actors themselves) while still keeping to the space limit.  Compared to the first essay, however, you will have a little more breathing room for deeper analysis and for a conclusion paragraph.