MJC H2 HIST P1 Suggested answers

1 Suggested answers for MJC Prelims Paper 1 (2015) Q1: How far do Sources A - support the claim that up to 2000, the ICJ had been important in the UN’s efforts to maintain peace? Support set:- - Source D: strong source – reliable and useful Challenge set:- - Source A: strong source – reliable and useful - Source C: weak source – has a hidden agenda + one-sided - Source E: not a strong source – reliable, but limited in utility (ICJ only in operation for one year.) Neutral:- - Source B: not a strong source – reliable, but limited in utility on its own. Conclusion:- - Neither side is preferred: - Challenge: Source A is a strong source (R + U); C + E not strong, as C is not R, and E is limited in U. - Support: Source D is a strong source (R + U). - Hence, I would choose to modify the hypothesis to incorporate both perspectives held by A and D, that:- - “Up to 2000, the ICJ had played an important role as a moral authority in deterring aggression, but would need reforms to empower it further and to extend its influence.” Q2: “The Cold War was fought beyond Europe because the superpowers intended to do so.” Discuss. Topic: Reasons for extension of the Cold War beyond Europe. Students could examine:- - Motivations of the superpowers – did they intend to do so consciously, or did they intervene due to manipulation from local allies? - Agency of the local players in the Korean War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Q3: Who did more to discredit the communist ideology in Europe – the USSR or the USA? Topic: Reasons for End of Cold War + Collapse of USSR Students could examine:- - USA: West ‘winning the Cold War’ (Western Triumphalist interpretation) led to the discrediting of communist ideology in Europe, as Capitalism was demonstrated to be economically and militarily superior to the moribund Communist system. - USSR: Gorbachev’s failed reforms also contributed to the discrediting of the communist ideology in Europe – Glasnost undermining CPSU power, and exposing the deep-seated ills within Soviet Union. Rise of Yeltsin – undermined USSR from within. Rejected Communist Party. Rise of nationalism against the oppressive Communist rule – rejection of Communist ideology of the key identity as proletariat, in favour of parochial nationalism. Key states within USSR seeking to breakaway – Russia, Lithuania etc. Need to establish a criterion for comparison. - Scope of impact was more widespread - More significant

2 Q4: How far was the decline of the Japanese economy in the 1980s and 1990s due to governmental mismanagement? Topic: Decline of the Japanese Economy Students could examine:- - Government mismanagement in terms of lax regulation, inappropriate policies that led to creation and bursting of bubble economy. Inability to rise out of long recession. - Structural rigidities: High savings, high labour cost, overly close relationship between conglomerates + banks and government. - Culpability of firms and banks: creation of bubble economy, creation of supply glut, problem of non-performing loans. - Unfavourable external economic conditions: Rise of economic competitors, recession in USA + Europe, USA’s less favourable attitude towards Japan (appreciating yen, Structural Impediments Initiative, protectionism) Q5: Assess the consequences of the rise of religious fundamentalism on the security of the Islamic world up to 2000. Topic: Consequences of rise of Religious Fundamentalism Students could examine:- - Scope: National, regional, global consequences. - Nature of consequences:- negative impact - Protracted existing conflicts, created new conflicts, transnational terrorism; or positive impact: - conservative RF may have a stabilising impact through providing a deeper sense of belonging + reinforces status quo. Q6: “The Arab-Israeli conflict began primarily because of Arab intervention in Jewish-Palestinian affairs.” How valid is this statement? Topic: Origins/Outbreak of the Arab-Israeli Conflict Students could examine:- - The reasons for the change from local civil war to regional conflict. - Culpability of Arab intervention: Motivations for intervention. Not primary factor, as was responding to the actions of other actors. - Zionist aggression: Creation of context for Arab intervention – refugee problem - British hasty withdrawal from region: Creation of context for Arab intervention – power vacuum - UN and superpower intervention: Creation of context for Arab intervention – perceived sympathy for Zionist cause.