CJC 2021 J2 H2 Prelim Ans Scheme Paper 1

1 CJC JC2 H2 Prelims Exams Suggested Answers for Paper 1 1(a) Compare and contrast the evidence provided in Sources A and B on China’s involvement in the Korean War. [10] *Note to Marker:  Other differences are acceptable as long as it is a: o clear contrast o can be supported by content of sources o can be supported by provenance of sources  Having both context and author/audience for IO will render students able to get L4. A 9 – 10 marks would be determined by quality of IO and explanation. Similarity Sources A and B are similar in showing that China had involved itself in the Korean War through its military support for North Korea. Reason for Similarity The similarity between the sources can be explained by their common context, as Source A was written in 2004 and was looking back retrospectively on the events of the Korean War, while Source B was written in 1951, after China had involved itself in the conflict. They are therefore able to account for the military involvement of China, in support of the DPRK in the Korean War. Difference However upon deeper evaluation, both sources are more different than similar, as they present differing reasons for China’s involvement in the war. Source A asserts that China had been instigated by Stalin to involve itself in the conflict for his strategic interests, while Source B asserts that China involved itself to fulfil its own aggressive goals. Reason for Difference The difference between the sources can be explained by their different provenance and intended outcomes.  Source A – An assessment of the Korean War by a historian [author], published in 2004, more than 50 years after the Korean War [context].  Source B – MacArthur’s [author] address to the Congress [audience] in 1951, after the rollback against Communism which had provoked the involvement of China [context].

2 1(b) How far do Sources A – F support the view that the Korean War and Cuban Missile Crisis were driven by local players? [30] Challenge Support Source A B E C F D Face Value Rather than local players, the Korean War was driven by the involvement of the superpowers and China. Rather than local players, the CMC was driven by the superpowers. CMC was driven by Castro, whose revolutionary attempts triggered tensions with the US. Korean War was driven by local players, as Rhee’s regime had started the conflict. Purpose MacArthur’s [author] address to the Congress [audience] in 1951, after the rollback against Communism which had provoked the involvement of China [context]. Extracted from J. F. Kennedy’s [author] Cuban Missile Crisis Address to the Nation [audience], 22 October, 1962, after the discovery of Soviet missile sites in Cuba [context].  C: Cartoon published in a US newspaper [author] in 1961.  F: Speech by Castro [author] at the May Day celebrations in Havana in 1961.  Both sources published 2 years after the Cuban Revolution. Cuba had distanced itself politically from the US while progressively forging ties with the USSR [context]. Statement of the Soviet government [author] to the US Ambassador [audience], 29 June 1950, 4 days after the DPRK commenced an offensive against the south, and the US was calling for retaliatory action under the UNSC [context]. CK / CR Despite the possible purpose, the credibility is enhanced with CK.  Stalin’s opportunistic support for Kim, based on the assumption that the US would not intervene in Korea (Dean Acheson’s Defence Perimeter Speech).  MacArthur’s unilateral decisions to commence a rollback on communism, provoking significant Chinese involvement in defence of its territorial security at the Yalu River. Despite the possible purpose, credibility enhanced with CK.  Location of Cuba within the US’ backyard – Soviet missiles thus posed security threat.  USSR’s nuclear presence in Cuba was a violation of the US’ Monroe Doctrine, where it claimed strategic interests over Central America. Despite the possible purpose, Credibility is enhanced with CK.  Economic dominance of the US over Cuba e.g. US owned 80% of Cuba’s utilities, 40% of its sugar, 90% of mining wealth.  Cuban Revolution: Implemented economic reforms which threatened US interests in Cuba e.g. trade agreements with USSR and re- distribution of US property among poorer farmers in Cuba.  The above actions triggered US economic retaliation against Cuba (e.g. reduction in Cuban sugar quota). Credibility is further limited with CK and CR.  Rhee’s regime was plagued by internal political factionalism and economic problems. It was also supported by the US only with light arms for defensive purposes and was thus not in a position to commence an offensive against the North.  CR to Source A/B: The Korean War was started by the “North Korean invaders” and subsequently aggravated by the involvement of the superpowers and China. *There is a need to provide some CK to directly question the culpability of Rhee, before CR to A/B to show the responsibility of the other players.

3 Modification of Assertion Based on the above evaluation, the stronger sources were those which showed that while local players had some responsibility in triggering tensions with the superpowers, the Korean War and Cuban Missile Crisis were driven by the superpowers, as well as ext ernal players like China. However, the specific claim of Source D that the Korean War was started by Rhee could not stand up to the scrutiny of contextual knowledge, cross-reference, and critical analysis of its provenance and purpose, as developed above. Thus the hypothesis should be modified: While the provocative actions of local players triggered tensions leading to the outb reak of the Korean War and Cuban Missile Crisis (Sources A & B, C & F), the subsequent development of these conflicts was driven by the superpowers, who had supported the local players and intervened in domestic rivalry for their own strategic interests (Sources A, B and E).

4 2. ‘The Bretton Woods system determined the fate of the global economy.’ Discuss. *This essay has defined “determined the fate” – as having negative connotations Possible Stand: It could be argued that the BWs determined the fate of the global economy since its collapse by 1973, would trigger off the beginnings of the Crisis Decades. However, the reason for the collapse of the BWs is ultimately linked to the role of US, which was fundamentally responsible for the collapse of the system and many other actions and decisions that laid the foundations for decline and sustained it through to 1990. Suggested Response: TS1: The Bretton Woods system could be argued to have determined the fate of the GE since its collapse would trigger off the Crisis Decades. TS2: However while the BWs was significant, it was not the greatest determinant of fate of the global eco nomy since the impact of the BWs was fundamentally influenced by the US, which would be argued to be the greatest determinant of the fate of the GE. TS3 - 4: US as the greatest determininant of the fate of the global economy is further reiterated when considering how their actions & policies beyond the Bretton Woods system, largely and more consistently contributed to the decline from 1945 to 2000. - Possible focus areas – US role in the increasing oil prices, protectionism & the Debt Crisis Judgmental Conclusion: Though BWs was important to the decline of the GE, it paled in comparison to the role of US which is a more direct and sustained factor in determining the fate of the GE

5 3. Why did the Asian Tigers experience an economic ‘miracle' from the 1970s?