North Korea has broken all the agreements with the United Nations about its nuclear activities. It said that it would soon begin nuclear programme again. They kicked "UN nuclear watchdog inspectors" out of the country and they're demanding the removal of IAEA (international atomic energy agency) seals on "the thousands of plutonium fuel rods removed from the plant last year".Last week, Pyongyang threated to abandon the Six Party Talks (a series of prickly negociations between North Korea, South Korea, the US, Japan, China and Russia). This event reinforced the tensions between North Korea and the world. A major contribution to this action from North Korea is the designation of North Korea by the US as "a sponsor of terorism". With the resart of the nuclear plant, North Korea might expect to win further aid as it has massive food and energy shortgages. Analysts are wondering if the change in North Korea policy isn't a consequence of the slight change of chief...
This shows that history and agreements between countries are short-lived. The action taken by North Korea also shows that the UN isn't , maybe, not so powerfull. A dictatorship can decide to start nuclear programme and deny agreements it took a year earlier, and the UN doesn't have a real power to stop that. This makes me think about the same kind of problems with Iran. Till now, we don't really know what's going on and the UN doesn't seem to have muche power to stop them. Then it asks the question : Does the UN have a real power towards these problems ? Let me know your opinion.
This also shows us the functioning of dictatorship : the lack of information about the chief 's health and we can notice that in the articles about North Korea we only talk about the "governement" and not about the citizens.
dimanche 28 septembre 2008
Inscription à :
Publier les commentaires (Atom)
4 commentaires:
Ombeline, are you sure that Pyongyang is the actual leader of North Korea?I don't think so.I think you confused with Pyongyang, the capital city of North Korea. LOL
(Or maybe I'm stupid. It's also a possibility.
; )
Does th UN have a real power towards these problems?
No.
You know my point of view of the UN : Totally useless.
It just represents the hope of some countries to see the world unified. Furthermore, the UN permanents members (which have a veto right) are not the sagest one : USA -> Irak , United Kingdom -> Irak, Russia -> Georgie.
Voilà :)
Thank you very much about Pyongyang. You're absolutly right, it's the capital of North Korea !!
As for the UN, thanks for giving your point of view. I agree with you about the permanent members but I think that "the hope of some countries to see the world unified" is a good hope and that it has "quand meême" some influences on the world catastrophes (think about humanitarian organizations for exemple). However, it doesn't manage to unify the world at 100%. Maybe because it's composed by human beings who have individual and national interests (and because human being is very complex); who have to deal with human being problems (that might also be their's, that's maybe why they don't manage to make it works). But I think that the UN is not totally useless.
MARK: 16/20
- on time (2/2)
- heading + link (2/2)
- libellés (1/2)
- resumé para (5/7)
- comment para (6/7)
A great start and a good example for the others of what I expect in the comment para. Both paras are a good length. The use of colour and bold helps to bring out the most important points. Your comment para questions the power of the UN, makes a nice link with Iran, and suggests this move is a good example of how a dictatorship functions - all interesting points and well worth exploring.
Next week: Feel free to be more imaginative with your choice of heading and try and be more focused in your choice of libellés. The idea is not to find all the libellés that could possibly apply to your article, but those that highlight the most important issues in the article. Also, try and avoid quoting from the article. This suggests that you can't put it into your own words...and I know you can! If possible, read the article through a few times and then put it away. Try and write your resumé without referring to it: this should indicate to you whether you have really retained the important points and will allow you to give the resumé a structure of your own (rather than relying on the chronology of the article).
PS: I can't find any information (as opposed to speculation) on the "change of chief" in North Korea. Perhaps you could include a link to your source when you refer to information not included in the main article.
Enregistrer un commentaire