Paper 1 Practice exam

​Grade: DP1-2

Subject : IBDP Global politics

China and the SCS: Power, Conflict, Sovereignty and Legitimacy

Source A:

From: South China Sea issue published August 20, 2014 by Paresh Nath politicalcartoons.com

Source B:
Adapted from «The Civilization of China’s Military presence in the South China Sea», The Diplomat, Jan 21st,
2017

From increasing land reclamation activities to expanding military infrastructure and

capacities, many international observers have expressed concerns over China’s
“militarization” of the South China Sea. However, some have neglected the tendencies which
actually witnessed a shift toward to opposite policy direction — the “civilization” of China’s
military presence on the disputed islands. This trend will have profound implications for

1
China’s foreign policy in the region, and deserves more attention from policymakers and
scholars.

The increasing civilian elements of China’s South China Sea military presence are part of
China’s grand strategy to integrate military and civilian capacities nationwide. On January 8, a
new industrial alliance on strengthening military-civilian integration was established in
Beijing, supported by the National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) and the
Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. This alliance will create a cooperative
platform to build up China’s military industrial capacity, drawing on resources from both
state-owned defense companies and private companies.

Source C:
Adapted from an article in Foreign Policy magazine, «Stop the South China Sea Charade», Aug 17, 2017
The reality is that U.S. core interests are not really at stake, and China knows it. The ferocity
of the debate among Washington wonks reflects far less the actual importance of the rocks
and islets than the uncertainty of a United States struggling to rethink its post-World War II
preeminence now contested by a re-emergent China. It would be better to simply have that
conversation in the open.

Yes, the importance of the sea lanes in the South China Sea through which $3.4 trillion in
goods passes each year cannot be overstated. But those sea lanes have never been under
serious threat (in peacetime), as the United States and China share an economic interest in
the uninterrupted flow of commerce.

The Chinese bet, correctly, that, as long as shipping lanes are not threatened, the United
States will not risk war with a nuclear weapons state over rocks and reefs to which it has no
claims, just to defend the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which it won’t
ever ratify. Washington’s absence from the governance councils at UNCLOS makes it easier
for Beijing to push its largely bogus interpretations of the treaty.

Beijing is several steps ahead of Washington in moving to consolidate the new facts on the
ground it has created in the South China Sea. It has been quietly negotiating with ASEAN a
code of conduct for the South China Sea. It has announced multibillion-dollar aid and
investment projects in the Philippines and has now agreed to explore joint energy production
with Manila, effectively neutralizing a U.S. ally. Similarly, Beijing has announced more than
$30 billion in loans and investments in Malaysia, as well as stepping up military ties to Kuala
Lumpur and Thailand. If ASEAN and China reach a weak, nonbinding code of conduct that
affirms the new realities, the United States will have little choice but to support it.

China seems to have learned from the Thucydidean observation that great powers “do what
they can.” During the 2010 ASEAN meeting, then-Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi told
assembled leaders, “China is a big country, and other countries are small countries — and
that’s just a fact.” Rules can be broken or ignored by great powers if their interests dictate,
and Beijing displays a similar a la carte approach to the rules-based order as other major
powers do.

2
Source D:
Adapted from The ‘Cold Confrontation’ Underway in the South China Sea, The Diplomat, May 31, 2019

Ever since Washington announced some interests in the South China Sea for the first time in
1995, the United States’ SCS interests have gradually become clearer, particularly under the
Obama and Trump administrations. U.S. officials have publicly stated that Washington has
“vital interests” and “top national interests” in the SCS. These U.S. interests have three
dimensions. The first is the fundamental interest in freedom of navigation, including
unrestricted access to the SCS for U.S. military vessels and aircraft. The second is maintaining
the overwhelming superiority of U.S. military power and the credible capability of strategic
deterrence through sea control and power projection to prevent military conflict and political
coercion. The third dimension is building a “rules-based regional order” dominated by the
United States.

On the other hand, China’s interests in the SCS can be divided into four levels. On the first
level, the territorial sovereignty of the SCS islands and the derived territorial seas, exclusive
economic zones, as well as other rights formed in the course of history, are China’s
fundamental interests in the SCS. Second, given the South China Sea’s role as a natural
“maritime moat,” both the islands and the water-air space play a vital role in China’s national
security strategy. Third, the SCS is crucially relevant to China’s domestic economic growth,
especially since China is world’s largest commodity exporter and oil importer, of which more
than 60 percent and 80 percent, respectively, are transported through the SCS. For the fourth
level, it is also in China’s interests to formulate rules to constrain the behaviors of all parties,
and establish a sustainable and stable development environment for the surrounding areas.

Questions:

1. Identify what Source A says about the nature of the conflict in the South China Sea. (3)

(Note- Q1 on paper 1 requires three full-sentence bullet points, to be assured you get 3 full points, you might
consider making 4 bullet points)

2. With reference to source B, and to your own knowledge, outline how China legitimizes
its claims in the South China Sea. (4)

(Note 1- Q2 on paper 1 is worth 4 points. To get all 4 points, you need to make 2 valid points. Structure each
valid point in its own paragraph—therefore, you need to write two separate and coherent paragraphs. The first
paragraph should reference source B and offer some analysis, and the second paragraph should be based on
your own knowledge (facts + analysis)).

(Note 2 – notice the phrasing in the question—«outline the nature» of the conflict. Outline is the command
term and tells you what you should be doing, and according to the IB guide, «outline» means to «give a brief
account or summary». Also, the word «nature» is quite broad and somewhat ambiguous (on purpose),
meaning you can interpet it in different ways—the causes of the conflict, the actors in the conflict, the scale of

3
the conflict, the implications of the conflict… you don’t need to address all of these points, but obviously,
choose the aspect on which you have most knowledge).

3. Using sources C and D, compare and contrast what the sources reveal about what
«interests» China and the United States have in the South China Sea. (8)

(Note- the question is a «Compare and contrast» question… so in this case, you need to have 2 points of
comparison between the two texts and 2 points of contrast between the two texts. You need a total of 4 points,
each organized into SEPARATE paragraphs, so in other words, you need to write 4 separate paragraphs where
each paragraph refers to both texts to either compare or to contrast. Using explicit wording «Source A notes
that… while Source A says…». Recall the PALE TOT acronym on aspects you can consider (from the Paper 1
bible)).

4. Using all sources, and your own knowledge, discuss the view that complex
interdependence will prevent violent conflict between countries. (10)

(Note- this is an essay where you need to at least briefly refer to all 4 sources in the exam, and to your own
knowledge when relevant. Make sure you have an introduction, define relevant key concepts, make a claim, and
«discuss» means to «offer a considered and balanced review that includes a range of arguments, factors or
hypotheses. Conclusions should be presented clearly and supported by evidence»)