Assignment 2 option 1 Text A: Identify and discuss the theoretical perspective underlying the author's argument
and conclude by applying a different theoretical perspective to contrast with the one identified.
Heldt, E. C. ‘China’s “Health Silk Road” Offensive: How the West should Respond’ Global Policy, 9 December
2020 (https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/09/12/2020/chinas-health-silk-road-offensive-how-west-
should-respond)
China is exploiting the spread of coronavirus across the globe to present itself as the world’s indispensable
power in the field of health. Beijing has turned early signs of success into a larger narrative highlighting the
effectiveness and superiority of Chinese efforts to fight the pandemic. The problem goes far beyond the fact
that many global observers also credit Beijing with remarkable success in combatting the virus. In 2017, the
Chinese government proposed the “Health Silk Road”, an informal form of global health cooperation, as an
alternative to the Western-dominated World Health Organization (WHO) – and is now reviving the initiative in
order to further its aspirations to reshape international institutions in a manner more congenial to its interests.
Beijing has carefully orchestrated a soft power offensive that portrays China as a new benefactor able to send
Covid-19-related equipment and medical assistance to foreign partners anywhere. These activities are most
intensive along the routes of the Belt and Road Initiative, but now extend as far as Europe. While the pandemic
has spread out along Initiative routes, a planned network of transportation infrastructure financed by China
linking East and West, these same corridors have been used by the Chinese government to provide medical
support to Western European countries. (…) Moreover, after extending its social credit system – an online data
system to reward or sanction citizen’s behavior – to include a new health app to contain the pandemic at home,
Beijing is now encouraging liberal democracies to adopt Chinese-style digital surveillance, with implications for
Huawei and other issues. (…) What the Chinese case shows is that novel technologies capacities, like the
enhanced ability to track citizens and their contacts, can be useful tools in stemming the pandemic. But these
new technologies can also be used by governments as surveillance instruments and constitute a fundamental
threat to our civil rights and liberties.
To date, the absence of firm global leadership from Washington – witness President Donald Trump’s criticism of
the WHO, translated later into his intention to exit this multilateral organization – is aiding the Chinese charm
offensive. The current crisis of the liberal international order and the rise of populist and unilateral approaches
to foreign policy, as the “Make America Great Again” paradigm illustrates, has implications for the future of
international cooperation, especially during the global health pandemic. Who is going to take the lead in
international cooperation in the upcoming decades?
The creation of the New Development Bank and the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank illustrate how
rising authoritarianism has begun to challenge the liberal international order. (…) Yet Chinese triumph is not
inevitable. The West can regain control over global (health) governance – but the new elected US President Joe
Biden or the Europeans must take the lead.
The European Union (EU), perhaps led by Germany (so far a “reluctant hegemon”), should fill the power vacuum
by positioning itself as global actor – starting by increasing the human and material resources of the WHO. The
EU has the potential to act as a transformational leader and to be an effective actor in shaping global
governance rules. The EU’s willingness and capacity to take the lead and carry the costs of providing win-win
outcomes in global governance is crucial for the West to regain influence and ensure that democratic values
prevail in turbulent times.
The EU as a global health power can take three possible forms: managing the pandemic successfully at home
with a strong economic and political support from European institutions; supplying public goods to the poorest
countries in the world, giving credit to its reputation as humanitarian power; and coordinating efforts to
strengthen the role of the focal multilateral organization on health issues, the WHO. For its part, the WHO,
which has so far failed to exploit the pandemic to (re)gain relevance and focality, would have every reason to
ally itself with Western European countries and global philanthropists, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates
foundation, in a “coalition of the willing.” This could be the beginning of a new multilateral order. Such an
alliance of supranational, national, international, and non-state actors offers the best chance for the West to
reassert leadership in this vital area.
,How to structure option 1
IMPORTANT: You have to correctly identify the perspective here, you cannot pick anyone you choose, unlike in
exercise option 2 (it will be easily identifiable).
Structure into 5 sections (no need for section titles):
a) Short Introduction (1 paragraph of 2-3 sentences: In this critical commentary, I will…)
b) Outline the theoretical perspective identified (1 paragraph)
c) Give evidence from the text that shows where we can see that the author is applying the theoretical
perspective and show where it matches with the argument in the text. You can use the guiding
questions in the table provided (slide 8) to help you analyse the text. (2-3 paragraphs)
d) Apply another perspective (2-3 paragraphs)
Short conclusion (one paragraph)
,INRL4001 ASSESMENT 2 19068860
Critical Commentary (Option A – Text 1)
Word Count: 1,074 words
*Assignment 3: Critical commentary (50%) 2pm on Thursday 17 December 2020
(week 13).
* For the critical commentary, you are asked to read one short text (a newspaper item or blog post entry)
out of two options. You have to choose ONE text of the two options on offer. You then need to
comment on the text applying two of the four theoretical perspectives you have been introduced to in
the module (so two out of Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, and Critical Constructivism).
* The main objective of this assignment is therefore to understand and practice the difference between
identifying and applying a theoretical perspective. We will be discussing this difference in seminars
and in the lectures throughout the module, and we have sample answers available on Moodle.
*The length of the Critical commentary is limited to 1,000 words. There is a 10% +/- rule.
In this critical commentary I will be identifying the theoretical perspective utilized by E. C. Heldt in
her article ‘“Health Silk Road” Offensive: How the West should Respond.’ The commentary will be
structured into two main sections in which I will be a) identifying and discussing the theoretical lens
adopted by the author and b) apply another perspective to contrast to the one identified and investigate
other possible perceptions.
1
, INRL4001 ASSESMENT 2 19068860
The theory adopted by Heldt is Liberalism. Hoffman states that its core aspects include “self-restraint,
moderation, compromise and peace” (Dunne, 2017: p.104). The theory first emerged in the 19th century
through Emmanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham by acting against the “lawless state of savagery” (Dunne,
2017: p.105) within international relations. Both thinkers tried to establish peace through law where the
natural harmony of interests and sovereign equality plays major roles.
(1) The key actors of Liberalism are states, institutions, organizations and individuals. Whilst the
domestic and international spheres are deemed as related and provide opportunities for progress, key
focus areas of the lens include multilateral cooperation, peace and economic and cultural issues.
Additionally, the theory promotes liberal ideas and values (e.g., human rights) and concepts of
rationality and self-interest. As there is a strong understanding that conflict is not in the interest of the
people (nor the state) and that it can be avoided, liberals also agree that long-term benefits matter which
is achieved by forgoing short-term interests. Furthermore, Liberals find that the effect of anarchy can
be mitigated by learning how to cooperate; thus, supporting the possibility of cooperation between states
and sum-sum (win-win) interactions; therefore, providing a normative theory of the world.
In her text, the use of phrases and terms such as “soft power offensive,” “foreign partners,” “ally,” and
“liberal democracies” support my claim that Heldt utilizes Liberalism due to the allusions towards
cooperation, shared interests and a defensive approach towards conflict.
Heldt stresses the contemporary “crises of the liberal international order” due to threats such as the
increase of “populist and unilateral approaches of foreign policy” and sets an example of the renown
“Make America Great Again” mantra. The author also talks about the possible consequences this may
have on the stability of future interactions between states whilst emphasizing the importance of
cooperation by underpinning consequences (e.g., a decrease in efficiency of international law). The fact
that Heldt writes about the fragility of relationships between states and argues for a “alliance of
supernational, national, international, and non-state actors” shows us that she supports a Liberal
perspective in her writing as cooperation between states is a core theoretical aspect.
2
and conclude by applying a different theoretical perspective to contrast with the one identified.
Heldt, E. C. ‘China’s “Health Silk Road” Offensive: How the West should Respond’ Global Policy, 9 December
2020 (https://www.globalpolicyjournal.com/blog/09/12/2020/chinas-health-silk-road-offensive-how-west-
should-respond)
China is exploiting the spread of coronavirus across the globe to present itself as the world’s indispensable
power in the field of health. Beijing has turned early signs of success into a larger narrative highlighting the
effectiveness and superiority of Chinese efforts to fight the pandemic. The problem goes far beyond the fact
that many global observers also credit Beijing with remarkable success in combatting the virus. In 2017, the
Chinese government proposed the “Health Silk Road”, an informal form of global health cooperation, as an
alternative to the Western-dominated World Health Organization (WHO) – and is now reviving the initiative in
order to further its aspirations to reshape international institutions in a manner more congenial to its interests.
Beijing has carefully orchestrated a soft power offensive that portrays China as a new benefactor able to send
Covid-19-related equipment and medical assistance to foreign partners anywhere. These activities are most
intensive along the routes of the Belt and Road Initiative, but now extend as far as Europe. While the pandemic
has spread out along Initiative routes, a planned network of transportation infrastructure financed by China
linking East and West, these same corridors have been used by the Chinese government to provide medical
support to Western European countries. (…) Moreover, after extending its social credit system – an online data
system to reward or sanction citizen’s behavior – to include a new health app to contain the pandemic at home,
Beijing is now encouraging liberal democracies to adopt Chinese-style digital surveillance, with implications for
Huawei and other issues. (…) What the Chinese case shows is that novel technologies capacities, like the
enhanced ability to track citizens and their contacts, can be useful tools in stemming the pandemic. But these
new technologies can also be used by governments as surveillance instruments and constitute a fundamental
threat to our civil rights and liberties.
To date, the absence of firm global leadership from Washington – witness President Donald Trump’s criticism of
the WHO, translated later into his intention to exit this multilateral organization – is aiding the Chinese charm
offensive. The current crisis of the liberal international order and the rise of populist and unilateral approaches
to foreign policy, as the “Make America Great Again” paradigm illustrates, has implications for the future of
international cooperation, especially during the global health pandemic. Who is going to take the lead in
international cooperation in the upcoming decades?
The creation of the New Development Bank and the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank illustrate how
rising authoritarianism has begun to challenge the liberal international order. (…) Yet Chinese triumph is not
inevitable. The West can regain control over global (health) governance – but the new elected US President Joe
Biden or the Europeans must take the lead.
The European Union (EU), perhaps led by Germany (so far a “reluctant hegemon”), should fill the power vacuum
by positioning itself as global actor – starting by increasing the human and material resources of the WHO. The
EU has the potential to act as a transformational leader and to be an effective actor in shaping global
governance rules. The EU’s willingness and capacity to take the lead and carry the costs of providing win-win
outcomes in global governance is crucial for the West to regain influence and ensure that democratic values
prevail in turbulent times.
The EU as a global health power can take three possible forms: managing the pandemic successfully at home
with a strong economic and political support from European institutions; supplying public goods to the poorest
countries in the world, giving credit to its reputation as humanitarian power; and coordinating efforts to
strengthen the role of the focal multilateral organization on health issues, the WHO. For its part, the WHO,
which has so far failed to exploit the pandemic to (re)gain relevance and focality, would have every reason to
ally itself with Western European countries and global philanthropists, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates
foundation, in a “coalition of the willing.” This could be the beginning of a new multilateral order. Such an
alliance of supranational, national, international, and non-state actors offers the best chance for the West to
reassert leadership in this vital area.
,How to structure option 1
IMPORTANT: You have to correctly identify the perspective here, you cannot pick anyone you choose, unlike in
exercise option 2 (it will be easily identifiable).
Structure into 5 sections (no need for section titles):
a) Short Introduction (1 paragraph of 2-3 sentences: In this critical commentary, I will…)
b) Outline the theoretical perspective identified (1 paragraph)
c) Give evidence from the text that shows where we can see that the author is applying the theoretical
perspective and show where it matches with the argument in the text. You can use the guiding
questions in the table provided (slide 8) to help you analyse the text. (2-3 paragraphs)
d) Apply another perspective (2-3 paragraphs)
Short conclusion (one paragraph)
,INRL4001 ASSESMENT 2 19068860
Critical Commentary (Option A – Text 1)
Word Count: 1,074 words
*Assignment 3: Critical commentary (50%) 2pm on Thursday 17 December 2020
(week 13).
* For the critical commentary, you are asked to read one short text (a newspaper item or blog post entry)
out of two options. You have to choose ONE text of the two options on offer. You then need to
comment on the text applying two of the four theoretical perspectives you have been introduced to in
the module (so two out of Realism, Liberalism, Marxism, and Critical Constructivism).
* The main objective of this assignment is therefore to understand and practice the difference between
identifying and applying a theoretical perspective. We will be discussing this difference in seminars
and in the lectures throughout the module, and we have sample answers available on Moodle.
*The length of the Critical commentary is limited to 1,000 words. There is a 10% +/- rule.
In this critical commentary I will be identifying the theoretical perspective utilized by E. C. Heldt in
her article ‘“Health Silk Road” Offensive: How the West should Respond.’ The commentary will be
structured into two main sections in which I will be a) identifying and discussing the theoretical lens
adopted by the author and b) apply another perspective to contrast to the one identified and investigate
other possible perceptions.
1
, INRL4001 ASSESMENT 2 19068860
The theory adopted by Heldt is Liberalism. Hoffman states that its core aspects include “self-restraint,
moderation, compromise and peace” (Dunne, 2017: p.104). The theory first emerged in the 19th century
through Emmanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham by acting against the “lawless state of savagery” (Dunne,
2017: p.105) within international relations. Both thinkers tried to establish peace through law where the
natural harmony of interests and sovereign equality plays major roles.
(1) The key actors of Liberalism are states, institutions, organizations and individuals. Whilst the
domestic and international spheres are deemed as related and provide opportunities for progress, key
focus areas of the lens include multilateral cooperation, peace and economic and cultural issues.
Additionally, the theory promotes liberal ideas and values (e.g., human rights) and concepts of
rationality and self-interest. As there is a strong understanding that conflict is not in the interest of the
people (nor the state) and that it can be avoided, liberals also agree that long-term benefits matter which
is achieved by forgoing short-term interests. Furthermore, Liberals find that the effect of anarchy can
be mitigated by learning how to cooperate; thus, supporting the possibility of cooperation between states
and sum-sum (win-win) interactions; therefore, providing a normative theory of the world.
In her text, the use of phrases and terms such as “soft power offensive,” “foreign partners,” “ally,” and
“liberal democracies” support my claim that Heldt utilizes Liberalism due to the allusions towards
cooperation, shared interests and a defensive approach towards conflict.
Heldt stresses the contemporary “crises of the liberal international order” due to threats such as the
increase of “populist and unilateral approaches of foreign policy” and sets an example of the renown
“Make America Great Again” mantra. The author also talks about the possible consequences this may
have on the stability of future interactions between states whilst emphasizing the importance of
cooperation by underpinning consequences (e.g., a decrease in efficiency of international law). The fact
that Heldt writes about the fragility of relationships between states and argues for a “alliance of
supernational, national, international, and non-state actors” shows us that she supports a Liberal
perspective in her writing as cooperation between states is a core theoretical aspect.
2
