This document provides approved paper topics for students to choose from related to international issues. The topics cover a wide range of current events including Iran's nuclear program, US intervention in Syria, relations with North Korea, foreign aid, and more. Students must choose a topic from the list or get approval for an alternative topic. The paper topics are intended to align with course textbooks on global issues from recent years to ensure timely and relevant subject matter.

1. Approved Paper Topics
Issues of Our Times –International
Many of the following topics can be found in the course
textbook Global Issues 2013, (as well as in earlier editions,
2012, 2011, 2010). Students who wish to write their paper on a
different topic from those listed below must make sure their
topic adheres to the paper guidelines posted on blackboard. All
topics must be approved in advance.
1.Is military action against Iran inevitable? See Global Issues,
2012, page 12.
2.Is Iran planning to build nuclear weapons? See GI 2012, page
18, or GI 2013 page 203.
3.Is the Obama administration making a mistake by seeking
peace with Iran? See GI 2013.
4.Should the U.S. and its allies intervene militarily in Syria?
See GI2013
5.Should President Obama Meet with Kim Jung Un?
6.Should the Arms Trade Treaty cover small arms? GI 2013
7.Are the Arab Gulf states threatened by radical Islam and
instability in Yemen? GI 2012, p. 67.
8.Is Shia influence growing in the Middle East? Global Issues
2012, page 75
9.Does Israel have too much influence over the US government?
10.Should the U.S. cut off aid to Pakistan? Global Issues, 2012,
p. 157.
11.Does foreign aid to foreign governments do more harm than
good? Global Issues 2012, p. 181
12.Should the West give more support to Russia’s protesters
like Pussy Riot? GI 2013, p. 148.
13.Does the U.S. give too much aid to authoritative
governments? Global Issues 2012, p. 172
14.Does high youth joblessness lead to political instability?
Global Issues 2012, p. 430.

2. 15.Is income inequality a valid issue or are liberals including
Mr. Obama all wrong?
16.Is the U.N. worth the effort or should the organization be
abolished? GI 2013, p. 5.
17.Should all UN payments be voluntary? Global Issues 2013,
16.
18. Is sectarian reconciliation among Muslims likely anytime
soon? GI 2013, p. 43.
19.Should the Arms Trade Treaty cover small arms? Global
Issues 2013, page 69.
20.Should the U.S. and its allies intervene militarily in Syria?
Global Issues 2013, page 97
21.Should the NATO alliance continue? Global Issues, 2013,
page 123
22.Do Islamic groups pose a threat to political reform in the
Arab world? GI 2013, p. 86.
23.Can the US export democracy or must it be home grown?
Global Issues, 2013, p. 90.
24.Have developed countries done enough to help achieve the
MDGs? GI 2013, p. 228.
25.Is Africa poised for an East-Asia style economic boom?
Global Issues 2013, p. 256.
26.Should the U.S. bail out Europe’s financial system? Global
Issues 2013, p. 283.
27.Is China a threat to Latin America’s manufacturing base?
Global Issues 2013, p. 307.
28.Is state capitalism a good model for the world’s poorest
countries? GI 2013, p. 336.
29.Should government impose mandatory gender quotas on
corporate boards? GI ’13, p. 369.
30.Would decriminalizing prostitution reduce sex trafficking?
Global Issues 2013, p. 394
31.Should space weapons be banned? Global Issues 2012, p.
131.
32.Can outsiders build lasting peace? Global Issues 2012, p.
261.

3. 33.Can the example of Nelson Mandela be duplicated
elsewhere?
34.Are the Millennium Development Goals Realistic?
35.Does Western aid improve African democracy and good
governance? GI 2011, p. 19
36.Did Latin America’s transition to democracvy lead to rising
crime> GI 2011, p. 48
37.Can international humanitarian action help end conflicts in
countries like Congo? GI ’11, 75
38.Should the US, EU, and Australia maintain sanctions on
Myanmar? GI 2011, p, 183
39.Will recent U.N. resolutions help protect women? GI 2011,
p. 130.
40.Are drone strikes in Pakistan legal? GI 2011, p. 157.
41.Are drone strikes anywhere ethical? GI 211
42.Is the Arab world changing for the better? GI 2011, p., 185
43.Would Ireland have been better off without the euo GI 2011,
p. 323.
44.Is the French ban on headscarves (al-hijab) in schools a good
idea?
45.Is the climate for Chinese Journalists worsening? GI 2011,
p., 413.
7
Place your Name here
Should The U.S. Build A Missile Defense System? (9:30 a.m.

4. or 12:30 class)
PRO: Yes, the U.S. should build a missile defense system
because…The missile defense system may discourage terrorist
nations from even trying to develop nuclear
weapons.“Irresponsible nations” continue to break international
laws and seek nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Iran
is leading the way with its nuclear development and hiding its
findings from the IAEA. The threat of attack from other
countries against America and American interests are growing.
The nuclear proliferation and ballistic missile trend shows that
countries are only increasing armaments.
CON: No the U.S. should NOT build a missile defense system
because…The system has little chance of success against a
massive scale attack or against a terrorist strike.Physicists
largely agree that the technology to build effective national
missile defense does not exist.History has shown countries
rarely use weapons of mass destruction unless for fear
factors/psychological warfare. The money could be used for
better issues such as fighting poverty, improving education
Our efforts will continually be matched by other countries.
Some people might consider the strongest reason for supporting
missile defense is that it discourages terrorist nations from
developing nuclear armaments. Joe Messerli,
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/missile_defense.htm The
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was developed to stop the
spread of weapons of mass destruction, including nukes.
However, such countries like North Korea haven’t followed the
treaty enacted March 5, 1970. With the amount of time, effort
and economic funds needed to develop nuclear warfare many
experts believe a missile defense system would neutralize any
attempts at missile attacks on the country. Ibid J Messerli,
balancedpolitics.org If the system is developed our national
security may become a little safer against those who intend to
seek harm on our way of life.
On July 25, 2000, former Secretary of Defense William Cohen

5. stated that “North Korea was continuing with ground testing and
could break its moratorium and begin flight testing of an
intercontinental range Taepo-Dong-2 missile at anytime, with
deployment in the next few years. Gary Brown & Gary
Klintworth, http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2000-
01/01RP16htm This statement concerned American leaders
because other “irresponsible nations” could follow their lead
and try to acquire chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons
making our challenge of national protection even harder to
sustain. Mary Cooper,
http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresr
re2000090800&type=hitlist&num=0 The issue is those states of
concern in question: Iran, Iraq, and Libya among others are
receiving parts from Korea. A national missile defense could be
established to ensure when diplomacy fails our back up plan
will protect our country’s borders.
Another reason the U.S should pursue missile defense is
because the country of Iran is making headway with its
suspicious nuclear development and seemingly hiding its
findings from the IAEA, the International Atomic Energy
Agency. Iran is probably one of the most troubling countries
that American security must deal with. It has ties with
terrorism, “enmity with the U.S,” and involvement with
Afghanistan and in Iraq. Peter Brookes,
http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/5725
New intelligence has been building up arguing that Iran’s
nuclear prospects are anything but the claimed peaceful means
that the country has been pushing at the world. Even the IAEA
which released a 9 page report on Iran’s nuclear prospects
shifted its view from proving that Iran does have a nuclear
weapons program to having to prove that they don’t have one.
Ibid P Brookes, hoover.org The news concerned many leaders of
the world because if they were truly using the nuclear power to
fuel military purposes it would be a clear defiance of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The mounting evidence,
suspicions, and lack of cooperation has led the world to wonder

6. what exactly is happening in Iran and if in fact they are
developing a nuclear arsenal, the United States could be one of
its first targets.
Last but not least, “there are presently over 1000 Russian
missiles and 6000 warheads in an unknown state of repair, all
capable of targeting US cities. China has just 20-30 missiles and
the same number of warheads.” Ibid G Brown & G Klintworth,
aph.gov.au This startling statistic shows the vast amount of
military preparedness for most of our current allies. The U.S
does not believe these communist countries would attack us;
however, Russian missile tests have accidentally landed too
close for comfort. Ibid G Brown & G Klintworth, aph.gov.au
Currently, if these missiles do reach us by unauthorized launch
or on accident, the U.S would have no way to stop them from
hitting us. According to William Cohen, “there are two dozen
countries that have developed or are developing weapons of
mass destruction;” knowing this, the U.S may have to intervene
in crises around the world as a roundabout way to defend our
nation and its allies. These are just a few of the examples why
the U.S should have missile defense.
Others have stated that we shouldn’t have a missile defense.
The number one reason most have stated is the fact that the
system would have a limited chance of success against a
widespread attack. Ibid J Messerli, balancedpolitics.org A
missile from Cuba could take 5 minutes to deploy and target
Washington, D.C. Missiles from China and Russia would most
likely be cast in the hundreds and nuclear attacks from terrorists
would most likely be set off inside our country. The missile
defense would be strained to the limit to defend us from these
different scenarios. Even if we could prevent the missile
launches we would still have the aftermath of debris and
radiation to handle in our U.S states and regions.
Another reason missile defense is not likely nor achievable is
the belief that the technology to create such a program does not
exist. Timothy Snyder & Philip Snyder,
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0202/p11s2.html It is easier to

7. send a missile into the air than it is to shoot one down, flying at
a ground based target. The technicalities of the venture would
have to defy physics and would only provide a false sense of
security to the American people. History has also proven that in
most cases the use of missiles and nuclear warfare were only
used as a fear and psychological tactic against other countries
such as North Korea and the United States. Philip Coyle &
Victoria Samson,
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/journal/22_1/special_
report/001.htm Because of the threat from each nation
retaliating on one another the nuclear and missile threat is
limited for the safety of each nation involved. Joe Biden,
http://nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/missile-
defense/history/opposing-missile-defense-act.htm
The U.S should not have a missile defense program because the
invested money could be used for better issues such as fighting
poverty, and improving education. Ibid J Messerli,
balancedpolitics.org The cost of the missile defense projects
could one day exceed over trillions of dollars. Our education is,
in some eyes, below a world average and adding money to the
educational system which in turn could help fight nationwide
poverty. The money invested could also be used in medical
means by supporting cancer research, aids research and adding
to the quality of medicine provided in the United States today.
Last but not least the U.S should not have a missile defense
program because our efforts will continually be matched by
other countries. Not only will our allies be weakened by our
missile defense strategies, our enemies will rise against the
challenge and build more missiles and nukes to prevent assumed
attacks on their lands. With missile defense in place, enemies
become uncontrollable threats, allies lack support and the world
would be full of nuclear weapons able to launch at anyone at
any time making any peace keeping missions obsolete. Ibid T
Snyder & P Snyder, www.csmonitor.com

8. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Biden, Joe. "Opposing the National Defense Act." Nuclear age
peace foundation. Washington, D.C. 16 Mar. 1999. Web. 10
Oct. 2010. <http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-
issues/missile-defense/history/opposing-missile-defense-
act.htm>.
Brookes, Peter. "The Need for Missile Defense." The Hoover
Digest 1 Oct. 2008, 151 ed. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.hoover.org/publications/policy-
review/article/5725>.

9. Brown, Gary, and Gary Klintworth. "The US National Missile
Defense Program: Vital Shield or Modern-Day Maginot Line?."
Parliament of Australia Parliamentary Library. N.p., 5 Dec.
2000. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2000-01/01RP16.htm>.
Cooper, Mary H. "Missile Defense: Should the U.S build a
missile defense system?" C.Q Researcher 10.30 (2000). Web. 17
Oct. 2010.
<http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqre
srre2000090800&type=hitlist&num=0>.
Coyle, Philip, and Victoria Samson. "Missile Defense
Malfunction: Why the Proposed U.S. Missile Defenses in
Europe Will Not Work." Ethics & International Affairs 22.1
(2008). Web. 10 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/journal/22_1/special
_report/001.html>.
"Decoy fails to deploy, but missile test ." CNN News. CNN, 5
Dec. 2008. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.
<http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/12/05/us.missile.test/index.ht
ml>.
Lewis, George N., and Theodore A. Postol. "A Flawed and
Dangerous U.S. Missile Defense Plan." Arms Control Today
May 2010. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_05/Lewis-Postol>.
Messerli, Joe. Should the U.S. Continue to Fund the SDI Anti-
Nuclear Missile Defense System?. N.p., 6 Nov. 2007. Web. 10
Oct. 2010.
<http://www.balancedpolitics.org/missile_defense.htm>.
Snyder, Timothy, and Philip Snyder. "Why missile defense is a
bad idea." The Christian Science Monitor 2 Feb. 2001. Web. 10
Oct. 2010. <http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0202/p11s2.html>.
Trenin, Dmitri. "Missile Defense Could Be the Silver Bullet."
The Moscow Times 3 Nov. 2009, 4500 ed. Web. 10 Oct. 2010.
<http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/missile-
defense-could-be-the-silver-bullet/388746.html>.

10. In light of the evidence, the United States of America should
build a missile defense system. It would be beneficial for the
U.S to pursue missile defense as a deterrent against terrorist
nations. The nations that continue to go against the sanctions on
nuclear development like Iran are never going to stop supposed
secret operations creating the WMD’s the United Nations fear
exist. This has been proven by the lack of obedience North
Korea has shown with its testing of missile launches such as the
Taepo-Dong-2. The media has been spreading fear about
terrorist nations stemming from Iraq and Afghanistan having
terrorist clans centered in other parts of the world. This is an
unwelcomed issue knowing that at any moment our nation could
be attacked and we would have no feasible means to defend
ourselves from launches of any type. These attacks are solely
targeting American and American interests because of a hidden
government agenda.
Even though the cost to develop missile defense could be
immense, I believe that overall the benefits would outweigh the
costs. Our country has the right to defend itself against enemies
both foreign and domestic using whatever means necessary to
keep the country and its inhabitants safe. One thing remains
true: Our military technology and the hearts of our soldiers on
the battlefield and any battlefield in existence have rarely ever
been matched in strength, power, courage, or prowess. Missile
defense would only add to the might of our already powerful
military force.
NOTES

11. Research Paper Guidelines
for Political Science 105, 271, and 330.
The research papers for PSCI 105, 271, and 330 will be
graded on the basis of the following criteria. (1) the degree to
which the paper offers a compelling and convincing argument,
in the view of the instructor, (2) the extent to which the paper
adheres to the written guidelines specified below, and (3) the
quality of writing displayed in the paper.
The first criterion, the degree to which the paper offers a
compelling and convincing argument will be measured by the
paper’s logic, the strength of the evidence it presents, and the
quality and quantity of the materials it uses. The second and
third criteria will be measured by the degree to which the paper
performs the tasks below.
1. Select a topic in the form of a question from the list of
approved topics provided.
2. List on page 1, the 5 strongest pros (in sentence form) to
your paper’s question.
3. List on page 1, the 5 strongest cons (in sentence form) to
your paper’s question.
4. Elaborate and discuss on pages 2-4 key pros and cons
identified on page 1.
5.Support your conclusion pro or con, on page 5, and provide a
persuasive argument.
6. Your paper must be 5 full pages long. Papers less than 5
pages will lose valuable points. In addition to this, an endnote
and bibliography page must be attached to your paper.
7. Endnotes, NOT footnotes or in-text notes must be used.

12. Endnote instructions along with a sample paper are posted on
blackboard. Students are encouraged to examine them.
8. A Notes and Bibliography page MUST BE ADDED to your
five-page paper. A sample paper will be posted online. Your
bibliography (which is distinctly different from your endnotes
page) must include at least ten sources. There is no required
number of notes.
9. Website information can be found at the end of each chapter
of your textbook.
10. Please number and staple your paper’s pages. This is very
important. Points will be deducted if pages are not numbered
and stapled.
11. Your paper topics must NOT be modified or changed
without prior approval.
12. All pages must be type-written and double spaced, using 12
point font.
13. All major writing styles are acceptable but Wikipedia,
Webster’s dictionary and long introductions designed to
“introduce the subject matter” must be avoided.
14. Good grammar is required throughout your paper. No cover
page is needed.
15. Electronic submissions WILL NOT be accepted. Only hard
copies will be accepted.
16. All papers must be submitted on time. Late papers will be
penalized.
17.Papers submitted after the due date will be automatically
penalized 40 points.
18.No papers will be accepted after the final exam has been
given.
19.The Instructor bears no responsibility for work allegedly
submitted but never received by the Instructor.
20.Students must present logical, well-researched, persuasive
and convincing arguments in defense of their position,
argument, and conclusions on page 5 of their papers. Paper due
dates are posted on blackboard.