The topic is:
Briefly discuss a current global issue, indicating why you consider it
important and what you suggest should be done to deal with it.
Thanks in advance!
-----------
Pirates have used the oceans to exert control over peoples for over twelve-hundred years, but it seems that our culture has come to a point where the public considers piracy a relic of the past, irrelevant since the Barbary pirates of the turn of the nineteenth century. However, the recent terrorist attacks inflicted upon unwary ships off the East African coast by Somali pirates have shocked both the public and the international community. These acts constitute a global crisis resulting not only from the economic and political struggles of Somalia, but also from the failures of the international community to take coordinated action to confront the decades-old problems of the region.
With over a hundred ships attacked last year, the pirates are becoming increasingly more effective. On January 9, they received a $3 million dollar ransom for a ship containing over $100 million in oil cargo, and more than a dozen ships with about 300 crew members are still being held. The truth is that this situation is not only life-threatening for those on-board the hijacked vessels, but a serious security threat to the coastal nations bordering the Gulf of Aden and the Arabian Sea. For example, the pirates' capture in September of a Ukrainian ship loaded with weapons could lead to the sale of the cargo to dubious organizations in Sudan, Iran, and Afghanistan.
Undoubtedly, the Somali pirates are criminals who should be punished for their actions. However, even the swift capture and prosecution of every offending ship would not be sufficient to solve the problem. An international council composed of Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Ethiopia, India, and other adjacent and endangered areas, must be formed in order to both better patrol at risk areas on water and improve the situation on the ground in Somalia. Economically, improving the Somali quality of life consists of producing more favorable trade conditions and increasing labor opportunities in the region. Politically, these nations must come together to formulate a set of recommendations to the Somali government, which Transparency International lists at the bottom of its annual Corruption Perceptions Index. For the future stability of Somalia, it is critical that these countries continue to support the Transitional Federal Government in its struggle against the comparatively more militant Islamic Courts Union government that has taken the Somali capital. These and other steps will ensure further progress on the ground, allowing Somalia to eventually take action on its own to circumvent the terrorist activities originating at its shores.
Furthermore, a coordinated effort from the nations of this region would act as a first step towards tackling the instability of states such as Pakistan and India. Solving the Somalian crisis could be the cornerstone upon which these nations could build their twenty-first century relations. This league of Arabian Sea-bordering states would hopefully continue to work together to solve difficult political and economic issues like religion and trade that continue to plague the region.
i think that this essay has really good structure, just make sure your sentences flow nicely, and make sure your conclusion is strong.
haha you must need to post something :)
"Pirates have used the oceans to exert control over peoples for over twelve-hundred years"
Although technically that's correct, pirates are definitely known to have operated as far back as julius caesar. That's at least 2,000 years.
livius.org/caa-can/caesar/caesar_t01.htm
"However, the recent terrorist attacks inflicted upon unwary ships off the East African coast by Somali pirates have shocked both the public and the international community."
Either you are being intentionally inflammatory, or you are just another prototypical example of a person who has unwittingly incoporated into the vernacular, duplicitious, incendiary language that is used haphazardly and especially to further the elite interests of those who conspire to spark fear, and hatred in people for their own convoluted agenda.
The Somali pirates are criminals, not terrorists. So far most would agree, their motivation to attack ships for ransom is financial, and divested from any political or religious motives.
"These acts constitute a global crisis"
Blatant Hyperbole. This is not a global crisis by any measure. It is highly lozalized, you admitted as much.
"For the future stability of Somalia, it is critical that these countries continue to support the Transitional Federal Government in its struggle against the comparatively more militant Islamic Courts Union government that has taken the Somali capital. These and other steps will ensure further progress on the ground, allowing Somalia to eventually take action on its own to circumvent the terrorist activities originating at its shores."
Under the Islamic Government which you cited above, piracy declined to virtually nothing. It may come as a surprise to you, but this direct contradiction could threaten to undermine your entire essay.
"Somalia: Pirates Scared Off By Islamic Punishments
A year ago, we reported that pirates had hijacked two UN ships loaded with food supplies, destined for the poor of Somalia. These ships, the Torgelow and the MV Semlow, contained provisions from the UN's World Food Program. At that time, piracy in Somalia was so bad that the International Maritime Bureau described it as the "most serious in the world". There were 21 incidents in the six months from March 2005 to October 2005.
The Merchant International Group, which gives advice on trading in trouble spots around the world, said in a recent report: "The spread of Islamist rule in Somalia under the Islamic Courts Union merits particular attention. Over 40 attacks on vessels were reported in and around Somali waters between March 2005 and July 2006, but not a single act of piracy in the area has been reported in the months since."
westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003215.html
In the second paragraph you might want to add where these ships that they have are being held.
Your essay is rife with spurious claims and frightening evidence of indoctrination, but as is, it should pass grammatically, and also on the veracity of the content, if your professor is a completely incompetent idiot.
Harsh, but I needed harsh. Thanks.
irrelevant since the Barbary pirates from the turn of... (sounds nicer)
However, the recent terrorist attacks inflicted upon unwary ships off the East African coast by Somali pirates have shocked both the public and the international community.
...and improve the situation on land in Somalia.
Your essay is very well written, and definitely supports your thesis statement. You did indeed "why you consider it important and what you suggest should be done to deal with it." I see that Mustafa mentions that perhaps it is not a global issue, but that is debatable... Pirates are certainly able to get to various places... however, maybe you should say it should be of global concern.
Now, Mustafa is also correct to say that it is wrong to call piracy "terrorism," but I don't know why he described it as "incendiary ...haphazard and ... to further the elite interests of those who conspire to spark fear, and hatred in people for their own convoluted agenda." Maybe he just got carried away. Who takes offense to someone talking badly about piracy??? It sounded like you personally offended him! It was a simple misnomer, that's all.
About the overall essay, it really is great. I don't know what Mustafa is talking about. I guess my high opinion of it makes me a "completely incompetent idiot."
Misnomer would rightly apply here if there was not a documented pattern of misuse having not so much to do with pirates in this case, but an overreach that is self-perpetuating and indicates this probably isn't the first and last time it happened, and more to the point, it is in many cases a deliberate misuse for the reasons I've already illustrated. But notice that I said it was possible his intent was not malicious, which is why I took appropriate action to clarify for him that he is engaging in something that he may not even be realizing.
It's partly my fault at the end for muddling what I was trying to say. His essay is grammatically intact. It is well written.
The content is not amusing; it is riddled with untoward errors and has few clearly defined methodologies for combating piracy. This is of course self-evident when your major premise is that evicting the "militant islamic government" will result in the abation of piracy.
Major Point: These are not merely happenstance errors. They are not isolated mistakes. They are clues to a sickening ideology.
Let's hold all things equal. Imagine for a second here that we live in a world we are all stupid and know nothing.
What are the odds that you make the mistake that removing something will cause the exact reciprocal effect which it does in reality?
Plausible you say.
What about when these are two distinct matters?
This is NOT someone who has never heard of peanut butter and jelly before, saying that removing peanut butter might make it taste good, all things equal.
These are complex interactions on a much higher scale, which makes it even more unlikely that he made an innocent mistake.
What makes it infinitesimally unlikely, it it wasn't already?
This is your Undergraduate Admission Essay, and this is an issue you are supposed to care about theoretically.
With the control that we know nothing, making the exact opposite mistake on two things you had no prior experience with is unlikely.
When these things are intangible and not proximate, it is even more unlikely.
When you misuse the word terrorist in the same page, it is extremely unlikely
Add the final consideration that this is his undergrad adm. essay, this point is his central tenet, and this is supposed to be something he cares about, and my case is complete.
I don't even have that much of an interest in the piracy, but I had managed to know by occasionally reading current events, that when the Islamic Government was in power, piracy was not an issue.
Just a few final points. Of course I didn't intend any disrespect to Michael, Kevin, or anybody else.
I made a legitimate point that if you are an admissions officer, and you are reading these essays about what the applicants think are important issues, and you are so imprudent that you fail to see they've made a very serious error which throws a pile of festering defecation on, and makes a mockery of the word "important" and their assertion that this is important to them, you deserve to be called a "completely incompetent idiot" in all respects.
Again, please let me reiterate that whether Michael has consciously chosen to attack or wrongly associate negative connotations with a religion and way of life for 1.2 billion people is up in the air. I meet a lot of people who don't even realize that they are proliferating something that is so damaging and seditious. It IS personal. It IS offensive.
But I am open minded, so of course I give him the benefit of the doubt that it is unintentional, but also I try to rectify the situation by making it very clear that he might be engaging in something extremely deleterious without being aware of it.
Pirates are indeed criminals, and not terrorists, when they carry out their activities for financial gain. The mistaken nomenclature is probably more of an understandable error arising from the fact that both terrorists and pirates are violent criminals, and that the former are talked about far more than the latter in modern times, rather than a sign of indoctrination into some form of insidious ideology.
The author does not seem, by the way, to be arguing from the premise that combating militant Islam in Somalia would reduce piracy in and of itself. Rather, he seems to be arguing that the best way to combat piracy in the region over the long term is to support the development of a stable and democratic Somalia that shares Western values. Ousting a militant Islamic regime would be one step in the process of creating such a Somalia. This chain of logic is perfectly reasonable. It is not unassailable, by any means; Mustafa has every right to disagree with the argument, and is his objections are not foolish. However, the essay is solid, given the limitations of length imposed by the particular format.
