L4 

Geopolitical Document Commentary and Essay Writing Guide

This guide outlines the essential components and best practices for preparing a document commentary or an essay in geopolitics, emphasizing critical analysis, structured argumentation, and precise language.

Examination Choices

For the examination, students must choose between two types of assessments:

• Document commentary: A detailed analysis of a provided geopolitical document.

• Essay: A structured argument addressing a specific geopolitical question.

Document Commentary Guidelines

A document commentary requires placing the text in its appropriate context, highlighting its contribution to geopolitical understanding, and identifying its strengths and limitations.

Evaluation Criteria

Commentaries will be assessed on:

• Understanding: Comprehension of the document's content.

• Critical Perspective: Ability to analyze the document from a critical standpoint.

• Value Identification: Recognizing the document's relevance and insights.

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

Students should be careful not to:

• Paraphrase: Simply rephrase the document's content without analysis.

• Recycle Course Knowledge: Present course information without directly linking it to the document.

Initial Document Analysis Strategy

Before writing, pay close attention to all available information surrounding the text (e.g., title, source, date). Address these five key questions immediately:

1. Nature of the document: What type of document is it?

2. Author: Who created it?

3. Context: When and where was it produced?

4. Audience/Recipients: Who is the intended reader or group?

5. Purpose: What are its main goals and reasons for creation?

Example Document Analysis (Source 6): An Executive Order concerning US participation in international organizations.

• Nature: Executive Order (directive from the US President).

• Author: D. Trump, Republican, US President, characterized by a nationalist and neo-mercantilist foreign policy.

• Context: 2025, marking the potential start of Trump's second term and the 80th anniversary of the UN, amidst a crisis of multilateralism, rising nationalism, and global uncertainty.

• Audience/Purpose: Addressed to the American people and the global community, focusing on US involvement and funding in international organizations.

• Main Idea: Intention to withdraw the US from specific international organizations, cease funding, and review support for others.

"Make the Document Speak" - Deep Dive Analysis (Source 7)

To effectively "make the document speak," identify and elaborate on specific elements:

• Clarification points: Elements that require further explanation.

• Key quotes/expressions: Phrases deserving specific commentary.

• Main ideas/themes: Central concepts for structuring your commentary.

• Course connections: Relate document themes to broader course topics.

Example Application:

• Reference to UN history: The document states, "The US helped found the UN after World War II." This reference allows for a discussion of the UN's origins in promoting peace and security, contrasting it with the document's current stance of re-evaluating commitments.

• References to UNESCO:

  • Level 1: Explain UNESCO's role, discuss distrust towards multilateral institutions, and mention the US-Israel alliance.

  • Level 2: Contextualize by examining the historical relationship between the US, UN, and UNESCO, noting past US withdrawals (e.g., under Reagan) and how UNESCO has served as a platform for Global South nations.

Structuring Your Commentary (Source 10)

• The commentary should be structured around ideas, not a line-by-line breakdown.

• Each paragraph should introduce one distinct idea, supported by direct reference to the document, and supplemented with course knowledge for explanation, deepening, or qualification.

Conclusion

The conclusion should be brief, aiming for clarity and precision. Maintain a neutral tone, explaining the document's significance without injecting personal opinions (Source 11).

Essay Writing Guidelines

An essay requires a structured argument in response to a specific geopolitical question.

Overall Evaluation Criteria (Source 42)

Essays will be evaluated based on:

• Knowledge: Understanding of course material.

• Argument Structure: Ability to address all dimensions of a question with a clear, progressive argument.

• Critical Reflection: Capacity for in-depth analysis.

• Writing Skills: Clarity, structure, and precision in English.

Analyzing the Essay Question (Source 43, 44)

The essay topic might be a direct question or keywords requiring you to formulate a question. It will likely be cross-cutting, drawing from multiple lectures.

• Identify Key Words: Define central terms (e.g., "geopolitical power," "European Union").

• Delimit Topic: Establish geographical and chronological boundaries.

• Linking Words and Details: Pay close attention to nuances in phrasing.

• Formulate Main Question: If not provided, craft a guiding question. For instance, if the question is "Is the European Union a geopolitical power?", it prompts an assessment of its current status.

Example Question Analysis: "Is European Union a geopolitical power?"

• Definitions: Define "geopolitical power" and "European Union."

• Tense: The present tense ("is") indicates a focus on the current situation.

• Underlying Problem: Consider the inherent tensions—e.g., non-state actor vs. geopolitical power, 27 states vs. a single will, an entity built on rejecting power vs. acting strategically.

Brainstorming and Outlining (Source 45, 46)

• Generate Ideas: List main points, examples, and concepts.

• Critical Self-Assessment: Ask "Am I missing something essential?" and "Do all these elements truly fit the topic?"

• Example Ideas: EU built on rejection of hard power, EU as a civil power, EU dependence on US for security, independent armies/foreign policies of member states.

• Example Concepts/Data: 1949 NATO creation, "Brussels effect," military figures (French nuclear arsenal, European army sizes).

• Outline Structure: Develop a clear, non-repetitive, and progressive argument (2-4 main ideas).

Example Essay Outline: "Is European Union a geopolitical power?"

1. The EU is a unique geopolitical actor, comprising 27 states and founded on the rejection of traditional notions of power.

2. Despite this, the EU functions as a civil power, leveraging its economic influence and normative standards.

3. However, the EU falls short of being a superpower due to insufficient hard power instruments and a lack of genuine military capability.

Introduction (Source 9, 47)

The introduction sets the stage for your essay.

• Opening Statement: An optional hook to engage the reader.

• Document Presentation (for commentary): Essential for commentaries, including nature, author, context, audience, and general idea.

• Topic Definition: Define key terms and establish spatial/chronological boundaries.

• Guiding Question: Clearly state the central question your essay will address.

• Outline Announcement: Briefly and concisely announce the structure of your argument.

Body Paragraphs (Source 10, 48)

• Follow the announced outline, but do not use section titles.

• Each paragraph should focus on a single main idea, stated clearly at the beginning.

• Support this idea with concrete evidence (concepts, dates, data, examples).

• Nuance or qualify your argument as needed.

Conclusion (Source 11)

The conclusion should be brief, precise, and maintain neutrality. Avoid personal opinions and focus on the geopolitical significance and implications of your analysis.

Course Material Context: Europe as a Geopolitical Power

The course extensively explores the concept of "Europe puissance" (powerful Europe), questioning whether the EU can genuinely be considered a geopolitical power despite its origins in economic integration and rejection of war (Source 12).

I. Europe Built on Economic Integration, Not Geopolitical Power (Source 13)

A. Building Europe During the Cold War: Economic Integration and NATO Security

• Founding Principles: "Europe created a market, not a power" (JJ Servan-Schreiber, 1957). Founding members had diverse interpretations of "power" and "Europe" (Source 14).

• Economic Milestones:

  • 1947: Marshall Plan → OEEC (Source 16)

  • 1950: ECSC

  • 1957: Treaty of Rome → Common Market

• Security Architecture:

  • 1947: Treaty of Dunkirk (France + UK)

  • 1948: Western Union

  • 1949: North Atlantic Treaty → NATO (Source 16)

• Evolution of EEC: Emphasis on market and economy (customs union, CAP), monetary integration (snake in the tunnel, EMS, single currency), and geographical expansion (Source 19, 21).

B. The European Union and the Difficult Birth of a Common Security and Defence Policy

• Maastricht Treaty (1992): Established EMU (Pillar 1) and CFSP (Pillar 2), but faced reluctance towards deeper political/military integration, prioritizing NATO (Source 24).

• Key Milestones in Defence Policy:

  • 1998: Saint Malo Agreement (EU "capacity for autonomous action")

  • 1999: Helsinki European Council (ESDP, Helsinki Headline Goal for 60,000 troops)

  • 2007: Lisbon Treaty (ESDP → CSDP, stronger CFSP with High Representative) (Source 25)

  • Since 2003: 37 CSDP missions (mostly civilian/civil-military)

II. Facing Multiple Challenges, Can Europe Become a Geopolitical Power? (Source 26)

A. Current Challenges and Rivals Confronting Europe

• Europe and the United States (Death of Atlanticism?):

  • Tensions predate Trump (Obama, Biden's Inflation Reduction Act) (Source 27).

  • Trump's potential return: coercive approach, questioning transatlantic relations. This prompts Europeans to enhance their security responsibility.

• Europe and the Chinese Challenge (Economic Power in Danger?):

  • Significant and growing EU trade deficit with China (record €396 billion in 2022) (Source 30).

  • Chinese competition in high-value sectors (automobiles, solar panels), strategic investments in Europe. China is a declared "economic competitor" and "systemic rival" (Source 31).

• The EU and Russia (Return of War in Europe):

  • Shift from unfriendly to openly dangerous relations since early 2010s, exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and Russia's "sharp power" (Source 32).

  • Turning Point: Economic sanctions, military support to Ukraine, reduced dependence on Russian fossil fuels, increased NATO ties, and EU's aim to become a geopolitical entity (Source 33).

B. Civil Power: Economic and Normative Influence

• Economic Weight: The EU-27 is the world's second-largest economy (€17,944.8 billion in 2024), a major trading power (Source 35). Mario Draghi's report noted economic weakening compared to China and the US.

• Normative Power ("Brussels Effect"):

  • EU's unilateral capacity to regulate global markets by setting standards in competition, environment, food safety, privacy (GDPR), and hate speech (Bradford) (Source 37).

  • Companies comply with EU rules to access its market, often applying these standards globally.

  • Foreign governments sometimes adopt EU-type regulations.

• Assertive Trade Policy: EU has become more assertive in trade negotiations and uses its competition policy (e.g., Margrethe Vestager, Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act) against non-European multinationals (Source 36).

C. Military Power: Still Many Challenges to Overcome

• Insufficient but Not Insignificant Capacities:

  • Leading European armies (France ~200k, Germany ~180k, Italy ~165k, Poland >200k) versus US (1.3 million active soldiers) (Source 38).

  • France is a nuclear power (290 warheads).

  • Increased military spending in EU countries, target of strengthening capacities through the Strategic Compass and European Defence Funds.

  • "ReArm Europe" plan (€800 billion, March 2025) (Source 39).

• Armaments: Lack of Coordination and European Industrial Policy:

  • EU lacks a genuine industrial policy for defense; dependence on US military equipment (e.g., F-35) (Source 41).

  • Uncoordinated spending leads to fragmentation and inefficiency.

  • National industries often prioritize their own interests and foreign sales.

• NATO Centrality: NATO remains the cornerstone of Europe's defense; the goal is to strengthen European capabilities within the NATO framework, not replace it (Source 42).