TASK 2 (AGREE OR DISAGREE): DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

Some people say that to solve today’s global problems every nation should have a good relationship with other nations. To what extent do you agree with this statement?

Sample Answer

It has long been argued that maintaining harmonious multilateral relationships on the global stage is key to addressing today’s global challenges. I firmly agree with this sentiment, despite legitimate arguments underpinning universally agreed responsibilities.

Detractors of establishing mutually beneficial transnational relationships cite the inherent obligations that countries must abide by in times of global crises. These opponents maintain that since the world is interconnected, an unexpected and unfavourable event in one nation can have a ripple effect on others, potentially disrupting global stability and undermining all countries’ security. According to this view, nations should mobilise resources and assist those in need regardless of the status of international harmony, as evidenced in salient examples of economic, geopolitical, and military unions such as the G7, NATO, and the EU. Indeed, members of these organisations have consistently been at the forefront of providing financial aid and resource mobilisation, irrespective of the status quo of their mutual relationships.

However, since each country has its own priorities, assuming that a particular nation should be fully accountable for the problems of others is to undermine an individual country’s economic interests and disregard its budgetary constraints. To add further weight to my assertion, a harmonious and collaborative multilateral relationship can expedite aid and prevent further tension. A strong counter-example of this is the heated debate between the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, and the president of the United States, Donald Trump, over a ceasefire effort by the former, which escalated into an irreversible media fiasco. This resulted in prolonged conflict in Ukraine, claiming millions of lives and causing significant damage to infrastructure. By contrast, the decades-long relationship between the United States and El Salvador eventually led to the proliferation of Bitcoin treasury initiatives in the former, with multiple businesses and state authorities purchasing the leading cryptocurrency following the example of the latter. Other notable examples include the relatively low tariffs in Vietnam, largely owing to a strong bilateral relationship with the USA, or the fact that Covid-19, a national healthcare crisis, was eradicated after only two years as a result of collaboration on a global scale.

In conclusion, while all countries can be ethically and inherently tasked with the fundamental responsibility of safeguarding other nations in the face of global challenges, this should not be regarded as a rigid rule given differing national priorities. In my view, establishing and maintaining mutually supportive and harmonious relationships is crucial to promptly and effectively addressing global issues ranging from economic difficulties to healthcare crises and international conflicts.

Marking by Chat GPT 5

TỪ VỰNG HAY

Some people say that to solve today’s global problems every nation should have a good relationship with other nations. To what extent do you agree with this statement?

It has long been argued that maintaining harmonious multilateral relationships on the global stage is key to addressing today’s global challenges. I firmly agree with this sentiment, despite legitimate arguments underpinning universally agreed responsibilities.

Detractors of establishing mutually beneficial transnational relationships cite the inherent obligations that countries must abide by in times of global crises. These opponents maintain that since the world is interconnected, an unexpected and unfavourable event in one nation can have a ripple effect on others, potentially disrupting global stability and undermining all countries’ security. According to this view, nations should mobilise resources and assist those in need regardless of the status of international harmony, as evidenced in salient examples of economic, geopolitical, and military unions such as the G7, NATO, and the EU. Indeed, members of these organisations have consistently been at the forefront of providing financial aid and resource mobilisation, irrespective of the status quo of their mutual relationships.

However, since each country has its own priorities, assuming that a particular nation should be fully accountable for the problems of others is to undermine an individual country’s economic interests and disregard its budgetary constraints. To add further weight to my assertion, a harmonious and collaborative multilateral relationship can expedite aid and prevent further tension. A strong counter-example of this is the heated debate between the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, and the president of the United States, Donald Trump, over a ceasefire effort by the former, which escalated into an irreversible media fiasco. This resulted in prolonged conflict in Ukraine, claiming millions of lives and causing significant damage to infrastructure. By contrast, the decades-long relationship between the United States and El Salvador eventually led to the proliferation of Bitcoin treasury initiatives, with multiple businesses and state authorities purchasing the leading cryptocurrency following the example of the latter. Other notable examples include the relatively low tariffs in Vietnam, largely owing to a strong bilateral relationship with the USA, or the fact that Covid-19, a national healthcare crisis, was eradicated after only two years as a result of collaboration on a global scale.

In conclusion, while all countries can be ethically and inherently tasked with the fundamental responsibility of safeguarding other nations in the face of global challenges, this should not be regarded as a rigid rule given differing national priorities. In my view, establishing and maintaining mutually supportive and harmonious relationships is crucial to promptly and effectively addressing global issues ranging from economic difficulties to healthcare crises and international conflicts.

Vocabulary

1. maintaining harmonious multilateral relationships – duy trì quan hệ đa phương hài hòa
2. global stage – sân khấu toàn cầu / bối cảnh quốc tế
3. addressing today’s global challenges – giải quyết những thách thức toàn cầu ngày nay
4. legitimate arguments underpinning – lập luận hợp lý làm nền tảng
5. universally agreed responsibilities – trách nhiệm được đồng thuận toàn cầu
6. Detractors of establishing mutually beneficial transnational relationships – những người phản đối thiết lập quan hệ xuyên quốc gia cùng có lợi
7. inherent obligations – nghĩa vụ vốn có / mặc định
8. global crises – khủng hoảng toàn cầu
9. ripple effect – hiệu ứng dây chuyền
10. disrupting global stability – làm gián đoạn sự ổn định toàn cầu
11. undermining all countries’ security – làm suy yếu an ninh của các quốc gia
12. mobilise resources – huy động nguồn lực
13. salient examples – ví dụ điển hình / nổi bật
14. at the forefront of providing financial aid – đi đầu trong việc cung cấp viện trợ tài chính
15. resource mobilisation – huy động nguồn lực
16. status quo of their mutual relationships – hiện trạng quan hệ song phương
17. harmonious and collaborative multilateral relationship – quan hệ đa phương hài hòa và hợp tác
18. expedite aid – đẩy nhanh viện trợ
19. proliferation of Bitcoin treasury initiatives – sự lan rộng của sáng kiến ngân khố Bitcoin
20. fundamental responsibility of safeguarding other nations – trách nhiệm cơ bản trong việc bảo vệ các quốc gia khác

✔ DÀN Ý

Mở bài

• Vấn đề: Nhiều người cho rằng để giải quyết các vấn đề toàn cầu, các quốc gia cần có quan hệ tốt đẹp với nhau.
• Quan điểm cá nhân: Đồng ý – hợp tác quốc tế là chìa khóa, dù vẫn có những hạn chế nhất định.

Thân bài 1 – Lập luận chính

1. Tại sao cần quan hệ đa phương hài hòa
   • Thế giới gắn kết → sự kiện xấu ở một nước có thể gây hiệu ứng dây chuyền.
   • Ảnh hưởng: gây mất ổn định toàn cầu, đe dọa an ninh chung.
   • Ví dụ: G7, NATO, EU → luôn đi đầu trong viện trợ tài chính và huy động nguồn lực.

Thân bài 2 – Phản biện & Quan điểm cá nhân

1. Hạn chế
   • Mỗi nước có ưu tiên, ngân sách riêng → không thể gánh toàn bộ trách nhiệm cho nước khác.
2. Lợi ích khi hợp tác đa phương
   • Quan hệ đa phương hài hòa → đẩy nhanh viện trợ, ngăn căng thẳng leo thang.
   • Ví dụ:
     • Mỹ – Ukraine (tranh cãi Trump – Zelensky) → thất bại, xung đột kéo dài.
     • Mỹ – El Salvador → lan rộng sáng kiến Bitcoin treasury.
     • Việt Nam – Mỹ: thuế quan thấp nhờ quan hệ song phương tốt.
     • Covid-19: kiểm soát nhờ hợp tác toàn cầu.

Kết bài

• Quốc gia có trách nhiệm đạo đức hỗ trợ lẫn nhau, nhưng không nên coi là nguyên tắc cứng nhắc.
• Giải pháp: duy trì quan hệ hỗ trợ, hài hòa, đa phương → xử lý hiệu quả các thách thức: kinh tế, y tế, xung đột quốc tế.