Complete 8 pages APA formatted article: Affecting A Significant Event in My Life on Thoughts. Challenges at times serve instrumental to drive you out of the comfort zone of the routine domain and aids to attain newer skills of leadership. So had been a significant event in my professional career which forced me to prove successful in a challenging arena of work.

It was in the peak financial season of the year 2007, that I had to take charge of the challenging hot seat of FIC of project C. The incident of the FIC relieving from the organization at a stage where there were only two weeks left for the company’s annual audit really pressurized the whole team. The FIC was the lone person who held resourceful information on the accounts as he had a long term relationship with the client company. Moreover, he was responsible for the completion of the previous year’s annual audit and current year’s interim audit of that company. My previous track records found me as the best person to fit into his slot.

The challenges in terms of adaptability, leadership skill requirements and information sourcing were immense. As a primary strategy, I made my presence felt to the client company through extensive inclusiveness. Interaction with the client team and my team was initiated in which the time and the action plan of the project were reconstructed. The interaction further led the collection of resources with regard to the client demand, expectations and other vital information on the prior work done by my precedent counterpart.

The team-building process was a real challenge to my leadership skills. With the support of my supervisor, I built a working team and started to leverage the resources from relevant sources. The team was inspired to have a positive team spirit in the ice-breaking meeting itself. Acknowledgment of the team’s efforts and the sharing of leadership was continually assured. They were enlightened on the career growth envisaged upon the success of the program. The team was also warned about the impact of the failure that may result in the company. With all these relentless efforts, I could initiate a good workforce. Tasks were assigned and the team started to work with all its spirit.

&nbsp.

Interest Groups: Case Study

Dissident Kim Dae Jung’s return to South Korea

South Korea experienced political turmoil in the decades following the Korean War under the rule of several autocratic leaders who severely limited political freedom in society. As South Korea was a crucial ally against the expansion of communism, the U.S. government was wary of being openly critical of the corrupt S. Korean government. However, the U.S. no longer could ignore the violation of human rights in South Korea when Kim Dae Jung, a leading pro-democracy dissident, sought U.S. assistance in his return from exile to South Korea in 1985.

Kim rose to prominence as a political figure as a National Assembly member after the Korean War. His active opposition to the corrupt dictators ruling S. Korea made him susceptible to violent harassment by the South Korean government including imprisonment, an assassination attempt, and abduction in the 1970s. Kim’s fight for democracy and human rights in S. Korea appealed to the U.S. government and gained support. The Reagan Administration was involved in converting Kim’s death sentence to a 20-year imprisonment in 1980. Advocacy from the U.S. Congress and Embassy was crucial in getting General Chun Doo Hwan to grant Kim a suspension on his jail term (after Kim had served over two and a half years in forced isolation) ostensibly for receiving medical treatment in the U.S. in December of 1982. While in the U.S., Kim actively sought support and sympathy for the democracy struggles in S. Korea from the American politicians and journalists. Kim taught at Harvard University as a Fellow, established the Korea Institute for Human Rights, and closely corresponded with various journalists and U.S. officials like George Lister, a policy advisor for the Bureau of Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs, and Elliot Abrams, the Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and Humanitarian Affairs. Kim delivered a speech at the State Department Open Forum in 1985, challenging the United States to be more actively engaged in supporting the democracy efforts in Korea.

Kim finished his medical treatment and fellowship in June of 1984 and started to carefully plan his return to his homeland, aware of the fate of Benigno Aquino, the Philippine opposition leader, who was assassinated at the Manila airport when he returned from exile in 1983. Kim was especially concerned about the growing radicalism of the dissenters and wanted to return to inspire the discouraged Korean population. Despite the danger and risk of re-imprisonment or even death that Kim faced, he made a firm decision to return to his homeland in order to participate directly in his people’s struggle for democracy. Kim asked the U.S. government for “concern and cooperation” to secure return without “complications” and collaborated with Lister and Abrams on the details of his return. In September of 1984, Kim wrote a letter to General Chun telling of his intentions to return which was responded by a threat to re-arrest Kim upon his return. Therefore, 22 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives wrote a letter requesting the Korean government to assure Kim’s safety on October 16, 1984. The tone of the letter was diplomatic but also cautioning of the consequences the harassment of Kim would have on the bilateral relations. The S. Korean government announced that it would not re-arrest Kim, two days after the invitation for General Chun for talks with President Reagan in the U.S.

Seeking to publicize his return, Kim wrote “Why an Exile Wants to Go
Home” in the Los Angeles times on October 11 and on November 4, reiterated his story to Korean journalists in Washington, DC. On December 2, 3000 people attended Kim’s farewell ceremony in Madison Square Garden in New York City. Despite urgings by some U.S. officials to postpone Kim’s visit until after the Korean parliamentary elections, Kim embarked on his journey home on February 6, 1985. On his flight to Korea, Kim was accompanied by about two dozen U.S. citizens including US Congressmen Edward Feighan, Thomas Foglietta, and Edward Markey, former Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights, Pat Derian, former Ambassador to El Salvador, Robert White, and singer Mary Travis.

Hundreds of Korean supporters who awaited Kim were blocked from welcoming Kim at the airport by police officers and military. It is unclear how much violence ensued between these groups at the Kimpo Airport on February 8, 1985, because of the conflicting accounts from the event. It was reported that Kim, along with the members of the entourage, were physically shoved and beaten by Korean Central Intelligence Agency officers. The entourage was later accused of deliberately provoking violence when they were rumored to have used a locked-arms technique leaving the plane. Kim was forcibly separated from most of his entourage (three members of the American entourage were allowed to accompany him in separate car) and taken to a house where he was virtually put under house arrest.

The Korean government expressed “regret” over the tactics used at the airport a few days following the incident when an invitation for President Chun to visit America was called into question. While Kim’s accompanying party voiced distress at their treatment by the hands of the KCIA agents at the airport and Kim acknowledged that he had been handled roughly, Kim had arrived at his home without experiencing further violence. Ed Djerejian, a US deputy state spokesman, said that the United States Embassy was opposed to the behavior of the KCIA agents but that President Chun’s visit to the United States would continue as planned. Nonetheless, the South Korean government promised an investigation into the incident and said that they would assure the safety of the visiting United States Representatives and their party.

The U.S. continued to press the Korean government to release Kim from house arrest. Kim was not rearrested on the old charges after his return and later had all his charges cleared on Jun. 25, 1987. In the meantime the grassroots Korean movement for democracy grew rapidly. (See “South Koreans win mass campaign for democracy, 1986-87”). Kim became active in Korean politics and, in 1997, became the first opposition party leader to be elected president in South Korea.

Questions:

1. Identify the various interest groups attempting to influence government policy in this case study.

2. What individuals other than Kim pushed the “return to South Korea” project on Kim’s behalf? What was the importance of having these particular individuals backing the project?

3. What benefits might these individuals (identified in # 2 above) be seeking in supporting the project to safely send Kim back to South Korea?

4. How might the interest groups (identified in # 1 above) enhance overall democracy?

5. Why might Madison approve of small, non-economic based interest groups being established in America?

6. What individuals and/or groups would benefit as ‘free riders’ if the Kim project was successful? How would they benefit?

7. What specific events directly influenced decision makers to support the Kim Project of returning Kim Dae Jung safely to South Korea?

8. Describe the various ‘going public’ events that attempted to mobilize public opinion on this issue. What other efforts might the interest groups attempted, if any, to further the cause?

9. Why was it decided to have Kim accompanied to South Korea with U.S. citizens, including members of /congress, former ambassadors and former Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights?

10. Overall, how successful do you think the project was and why? How does this event of 30 years ago impact today’s geo-political relations between the U.S. and the Korean Peninsula?

 

Need help with my writing homework on An Investigation and Enquiry into Monologues. Write a 1750 word paper answering; Coming to the origin of monologues, dramatic monologues are a literary product of the 19th century. They can be labeled appropriately as the Victorian invention as the form was invented and practiced mainly by the Victorian poets including Robert Browning, Tennyson, Rossetti, and others. The earliest articulation of dramatic monologues can be identified with the advent of the intelligent criminal in the Victorian periods, and the growing concern for exploring the criminal psyche (Sinfield, 1977). A dramatic monologue is also a kind of performative psychoanalysis as it attempts to explore the speaker’s mind. Browning is highly regarded for his ability to create devious characters in his poems. His monologues portray a complex characterization of the speakers although in a subtler way. In “My Last Duchess”, Browning’s speaker is a pompous Italian Duke who shows off the portrait of his young gracious wife he had executed. The speaker’s dissatisfaction with his wife’s unaffected graciousness is prominent in the monologue as quoted by Sinfield (Sinfield 4),

The pleasant and gracious nature of the Duchess is communicated through the Duke’s words, however, the Duke does not intend to appreciate it in any way. There are considerable disagreements among critics concerning the Duke’s callous revelation of the death of the last Duchess. Either the Duke is too self-possessed to care about what others think, or he intends to warn his next Duchess. The monologue demonstrates the strong obsession of the Duke who is “still obsessed with the remarkable girl he failed to dominate and impelled to justify to himself and others his ruthless response” (Sinfield 5).

Unlike Browning’s subtle speaker characterization, speakers in Shakespeare’s monologues (Shakespearean soliloquies) reveal their deepest confessions rather blatantly. Perhaps, the best known Shakespearean monologue is the ‘To be or not to be’ monologue by the protagonist in Hamlet.&nbsp.The monologue speaks distinctly of Hamlet’s confusing state of mind and his complex characterization.

Need help with my writing homework on Internet Security Management at CPCNet. Write a 1250 word paper answering; Analysts at CPCNet found that usage costs were major factors that prevented people from using the Internet. It was conveyed to the company management that reducing costs would attract more customers in the domestic market and also help the company to expand into overseas markets. The company has been trying different methods to reduce the cost of usage of the Internet, to boost its productivity, and expand into new markets both domestically and internationally. Most importantly, the company has a policy to continually improve upon the way in which it presently operates. Under the current project, I was to implement a strategy that could cut down costs and also expand the market of the company.

After analyzing the requirements of the project, I felt that the company needed a new strategy even though it had sound operational effectiveness. Michael Porter insists that there is a difference between strategy and operational effectiveness. He says that strategy is involved in devising means that makes a company drastically different when compared to its competitors. This change may be in the work culture or the organizational outlook of the company. While operational effectiveness has short-term goals, a definite change in strategy involves a change in operations that can have far-reaching consequences for the company. Potter affirms that most of the operational efficiency tactics end up in a cheap price war that has only short gains. Another fact of strategy is that it has to function optimally, its objectives have to remain constant for a longer time period and cannot change repeatedly. The strategy should not be changed according to the compulsions in the market and hence there has to be a genuine and patient effort to identify a good strategy and then adhere to it for long-term goals.&nbsp.