The aim of this article is to help raise awareness of how language can be used in order not only to express my idea and points of view, but also to persuade others to see the world through my eyes. In this assignment, I am to practise these skills using as a case study the civil war in Syria, which is now approaching its tenth year. It is important to note from the outset that I am not expected to become an expert on this complex crisis and I do not therefore need to spend too much time reading about the subject. My aim is to practise adopting difference perspectives and to use rhetorical devices in order to promote the interests of a Syrian refugee or exile.I am required to prepare an article for publication in a European newspaper such as Le Monde or The Guardian newspaper, one from the perspective of a the Russian government. It should represent the views of the Russian government who see Assad as a legitimate leader and is providing military support to keep him in power. The statements should include the following;1. A hook or a title that serves as the page-stopper. This is a story or angle which arrests attention by appealing to gut reactions.2. A photograph AND caption that best conveys this hook and supports the argument of your text. (Refer to the Chatham House links below for examples)3. A 500 to 700-word text that promotes the views and arguments of the side that is issuing the statement. Be sure to use the limited word-count available to communicate a strong and persuasive position statement rather than getting caught up in details! To help you get started, we offer you (1) a conceptual problem as a frame and (2) some links:1. Is your party in favour of or against a negotiated settlement to the war that allows Assad to remain in power?The West adopted a hardline approach from the outset that said Assad could not be part of any solution but did not back full military campaigns to remove him. That meant that when Russia intervened militarily to support him, Assad was not going to be removed by any rebels and given the Wests position there could therefore never be a solution. Compounding this high-level mistake, the West then supported various rebels fighting Assad. The US supported hardline rebels who bordered on Islamist extremism, while Europe supported moderate ones more modestly.Turkey saw the US-backed rebels as a threat to Turkey and declared them terrorists, along with others, so the US and Turkey ended up supporting opposing factions militarily, each fighting against the other and against Assad, who was supported by Russia. Meanwhile, ISIS came and went, exacerbating the intensity of alliances and breaks between different rebel groups supported by different countriesToday, its a stalemate of instability and human suffering, with Assad in power, the West unwilling to intervene, and growing calls in the West to accept a solution that includes Assad. But these calls create a dilemma for the U.S. in particular: whether to stick to principle and refuse a solution that involves Assad despite the fact that for 9 years now Assad is still in power and not likely to fall OR whether to improve a humanitarian disaster but give up on an earlier commitment to principle. In essence, the problem facing the U.S. is how to respond once your bluff has been called without losing authority and credibility. When if ever should a country row back from a failed bluff?
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]