Since the earliest days of newspaper and
magazine publishing, community members have written letters to
publication editors as a way to respond to stories they've read. These
letters could range in topics from heartwarming human interest notes, to
comments about publication design, to the more common and
sometimes passionate political rants.
As more and more of our publications have
gone entirely "online," the art of writing well-researched,
well-constructed letters has dwindled. But letters to editors are still
appearing in many publications, and learning to write an effective letter to
the editor can help you be an informed and influential citizen.
Topic: Is the U.S. Constitution
Exceptional?
Recently the
president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, published an article in the New York Times
regarding the United States’s involvement in Syria and other international military conflicts. In that article, he argued
that it is dangerous to encourage a nation to see itself as exceptional. Please
read the following article from Putin, noting particularly his argument against
exceptionality. Then please respond to the question whether or not the U.S.
Constitution is exceptional. Do NOT answer the question whether or not the U.S.
is exceptional.
Length: 290-300 words
Tips:
1. You should get to the point early. Don't bury your point
inside a lengthy argument. Long, wordy letters give the impression that you're
trying too hard to make a point.
2. Don't appear to be overly emotional. You can avoid this
by limiting your exclamation points. Also avoid insulting language. Be
confident, but also fair-minded.
3. Follow the concession + refutation model.
4. In your first paragraph, introduce the debate and sum up
your position.
In the second paragraph, include sentences with strong evidence to support your view.
End with a great summary and a clever, punchy line.
In the second paragraph, include sentences with strong evidence to support your view.
End with a great summary and a clever, punchy line.
5. Do several drafts. Writing concise, punchy sentences
takes several rewrites. Seek lots of feedback.
First Draft due
Tuesday, Dec.3.
Op-Ed Contributor
A Plea for Caution From Russia
What Putin Has to Say
to Americans About Syria
By VLADIMIR V. PUTIN
Published: September 11, 2013 4447 Comments
MOSCOW
— RECENT events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the
American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time
of insufficient communication between our societies.
Relations between us have passed through different
stages. We stood against each other during the cold war. But we were also
allies once, and defeated the Nazis together. The universal international
organization — the United Nations — was then established to prevent such
devastation from ever happening again.
The United Nations’ founders understood that decisions
affecting war and peace should happen only by consensus, and with America’s
consent the veto by Security Council permanent members was enshrined in the
United Nations Charter. The profound wisdom of this has underpinned the
stability of international relations for decades.
No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the
League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is
possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military
action without Security Council authorization.
The potential strike by the United States against Syria,
despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious
leaders, including the pope, will result in more innocent victims and
escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A
strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could
undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North
Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of
balance.
Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an
armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country.
There are few champions of democracy in Syria.
But there are more than enough Qaeda fighters and extremists of all stripes
battling the government. The United States State Department has designated Al
Nusra Front and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, fighting with the
opposition, as terrorist organizations. This internal conflict, fueled by
foreign weapons supplied to the opposition, is one of the bloodiest in the
world.
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and
hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of
our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience
acquired in Syria? After all, after fighting in Libya, extremists moved on to
Mali. This threatens us all.
From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue
enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not
protecting the Syrian government, but international law. We need to use the
United Nations Security Council and believe that preserving law and order in
today’s complex and turbulent world is one of the few ways to keep international
relations from sliding into chaos. The law is still the law, and we must follow
it whether we like it or not. Under current international law, force is
permitted only in self-defense or by the decision of the Security Council.
Anything else is unacceptable under the United Nations Charter and would
constitute an act of aggression.
No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But
there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by
opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons,
who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are
preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.
It is alarming that military intervention in internal
conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is
it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world
increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on
brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan “you’re either with
us or against us.”
But force has proved ineffective and pointless.
Afghanistan is reeling, and no one can say what will happen after international
forces withdraw. Libya is divided into tribes and clans. In Iraq the civil war
continues, with dozens killed each day. In the United States, many draw an
analogy between Iraq and Syria, and ask why their government would want to
repeat recent mistakes.
No matter how targeted the strikes or how sophisticated
the weapons, civilian casualties are inevitable, including the elderly and
children, whom the strikes are meant to protect.
The world reacts by asking: if you cannot count on
international law, then you must find other ways to ensure your security. Thus
a growing number of countries seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction. This
is logical: if you have the bomb, no one will touch you. We are left with talk
of the need to strengthen nonproliferation, when in reality this is being
eroded.
We must stop using the language of force and return to
the path of civilized diplomatic and political settlement.
A new opportunity to avoid military action has emerged in
the past few days. The United States, Russia and all members of the
international community must take advantage of the Syrian government’s
willingness to place its chemical arsenal under international control for
subsequent destruction. Judging by the statements of President
Obama, the United States sees this as an alternative to military
action.
I welcome the president’s interest in continuing the
dialogue with Russia on Syria. We must work together to keep this hope alive,
as we agreed to at the Group of 8 meeting in Lough Erne in Northern Ireland in
June, and steer the discussion back toward negotiations.
If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve
the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be
our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.
My working and personal relationship with President Obama
is marked by growing trust. I appreciate this. I carefully studied his address
to the nation on Tuesday. And I would rather disagree with a case he made on
American exceptionalism, stating that the United States’ policy is “what makes
America different. It’s what makes us exceptional.” It is extremely dangerous
to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation.
There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long
democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. Their
policies differ, too. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord’s
blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal.
<img
src="http://meter-svc.nytimes.com/meter.gif"/>
Vladimir V. Putin is the president of Russia.
A version of this op-ed
appears in print on September 12, 2013, on page A31 of the New York edition
with the headline: A Plea for Caution From Russia.
