One of the major issues on Congress’ radar right now is the conflict in Syria. Syria is a nation that has historically been on the United States’ radar. In August of 2011, Nita Lowey issued a statement making it clear that she supported the Administration’s idea to create sanctions blocking Americans from doing business with Syria (trade). Lowey stated “These repressive and inhumane actions have only increased as the Syrian people legitimately demand reform and democratic transition. The Syrian government must immediately release arbitrarily detained persons and cease violence, persecution and arbitrary arrests of lawyers, human rights advocates, journalists, and others” (http://lowey.house.gov/press-releases/lowey-praises-administration-steps-on-syria/). More recently, as the unrest in Syria once again became too much for the United States to ignore, Congresswoman Lowey again backed the Obama administration in a statement to the House Appropriations Committee. Lowey stated:
| "The violent conflict in Syria has resulted in a staggering humanitarian catastrophe: • more than 70,000 lives have been lost, • 4 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance, and • an estimated 3 million people displaced, and 1 million seeking refuge in neighboring countries." |
After stating statistics citing tragic numbers of death and displacement of civilians, Lowey continued on to say “I hope you will address what plan the Administration has to secure Syrian conventional and chemical weapons” (http://democrats.appropriations.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1069&Itemid=26). While she voices support for the administration, she also asks analytical questions of her own: “ What are the prospects for a full-fledged regional spill-over of the conflict?” and “And what is the likelihood of power struggles within the opposition leading to future civil warfare along sectarian lines?”
It appears that Congresswoman Lowey isn’t stating a defined position; perhaps in recognition of the complexity of the issue but also perhaps for fear of displeasing her constituents. It is interesting to note that the first issue identified by Congresswoman Lowey relates to the humanitarian tragedy of all the displaced Syrian civilians. This is completely consistent with what I have observed with her in the past; she is always concerned with humanitarian aspects. She does not make clear what she wants in terms of military action though; the questions she asks focus on what the proper military response should be, if any. Congresswoman Lowey voted in favor of use of military force in Iraq in 2002; it is possible that this vote and the poor end result of the war has made her cautious in moving forward on the Syria issue. Lowey is likely pleased that United States and Russia have come to an agreement with regards to secure and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons, thus avoiding military action. While she has yet to release a statement, I suspect she will in the coming days.
3 comments:
Do you think that Lowey would have voted yes to the presidents proposal to strike syria even if it displeased her voters and that her role as a humanitarian would have trumped being a people pleaser?
Congresswomen Lowey faces a tough decision that every member on Capital Hill, whether that be in the House of Representatives or Senate must confront. Does she adhere to her constituents that elected her to office or side with her beliefs in what is best for our nation as whole. Her voting history as well as he previous stance on entertaining the idea of using military force in international conflict is well documented. She voted to use military force in Iraq and has been outspoken on some form of action in Syria, although specifics of that action have yet to be noted (militarily). Although these feelings, it is quite apparent her constituents are not in favor of using any type of force abroad. This raises the challenge she must confront. The framers of the Constitution envisioned our members of the House of representatives being responsible to their constituents in their home districts, a la the ones who elected them to office. Following their intentions from this branch of government, Congresswomen Lowey's branch (representing 17th District of NY), would result in her vote of no military involvement in Syria. The decision Congresswomen Lowey must make will be exemplify the way in which our elected officials act, either with their constituents or with the nation.
Representative Lowey's response is really interesting in so far as it seems to go against what might be a more typical humanitarian response. Arguably one who expressed such remorse and sorrow for the tragedies of this civil war--and who has expressed similar concerns in the past--would want to see the hasty removal of Assad from power.
I'm interested to think about how all of the possible reasons behind this account for her position. Is it possible that she thinks our intervention could only make things worse? Is she concerned that the only legitimate alternative to Assad would be a regime headed by Islamic fundamentalists?
Post a Comment