Charles Schumer- Democrat-New York
Week of September 9th-15th
This
past week, there have been many opinions going around regarding what should be
done with Syria. Especially on Capitol Hill after President Obama put an immense
amount of pressure on Congress to make the decision of whether or not the
Unites States would use military force against Syria. All Congressmen and women
have been looking to their constituents and trying to decide for themselves not
only what the right thing to do is but also what the smartest thing to do is
for the country. However, when our homeland security isn’t directly at risk and
the legitimacy of the United Nations is at stake, it gets a lot more
complicated.
On
Monday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid delayed a full senate vote on the authorization
of military use after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee granted that
authorization. It was delayed after Russian President Vladimir Putin wrote a
letter to the United States urging them to resist using military action. Putin
argued that by using military action, the United States will only make things
worse. We would be getting in the middle of internal affairs which would bear
the risk of increased violence, more innocent victims, and possibly spreading
the conflict outside the Syrian borders. Putin also argued that United States
force, without the consent of the UN, will make the United Nations look weak
because it will show other countries that the decisions of the UN do not hold weight.
Putin suggested that the United States and Russia should instead work together
to come up with a diplomatic plan that didn’t involve force.
Since
the use of military action was put on hold, Schumer and John McCain, both of whom
said they would support the decision of the Committee, took the lead and
proposed an alternative plan, in response to Putin’s request of no military action,
which would require the UN to make Syria to give up their chemical weapons. If
this was not done then the United States would take military action. Schumer taking
on this leadership position shows that he believes military action is not the
only solution. His claim that he would support the decision of the committee, I
think speaks a lot to the complexity of the situation. In the past, Schumer has
supported military action, whether it was the Iraq War resolution or Obama’s
drone war, Schumer has validated these actions by stating that they were
actions against terrorism. I believe that if Schumer believes it is fighting
the war against terrorism, chances are he would support it. I think Schumer did
not give a straight support or oppose answer because this case is unique. There
is no direct threat to the United States, and like Putin said “Syria is not
witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and
opposition in a multi-religious country.”2 So is it our place to
interfere with force? Since the proposal of the alternative plan, Schumer has
taken a clearer stance on what he thinks should be done, speaking for the
people, ""There is an overwhelming view it would be preferable if
international law and the family of nations could strip Syria of the chemical
weapons," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "And there's a large view
we should let that process play out for a little while.""5
On
Saturday, the United States and Russia were able to come to a compromise
solution that calls for all of Syria’s chemical weapons to be collected and
destroyed by the middle of next year and put the idea of American military
force to rest.
References (only direct
quotes were directly cited in text)
2 comments:
I wonder if Schumer's lack of definitive stance has to do with the grandess of his home state. Because New York has so many different areas that have differing political views (New York City is generally liberal and upstate New York tends to be more conservative) he could fear pleasing some constituents and displeasing others all at the same time.
It is also curious to think about what he may have done if President Obama was not in office, but if there was a Republican president. Would he have so strongly backed the administration?
Did Schumer support military action when it came to Iraq and Afghanistan? If so than one might be able to conclude that it doesn't matter which party is in the White House. It sounds like Schumer is more of a war hawk than a dove.
Post a Comment