January, 24 2019, 11:00pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Paul Kawika Martin, Peace Action, 951-217-7285 cell, pmartin@peace-action.org
Gabe Murphy, Peace Action, 510-501-3345 cell, gmurphy@peaceaction.org
Supporting Non-Military Solutions, Congress Asks for Trump's Syria Strategy
WASHINGTON
In response to a letter from 32 members of Congress to President Trump asking him for a diplomatic, political and humanitarian strategy for Syria, Paul Kawika Martin, Senior Director for Policy and Political Affairs at Peace Action, released the following statement:
"In the wake of President Trump's announcement of troop withdrawals in Syria, the administration has offered a wide swath of conflicting remarks about the conditions for, timetable for, and the extent of the withdrawal. At the same time, the administration has escalated its bombing campaign in Syria, and disengaged from diplomatic and humanitarian strategies for addressing the conflict and advancing peace. Thankfully, these members of Congress are exercising their oversight authority on questions of war by requesting a comprehensive strategy from the administration. Beyond asking for a strategy, they offer one, calling for robust humanitarian aid as well as active, sustained participation in diplomacy, and supporting an end to U.S. military operations in Syria. There is no military solution to this conflict, and we should withdraw our troops from Syria and end the bombing campaign in the context of a broader strategy to prevent violence and support the peace process.
"Americans need to know what guiding principles and strategies lay behind the administration's haphazard approach to Syria, so that those principles and strategies can be laid bare and subjected to public debate. Representatives Barbara Lee (D-CA) and Ted Lieu (D-CA) deserve thanks for their leadership in this effort to extract a Syria strategy from this recalcitrant administration. A host of new members of Congress--Katie Hill (D-CA), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI)--also signed the letter, foreshadowing a positive shift in Congress towards asserting its authority and exercising oversight on questions of war."
January 25, 2019
The Honorable Donald Trump
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20500
Dear President Trump:
We write as Members of Congress who have long been concerned about and opposed to U.S. military operations and troop presence in Syria, to urge you to present a long-overdue comprehensive diplomatic, political, and humanitarian strategy for Syria to Congress and the American people. Given the conflicting statements made by your administration, we are also concerned that you are backtracking from your initial decision to withdraw troops.
While we believe there was never a military solution in Syria - nor Congressional authorization for the use of force - we are deeply concerned about the chaotic way in which the withdrawal plan has been rolled out, including continuing confusion over the timeline for the withdrawal and your administration's lack of a diplomatic strategy in Syria. National Security Advisor John Bolton's recent statement indicating that U.S. forces could remain in Syria indefinitely directly contradicts your earlier commitment to withdraw U.S. troops immediately. A coherent message from your Administration on troop withdrawal is crucial to advancing a comprehensive diplomatic strategy. We strongly support the withdrawal of American forces from Syria, and at the same time recognize that such a decision nevertheless presents risks that can and must be mitigated through the implementation of a coherent and well-thought-out plan.
We cannot cast a blind eye to the consequences of U.S. policies in Syria. We know that our fight against ISIS came at a dire price to many Syrian civilians and U.S. troops, most recently with the tragic death of 4 brave service members. In Raqqa alone, nearly 80 percent of the city was damaged and destroyed, predominantly by U.S. airstrikes. Aid organizations have reported that thousands of civilians were killed during the effort to liberate the city, yet few families have seen accountability. Your decision to freeze funds allocated for Syrian stabilization has also slowed essential livelihood and recovery activities in places like Raqqa, including the restoration of vital infrastructure. In the wake of reports that U.S. airstrikes in Syria have accelerated since your announcement, we want to ensure that U.S. forces are not simply being replaced by more bombs, particularly in urban environments that are at high risk for civilian casualties. The U.S. has both a moral and strategic obligation to help address the humanitarian crisis in Syria and avoid actions that exacerbate it.
We believe that your administration must prioritize a robust diplomatic and humanitarian strategy in Syria that works towards a sustainable peace plan. Prioritizing stabilization and reconstruction, as well as ensuring the access of humanitarian aid organizations to civilians, is vital to protecting the Syrian people and preventing a renewal of violence that could encourage the resurgence of extremist groups like ISIS. Consequently, the United States should use the full weight of its diplomatic influence and resources to advocate for a political settlement that prevents a resumption of violence in Syria, including in the northeast. Most immediately, the United States must use our leverage with Turkey to prevent further military incursions into Syrian territory, particularly those targeting Kurdish communities there. The U.S. should also be working to revive and strengthen a U.N.-led peace process to secure a ceasefire that protects our partners and ultimately results in a negotiated solution to the Syrian war. To achieve these goals, the United States must engage diplomatically with all parties, rather than linger on the sidelines.
Since Congress has a vital role in achieving our nation's diplomatic, military, and foreign policy objectives and has the sole power to declare war, we urge you to immediately lay out for Congress your long-term national security, humanitarian, and political strategy in Syria. Specifically, we ask that you answer the following questions by January 31, 2019:
- What are your political goals in Syria and what is your administration trying to achieve diplomatically?
- What is your administration's stabilization plan in Syria? Who will pay for it? What is the role of START Forward during the various stages of troop withdrawal? Who are they working with? How will the U.S. help to safeguard access to essential humanitarian aid?
- Does your administration have plans to transparently investigate and offer accountability for the civilian deaths and widespread destruction caused by the U.S.-led coalition bombardment of Raqqa, Mosul, and other cities?
- Is the United States currently consulting with all of our international allies on diplomatic strategies to press for a ceasefire and a comprehensive solution to the crisis?
- Will the United States consider cutting off military sales or using other diplomatic leverage with Turkey to ensure Ankara does not invade Syria and target our partners, including the predominantly Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces?
- Will you commit to the full withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Syria, or are you planning to leave residual forces to conduct train-and-equip programs or other assistance?
- To what extent will the U.S. still conduct air strikes in Syria? What are diplomatic and non-military strategies the administration is employing to starve ISIS of revenue and recruits?
In conclusion, we request that your administration brief Congress and inform the American public of your diplomatic, political and humanitarian strategy in Syria without delay. We owe it to all Americans, especially our brave service members, to help secure a negotiated settlement that ends one of the largest humanitarian crises of our time.
CC: Secretary Pompeo and Acting Secretary Shanahan
Sincerely,
Barbara Lee
Ted Lieu
Eleanor Holmes Norton
Frank Pallone, Jr.
Peter A. DeFazio
Ilhan Omar
Mark Pocan
Zoe Lofgren
Steve Cohen
Ro Khanna
Jared Huffman
Bobby L. Rush
Jim Himes
Anna G. Eshoo
Jose E. Serrano
Mark DeSaulnier
James P. McGovern
Judy Chu
Karen Bass
Peter Welch
Bonnie Watson Coleman
Katie Hill
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
Debbie Dingell
Jan Schakowsky
Rashida Tlaib
Earl Blumenauer
Chellie Pingree
Rosa L. DeLAuro
Jerry McNerney
Nydia M. Velazquez
Raul M Grijalva
Peace Action is the United States' largest peace and disarmament organization with over 100,000 members and nearly 100 chapters in 34 states, works to achieve the abolition of nuclear weapons, promote government spending priorities that support human needs and encourage real security through international cooperation and human rights.
LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular