We can exhibit international leadership by opposing the policies of human rights abusers, not rewarding them with weapons.

We call on our elected officials to:

1. Oppose arms transfers and military training or assistance to human rights abusing governments as determined by the State Department.

2. Actively support efforts to regulate and control the international arms trade.

Talking Points:

1. US troops die for the failures of policy makers.

War with Iraq will mark the seventh consecutive time that US troops have been sent into battle against opposition armed with US weapons. Prior to war and/or military intervention, the US provided arms to Iraq, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia, Haiti, Somalia and Panama. In each case, these countries were seen as potential allies or clients. In each case they were human rights abusing governments or dictatorships or both.

2. Arms sales and military training programs backfire.

The pattern speaks for itself. It is an indisputable fact that we armed and trained Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega. The past approach of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" has consistently failed our nation. We armed and trained bin Laden on the theory that this was a necessary price to fighting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. We armed and trained Hussein on the theory that he was a bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism. We armed and trained Noriega on the theory that he was a strong anti-communist.

3. Arms sales threaten our nation.

The proliferation of high tech weapons through military assistance programs poses a threat to the American people. Shoulder held, surface to air missiles are available in Afghanistan for as little as $1,000. Automatic weapons, explosives and missiles from the US are available on the black market worldwide. These weapons can be used for attacks on civilian targets such as airliners.

4. Our policies should reflect our values, not offend them.

Democracy and human rights are ideals that the American people hold dear. They are our core values. Sadly, however, our elected officials have betrayed these values. The US currently leads the world in arms sales to human rights abusing governments and dictators. When we provide weapons to governments that are hated by their own people the result is bitter anti-American sentiment. We should never provide military aid to governments whose jailed political prisoners include democracy activists.

5. Arms sales and military training programs create regional instability.

Iraq used US weapons to invade Kuwait. The US lifted a high tech weapons ban to Latin America, encouraging a regional increase in military spending. Regional rivals Argentina and Chile are both re-arming with US weapons. A growing arms race is underway in Southeast Asia. In each case, our armaments create instability. They also take vital funds away from needed development programs worldwide.

We call upon our elected officials to:

1. Oppose funding for the development or testing of new nuclear weapons.

2. Our nation should lead a worldwide campaign to reduce and control the threat from weapons of mass destruction - a policy we could be proud of.

3. Support programs or agreements designed to reduce and secure the world's existing nuclear stockpiles.

4. Oppose missile defense and space weapons that increase the pace of nuclear proliferation.

Talking Points:

1. The Bush Administration has dangerously lowered the threshold regarding the use of nuclear weapons.

The Bush Administration has pushed for radical changes in US nuclear policy. In March of 2002, the details of their "Nuclear Posture Review" were leaked to the Los Angeles Times. The Review calls for targeting China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya and Syria for a nuclear first strike. The report says nuclear weapons could be used in three types of situations: against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack; in retaliation for attack with nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; or 'in the event of surprising military developments.' It suggests that the US may use nuclear weapons in a Middle East conflict or in a conflict between China and Taiwan. The Los Angeles Times has reported that the Administration has detailed plans for the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iraq.

2. The Bush Administration advocates building new nuclear weapons.

The Nuclear Posture Review articulates plans "to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations." The Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore nuclear weapons labs are working to develop new "More usable" nuclear bombs as well as new "burrowing" warheads for use in a first strike against an underground bunker. The administration has signaled its intent to resume nuclear weapons testing and dismantle the larger fabric of nuclear arms control. Building new nuclear weapons will encourage other nuclear nations such as China to increase their investment in nuclear arms while simultaneously encouraging other non-nuclear countries to "go nuclear."

3. The Bush policy encourages nuclear proliferation.

Announcing to the world that we are targeting other countries for a potential first strike while at the same time building new capabilities to enable that threat is certain to provoke an equal and opposite reaction. In the minds of other countries, the best way to avoid attack by the US is to build their own nuclear weapons. North Korea, for instance has explicitly stated that their nuclear program is meant as a deterrent to US attack. With every country that "goes nuclear" the pace of proliferation increases. As an example, Japan and South Korea have the potential to "go nuclear" if North Korea continues its nuclear program. Similarly, if Taiwan determines that North Korea has deterred an invasion by developing nuclear weapons, then they may draw the conclusion that the best way to avoid an invasion by China is to develop their own nuclear arsenal.

4. We would be better off investing in a campaign to secure and dismantle nuclear weapons and nuclear material.

Security experts agree that "loose nukes" and black market weapons of mass destruction represent the greatest threat to our security. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, nuclear weapons facilities in Russia and former Soviet states have been under-secured. Many of the scientists that used to work on the Soviet nuclear complex are barely paid or not paid at all. There have been numerous attempts by terrorist organizations to buy both nuclear bombs and nuclear materials. It has been reported that as many as 80 "suitcase" bombs are unaccounted for. Despite this, the US spends a tiny $630 million per year on programs to secure and destroy these weapons. Invading Iraq, by contrast, is expected to cost $200 billion. We will spend 400 times more invading Iraq than we will spend addressing our greatest security threat.

5. Missile "Defense" will not produce security, but it will launch a new arms race.

A surprise attack by another nation, using a ballistic missile is one of the least likely threats we face, if only because the attacking nation would face immediate destruction. On the other hand, missile defense will launch a new arms race.

The Bush administration's commitment to missile defense is inextricably linked to their new nuclear posture. A new offensive nuclear capability, coupled with a new defensive capability would give the US an advantage over other countries, both nuclear states and non-nuclear states. A planning document authored by Administration officials concluded, "Effective ballistic missile defenses will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection of US military forces abroad."

In the words of Alexie Pushkov of the Presidential Foreign Policy Council in Moscow, "National missile defense is about American strategic hegemony. Even if I am wrong, this is how it is perceived all over the world."

In a report to the President, the CIA concluded that deployment of missile defense will trigger "an unsettling series of political and military ripple effects…that would include a sharp build-up of strategic and medium-range nuclear missiles by China, India and Pakistan and the further spread of military technology in the Middle East."

A group of 50 Nobel Prize-winning scientists concluded that deploying missile defense will set off a new arms race and "do grave harm" to American security.

6. Building new nuclear weapons is a waste of money that produces no security.

Since 1945, the US has spent more than $5 trillion on nuclear weapons. The current federal budget for building and maintaining nuclear weapons is $35 billion. For all of that, we have not enhanced our security. In the words of Lt. General Lee Butler, the former head of US Nuclear Forces, "There is no security in nuclear weapons. It is a fool's game

The more nuclear weapons there are in existence, the more nuclear material is created by their production. They can be stolen, misplaced or launched by accident. Ronald Reagan's former chief arms negotiator Paul Nitze now argues that the US would be far better off if we pursued major reductions in our nuclear arsenal.

7. Missile defense, while destabilizing, ultimately won't work.

The nation's largest association of physicists, the non-partisan American Physical Society, has issued a statement declaring that missile defense tests have been inadequate. The Federation of American Scientists and the Union of Concerned Scientists oppose the deployment of missile defense. The most common scientific critique is that the technology does not exist for missile defenses to distinguish between real warheads and cheaply produced decoys. The missile defense program is under investigation for fraud, both scientific and financial. Dr. Theodore Postol, a leading expert in missile technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, called claims that the system will work "a elaborate hoax."

We can play a positive leadership role in the world community, planning strategies for a future we can live with.

1. Strengthen international law and stability by opposing the doctrine of "preemptive attacks."

2. Promote and support international systems which foster global cooperation such as the UN and the International Criminal Court.

Talking Points:

1. Growing anti-American sentiment is a threat to our security.

After the September 11th terrorist attacks, the world was nearly united in its support for the United States and grief at our loss. A year and a half later, the opposite is true. Anti-American sentiment has grown dramatically worldwide. A recent Pew poll of dozens of nations concluded that anti-Americanism is growing in every country surveyed, even in every allied country. This hostility toward the US poses a long term threat to our security. Dealing with fanatics like al Qaeda will require global cooperation, not global resentment.

2. Addressing global problems requires cooperation not a unilateral foreign policy.

From the environment to the rights of women, from working conditions to meeting the needs of the two billion people who live on $2 per day, the US would benefit more from genuine, constructive leadership instead of sullen obstructionism. America will be far better off if we devote our creative and economic energies to solving problems that the rest of the world recognizes as long term threats.

3. International Law makes us safer.

There is little doubt that international agreements such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or the International Criminal Court benefit the US and the world community. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has unquestionably slowed and in many cases outright stopped the proliferation of nuclear weapons. While all treaties are imperfect, international lawlessness and an ethos of "might makes right" will prove far more dangerous. The US would benefit more from establishing international norms defining war crimes and the pursuit of war criminals than we would suffer from the possible scenario of US personnel being prosecuted for war crimes.

4. A doctrine of preemptive attacks is highly destabilizing and offensive to our national values.

If the US persists with a doctrine of preemptive attack it will validate this behavior globally. Why shouldn't India launch a preemptive attack against Pakistan or North Korea against South Korea? Encouraging surprise attacks will lead to greater insecurity in many parts of the world and encourage nations to place their weapons on a launch on warning status, increasing the possibilities of accidental disasters.

Do we want our nation to make Pearl Harbor style surprise attacks our official policy?

5. The Bush Administration has blocked international agreements that would make us safer.

The Biological Weapons Convention was established to enable the world to monitor the possible development of biological weapons. Enforcement of the treaty has been blocked, however, because chemical and bio-tech manufacturers lobbied the Administration to oppose international inspection of their facilities. Protecting our communities from biological weapons as part of an worldwide agreement is more important to our security than protecting corporations from international inspections