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