Election Project Roles/Issues Worksheet

Name:

Udeema Shakya

Candidate Name:

Jill Stein

Campaign Role:

Foreign Policy

Issue: North Korea/Nuclear Deals and Sanctions

What does your candidates website say?

Link:

http://www.jill2016.com/plan

Quotes:

Cut military spending by at least 50% and close the 700+ foreign military bases.
End the US role as the worlds arm supplier.
End the destructive US economic and military intervention into the affairs of
sovereign nations. Such intervention serve the interests of multinational
corporations and global capitalism over the interests of the vast majority of the
citizens of those nations.
Freeze the bank accounts of countries that are funding terrorism, including the
Saudi royal family.
Pledge to end any further laboratory or sub-critical nuclear tests at the Nevada and
Novaya Zemlya test sites, and end all nuclear weapons research, design, and
modernization at the weapons laboratories.
The US must take the lead in nuclear disarmament by itself starting to disarm.
Establish a foreign policy based on diplomacy, international law, human rights, and
nonviolent support for democratic movements around the world.
Agree to Russias proposal to jointly reduce US and Russian nuclear arsenals to
1,000 nuclear weapons each. Also call for all countries to the table to negotiate a
treaty for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons.

Notes:
Her plans are more focused on the internal affairs of the United States and she doesnt
mention North Korea at all on her site. But, from the way she talks about her foreign policy, it
sounds like shes aiming for world peace by the United States taking the lead by example, a
pacifist. Shes definitely against all nuclear advancement and testing.
I went to Google to see if she mentioned anything about North Korea and I found these:
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Jill_Stein_Homeland_Security.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Jill_Stein_Foreign_Policy.htm
She says about North Korea: We should lead by virtue of global agreements that also include
us. We could get rid of MANY nukes as a first step because we're so far ahead [in possessing
more nuclear weapons than the rest of the world].
And how US should act in world community: On that scale, a multilateralist. We cannot afford
to be the unilateral policemen of the world enforcing our own interest. We are a member of a
very integrated world community and world economy and we need to behave accordingly.
Summary (This should be like an opening statement in the debate!)
We should not be the police of this world. We do not have that right to enforce our own selfish
interests on other countries. Instead, we should be the leader in world peace. With my plan,
we will lead by virtue. We will get rid of many nuclear weapons and end all nuclear weapons
research and testing. We will take the lead in nuclear disarmament by disarming ourselves.
We will be the example that others, such as North Korea, shall follow. We will establish a
foreign policy based on human rights!

What does an outside source say that SUPPORTS your candidates position?

Link:

http://www.cnduk.org/campaigns/global-abolition

Quotes:

Nuclear weapons have no legitimate purpose; nor would their use be l egal d
ue to
civilian casualties being unavoidable.
They cannot be used to combat climate change, poverty, hunger, overpopulation,
terrorists, cyber-attacks or pandemics for example.
Nuclear weapons are the only weapons of mass destruction not yet prohibited by
an international convention, even though they have the greatest destructive
capacity of all weapons. A global ban on nuclear weapons is long overdue and can
be achieved in the near future with enough public pressure and political
leadership.
191 states have signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It commits its
signatories to either not develop nuclear weapons if they haven't already, or to
work towards disarmament if they do possess them.

Notes:
-Theyre stating that nuclear weapons have no benefits, they only cause problems.
-Extremely dangerous!
-No one uses them anyway.
-In addition, only few of the countries in the world have nuclear warheads. Many countries
have already signed an agreement for nuclear disarmament.
-This matches with what Jill says and stands for.
-This is a british campaign.
-Immoral and inhumane
-Radiation, starvation, contamination
Summary:
Nuclear warheads have no beneficial purpose. They cause problems among problems if
deployed. They cause extreme harm and destruction, radiation, food and water
contamination, and mass starvation. They dont provide a solution to any of the problems we
face today such as: climate change, poverty, hunger, overpopulation, cyber-attacks, etc. They
are immoral and inhumane. They should be gotten ridden of as fast as we can.

What does an outside source say that OPPOSES your candidates position?

Link:

http://www.newsweek.com/how-nuclear-weapons-can-keep-you-safe-78907

Quotes:

Second, there's never been a nuclear, or even a nonnuclear, war between two
states that possess them.
As Kenneth Waltz, the leading "nuclear optimist" and a professor emeritus of
political science at UC Berkeley puts it, We now have 64 years of experience since
Hiroshima. It's striking and against all historical precedent that for that substantial
period, there has not been any war among nuclear states.
Nuclear weapons change all that by making the costs of war obvious, inevitable,
and unacceptable...Even the craziest tin-pot dictator is forced to accept that war
with a nuclear state is unwinnable and thus not worth the effort.
Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's aide Fyodor Burlatsky said later on, It is
impossible to win a nuclear war, and both sides realized that, maybe for the first
time.
The prospect of war brought Delhi and Islamabad face to face with a nuclear
holocaust, and leaders in each country did what they had to do to avoid it.
China acquired its first nuke in 1964, just two years before it descended into the
mad chaos of the Cultural Revolution, when virtually every Chinese institution was
threatenedexcept for its nuclear infrastructure, which remained secure.
The Soviets' weapons were also kept largely safe (with U.S. help) during the
breakup of their union in the early '90s. And in recent years Moscow has greatly
upped its defense spending (by 20 to 30 percent a year), using some of the cash to
modernize and protect its arsenal.

In 64 years, the most nuclear-weapons states we've ever had is 12," says Waltz.
"Now with North Korea we're at nine. That's not proliferation; that's spread at
glacial pace."
bombs tend to mellow behavior.
The logic of nuclear peace rests on a scary bargain: you accept a small chance
that something extremely bad will happen in exchange for a much bigger chance
that something very badconventional warwon't happen.

Notes:
-Their point is that nuclear weapons tend to lead towards peace than war because everyone
is afraid of the consequences.
-Its almost like theyre saying nukes are a better policemen than policemen
-Focus more on defending the nukes so that they dont get accidentally launched.
-No one has actually used them
Summary:
It can be argued that nuclear weapons dont start war, in fact they stop it. The disastrous
consequences of using nukes is so obvious that Even the craziest tin-pot dictator is forced to
accept that war with a nuclear state is unwinnable and thus not worth the effort. Its not that
theyre not used thats the problem, its that they even exist and countries use them as tools
for power. The risk of deploying them still exists. You cant count on block-headed leaders.
Nuclear disarmament is a must.