Draft Points of Unity

In addition to a mission statement, the working group wanted to create a more expanded document outlining who we are, what we support, and what modes of intervention we use to achieve our goals. Here is a draft in progress.

We oppose:

1. The militarization of our schools, our communities and local economies.
   • Virtually every industry comprising the global industrial labor force is somehow connected to the "military industrial complex."
2. The undue influence that military contractors exert on economic and foreign policy.
   • Military contractors contribute millions of dollars to political campaign funds with the hope that their investments will yield profitable returns in the form of military contracts – and they do. Corporations such as Lockheed, General Dynamics, Boeing, and Northrop derive up to half of their annual profits from military-related production, while Halliburton and its subsidiaries receive billion-dollar contracts to support military operations around the world.
3. The ‘revolving door’ between government and military contractors.
   • Military contractors are closely allied with political leaders, and vice versa. In fact, many contractors recruit government officials for employment after they complete their term in office. This revolving door between government and military contractors compromises the ability of politicians to provide objective oversight of military contractors and lobbyists from the private sector and blurs the distinction between the public and private sectors of the economy.
4. Corporate globalization policies that further promote militarism and war.
   • The closer integration of the people and nations of the world has wrought many advantages, but it has also produced devastating harms. Globalization is primarily driven by international corporations who push for the elimination of trade barriers, allowing interests in the industrialized world to exploit both human and natural resources of the developing world. The result is that globalization today increasingly resembles imperialism.
5. The many entities that profit from the war economy.
   • Corporations that manufacture weapons or weapons delivery systems (e.g., Lockheed-Martin, Alliant Tech, Caterpillar).
   • Corporations that provide infrastructure and services to the U.S. military or their proxies (e.g., Halliburton, Blackwater, Dell Computers).
   • Universities and other non-profit security "think thanks" that receive government or corporate funding to further entrench the war economy (e.g., Boston University, Rand Corporation, American Enterprise Institute).
   • Corporations that profit from forced market expansion to exploit human and natural resources (e.g., Bechtel, Coca Cola, Exxon-Mobil).
   • Government agencies that directly or indirectly contribute to increased militarization across the world (U.S. DoD/NASA, U.K. Ministry of Defence, NATO).

We support:

1. Efforts to dismantle the war economy and develop an economy of peace that prioritizes people over profits.
2. Creative, nonviolent and democratic strategies and tactics (the following is meant to be illustrative and not authoritative):
   • Educating others about war profiteers and the military-industrial complex.
   • Counter-recruitment, counter-corporate recruitment, speakers' bureaus, and the distribution of books, manuals, articles and video.
   • Engaging the public, the warmakers, the United States government, and the United Nations through legal channels.
   • Engaging both traditional and non-traditional legal action. We use US law and international human rights law as a frame for our engagement with the legal system. We also affirm the right of members to practice nonviolent civil disobedience, to break unjust laws, and to put a flawed legal system on trial.
   • Economic agitation, so that it is no longer profitable for corporations and governments to wage war.
   • War tax resistance.
   • Pressuring universities, investment funds, and all levels of government to divest all monies for military-related research or production.
   • Shareholder activism.
   • Partnering with those communities who are most impacted by militarism.
3. The autonomy of each member group to choose for itself which methods of intervention it will pursue in order fulfill the vision of this network.