Why have nuclear war when we are all the same?
At present the nuclear and nuclear umbrella States have refused to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty of the United Nations however they could engage in discussions on ethical human rights which recognize that all people are the same whereas ideology and religion often accentuate the differences making war more likely.
On April 23, 2018 ICAN (International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons) reported that 35 states are sabotaging the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. These include the nuclear States and nuclear umbrella States i.e. NATO countries, https://www.icanw.org/campaign-news/new-research-35-states-are-sabotaging-the-npt/.
Ethical human rights are firmly based on universal human rights truth as in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which recognizes that all people are the same. Ethical human rights If adopted by the United Nations would include the many human rights omissions determined by the great majority of States which create ideology including globalization.
That States which failed to ratify the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty could find common agreement on universal human rights truth is not implausible as the UN regards the UDHR as its authority and the UN Charter requires all States to uphold the UDHR.
Ethical human rights ensure sovereignty which seems to be a major interest of those States which have refused to sign the treaty. Ethical human rights simply require that all people should have, at least, all the core minimums of the human rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which nearly all countries should be able to ensure for their people. The latter is the primary duty of the State although, where possible, there are global duties e.g. to help those countries unable to ensure ethical human rights for their people.
In the chapter on Bangladesh in my recent book (see below) I show how universal human rights truth equates with the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) which all the major religions agree with so agreement with universal truth should be able to help them transcend their self-interests. In my personal view, the universal is the nature of the soul while universal human rights truth reflects God’s absolute universal truth.
If religions such as exists in India (Hindu) and Pakistan (Muslim) can agree on universal human rights truth and therefore that all people are the same there would seem little reason to engage in any war including nuclear war.
Pakistan’s PM Imran Khan speaking at the UN on the 17th Sept 2019 warns of the possibility of nuclear war over the disputed Kashmir territory. He states: ‘When a nuclear country fights to the end it will have consequences far beyond its borders. This it is not a threat it is a fair worry’, ‘Analysis: Imran Khan: What will Modi [Narendra Modi is the Indian PM] do when Kashmir curfew is lifted?’ Analysis: Imran Khan: What will Modi do when Kashmir curfew is lifted?.
While Modi expressed his concern over Islamic terrorism Khan expressed his concern that India is refusing to engage in dialogue. In my chapter on Bangladesh, I show how a violent jihad can be replaced by a peaceful jihad by permitting religions a greater voice in the mainstream which could, for example, greatly alleviate tensions between India and Pakistan which both suffer high levels of terrorism. If agreement can be found on universal human rights truth both could engage in a rational, secular discussion.
As with religious differences, where there are ideological differences. If nuclear States can agree on universal human rights truth it would enable them to rise above self-interest and so decrease the likelihood of war.
For example, China can continue to emphasize economic, social and cultural rights (social justice) while America can continue to emphasize civil and political rights (freedom and democracy) as long as both agree to ensure the core minimum of both sets of rights (the UN Committee on Economic, social and cultural rights has determined what constitutes the core minimums of most economic, social and cultural rights).
Another reason why ethical human rights should be discussed as an alternative to nuclear war is because it seems unlikely that nuclear and nuclear umbrella States will ratify the UN’s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In my recent book I describe how on 10 December 2008 the United Nations created a new globally dominant ideology which I call neoliberal absolutism (an extreme totalitarianism). The existence of neoliberal absolutism, which certainly appears to be the ideology of a One World Government, was not reported by the global mainstream media.
Throughout the discussions at the UN from 2004 to 2008 neoliberal absolutism was opposed by America with some assistance from the America camp e.g. Canada, Britain, Australia and Japan. I show how neoliberal absolutism was created by the great majority of States in the UN General Assembly by omitting many human rights. I show how it resulted in a major rebalance of global ideological and economic power from the West to the Rest. Furthermore, the failure of neoliberal absolutism to prohibit exploitation meant that Corporations could relocate to counties with cheap labour without fear of exploitation being prohibited.
I show how the latter was the real cause of the global financial crisis of 2008. By far the major casualty of the GFC 2008 was the European Union i.e. the nuclear umbrella States of NATO. It also certainly seems that the GFC is very likely ongoing leading to the prospect of a further recession. Consequently, neoliberal absolutism targets the West for decline. The latter may be a reason why NATO States will not ratify the UN’s Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.
Similarly, reflecting its isolation at the UN America is facing global hostility and because the UN is promoting the rise of totalitarian and repressive States it seems unlikely America will ratify the UN’s Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
In my book I recommend that the West boycott the UN until the many human rights omissions are included. However, a major reason why this has not happened is likely because Western States America, Britain and France are permanent members of the UN Security Council and would not want to relinquish their power of veto.
However, Article 24(1) of the UN Charter gives the Security Council the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security. Given the enormity of the consequences of any nuclear war the Security Council should be able to encourage the discussion of ethical human rights amongst nuclear and nuclear umbrella States.
The failure of the global mainstream media to report the creation of neoliberal absolutism or the existence of ethical human rights has, in my view, meant that there is exceedingly little interest amongst the global community to discuss ethical human rights despite the remarkable support it received on the internet by the US State Department, the Open Democracy Initiative of the White House, even the United Nations itself as well as many others such as Save the Children (US) (see my article for a full list, ‘New idea for a Better World’, Scoop New Zealand).
My concern is that ideological control is so overwhelming that there may not be sufficient independence of mind to avert a nuclear war.
After 2 ½ years New Zealand libraries have finally accepted my book. Ethical human rights: Freedom’s Great Hope (American Academic Press, 2017), https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Human-Rights-ANTHONY-RAVLICH/dp/B01N0Y3TAN