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
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