War or Peace: ethical human rights approach.

War or Peace: ethical human rights approach.



Anthony Ravlich
Human Rights Council (New Zealand)
10D/15 City Rd.,
Auckland City.
Ph: (09) 940.9658
www.hrc2001.org.nz



Opinion


Sent following letter to New Zealand political party leaders et al:



“The ethical approach to human rights, development, globalization for World Peace (to replace neoliberalism, see blog cited below), which has involved nearly 22 years of research, needs to be known to the residents of Christchurch [who suffered a number of devastating earthquakes resulting in 185 deaths and requiring massive rebuilding].
.

I have received a somewhat veiled invitation from a major NGO in Christchurch which I hope to 'accept' but my circumstances are such that it may not be for some time. But this is a choice the residents of Christchurch should have now.

Take a step back for a minute: first it was those at the bottom of the social scale 'crushed and isolated', then it was the children (abuse figures described as ‘staggering’ by country rapporteur), and then the mass purging of the 'tall poppies' (see my articles on anthony ravlich’s blog guerilla media).

And now it seems even Christchurch is to be sacrificed for the neoliberal agenda (see article cited at end). But it may not be as easy to hide what happens in Christchurch as was the case with the former groups - earthquakes are high profile.

I posted the following on the social networking sites:


"Undemocratic:top-down neoliberal capture of mainstream media/democratic majority.Unsafe truth in margins. Bottom-up ethical human.rights to inform voter".

“Obama and infrastructure plan, promises future which doesn’t happen. Ethical human rights emphasizes bottom-up development in Chch earthquake zone, NZ”.

“Compare US, Mayor of NZ quake zone: “We may not be here to see the dream” [infrastructure]. Ethical human rights to immediately ensure core minimum rights”.

I realize many within the New Zealand elites have very largely lost the capacity to think for themselves but given the ethical human rights approach they do not have to.

The inclusion (in the NZ bill of rights) of such rights as the right to property, non-discrimination with respect to property, social origin, birth (includes descent i.e. family lineage or whakapapa), the individual and collective rights to pursue economic and social development and the right to self-determination would very likely allow us to break free from IMF neoliberal economic policies, which fail to abide by human rights, and pursue an independent path (but includes an ethical globalization) - which many States, concerned for human rights, may seek to emulate.

This might also help encourage the bureaucratic elites who meet at the UN to remove the right to property from the hands of the IMF and World Bank and include it in international human rights law where it is meant to be (see my book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’, Lexington Books, 2008, chapter 5, pp146-7).

Again take a step back. First my book was recommended on the UN website, then there has been high profile support on the social networking sites, including a number of NZ professionals, recently some top academic support, and then 'We Can', led by activist Rev Mike Coleman, in Christchurch meant I was no longer so isolated in upholding the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Now I have been invited to join a major children's NGO (dominated by academics with much experience) and to attend their AGM as well as the 'veiled' invitation from Christchurch mentioned above.

So the support for the ethical human rights approach is growing and while I believe it will replace neoliberalism I am very concerned at the needless suffering that will be inflicted in the meantime - but then I only have to endure it while it exists you will have to live with it for a lifetime.

The global bureaucratic elites need to recognize their limitations - they cannot stop ideas, they cannot predict earthquakes and they cannot completely destroy the human spirit. And while they would claim not to use direct violence against people their mass neglect of huge numbers (largely due to human rights omissions, see blog cited above) means they sow the seeds of war and, in my view, this is the trajectory we are on.

Other recent posts, which further describe the ethical human rights approach, on the social networking sites are:

“Neoliberalism, with many human rights omissions, came to fore to topple authoritarian States not rebuild after natural disasters. Universal, ethical human rights, development, globalization is required”
.
“War-ready (NZ also in Afghanistan) extreme top-down neoliberalism leads to an easily controlled ignorant people. Ethical human rights means reason can prevail”.

“US/China, human rights eg democracy, as political weapon against authoritarian States shouldn’t compromise ethical minimum human rights ‘soul’. Freedom by example”.

“World As One. All States ensure ethical human rights bottom-line otherwise State is serious threat to World Peace. A more realistic dream i.e.compared to regionalization and one world government”.



In my opinion, the choice between neoliberalism and the ethical human rights approach offers people a choice between war and peace”.


(‘Two years on: anger over EQC’, Michael Wright, The Press, 4th Sept., 2012,  http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/7604835/Two-years-on-anger-over-EQC ).