Should the United Nations "offer" Heads of State a Basic Education Course in Nuclear Era Human Fundamentals?

[sear]

Mid-20th century the term was "brain-washing". That term has been displaced by more recent euphemism including "re-education".

Obviously imposing "brain-washing" on heads of State by inescapable international force would at very least be suspicious. But if leeway were integrated into the system? Participants would be eligible for benefits non-participants / hold-outs would not?

Once implemented the risk is such course would be morphed into propaganda to advantage one or more States (nations / people) against one or more others. That's a risk.

The benefit would include such fundamentals for monsters like Putin and Kim Jong Un about fundamental realities in human relations such as:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." KJV Matthew 7:12 (the Golden Rule) [Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.]

Think of it as including non-aggression education: you have a right to preserve your own sovereignty, just as your neighbors do. If you don't want them to attack / threaten your sovereignty, do not threaten theirs.

This needn't supersede NATO, or even encroach on it. But a non-aggression pact among trading partners and allies lacks utility. The benefit to applying such global standard could be helping to draw / attract the more perilous nations / leaders into the benefits of non-aggression.

Or is the status quo good enough? If not, got a better idea?

 

[sear]

What incentive might be accorded in matters that affect millions of innocents, or the global economy?

The Security Council consists of fifteen members, of which five are permanent: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These were the great powers that were the victors of World War II (or their successor states). Permanent members can veto (block) any substantive Security Council resolution, including those on the admission of new member states to the United Nations or nominees for the office of Secretary-General.
More from Wikipedia
Wikipedia text under CC-BY-SA license

There is a perverse incentive risk.
- If United Nations members that are, or become armed with nuclear WMD are accorded special opportunity which can lead to special U.N. privilege, might such reward incentive structure potentially promote WMD proliferation?

What's the alternative? The status quo? Hope for the best?

The survival strategy during the Cold War was "MAD", mutual assured destruction. Meaning, if either Cold War superpower attacked the other the result would be the nuclear annihilation of both.
That works, but if AND ONLY IF both sides wish to survive. But what is the fate of humanity if the commander of such arsenal is a suicide / homicide / genocide cultist?

"Make hay while the sun shines." If we wait until it's too late, it's too late. "Don't buy any green bananas"?