A/HRC/27/51 military-industrial complex, which has an interest in greater profits through the production and use of weapons. It is not surprising that the value of the international arms trade reached 385 billion dollars in 2012.36 24. In recent years, international tensions were stirred up in a manner that gives reason to fear that some governments might manoeuvre themselves into positions that would not allow them to retreat without losing face. There is a dynamic to this kind of media- and government-sponsored “hype” regarding the use of force, whereby a supposed adversary is demonized in such a manner that it feels threatened and reacts nervously, thus giving ex post facto “justification” to those who claim that the adversary must be put down by force, and pulling the rug from under the feet of those who propose diplomatic solutions. As the Independent Expert illustrated in previous reports, the corporate media often stand to gain from wars and this may explain the level of disinformation and profit-oriented propaganda disseminated. There is a need for a de-escalation committee with consultative competences in this regard. 25. Demonization of, and threatening gestures against, targeted States that are party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the Non-Proliferation Treaty) may induce them to denounce this treaty under its article 10.37 That is exactly what the international community would have to avoid. In that context it would be more important to engage in serious disarmament as envisaged in article 6 of the Treaty. It is clear that if a State party to the Treaty genuinely feels threatened, it may want to join the club of nuclear weapon Powers – not as an aggressive measure, but in exercise of the fundamental right of self-preservation, in response to a legitimate concern over threats that contravene article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations. 26. In the light of continued warmongering by some States, it is apparent that resolutions of the General Assembly, including its resolution 68/28, have not succeeded in reducing tensions.38 27. The spiral of world military expenditures goes hand-in-hand with a false culture of “patriotism”, “heroism” and chauvinism, which frequently equates love of country with promoting a large military force, while defaming sceptics and “pacifists” as unpatriotic or even as traitors. In many countries, the idea of being a good citizen is associated with military virtues and traditions, with a sense of awe towards the armed forces. Even in the twenty-first century young people in some countries are educated to believe that honour and glory are won on the battlefield, that “it is sweet and proper to die for one’s country”.39 It would be preferable to teach that honour and glory can also be won through civil courage and working for social justice. 28. That militaristic trend is also facilitated by the lack of transparency in budgetary matters. Indeed, military expenditures are frequently treated as a matter of “national security” and shrouded in secrecy. A truly democratic country must proactively inform the public so that the public can decide on spending priorities.40 36 37 38 39 40 See www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-31/lockheed-remains-top-in-weapon-sales-ranking-amidrussian-rise.html. See www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPTtext.shtml. Conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons (General Assembly resolution 50/68, 10th, 12th, 13th and 16th preambular paragraphs and paragraphs 2, 4 and 5). “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori,” Horace. Colin Archer, Whose Priorities? (Geneva, International Peace Bureau, 2007). 11