2018 No. 3

Editorial: Humanitarian disarmament is here to stay
22 October 2018

Allison Pytlak

“Humanitarian disarmament is a people-centered approach to disarmament, which focuses on civilian protection rather than traditional concepts of national security. It addresses adverse effects on humans, including gendered impacts, as well as damage to the environment.”

These words are taken from a joint civil society statement delivered at the First Committee on Wednesday. Intended to frame the other civil society statements, it ended up being squeezed in just ahead of the lunch break, well ahead of the others and as delegates were leaving the conference room, and did not have the impact that was intended by its authors.

Yet, the general concept and some of its key elements are being reflected and echoed in statements delivered by governments throughout the general debate, and even in the thematic cluster on nuclear weapons, which began late Thursday afternoon. Compared to other years, more states are emphasising the importance of a holistic approach to disarmament and arms control, by linking action in those areas to their efforts to implement and reach the Sustainable Development Goals; noting the impact of arms, armed violence, and conflict on the environment; and acknowledging the gendered impact of weapons.

“Human security—our ability to protect, feed, house and support our citizens—depends upon effective disarmament. Disarmament therefore cannot exist in a vacuum; it must be part of a broader conversation about vulnerability, insecurity, and weaponisation,” stated the representative of Trinidad and Tobago.

South Africa’s statement in the nuclear disarmament cluster reinforced a view of security that puts people ahead of outmoded security concepts: “Instead of deterring conflict and war, as some continue to allege, [nuclear] weapons remain a constant source of insecurity and a driver of proliferation. The enormous amount of public resources directed at the production and maintenance of nuclear weapons remains in sharp contrast to those channeled towards socio-economic development, including the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Today, the cost related to the maintenance of nuclear arsenals amount to approximately more than double the development assistance provided to Africa. This is neither justifiable nor sustainable in a world where the basic human needs of billions have yet to be met.” Other examples are provided in the articles included in this edition on the subjects of development, gender, and the environment.

The best example however is to look beyond words at action: the success of the treaties banning landmines and cluster munitions; the adoption and coming entry-into-force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons; and the people-first mentality that led to the Arms Trade Treaty. UN Secretary-General Guterres writes in the introduction of Securing our Common Future, his agenda for disarmament welcomed by many states, that “Disarmament and arms control measures can help ensure national and human security in the 21st Century, and must be an integral part of our collective security system.”

Of course, there are some that still cling to an old-fashioned and more narrow, concept of national security, or look to entities within the UN disarmament machinery that have not yielded results in decades. In the First Committee, states speak a lot about building trust and confidence; sometimes in a way that makes it seem as if these are elusive moments in time that the international community can only dream of, but are unlikely to be achieved. Some give the impression that they almost prefer it this way. The United States, and other nuclear-armed countries, for example, use the lack of trust and confidence as a rationale and justification for maintaining, and expanding, their nuclear weapons. It has put forward a new concept, “Creating the Conditions for Nuclear Disarmament” as an effort to demonstrate goodwill and an intention to pursue nuclear disarmament (eventually), but overlooks the fact that continuing to possess these weapons contributes to insecurity, and will not lead to stability. As Sweden stated when referencing the need for a nuclear weapons free world, “The fact that we have a tense and unpredictable security climate makes this task more urgent—not less.”

It would be naïve to pretend that we live in a place or time of harmony, trust, and global peace, but it is also naïve to overlook that there has been a transformation in how a majority of nations now approach security and disarmament. Those that are resisting this change are rapidly becoming a minority; their excuses and double standards ring increasingly hollow. A humanitarian approach to disarmament is here to stay.

[PDF] ()