Solidarity at the UN Requires Justice, Not War

By Ray Acheson
29 September 2023

Empires do not serve to save life but to unleash wars. – President of Colombia

At this year’s UN General Assembly high-level segment, the annual gathering of “world leaders” and other government officials, the violence of colonial and imperialist war-making was front and centre. Most speakers representing countries of the Global Majority condemned the profiteering, hoarding, extraction, and exploitation by the wealthy, militarised countries that continue to put profits above people and the planet, fostering violence and inequality globally. Meanwhile, representative of the profiteering governments justified their investments in weapons and war as necessary to deal with “global instability,” while simultaneously lamenting the apparently agentless “erosion” of international law and “failure” to fulfil commitments to disarmament and development. Refusing to take responsibility for creating the crises over which they offered lamentations, the governments at the heart of the current catastrophes offered no apologies, and no solutions.

“On the bundle of issues touching and concerning climate change, global warming, biodiversity challenges, land degradation and desertification, there is a veritable Tower of Babble; there is an over-abundance of sweet-sounding lyrics by the major emitters but they turn out to be bitterly deceptive,” explained the Prime Minister of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. “A lack, or an insufficiency, of meaningful corrective action by the irresponsible climate polluters—countries and companies—constitute unpardonable, egregious wrongs, indeed it is a species of barbarism.”

Instead of reparations for carbon emissions—or for colonial extraction and enslavement, military interventions, or nuclear weapon testing—the wealthy states continue to extract, invade, occupy, and militarise. As Belize’s Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade noted, the commitments made to Official Development Assistance, the Sustainable Development Goals, climate action, and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies have never been met. Meanwhile, despite the alleged commitment of Western governments to human rights, the hoarding of COVID-19 vaccines has prolonged suffering globally, while “deaths and inhumane treatment of migrants at the southern borders of the Western world continue with impunity.” Russia has launched an illegal war against Ukraine, “with devasting effects especially on civilians.” Among the most militarised governments of the world, nationalism has displaced solidarity and “the spaces for dialogue and cooperation are closing.”

This lack of solidarity defines the modern era of international relations as dictated by the most militarised states, which is why the UN Secretary-General framed this year’s high-level week theme around bolstering solidarity and equality among nations. This, he argued in his opening remarks to the debate and as was echoed by many delegations, requires reform of the UN Security Council and the international financial institutions, and meaningful commitments to fighting climate change, authoritarianism, inequalities, and hate. “Our world needs statesmanship, not gamesmanship and gridlock,” he said.

Yet despite the explicit theme of solidarity, distrust—and disgust—among so-called world leaders was very clear throughout the debate. While many governments of the Global Majority spoke of their own acts of solidarity with each other, antipathy marked the relations of the most militarised governments. In this context, calls for reform of the system fall short when so much of the system was created by a minority of governments in service of their own power at the expense of everyone else’s lives. “There is no such invisible hand, there is no spillover,” explained the President of Honduras. “Practice teaches us that the application of global capitalism and the neoliberal model only generates misery, inequality and an insane individualism of consumer societies, in the face of great deprivation of billions of human beings.”

Instead of reform, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines argued, the global system of political economy needs “fundamental restructuring of a kind that endures for the benefit of all humanity, especially those who are disadvantaged, dispossessed or marginalised.” The world is not faced with a struggle between democracies and autocracies, Prime Minister Gonsalves noted. “The struggle today between the dominant powers is centred upon the control, ownership, and distribution of the world’s resources.” It is, as it always has been, a contest “who gets what, when, where, and how.” If the rich and violent states continue to compete with impunity, everyone else will suffer. But as Belize reminded, “Trust and solidarity can only thrive where there is justice.”

The inherent injustices of militarism

The climate crisis was the dominant topic at this year’s high-level debate, but certainly not the only calamity confronting member states. And most governments noted that things have only been getting worse on all fronts. “In this year that has passed since the last speech I gave at the United Nations,” said the President of Colombia, “we have only seen what the rich gathered in Davos called the poly crisis deepen. The war continues, hunger continues, the recession increases, and the climate crisis has shown its teeth like never before, taking tens of thousands of lives and warming the lands and seas.” He noted, “While the clock has advanced in the minutes that define life or death on our planet, instead of sitting down to stop time and discuss how to defend life and then, thanks to deepening knowledge, expand it in the universe, we decided to waste time killing each other.”

Bombs and guns may not have been at the forefront of everyone’s speech, but militarism overall certainly was. The high-level debate was rife with direct or indirect references to rising militarisation, rampant military spending, the consequences of military intervention, and the dangers posed by the potential weaponisation of new technologies like artificial intelligence. Many governments also recognised, in various ways, that the other converging crises of ecological destruction, economic inequalities, and social injustices are largely generated by war and violence—and that certain governments are investing more in weapons, war, and police to protect their profits as the other resulting crises grow.

From the vast expenditure poured into weapons at the expense of climate action, poverty relief, and other costs of socioeconomic and environmental justice, to the waging of war with all its myriad devastations, many government representatives highlighted the risks and consequences of militarism during their remarks to the high-level debate.

Bolivia, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Guyana, Honduras, Nepal, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela criticised high levels of military spending. Several highlighted the incongruity of paying for war while the world burns, and of enriching corporations at the expense of people’s lives. “The military industrial complex consumes the majority of the budgets of developed countries with trillions and trillions of dollars, but it contrasts with the indifference and inability to contribute to humanity and the defense of nature,” said Honduras. By privileging the profits of “transnational war corporations” over dialogue, argued Bolivia, global peace and security are an imminent risk.

The prolific investment in weapons drives armed conflict and armed violence. As Malawi’s President noted, it is not good enough for the states funding these weapons and war to say that they want to move towards peace, when their “actions in other nations promote war and create the conditions for conflict.” Promoting a culture of peace is the duty of all states, argued Brazil’s President, and it “requires persistence and vigilance.” It also requires a redirection of resources. Yet, while many Western governments spoke about the need to “mobilise resources” to mitigate the impacts of climate change or meet the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), none suggested minimising military budgets and redirecting those funds. Yet this is clearly the best—and only meaningful—option, which many governments of the Global Majority articulated.

“There can be no sustainable development without peace, and no peace without sustainable development,” said the Prime Minister of the Solomon Islands. “The world cannot achieve the SDGs with all the conflict and wars that is going on.” Colombia likewise said that to meet the SDGs, all wars must be stopped, while Tanzania argued that “peace is undeniably a prerequisite for achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.” Tanzania’s Vice-President noted that “massive production of weapons and skyrocketing military spending on armed conflicts is compromising the promises we all made to the most vulnerable among us … to build a better/prosperous world and create opportunities for all, leaving no one behind.”

This is why Costa Rica reiterated its call for states to honour Article 26 of the UN Charter, which obligates the least diversion of economic resources to weapons. “Our only weapon,” said Costa Rica’s Foreign Minister, “must be international law.” Denying the precept that “might makes right,” he called for the establishment of a “global system that addresses the needs of the most vulnerable.”

War in Ukraine

The current system instead serves the interests of the wealthy and the militarised. Several speakers noted that there always seems to be unlimited funds for wars that suit the interests of economically and militarily powerful states. “They don't have a hundred billion dollars to give to countries to defend against floods, storms and hurricanes, but they have it in one day for Russians and Ukrainians to kill each other,” noted Colombia. Similarly, Guyana noted the discrepancy between financing for the war in Ukraine over the past year versus aid to Palestine and Haiti, or fighting hunger in African countries.

Overall, the vast majority of speakers participating in the high-level debate condemned the Russian government’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine and called for an immediate cessation of hostilities and withdrawal of Russian troops. Most highlighted the devastating effects on civilians in Ukraine and the global ramifications of the conflict. “The invasion of Ukraine by Russia, although geographically distant, had a ripple effect that led to inflation of prices” globally, warned Palau. People around the world are suffering from a war that is not of their making. “This war must end,” appealed Bolivia. “The price is too high. It is time for peace.”

Only three governments—those of Belarus, Nicaragua, and Syria—supported Russia’s war in Ukraine. Russia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs reiterated the government’s justifications for its unlawful attack on Ukraine, blaming it on the expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) among other things.

Many speakers called for peace negotiations, including Angola, Bahrain, Brazil, Central African Republic, China, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cyprus, Dominica, Gambia, Guyana, Holy See, Iran, Jamaica, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, North Macedonia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Solomon Islands, and Timor-Leste.

“All the evidence tells us that it is unlikely that there will be winners and losers on the battlefield,” said Angola’s President, “which is why the parties involved should be encouraged to prioritize dialogue and diplomacy as soon as possible, to establish a ceasefire and to negotiate a lasting peace not only for the warring countries, but which will guarantee Europe's security and contribute to world peace and security.” Similarly, the President of Timor-Leste argued that wars are seldom resolved in the battlefield, warning that “the war may continue for years, random killings and destruction continue until all sides are exhausted, and only then, the warring parties may begin to explore ideas for ending the war, reach a peace settlement, one that may be secured only if all the sides involved summon courage to compromise.”

Instead of dragging things out, Congo’s President called on all states that “can influence the course of events in the direction of peace” to “temper their ardor, stop fanning the embers and engage, without delay, in peace negotiations.” Colombia proposed the UN sponsor a peace conference on the war in Ukraine without delay—along with one on Israel’s occupation of Palestine.

In contrast, other speakers called for an end to the war, but not specifically for peace negotiations. Some, such as the Netherlands, even criticised calls for peace. “Some countries feel they are supporting peace in Ukraine simply by calling for an immediate ceasefire. They think that this will help end the war,” said the Netherlands’ Prime Minister. But in the case of the war in Ukraine, “there can be no ‘shared’ solution. Russia is the aggressor here. And it is not Ukraine’s supporters that are prolonging the war. It is Russia.” The United States similarly argued that negotiations will grant Russia impunity for its war. “If we abandon the core principles of the [UN Charter] to appease an aggressor, can any member state in this body feel confident that they are protected?” asked the US President. “We have to stand up to this naked aggression today and deter other would-be aggressors tomorrow. That’s why the United States, together with our allies and partners around the world, will continue to stand with the brave people of Ukraine as they defend their sovereignty and territorial integrity and their freedom.”

In this same vein, some delegations urged more support for Ukraine, including through the provision of weapons. They called on states to send more weapons, and Poland even argued that objecting to or limiting arms transfers to Ukraine is “false logic” akin to “putting the blame on a neighbor who comes to aid to the people next-door defending their own home against mugger.” Sweden asserted that Ukrainians “are fighting not only for Ukraine’s survival, but also for our security and for the respect for territorial integrity.” This is why Sweden decided to end its military non-alignment and join NATO, said the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

Other governments were critical of the rampant arms trade the conflict has generated. While recognising “that every sovereign state has the right to have the appropriate means to regain its territorial integrity,” Mexico argued, “it is equally true that the arms race takes us further away from a peaceful solution. We need to stop talking about war and start talking about peace.”

Military interventions and armed conflicts

Looking at interventions and armed conflicts more broadly, Burkina Faso noted that “several Western countries, notably the United States and the European Union, have poured all kinds of support, particularly military support” to Ukraine. Meanwhile, it pointed out, arms embargoes are imposed on other countries in conflict, even as soldiers from foreign armies use high tech weapons on their soil in acts of neo-imperialism. “From fake independence to fratricidal wars, from electoral democracy to biased aid, from predatory wars to terrorism maliciously manufactured, maintained and injected into our African countries, particularly in Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger, there is only one constant: to dominate, to keep the ‘foot on our neck’ such as the case of our unfortunate brother George Floyd in the United States.”

Many other speakers, especially from African countries, highlighted these dynamics, indicting colonial legacies and neo-imperialist resource extraction and economic exploitation by Western governments as the key source of instability and conflict throughout the continent. Mali said that in the current geopolitical context, it “does not wish to become a theater of confrontation or competition of the geopolitical interests of foreign powers.” It also strongly opposed military intervention in Niger, which would threaten the peace and security of the entire region. To this end, it reminded that the consequences of military intervention in Libya in 2011 are still being felt, and this intervention is at the core of the expansion of violence in the Sahel region.

Dominica similarly cautioned against military interventions, including in African states, asking, “Whose interest would military intervention serve? Certainly not the people of Africa. We in Dominica and the Caribbean urge, that in all such situations, that the interest of the population be foremost in any consideration of intervention by neighbouring countries and indeed by the international community.”

In addition to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, most speakers also highlighted other conflicts of concern, including the Israeli occupation of Palestine; conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Myanmar, Niger, Nogorno-Karabakh, the Sahel, Sudan, Syria, Yemen; armed violence in Haiti, growing tensions in the South China Sea and the Korean Peninsula; and more. As Australia’s Foreign Minister noted, “military power is expanding, but measures to constrain military conflict are not—and there are few concrete mechanisms for averting it.” Thus, she said, “It is up to all of us to act to deploy our collective statecraft, our influence, our networks, our capabilities, to minimise the risk of misunderstanding and miscalculation… To prevent catastrophic conflict.”

Unsurprisingly, she did not mention Australia’s own role in exacerbating the risks of military confrontation through its relationship of extended nuclear deterrence with the United States or its intended acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines as part of its new military alliance with the US and UK governments. This kind of hypocrisy is the crux of the challenge facing the international system: the solutions are known, even articulated by those governments engaged in the exact opposite behaviour that they prescribe for others.

Nuclear weapons

This hypocrisy is perhaps nowhere more evident than in relation to nuclear weapons. Only nine states possess these weapons of mass destruction, and they sanction other countries to prevent proliferation while simultaneously asserting that their possession of these bombs keeps the world safe.

But the true costs of nuclear weapons are well known, and their potential for use continues to haunt the imaginations of most of the world. Many speakers highlighted the dangers and risks posed by nuclear weapons, including the UN Secretary-General, the President of the General Assembly, Australia, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, Holy See, Honduras, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Liberia, Lithuania, Marshall Islands, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Aotearoa New Zealand, Nicaragua, North Macedonia, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Republic of Korea (ROK), Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Timor-Leste, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen, and Zambia.

San Marino expressed its grave concern “about the alarming increase of dangerous nuclear rhetoric and nuclear threats which reinforce the image of a dark future instead of a sustainable one.” Noting that any use of nuclear weapons “would cause massive death and destruction and would create catastrophic and prolonged consequences on human health and wellbeing as well as on the environment,” San Marino said the threat or use of these weapons is “irresponsible, and totally unacceptable.”

The UN Secretary-General also condemned threats to use nuclear weapons, noting that such threats puts the world at risk, and the President of the General Assembly (PGA) in particular criticised Russia’s nuclear threats made in the context of its war in Ukraine. The PGA noted that Russia has “rekindled decades-old fears of the use of nuclear weapons.” Czech Republic, Ireland, Japan, Latvia, Papua New Guinea, Sweden, and Ukraine also condemned Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons.

While many governments called for nuclear disarmament, only a few highlighted specific paths to achieve it. Kazakhstan called for the development of a “strategic plan for the complete renunciation of nuclear weapons by 2045,” while Japan highlighted its Hiroshima Action Plan and its funding of work at overseas research institutes and think tanks.

Most notably, Bangladesh, Guatemala, Holy See, Kazakhstan, Mexico, San Marino, and Sri Lanka highlighted the importance of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) to ending the era of nuclear violence. Sri Lanka’s President announced that his government deposited its ratification of the TPNW the previous day, bringing the total number of states parties and signatories to 97. The Holy See talked about the ongoing work for the TPNW’s implementation and the need for ambition at its Second Meeting of States Parties, which will be held in November this year, including the “advancement of discussions on the creation of an International Trust Fund to support a restorative approach to the human and environmental harms caused by nuclear use and testing.”

Three states impacted by nuclear weapon testing addressed these harms directly in their speeches. “The nuclear footprint of big powers in the Pacific is intrinsically carved into our history and genes,” said the Solomon Islands. “Certain populations to this day continue to suffer from health issues because of nuclear testing and dumping in the Pacific.” Kiribati called for compensation to its people, whose health and ancestral lands have been exploited by nuclear testing, while the Marshall Islands noted that the US government has not fulfilled its obligations in relation to its tests there.

A few delegations called for denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula and for resumption of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) for Iran’s nuclear programme. The DPRK argued that US-ROK military exercises and hostility towards the DPRK have created the situation on the Korean Peninsula, while Iran pointed out that the US withdrawal from the JCPOA was a prescription for “lawlessness and coercion instead of cooperation.” It reiterated that nuclear weapons “have no place” in Iran.

Nuclear safety and security

A handful of countries also raised concerns with the safety issues of nuclear power plants. Bahrain, Guatemala, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden, and Ukraine expressed concern with the risks to the Zaporizhzya Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine, which is under threat from Russia’s occupation and bombardment.

The DPRK, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, and Solomon Islands criticised Japan’s decision to release radioactive wastewater from the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant into the Pacific Ocean. The Solomon Islands said it “is appalled by Japan’s decision to discharge over a million tonnes of treated nuclear wastewater into the ocean.” It argued that the International Atomic Energy Agency’s assessment report was inconclusive “and that the scientific data shared remains inadequate, incomplete and biased.” It said the wastewater should be stored in Japan, not dumped into the sea, noting that the harms from dumping will be transboundary and intergenerational. “The increased warming and acidification of the ocean against the discharge of treated nuclear water over a period of 30 plus years poses worrying risks for our people’s well-being and future,” warned the Solomon Islands. “We are the ocean, it is our past, our present, our future. It is the foundation of our very existence, it is our identity. Please stop the discharge of nuclear treated water or history will judge us.”

Explosive weapons

Another issue over which history will judge is surely the use of explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA). As Monaco explained, “fighting and bombing cause toxic substances to pollute the soil and water. Countless protected natural areas have been destroyed, and damage to essential infrastructure increases the risk of drinking water pollution and the spread of disease.” San Marino similarly noted that when “infrastructure and tools essential to the survival of civilians are damaged, or destroyed, food production and distribution, water delivery, sanitation, energy provision, and health care can all be disrupted.”

Ireland pleaded, “The devastation on innocent civilians of the use of explosive weapons in populated areas cannot continue to echo down generations.” That is why it led negotiations on a Political Declaration “to respond to the humanitarian consequences arising from their use.” Ireland noted that 83 states have adopted the Declaration so far, and it urged all states to join.

Monaco called on states to stop attacking healthcare workers and infrastructure in conflict zones, as well as civilian populations. San Marino called on all states to support UN Security Council Resolution 2573, which condemns attacks against critical civilian infrastructure, and to join the Safe Schools Declaration, which commits armed actors to not attack education facilities, teachers, and students.

Several speakers condemned Russia’s use of explosive weapons and targeting of civilians in Ukraine, including Bulgaria, Canada, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, San Marino, and Slovakia. France condemned the use of explosive weapons in Nagorno-Karabakh, while Timor-Leste critiqued the “scorched earth policy” of Myanmar’s use of aircraft and helicopters to target civilians.

Landmines and cluster munitions

These specific conflicts were also addressed in remarks about landmines and cluster munitions.

Armenia described Azerbaijan’s use of “heavy weaponry such as rockets, artillery, combat UAVs, aviation, including prohibited cluster munitions” in Nagorno-Karabakh, Stepanakert, and other towns and settlements. “This atrocious large-scale offensive which claimed hundreds of lives, including of women and children, was cynically defined as a local counter terrorist operation. According to the recent information there are confirmed cases of more than 200 killed and 400 wounded, including among civilian population, women and children, also accepted by the Azerbaijani Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The fate of hundreds of people is uncertain.”

Azberbaijan, meanwhile, said that the contamination of its territories with landmines and other explosive devices “remains a significant obstacle to smooth progress of rehabilitation and reconstruction.” It called on Armenia to share maps of mined areas.

Other delegations spoke to the issue of land contamination from landmines and cluster munitions. The Solomon Islands highlighted land contamination in the Pacific, noting that unexploded ordnance (UXO) still takes lives in its territory. It urged all responsible countries “to remove the UXOs and compensate lives affected and lost.” Cambodia likewise called for financial and technical support to meet its efforts to become mine-free by 2025, and urged “greater participation by the international community to raise awareness of the dangers of landmines and unexploded ordnance, the ‘hidden killers’ that threaten human security even after armed conflicts end.” The Lao People’s Democratic Republic said that UXO remains a threat to its national development and poses an obstacle to achieving the SDGs. It called “for continued support and assistance from the international community to address this prolonged and challenging task.” China said it will be carrying out demining operations in Southeast Asian countries over the next three years.

Small arms and light weapons

Another weapon wreaking havoc with people’s lives globally are small arms and light weapons (SALW). Antigua and Barbuda, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Jamaica, Kuwait, Lesotho, Mexico, Nigeria, Palestine, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania, and Trinidad and Tobago raised various concerns related to the proliferation and use of SALW and of arms trafficking.

Antigua and Barbuda noted that the use of illegal guns accounts for a significant percent of all recorded homicides in the Caribbean, even though “no country in the Caribbean manufactures a single weapon or one round of ammunition.” Most of these weapons, it explained, “originate in the United States from which they are smuggled or trafficked, to bolster organised criminals involved in trafficking illicit narcotics. In any event, the fallout from these illegal guns, is their increasing use in Caribbean countries and the clear threat that they pose to our societies and the capacity of our law enforcement to cope.”

Jamaica, Mexico, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago made similar remarks. Each demanded that countries that manufacturer weapons “must do more in preventing their outflow,” as Jamaica said. Mexico warned that efforts to combat the use of SALW in recipient countries “will be limited if the countries of manufacture and origin of trafficked weapons do not assume their responsibility for this scourge and take stronger measures to reduce the widespread availability of firearms on their territory.” Mexico also demanded that weapon “manufacturers and distributors must also take responsibility and take diligent steps to prevent these weapons from being diverted to the illicit market.”

Autonomous weapon systems

Countries and companies that manufacture weapons also have a critical role in preventing the weaponisation of new technologies. In particular, as several delegations highlighted at the high-level debate, efforts must be made to prevent the development and use of autonomous weapon systems and/or weapons programmed with artificial intelligence (AI).

Antigua and Barbuda, Costa Rica, Germany, Holy See, Iceland, Israel, Aotearoa New Zealand, Nicaragua, Philippines, Singapore, Somalia, Ukraine, United States, and the UN Secretary-General all raised concerns about the weaponisation of AI or the introduction of autonomy in weapon systems. “Autonomous weapon systems without human fingers on the trigger are already with us,” warned Singapore. “AI will fundamentally disrupt our assumptions on military doctrines and strategic deterrence,” it noted, arguing that “the speed at which AI-enabled weapons systems can be almost instantaneously deployed and triggered will dramatically reduce decision times for our leaders. There will be many occasions when humans may not even be in the firing loop, but we will be on the firing line. This would inevitably heighten the risk of unintended conflicts, or the escalation of conflicts.”

Antigua and Barbuda drew comparisons to drones, which are “meticulously programmed with facial recognition technology, set to target an individual. It scans, identifies, and eliminates its target all while operating undetected.” Highlighting the dangers of weaponsing such technology, Antigua and Barbuda endorsed the UN Secretary-General’s recommendation in A New Agenda for Peace that states formulate a legally binding instrument by 2026 to prohibit autonomous weapon systems. The Holy See also supported the development of such a treaty and urged states to putt a moratorium on the development of such weapons pending the conclusion of negotiations. “It is imperative to ensure adequate, meaningful and consistent human oversight of weapon systems,” argued the Holy See, as “only human beings are truly capable of seeing and judging the ethical impact of their actions, as well as assessing their consequent responsibilities.”

Costa Rica highlighted the Belén Communiqué, adopted earlier this year by countries of Latin America and the Caribbean that called for the negotiation of a treaty on autonomous weapons. It also announced together with Austria and Mexico it will submit a resolution to the General Assembly this addressing the issue of autonomous weapons systems. The Philippines, which also supports a treaty on autonomous weapons, said it will host an Indo-Pacific meeting in December to contribute to the global conversation. Aotearoa New Zealand likewise said states must commit to international rules and limits on autonomous weapons, while Germany said states should “talk about common rules for the possible use of generative artificial intelligence as a weapon.”

While not explicitly addressing the weaponisation of AI, the United States agreed that “emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, hold both enormous potential and enormous peril,” and said that the international community needs “to be sure they are used as tools of opportunity, not as weapons of oppression.” It claimed to be working to “strengthen rules and policies so AI technologies are safe before they are released to the public; to make sure we govern this technology—not the other way around, having it govern us.”

Other technologies and areas of militarisation

Bahrain, Benin, Cabo Verde, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Jamaica, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mauritius, Moldova, Monaco, Nepal, Aotearoa New Zealand, North Macedonia, Philippines, Qatar, Samoa, Singapore, Togo, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom highlighted cyber-attacks and/or cyber-crime as challenges to international peace and security.

Bolivia, Aotearoa New Zealand, and the Philippines expressed concern with ongoing militarisation and weaponisation of outer space. The Philippines called for “the elaboration of the principle of due regard in the space domain and greater responsibility among states to reduce space threats, including debris from rocket launches.”

Iran, Lesotho, Nepal, Nicaragua, Ukraine, and Zambia raised concerns about the possession of, as well as the use or potential use of, chemical weapons. The United States highlighted that this year it destroyed its last chemical weapon stockpile.

Solidarity requires revolution, not reform

“Is there the political will to put people first and not weapons first?” asked the Prime Minister of Saint Lucia. “We are no longer willing to come to this annual parade merely to lend our voice to support of this or that global conflict, or to condemn whoever, from year to year, is the new global enemy. No powerful nation’s global agenda is more important than our own, and we insist that our legitimate concerns be listened to and acted upon.”

There is no clearer demand for a revolution of international affairs than from the small island states, which throughout history have been subjected to the whims and wars of the so-called powerful countries of the world. But, as Saint Vincent and the Grenadines warned, “The days of masters and vassals are over; the days of imperialism are drawing nigh; and the would-be hegemons waiting in the wings with their illusions of grandeur, past or imagined, are bound for disillusionment.” Those from countries that have their wealth, resources, and lives stolen for generations are not accepting crumbs, said Prime Minister Gonsalves. “There is a loaf to be shared reasonably, with equity; and we must be at the deciding and the eating table.”

Some countries of the West recognise the necessity of change as well. Austria’s Federal Minister for Foreign and European Affairs said that his country knows that “rules-based international order is our only protective shield against a world where might makes right, where unilateralism and the use of force rule,” but that it also knows that this order “is not inclusive enough,” is not “proactive or effective enough.” Yet, so many of these governments continue to speak in the language of reform, rather than revolution.

That true multilateralism is key is known by most. That the UN Security Council is corrupt is known by pretty much all. That war and violence only begets more war and violence is at this point an obvious truism. Yet so many governments, despite their rhetoric or even their best intentions, continue to follow the same patterns that put their own power above real change that would benefit the lives of billions of people around the world.

The UN General Assembly is a talk shop, yes, but it could be so much more. It could be a place where wars are ended and where weapons factories are closed. It could be a place where oil companies are dismantled and global Green, Red, and Black New Deals are put into motion. It could be the place where solidarity takes shape—not as an empty word but in agreements to open borders, share vaccines, finance food security, and so much more.

This is the UN that at least some of its creators must have envisioned back in 1945, amidst the ashes of two atomic bombs, incendiary destruction of entire cities, gas chambers, and billions of bullets. This would the UN for the people—not for the states, not for governments, elected or otherwise, but for people, no matter where they live. This is the UN we need.

Reaching Critical Will tracked all references to weapons and militarism at this year’s UN General Assembly high-level debate. See our Disarmament Index for extracts.