Vol. 18, No. 2
Confronting the pandemic of militarism at the First Committee
18 October 2020
Ray Acheson
The UN’s First Committee on Disarmament and International Security is taking place during not just an international health pandemic, but also an international law pandemic, consisting of the deliberate eradication of rules and norms against weapons and violence; and a militarism pandemic, consisting of massive investments in bombs and bullets.
During the first week of general debate, countless delegations lamented the re-emerging use of chemical weapons, the continued possession and modernisation of nuclear weapons, the development of autonomous weapon systems, the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, and rising attacks and aggression in cyber space. The treaties and normative frameworks built up over the decades since the Second World War are not coming undone by themselves; rather they are being purposefully annihilated by a handful of governments whose agendas are to preserve their personal prosperity and dominance at the expense of all others on the planet—and the planet itself.
The hellscapes of hypocrisy
What makes the situation even more frustrating is the hypocrisy of many of these governments, who condemn the use of chemical weapons while proclaiming a right and a necessity to possess nuclear weapons. Or those who condemn possession of nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles of certain states while possessing and modernising such weapons themselves. Vice versa, certain states say they need nuclear weapons to protect them from aggressive enemies, asserting that they abide by certain policies that constrain their behaviour, while condemning other countries for having “too many” nuclear weapons or “bad nuclear doctrines”—as if one atomic bomb is not enough. One was enough in Hiroshima. One was enough in Nagasaki. The arrogance of asserting concepts like “limited” or “minimal” nuclear deterrence in a forum supposedly dedicated to disarmament and international security is as objectionable as the claims by other states, where people have been gassed with chemicals, claiming they don’t even have these weapons.
Certain states identify each other as the Big Bad, insisting that the other makes the international security environment so unstable as to necessitate that they hold onto their weapons, as if we’re in some sort of game of chicken. The accusations continued to fly this past week, for example, between the United States, Russia, and China. They circle each other, accusing and condemning as if in a diplomatic equivalent of a terrible dog fight—which is precisely what the rest of the delegations may feel as they look on in horror, realising that it is only a matter of time before one or all of them, as Ghana said, “open the floodgate of hell on Earth.” The three countries fight over who is to blame for the lack of nuclear disarmament or for massive investments in nuclear arsenals, while none will do what needs to be done—what they are legally obligated to do through the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and a multitude of other comments and agreements. In what sounded like a warning, the US ambassador told the First Committee that the US has not even begun to embark upon a nuclear modernisation programme to match Russia and China (despite the fact that it spends more than both), but that if it does not “get the assistance” it demands from the international community, “we will have to take, unilaterally or in concert with allies, whatever steps are necessary to protect our national security interests.”
This kind of aggressive rhetoric at the First Committee is often difficult to sit through but provides us with important information about where and how and why things are the way they are. The rhetoric is rooted in militarised masculinities and Orientalism, among other things. The idea that weapon possession is to be either permitted or outlawed on the basis of heavily racialised and patriarchal notions about the rationality or fortitude of the possessor is a grave fallacy that will get us all killed. Weapons, no matter whose hands they are in, will be used. That is what weapons are made for—and the world that so many governments have built for us, through the choice of their investments and view of “security,” is chock full of weapons.
Building back differently
This is precisely why so many other governments in the world are not just sounding the alarm but are actively trying to build something else. Recognising that the “international security environment” is of our own construction, some countries have urged a complete re-prioritisation of our collective investments. Costa Rica pointed out that if just a fraction of current military spending was used to invest in health and development, to reduce the digital divide and finance the transition to a green and resilient economy, and to politically and economically empower women and girls, “we could proudly say that our generation knew how to make decisions in favor of human security.”
The Maldives agreed that “security and strength are achieved not through the proliferation of weapons, but through investment in the well-being of our people and our environment.” It urged all states “to forgo spending billions on weaponries that only creates a false sense of strength and security, and instead, to invest in new challenges such as the eradication of poverty, increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change and the elimination of diseases, including overcoming the current COVID-19 pandemic which has taken lives and livelihoods.” Uruguay likewise urged investments in preventative diplomacy, dismantling and reducing arsenals, and “transferring resources from the military budget to the development agenda.”
Several delegations drew parallels between the challenges and impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and of global security—including that, as Ireland said, the pandemic is both an urgent reminder “of the importance of international cooperation to avoid global catastrophes” and “that the arsenals of nuclear weapons afford us no security or safety and that we are completely ill-equipped to respond to such a catastrophic event.” Ecuador similarly argued that the survival of our countries doesn't hinge on the extent to which we are armed or the number of nuclear warheads we have, but how we respond to challenges like the COVID-19 pandemic.
Gendered impacts and participation
Other countries noted how the pandemic has exacerbated challenges related to security and disarmament. The Bahamas, for example, observed that “unemployment, national lockdowns, extreme fiscal uncertainty and multiple strains on social services all contribute to increasing tensions in households and communities that give rise to ripe conditions for gun-related crime,” including in relation to gender-based and intimate partner violence, and violence against children and persons in vulnerable groups.
Few delegations spoke about gender-based violence in relations to weapons and war. One year after gender-based violence was being the theme of the Arms Trade Treaty conference of states parties, this issue is still is not receiving the attention it deserves or requires. A few delegations highlighted that this year marks the 20th anniversary of the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1325 on Women, Peace, and Security and the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Beijing Platform for Action. Both of these initiatives speak to the importance, among other things, of the inclusion of women in peace process and of consideration of gendered impacts of armed conflict and armed violence. Ten years ago, the First Committee adopted for the first time a draft resolution on Women, disarmament, non-proliferation, and arms control in recognition of the relevance of women’s participation to disarmament and international security. Yet on the eve of all of these anniversaries, gender diversity at the First Committee is still rather abysmal. Twenty-seven of the 108 speakers so far in the general debate have been women, which is 25 per cent.[1]
Measuring progress through the gender “balance” of the delivery of statements by men and women is not, of course, sufficient to assess the work of the Committee in advancing gender considerations. It also reinforces the idea that there is a gender binary. But it does give us an indication that in 2020, women are still underrepresented in the diplomatic corps, particular when it comes to issues that are considered to be matters of “hard security”—in this case, weapons and warfare. This shows a lack of commitment by the majority of states to invest in gender equality at the level of representation, which in turn gives some indication of how seriously a government likely takes its commitments to other gender-based issues.
But the failure to advance women’s meaningful participation is only one piece of the overarching struggle around gendered behaviours and policies. WILPF and other organisations endorsing this year’s civil society statement on gender and disarmament urged First Committee delegates to “push beyond the boundaries of the binary in their work on gender and disarmament,” explaining, “This isn’t just about adding particular bodies to a discussion. It’s about changing our perceptions and understandings in order to crack through the deadlock and despair to make concrete progress in building a peaceful and just world for all.”
Coalitions for care
This, as Nepal eloquently said, includes the realisation that the “excessive focus on the traditional notion of national security and armament is flawed.” It urged states “to focus on the security and wellbeing of our people, our citizens, and humanity at large,” noting that the world is interconnected. “Modern and accurate nuclear arms, weaponized outer space, and cyber warfare can promise security to some people, but it will be at the cost of billions of others.”
Instead of pursuing the patriarchal ideations of “power through violence,” some governments are looking in other directions. “In these times of strong nationalist tendencies and hostility towards cooperative and multilateralist approaches to disarmament,” said Liechtenstein, we should return to the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use or threat of use of force as vital to advancing our common objectives. “The history of the United Nations is shaped by coalitions of the willing,” Liechtenstein argued. Against all the odds stacked against us by the investments in power through violence, the world’s majority must stand together for peace through multilateralism, dialogue, and investments in promiscuous care for all.
[1] These include the representatives delivering statements on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition, the Member States of the Treaty on a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone in Central Asia, Antigua and Barbuda, Albania, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica, Cuba, Ghana, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, Lebanon, Lithuania, Jamaica, Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Qatar, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Arab Emirates. To our knowledge based on indications on written statements none of the speakers so far identify as non-binary.
[PDF] ()