Vol. 19, No. 2
Editorial: Full spectrum disarmament
9 October 2021
Ray Acheson
On the first day of this year’s First Committee session, Pakistan warned that it “will do whatever it takes to preserve full spectrum deterrence” against India. There is no better line to exemplify the precise problem with international relations today. This attitude—that more weapons will bring more security; that investments in equipment to commit mass atrocities is the best way to “deter” aggression or violence—is not limited to one or two states. Militarism is an epidemic.
“Increasing polarization and depletion of trust between states has led to levels of deterioration that belong to a bygone era,” noted The Maldives. “This is deeply concerning, and negatively affects the global disarmament agenda.” Nothing stands in the way of disarmament as much as political and economic investments in militarism. Grounded in patriarchy, which perpetuates norms of violent “masculinity” and diminishes the credibility of other approaches to conflict or tension, the global culture of militarism is killing us all. Even those who assert that it protects them or gives them power.
Escalating expenditure and risks
Militarised governments imagine that their capacity for violence provides security for their countries. But weapons do not provide security. Contrary to the dominant narrative, Trinidad and Tobago pointed out, “deterrence breaths escalation”. Building up arsenals only exacerbates insecurity and leads to a vicious cycle of military build-up and arms racing.
Housing, education, food, and water; the right to move, to live, to breathe; equality and justice—these are what make humans secure. Yet, as many delegations pointed out last week, governments are wasting resources of weapons and war, including during the COVID-19 pandemic when money and ingenuity have been so desperately needed elsewhere—anywhere else. “While the world continues to prepare for war, an invisible virus has brought us to our knees,” said Costa Rica. World gross domestic product (GDP) fell 4.4 per cent in 2020 due to the pandemic’s economic effects, explained Mexico, yet world military spending increased 2.6 per cent in the same period. Further, during this global health crisis, the nuclear-armed states allocated 72.6 billion USD to their nuclear arsenals in 2020. “These figures cannot be justifiable,” Mexico exclaimed. They aren’t. But as Egypt pointed out, “The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the irrationality of directing invaluable and scarce resources to nuclear arsenals and arms races over achieving sustainable development.”
The catastrophic imbalance between expenditure on militarism vs any possible social good has led to a dire predicament for international security, as well as human and planetary well-being. “The action we are witnessing is diametrically opposed to and undermines the very concept and goal of disarmament,” said the Caribbean Community, expressing hope “that reassuring platitudes of responsible conduct on the part of nuclear weapons states will be matched by commitments of bold and decisive action in the right direction.”
Platitudes for peace
In this context, many delegations cautiously welcomed the agreement between Russia and the United States to extend the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) and encouraged further dialogue and actions to reduce tensions and nuclear threats. Russia said the initiation of an “integrated dialogue on strategic stability” between the two countries will lay the groundwork for future arms control.
However, Russia also offered a list of “destructive actions” by the United States, made in an attempt to “obtain unilateral advantages in the so-declared ‘great powers competition’.” The US delegation, meanwhile, said that while it too is optimistic about its new “era of relentless diplomacy … focused on building a stable, predictable foundation for the future of arms control,” it is “also cognizant that some nations are pursuing policies to undermine the international rules-based order.” The United States warned that “autocratic regimes” are trying to foster instability and “pose new nuclear dangers that remind us of the importance of preventing nuclear war, avoiding nuclear arms races, and stopping the further spread of nuclear weapons.”
Of course, as many other delegations pointed out, the United States is a lynchpin in proliferating nuclear technology, nuclear risks, and arms races. Several delegations specifically condemned the recent announcement by Australia, the United Kingdom, and United States about their new AUKUS military alliance and sharing of nuclear-powered submarines.
The awful awkwardness of AUKUS
Malaysia noted that this “introduction of a new strategic partnership that includes strategic delivery systems with nuclear technology could trigger further an arms race.” China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Mexico, Sri Lanka, Venezuela, and the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) also warned that AUKUS could foment an arms race. Venezuela and China said the alliance has a “Cold War mentality” that breeds mistrust, increases tensions, and moves the world further from the goal of nuclear disarmament. AUKUS “raises serious questions about the state of arms race, and commitments to nuclear non-proliferation obligations,” warned Indonesia. “Such alliances would potentially bring us further from our commitment to improve international peace and security, including in our region.” ICAN noted that it “raises the risk of nuclear proliferation, as well as nuclear accidents and radiological contamination.”
Russia noted, “It is already clear that this partnership will not contribute to strengthening the NPT. There is a potential risk that another non-nuclear-weapon State will be used to deploy nuclear-weapon States' military nuclear infrastructure. This leads to greater international instability and runs counter to the efforts to reduce nuclear weapon arsenals.” It explained that “the construction of nuclear submarines by a non-nuclear-weapon State party to the NPT could set a very negative precedent for the implementation of IAEA safeguards,” and also noted that the alliance is “questionable in the context of Australia's participation in the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (the Treaty of Rarotonga).”
As Sébastien Philippe explains in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the nuclear submarine aspect of this new alliance is a “fundamental policy reversal for the United States, which has in the past spared no effort to thwart the transfer of naval reactor technology by other countries.” He points out that the UK and US fuel their submarines with 93.5 per cent enriched uranium and have no alternative fuel to offer. Australia has no highly enriched uranium (HEU) or domestic capacity to enrich it. So the material will need to be transferred or it will need to start up a military-grade enrichment programme. Either will be devastating for non-proliferation. Philippe notes that while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is trying to prevent Iran from acquiring 25 kilograms (0.025 ton) of HEU—the amount necessary to build a nuclear weapon, according to the internationally agreed standard—it will now have to figure out how to monitor and account for 100 to 200 times that amount. “Managing that feat while keeping its credibility intact will be difficult to pull off.” Beyond the blow to the IAEA’s credibility, Philippe argues, “we can now expect the proliferation of very sensitive military nuclear technology in the coming years, with literally tons of new nuclear materials under loose or no international safeguards.”
In addition to the spread of nuclear technology and materials, AUKUS will also further militarise the Asia-Pacific region. As David Vine points out in Responsible Statecraft, part of the alliance agreement includes plans to establish new facilities for naval, air, and ground forces and the deployment of all types of US military aircraft to Australia. The US already has seven military installations in Australia, and hundreds of bases throughout Asia-Pacific.
Other governments in the region, as well as civil society activists, have spoken out strongly against the new alliance. The Australia Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth Australia, ICAN Australia, Independent and Peaceful Australia Network, Medical Association for the Prevention of War, and WILPF Australia have issued statements against AUKUS, highlighting all of the above concerns as well as additional environmental threats and security risks. AUKUS has “no social licence,” warned Gem Romuld, Director of ICAN Australia. The people of Australia have not agreed to this. Most countries in the region support a ban on nuclear weapons, joining the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, while the Australian government violates its nuclear non-proliferation obligations. “This is the wrong direction at the wrong time,” notes Romuld.
Ignoring these critiques and concerns, at First Committee Australia delivered a right of reply on behalf of AUKUS, arguing that the alliance based on the three governments’ “enduring commitment to the international rules-based order.” It argued that the alliance will “promote peace and security in the region and an international order governed by rules that work to benefit of the majority and allow free societies to flourish,” will strengthen the three states’ ability to support its “security and defence interests,” and to “help sustain peace and stability in the Indo-Pacific region.” Australia also argued that its procurement of nuclear-powered submarines is possible because of the close cooperation among the three states and Australia’s “unequivocal commitment to nuclear non-proliferation” and its “exemplary non-proliferation credentials”.
The argument thus seems to be, if anyone else wants to violate non-proliferation norms and expand their military footprint across the world, they just need to 1) assert that they have “security interests;” b) find some friends with fancy weapons; and c) claim to be unequivocally committed to non-proliferation agreements. Of course, if anyone that the countries in AUKUS perceive as “enemies” tried to do this, they would be accused of violating international law, subjected to sanctions, and, as we have repeatedly seen, possibly military intervention or attack.
Thus, the AUKUS alliance not only violates non-proliferation norms and rules, spreads militarism, risks facilitating an arms race, and heightens tensions—all at time when the world desperately needs the opposite of all these things—but it also reinforces the impression that the “rules-based order” is nothing but a hypocritical sham, a “do as I say, not as I do” arrangement designed to allow certain states to dominate and control international relations. This puts international law and global norms under extreme pressure. Yet, despite recent rhetoric about their commitment to international law and rules, certain countries are doubling down on their pursuit of hegemony. The UK, in addition to its contributions to AUKUS, recently announced a 44 per cent increase to its nuclear arsenal. At First Committee, the UK delegation claimed that this somehow makes it “clear that the UK remains committed to the long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons,” though as Indonesia noted, it is in fact “a clear case of noncompliance with the legal obligations of Article VI” of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
This persistent gaslighting by the nuclear-armed states demonstrates a patriarchal relationship with the world, in which violence and the threat of violence are used as tools to try to control the behaviour of others, while claiming to be for the good of all. This reinforces of a militarised world order, built by those who profit from war and maintained by assertions that this is just the way the world is, as if they have no responsibility for making the world the way it is.
In this context, the colonial backdrop to AUKUS is also worth noting. Two of the countries involved in the alliance are settler colonies and the third was a prolific coloniser. Weapons and war, as the joint civil society statement on humanitarian disarmament to First Committee highlighted, are tools of colonial and imperial power. Wading into the Asia-Pacific with nuclear submarines is just the latest extension of the militarised white supremacy inherent to colonialism.
Solidarity for sustainable peace
Opposing this alliance and preventing its implementation is important for peace. Rather than ensuring the security of weapon manufacturers and their political allies, we need to build a world order based on human security and solidarity. Rather than seeking to “constrain” perceived challengers to hegemonic power, we should be working to build a world of equality, peace, and justice for all. “Security and strength are achieved through investing in the well-being of our people, our environment, and our relationships—rather than investing in military arsenals,” said The Maldives. It urged “all countries to forgo spending billions on arsenals that only create a false sense of strength and security.”
Anti-racist action and gender analysis of norms and biases must also be part of the work ahead. Calling for an intentional anti-racist approach to disarmament, dozens of civil society groups addressing First Committee in the joint statement on humanitarian disarmament noted that “a future of peace and security that upholds human dignity and equality demands that we dismantle the systems of oppression and racism that both propel violence and conflict, and are perpetuated by the use of weapons.” The groups signing onto the joint statement on gender encouraged a “more robust reflection of the gendered norms associated with weapons, war, and violence.”
We are not without guideposts and inspiration for this action. The will is there from many participants in disarmament and arms control processes to dismantle patriarchy, racism, and other forms of oppression through demilitarisation and peacebuilding. It is a minority of governments keeping the world in its current death spiral. Thus, most delegations issued impassioned appeals to the nuclear-armed and other heavily militarised governments to change course and join the majority in finding strength in solidarity rather than weapons and war.
“Coexistence in a world without nuclear weapons is possible,” argued Chile. “Maintaining international peace and security without resorting to nuclear deterrence is, in addition to an ethical imperative, achievable and in line with the international system for the protection of human rights.” Egypt, likewise, said that reliance on nuclear “deterrence” and resistance to new disarmament and arms control agreements “can no longer be a morally or politically acceptable norm.” Instead, all governments need to recognise that “violence is not inevitable, but is preventable,” as Costa Rica asserted. “We cannot equate peace with domination nor greed with development…. Our investment must be in sustainable development, disarmament and robust arms control mechanisms, inclusive governance and planetary health.” We have no time to waste. We need full spectrum disarmament now.
[PDF] ()