First Committee Monitor, Vol. 21, No. 2
Editorial: Breaking the Mythical Chains of Inevitability
7 October 2023
Ray Acheson
War is not inevitable. It’s a choice, made by the people in charge of states. By people running governments, militaries, and increasingly, corporations. Within the existing nation-state system, these people make the policies, decide where to invest money, and determine relations between their states and others. None of this is predetermined by some external force. Yet many governments act as if they have been compelled to make certain choices, that their choices are not really theirs but are determined by the “international security environment” or other nebulous forces that, of course, they have had no hand in creating.
Here in the First Committee, for example, many delegations lamented the “erosion” of international arms control and disarmament agreements. Erosion suggests this is an inevitable process that just happens over time. But nothing about what certain states have done, and are doing, to the world is inevitable or natural. The deliberate dismantling of treaties, commitments, and norms serves the interests of certain people in certain states. And it puts the entire world in peril.
The chaos of militarism
The Sri Lankan delegation noted that this First Committee is meeting at a time when “the international security architecture is fraught with danger and strained at the seams.” But unlike those who describe this as a passive experience, with no responsible agents, Sri Lanka identified the source of this strife. “Superpower rivalries have intensified and have spiraled into creating chaos in almost all areas of human activity whether on land, air, sea, cyber space or outer space. The frequency and intensity of nuclear rhetoric has assumed alarming proportions, as well as moves to weaponize all domains, including cyber space and outer space.” This, Sri Lanka argued, has had implications for everyone:
The many of us who have over the years espoused multilateral solutions to disarmament and non-proliferation in the endeavor to create a peaceful world have been forced to endure the economic and other negative consequences brought about by direct conflict and resultant recriminatory measures which have affected the highest of human values globally.
Many delegations highlighted skyrocketing military spending as being particularly harmful globally. The more resources spent on weapons and war, the less is available for funding “development” or dealing with the global climate and ecological crises. And, as some delegations such as Liechtenstein noted, weapons and war facilitate further environmental destruction, as well as human suffering. In this context, the countries of the Central American Integration System (SICA) called “for the resources used in favor of an arms race to be used to strengthen our work to achieve our commitments to sustainable development, and to achieve a more just, peaceful, and stable world.”
Nuclear dangers
Many delegations also highlighted the possession, modernisation, and threats to use nuclear weapons as policies of a few states that affect the many. “A weapon that can wipe out all of humanity is not simply a weapon,” noted the President of the General Assembly. “It is a life-threatening verdict against all living beings.” Malaysia pointed out that as long as nuclear weapons exist, “the spectre of nuclear annihilation will loom over humanity.” It argued, “The fate of the world cannot be allowed to rest precariously on the judicious decision-making of States armed with these abhorrent weapons of mass destruction.” In this context, the African Group condemned the resistance of nuclear-armed states to dismantle their nuclear arsenals.
While most delegations participating in the First Committee reiterated their opposition to the bomb, the nuclear-armed states and nuclear-supportive allies continued to defend their nuclear doctrines and policies—and to speak as the nuclear situation is out of their control. Across all disarmament forums, these states repeatedly assert that as long as nuclear weapons exist, they will retain them for “security”. Again, this suggests an external force is causing nuclear weapons to exist. In reality, nine states have chosen to develop and deploy nuclear weapons. Some of their allies have decided to support this choice, and to invest financially and politically in their continued existence. For nuclear weapons not to exist anymore, these states need to decide to change their policies and then take action to disarm. No one can do it for them, though the majority of the world has tried to help facilitate nuclear disarmament by adopting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
The TPNW, as many delegates pointed out this past week, compliments the Non-Proliferation Treaty and Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty in setting out a practical agenda for the dismantlement of all nuclear weapon programmes, and for accounting for past use and testing of nuclear weapons through victim assistance and environmental remediation provisions. In contrast to the nuclear-armed state position that they will retain nuclear weapons as long as they exist, TPNW states parties understand that as long as nuclear weapons exist, they pose a grave risk to the planet. “The only sure way to guarantee that people will be safe from the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons,” said Aotearoa New Zealand, “is for them not to exist.”
Weapons cause insecurity
This understanding that the existence of nuclear weapons makes the risk of their use inevitable is why the Mexican delegation argued that advocating for the preservation of nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Further, Mexico pointed out, all weapons lead to insecurity and violence. “Peace and development should be the only priorities for States, and security must not rely on more weapons.” Thailand similarly noted that the “relentless modernization and proliferation of weapons of all kinds fuel conflicts and instability between and within States.”
Yet, in addition to the existing conventional arms and weapons of mass destruction wreaking havoc around the world, some states are actively developing new technologies of violence. Here, too, some delegations speak as if this is inevitable, as if a natural force were compelling the weaponisation of artificial intelligence and the introduction of autonomy and algorithms into warfare. But again, none of this is inevitable. Tech corporations and workers could refuse to build machines that make life and death decisions. Here at the UN, states could decide to prohibit them from doing so.
“Advances in science and technology have given rise to new categories of weaponry and domains of competition,” warned Mexico. “The international community has witnessed the increasing automatization and possible loss of human control over weapons.” This is why a cross-regional group of states, including Austria, Belgium, Costa Rica, Germany, Ireland, Mexico, Aotearoa New Zealand, Philippines, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, and Switzerland, is tabling a resolution at this year’s First Committee that will mandate the UN Secretary-General to seek the views of all states, international organisations, academics, industry, and civil society on the legal, ethical, humanitarian, and security risks associated with autonomous weapon systems, and to submit a substantive report on the way forward.
Throughout 2023, international momentum towards launching negotiations for a legally binding instrument has continued to grow. From the UN Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on autonomous weapons, to conferences held in the Netherlands, Costa Rica, Luxembourg, and Trinidad and Tobago, 100 states have now declared support for negotiating new international law on autonomous weapon systems. In A New Agenda for Peace, the UN Secretary-General called on states to conclude a legally binding instrument containing both prohibitions and regulations on autonomous weapons by 2026.
On 5 October, this call was repeated in a joint appeal from the UN Secretary-General and the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The appeal demands that states act now “to preserve human control over the use of force. Human control must be retained in life and death decisions. The autonomous targeting of humans by machines is a moral line that we must not cross. Machines with the power and discretion to take lives without human involvement should be prohibited by international law.”
Dismantling deadlock
As Stop Killer Robots notes, there is already much common ground among states on key issues of concern when it comes to autonomous weapons. But progress in discussions has been blocked by a small number of states at the GGE in Geneva. The main countries refusing action there have included Russia, the United States, Israel, and a handful of others that are actively building autonomous weapon systems for use in war, policing, and border militarisation.
It is ironic, then, that some of the governments blocking the development of legally binding rules on autonomous weapons in Geneva spoke out at the First Committee against states blocking progress in multilateral forums. “We have become accustomed to certain procedures, and unfortunately in Geneva, this has led to nothing but stagnation and understandable frustration,” lamented the US delegation. “That needs to end. But whatever happens in Geneva, it is important for the Committee we are here to participate in to carry out its work, to identify opportunities where forward movement is possible, and to identify ways to take those steps forward together.” Similarly, the UK delegation argued, “The bad faith of a handful of countries who, even if isolated, appear determined to block any meaningful progress should not detract from the determination of the majority.”
These arguments against the tyranny of the minority have been delivered repeatedly by states of the Global Majority for decades. It is difficult, however, to see past the hypocrisy inherent in the US and UK delegations making these same assertions, especially for anyone who has spent countless hours in conference rooms listening to them object to meaningful work on nuclear weapons, autonomous weapons, small arms and ammunition, the arms trade, outer space, and so much more. That said, now that these delegations are on the record urging the majority not to allow a handful of intransigent states to block them from acting, it offers a platform from which to encourage these states to stop blocking progress in the first place.
Solidarity, peace, and justice
Breaking the disarmament deadlock has been the objective of the majority of states operating in the multilateral system throughout this system’s history. While the “superpower rivalries,” as Sri Lanka described them, have ensured this deadlock has persisted over time, the so-called international community has managed to make progress regardless. Banning biological weapons, chemical weapons, blinding laser weapons, antipersonnel landmines, cluster munitions, and nuclear weapons, as well as establishing commitments on the arms trade, the use of explosive weapons, and protecting education from attack, have been achieved through courageous efforts of states, international organisations, activists, and affected communities working together. This solidarity in action is needed to achieve even more.
“Our collective future depends on the solidarity and cooperation we forge within and beyond this committee,” said Nepal. To this end, Maldives urged states to carve a path towards “a world where the instruments of violence are replaced by tools of progress; a world where the dialogue of cooperation supersedes the language of war; and, most importantly, a world where peace becomes the cornerstone of our shared human legacy.”
Those work through the First Committee to build norms and laws for peace have their work cut out for them, especially when existing norms and laws are being ignored or destroyed by those who seek power through violence. But, as Liechtenstein said, “Only through respect for international law and effective and inclusive multilateralism will we find our way back to conflict prevention and sustaining peace and thus to disarmament.” To this end, Liechtenstein called for decreasing military expenditure, because military spending “comes at a high opportunity cost,” including the mitigation of climate change. Furthermore, Liechtenstein noted:
Warfare itself negatively affects the environment, contributes to pollution and biodiversity loss. And militarization remains a major impediment to gender equality, including through the disproportionate effect of armed conflicts on women and girls, their limited access to education and economic opportunities, as well as by nourishing patriarchal systems with weapons as expressions of harmful masculinity and dominance. We applaud the important work of the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) and echo its founder Jane Addams, the second woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, who said that “true peace is not merely the absence of war, it is the presence of justice.”
[PDF] ()