First Committee Monitor, Vol. 21, No. 5
Editorial: Never Again Means Now
4 November 2023
By Ray Acheson
Amidst Russia’s aggression against Ukraine; rising global economic inequalities, ecological injustices, and geopolitical tensions; and the pouring of trillions of dollars into militarism and war, the President of the UN General Assembly named trust and solidarity the theme of the Assembly’s work this year. Only a few weeks into the Assembly’s session, Hamas attacked Israeli civilians and Israel unleashed a horrific war of collective punishment upon Palestinians. Many Western governments defended Israel’s actions and provided weapons to it, even as their citizens took to the streets in protest. Each of these developments are related. Each relies upon previous impunities to normalise war crimes and crimes against humanity until even genocide can take place in full view of the entire world and those who stand against it are criminalised.
The Orwellian reality of the rhetorical “rules-based international order” is perhaps most exposed at the United Nations. And this year’s First Committee session was no model of “solidarity among nations.” An epic number of rights of reply were issued almost every day, forcing an extra meeting to be added to the Committee’s schedule. The contention voiced throughout the general and thematic debates culminated in a somewhat chaotic action phase at the end of the Committee’s session. Competing resolutions on outer space and cyber security led to the establishment of multiple processes. Some of these might build upon one another, others seem designed to challenge each other—in particular, two simultaneous open-ended working groups on outer space. Oral amendments to two resolutions were introduced from the floor and were defeated in votes—with one being extremely close to passing. A surprise call for a vote on a paragraph in a resolution that has been previously adopted without a vote on the final day led to confusion about procedure and points of order being raised.
Preventing autonomous violence
One positive, of course, was the new resolution on autonomous weapon systems, which earned a slam-dunk adoption of 164 in favour, five against, and eight abstentions. The resolution, which requests the UN Secretary-General prepare a report reflecting the views of states and others on ways to address the related challenges and concerns raised by autonomous weapons, builds on growing momentum for the prohibition of weapons that operate without meaningful human control. In October, the UN Secretary-General and the International Committee of the Red Cross President made a joint call for new international law on autonomous weapons, building on the Secretary-General’s earlier call for states “to conclude by 2026 a legally binding instrument” and on the joint statement by 70 states delivered at last year’s First Committee. As the Stop Killer Robots campaign notes, this resolution “has provided a much needed infusion of energy and purpose into ongoing international discussions on autonomous weapons, and an avenue to bring this important issue to the attention of all UN members.”
While much more work is needed to safeguard humanity from autonomous weapons, the adoption of this resolution shows that there are still moments when most governments can agree on some certain fundamental things. And while divergences among these states within the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) on autonomous weapons indicate a challenging road ahead in elaborating a legally binding instrument on autonomous weapons, the moral repugnancy of machines taking human life is still something that gives most governments pause.
Unfortunately, Russia and Israel, responsible for much of the global violence transpiring during this year’s First Committee, are among the few states that did not support this resolution. Both have opposed meaningful action in the GGE for years, and neither are interested in work being pursued through the General Assembly. Instead, these two governments are actively developing and deploying weapons with increasingly autonomous technologies. Yet, despite these similarities, the violence enacted by these two states is being treated very differently.
Prosecution versus “thoughts and prayers”
The contrast between many Western governments’ statements on Israel’s actions in Gaza and Russia’s in Ukraine could not be starker. The European Union, for example, described Russia’s “illegal war of aggression against Ukraine” as “not only a blatant violation of international law, including the UN Charter, but also a humanitarian catastrophe for Ukraine and its people.” The EU said this catastrophe was “brought about by the Russian Federation in flagrant disrespect for international humanitarian law and human rights law, and backed by Russia’s massive disinformation campaign.” The EU said it “supports the work of the International Criminal Court and measures to ensure accountability for the most serious international crimes including war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide,” noting, “There can be no impunity for these crimes.”
In relation to Gaza, meanwhile, the EU merely said, “At this time, our thoughts are with all the innocent victims, Israelis, Palestinians and citizens from many other countries.” Reminiscent of the common empty refrain voiced by US politicians after mass shootings and acts of gun violence, Palestinians suffering under genocide by Israel get “thoughts and prayers,” while Russia’s unlawful aggression in Ukraine is worthy of International Criminal Court prosecution.
The double standards are glaring. Both Russia and Israel have attacked civilians in pursuit of colonial interests in breach of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international human rights law. Both states have bombarded populated areas with explosive violence, leaving homes, hospitals, markets, schools, sanitation and water facilities, and other critical infrastructure in ruin. Ireland, while not naming either Russia or Israel in its remarks, spoke against this type of violence, reiterating “that any use of military force must comply with international humanitarian law,” in particular “the obligation to comply with IHL principles of distinction and proportionality.” It urged all actors “to ensure their weapons, means and methods of warfare are IHL compliant.” Ireland further said it “is gravely concerned by continued attacks on civilians and civilian objects,” and it strongly condemned “these attacks and stress that civilians and civilian objects are not legitimate military objects and must be protected.” It noted “with deep concern the widespread use of explosive weapons, which pose unacceptable and long-lasting threats to civilians, and civilian infrastructure.”
The weapons behind the war
In this context, Ireland highlighted the importance of the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences arising from the use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, which so far 83 states have endorsed. Yet many of the Declaration’s other endorsers did not address the use of explosive weapons in Gaza. Some, such as Norway, critiqued Russia’s bombardment of towns and cities in Ukraine but did not address the same conduct by Israel in Gaza. Similarly, other states throughout the First Committee condemned Russia’s use of banned weapons such as cluster munitions and antipersonnel landmines, but did not address Israel’s use of incendiary weapons.
This hypocrisy around the use of weapons also relates to their sale. Several Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) states parties, including Canada, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, sell weapons to Israel. In its First Committee statement on conventional weapons, Canada said the ATT “represents a growing and essential international norm. As we approach ten years since its inception, the Treaty is at a critical juncture where we must take the necessary means to ensure its sustainability. This is key to achieving our common objectives of reducing human suffering and contributing to lasting peace, security, and stability.” Yet last year, Canada exported over 21 million CAD in military equipment to Israel, including bombs, torpedoes, missiles, and other explosive weapons.
The United Kingdom, meanwhile, has exported over 146 million GBP in weapons to Israel since 2018 as well as 336 million GBP of components for the F35 stealth combat aircraft since 2016. At the First Committee, the UK delegation said it supports “Israel in its legitimate efforts to defend itself and its people.” Israel is currently using the F35 in its bombardment of Gaza, killing thousands of civilians. To this, the UK merely said, “whilst we work with partners to deescalate tensions, we call on all parties to act in accordance with IHL.”
Acting in accordance with IHL requires an immediate ceasefire. As demonstrated by the vote in the UN General Assembly on a resolution calling for “an immediate, durable and sustained humanitarian truce leading to a cessation of hostilities,” the vast majority of government in the world support a ceasefire. Yet those sending weapons to Israel have so far refused to call for any end to the relentless bombardment or ground invasion of Gaza. Canada, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom abstained on the General Assembly resolution, while the United States—Israel’s biggest weapons provider—voted against it.
As Equatorial Guinea noted during the First Committee’s conventional weapons debate, the arms trade “is driven by the flexibility in control of some developed States and arms manufacturers, by prioritizing the business of their arms and ammunition companies for exports, rather than respect for the law and international security.” This seems blatantly obvious when applied to the case of Israel, where for any arms transfers to be lawful, Israel would need to stop committing genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, IHL violations, and human rights abuses. Instead, some of the world’s largest arms exporters are facilitating these harms.
In the First Committee, many governments, including those with long-held suspicions of the double standards of ATT states parties, have called for a ceasefire. Egypt stressed “that the ongoing dangerous escalation in Gaza, requires an urgent action including an immediate and unconditional cease fire, as well as halting the indiscriminate attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure in Gaza.” Mauritania said it “strongly condemns the heinous crimes and horrific massacres being committed by the Israeli occupying power,” and it called on the international community “to assume its legal and moral responsibilities to impose an immediate cessation of the genocide to which the Palestinian people are subjected and to provide them with urgent protection and humanitarian aid.”
From explosive violence to nuclear violence
Beyond a ceasefire, though, much more is needed. A pause in the slaughter is not sufficient to prevent the genocide of Palestinians. Not only does Israel need to stop the bombardment of Gaza, but it must end its occupation of Palestinian land. The prevention of genocide requires a profound shift in international support for Israel’s policies of apartheid and settler colonialism. This seems underway globally, with many countries questioning their diplomatic relationship with Israel, people rising up around the world in support of a ceasefire, and multiple direct actions against weapon manufacturers and transit hubs that are sending weapons to Israel.
Yet those who profit from war are continuing to enable Israel’s genocide of Palestinians even while they claim to support international law and a “rules-based order”. This hypocrisy has echoes in nuclear policy. The governments that are actively supporting Israel’s violations of international law are also, to a large extent, those supporting nuclear weapons. As seen in the vote on the First Committee resolution on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the countries enabling Israel’s genocide are also enabling the perpetuation of nuclear violence. These governments reject the TPNW and instead continue investing in nuclear weapons and nuclear “deterrence” doctrines, risking the further proliferation and risk of use of these weapons of mass destruction.
Displaying serious cognitive dissonance, some of the same countries saying no to the TPNW and yes to Palestinian genocide voted in favour of the new resolution on addressing the legacy of nuclear weapons through victim assistance and environmental remediation. At the same time, they opposed the annual resolution on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. Australia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, and Türkiye jointly explained that they abstained from this resolution due to “the incompatibility of language contained in the resolution with our security arrangements.”
Thus, while these governments acknowledge that nuclear weapons cause catastrophic harms that require remediation and assistance, they still see these weapons as legitimate tools of “security”—even as nuclear-armed states like Russia, Israel, and the United States act as bullies emboldened by the perceived power granted by their atomic bombs.
More surprisingly, cognitive dissonance apparently goes both ways. Many of the Pacific Island states that have suffered from nuclear weapon testing, as well as Austria, a champion of nuclear abolition and many other humanitarian disarmament initiatives, voted against the UN General Assembly resolution calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. For governments of countries that have experienced grave harm and/or have led brave efforts to hold nuclear-armed states to account, this abdication of care is inconsistent and unacceptable.
Solidarity in action
In an op-ed urging her government to reconsider its support for Israel’s genocidal actions, Marshallese poet and activist Kathy Jetñil-Kijiner wrote that people of the Marshall Islands should care about Palestine “because we’ve been forcibly displaced from our lands, just as the Palestinians have, and we’ve experienced our own horrors that the international community willfully turns away from.”
It is exactly this kind of global solidarity that is imperative to overturning the structures of violence underpinning the global system of international relations and political economy. Rather than turning away from global violence into our own sources of disempowerment and marginalisation, solidarity offers the opportunity to hold space for each other and find common roots of our collective power. As activist June Jordan wrote:
Activism is not issue-specific.
It’s a moral posture that, steady state,
propels you forward, from one hard
hour to the next.
Believing that you can do something
to make things better, you do
something, rather than nothing.
You assume responsibility for the
privilege of your abilities.
You do whatever you can.
You reach beyond yourself in your
imagination, and in your wish for
understanding, and for change.
You admit the limitations of individual
perspectives.
You trust somebody else.
You do not turn away.
Activism is for everyone. Diplomats, dock workers, tech companies, financiers, students, teachers, politicians, ordinary people everywhere must all stand up, must not turn away, must do all we can to prevent yet another horror against humanity. Never again is now.
[PDF] ()