First Committee Monitor, Vol. 22, No. 6
Editorial: From the Ashes of the First Committee
9 November 2024
By Ray Acheson
As another First Committee session draws to a close, it’s challenging to feel positive about the current direction of travel. Longstanding disputes between heavily militarised countries continued to undermine a sense of collective commitment to disarmament, while the objections of a few governments to consolidating workstreams or embarking on new initiatives raises practical questions about how work will be carried forward. An hour of the final day was spent in a circular discussion about whether or not to adopt the programme of work for next year, because the Russian delegation was upset about not getting visas in time for some of its delegates to attend this year’s session. In the end, the programme of work for 2025 was adopted, but Russia disassociated from the consensus and warned it would “introduce proposals for its improvement.”
The progress that was made over the past five weeks was hard won. Among other things, most of the nuclear-armed states tried to derail the establishment of a new UN study on the effects of nuclear war, voted against or abstained on providing victim assistance and environmental remediation to states affected by the use or testing of nuclear weapons, and managed to significantly water down the initiative to hold consultations on autonomous weapons through the UN General Assembly.
However, these heavily militarised states were not able to prevent any initiatives going forward, which means most countries, together with civil society, can continue to engage in meaningful efforts for disarmament and demilitarisation. The UN study on the effects of nuclear war (L.39) can build renewed public understanding of the risks and dangers of nuclear weapons, which in turn can help bolster momentum for their elimination. The international meeting on nuclear justice (L.74) can likewise help draw attention to the very real harms caused by nuclear weapons and help support the work underway for victim assistance and environmental remediation. The consultations on autonomous weapons (L.77) can help elevate the issue among more delegations, ensure a more comprehensive assessment of the risks and challenges posed by such weapons, and build momentum for their prohibition.
None of this work will be easy. It will be undertaken in an increasing volatile and violent world. The re-election of a fascist game show host to the presidency of the most heavily militarised state in the world does not bode well for the pursuit of peace and disarmament. Continued material support for genocide by several Western countries, civil wars and human rights abuses motivated by the pursuit of power in many countries, the modernisation of nuclear weapons, the rampant circulation of small arms and ammunition, the use of chemical weapons, landmines, and cluster munitions, and the relentless development of new ways to kill through technology, kind of takes the wind out of the 77 resolutions agreed over the last week.
In addition, the fight between the Cold War-esque US and Russian blocs over resolution L.7/Rev.1, aimed at preventing the deployment of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in outer space, was alarming. Each side tried to outdo the other in emphasising their commitment to preventing an arms race in outer space, but the feeling the accusations flying back and forth generated was a wariness that maybe both sides are pursuing the weaponisation of the final frontier?
Meanwhile, the hostility of Russia to combining its working group on outer space with the United Kingdom’s through resolution L.61/Rev.1—and its opposition to the participation of civil society in that process—makes it unclear how that will proceed, even though 168 states voted in favour of the merger. In its objection to combining its working group on “further practical measures for the prevention of an arms race in outer space” with the working group on “reducing space threats through norms, rules and principles of responsible behaviours,” Russia asserted that the concept of “responsible behaviour” is “outright damaging” because it “opens the way to the placement of weapons in outer space and the use of force.” In its fight with the US over the resolution on the placement of WMD in outer space, Russia made similar arguments that by only addressing WMD, the US and its allies are intentionally leaving open the possibility of testing and placing other types of weapons in space, and should not just reaffirm the commitments already contained within the Outer Space Treaty.
Amazingly, in driving this point home, Russia explicitly said it “is unacceptable to give the impression that UN Member States are prepared to limit themselves to reaffirming already existing international legal norms.” For anyone that attends meetings of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), this will be astounding news. Russia has for years asserted ad nauseum that existing international law is sufficient on cluster munitions, incendiary weapons, the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, mines other than antipersonnel mines, and autonomous weapon systems. Time and again, and again, it has prevented work in that forum on every single issue precisely by asserting that existing laws and norms are sufficient and that states can’t possibly go beyond what already exists.
Russia’s longstanding position has been debilitating to meaningful work in the CCW. So, it’s important that Russia has finally moved beyond its erroneous interpretation of what is possible and necessary in relation to developing new international law in order to constrain global violence, prevent human suffering, and save lives. Presumably, this newfound interest in creating new disarmament and arms control law will extend to other forums and issues—otherwise, it would imply that Russia is simply grandstanding on this occasion and is not actually committed to achieving global peace and security through international law; that it is merely politicising one particular issue because of a rivalry with a specific state and does not actually stand by its convictions.
Similarly, the United States, which expressed wariness that a new study on nuclear war would “be used to promote political goals,” surely isn’t just using a resolution about WMD in space to promote its political goals in a game with Russia? And when France, the United Kingdom, and the United States collectively accused Russia of attempting to “lock us into the same stagnant debate” on outer space, surely that’s not what they are trying to do on autonomous weapons by watering down and undermining the resolution geared toward breaking that topic out of the “same stagnant debate” in the CCW?
In case it’s too subtle, the point here is that the hypocrisy and point scoring of the nuclear-armed states has escalated at this year’s First Committee—but rhetorically, it puts the rest of the disarmament community in an interesting position of having new tools for holding them to account. In the forums and initiatives ahead, delegates should use their words at the First Committee to insist upon concrete action against nuclear weapons, autonomous weapons, outer space weapons, and more.
Because more than anything, after five weeks of words, we need to see some action to back it all up. As the Chair of the First Committee, Ambassador Maritza Chan of Costa Rica, said in her closing remarks on Friday, “As conflicts rage across regions and tensions rising in many corners of the world, it is more important than ever for us to work together in the pursuit of non-proliferation, disarmament, arms control, and sustainable peace.” She noted:
As so many of you said during this session, weapons do not keep the world safe or deter war. We can only build true security by working together to address the root causes of violence. We must cooperate, not compete, with each other, in order to survive and thrive in our dynamic world. The changes and developments in our world are not out of hands. We are responsible for the decisions that can take us deeper into conflict and mistrust, or that can honour the dreams of those who created the UN Charter in the ashes of war, to save succeeding generations from that kind of horror.
[PDF] ()