First Committee Monitor, Vol. 23, No. 5
Editorial: Tech Won't Save Us—Only Justice Can
1 November 2025
By Ray Acheson
As the First Committee wrapped up its thematic debates on outer space, other disarmament measures, regional disarmament, and disarmament machinery and began taking action on resolutions this past week, war and genocide continued to rage around the world. During the discussions about emerging technologies and high-tech battlefields—from artificial intelligence to cyberspace to outer space—an overarching plea from most states was for an end to the conflicts currently being waged with weapons that already exist, rather than pursuing new tools of death and domination.
High-tech weapons and new battlescapes
Throughout the various thematic debates this past week, many delegations highlighted the urgency of preventing technological developments from turning into battlefields. Outlining the importance of outer space infrastructure and information and communication technologies for human and planetary wellbeing, most stages called for legally binding rules and norms against the militarisation and weaponisation of these environments.
Equatorial Guinea reaffirmed that no type of weapon should be placed in outer space, emphasising, “Space must not be contaminated, mined, or militarized, as it constitutes a universal good that we must preserve for future generations.” Austria raised concern about the potential humanitarian consequences of a conflict in outer space on people on Earth. Malaysia pointed out that “maintaining the use of outer space for exclusively peaceful purposes is imperative, especially in times of rising tension and major-power rivalry.”
These are just a few examples of many from the chorus of statements calling for the prevention of an arms race and armed conflict in outer space. And as Norway noted, the consensus agreement that the UN Charter and international humanitarian law apply in outer space “does not legitimize the use of force in outer space.” It emphasised, “The applicability of humanitarian law does not diminish the obligation of states to refrain from the threat or use of force whether in space or on Earth.”
Yet, from the accusations flying back and forth between Russia and the United States in the right of replies during the outer space cluster, it seems that we are unnervingly close to the weaponisation of and use of force in space. Each accused the other of deploying space weapons or engaging in malicious space behaviour, from Russia’s reportedly successful test of a nuclear-powered cruise missile to the United States’ Golden Dome missile “defence” project.
Meanwhile, in relation to information and communication technologies, many states outlined their experience with cyber-attacks. And while the progress made in the open-ended working group on this subject was welcomed by all—including the establishment of a permanent global mechanism—cyberspace is nevertheless increasingly being used as a zone of conflict. Add to this the threats of artificial intelligence (AI), and the situation is even more dire.
There has been more than a decade of work at the UN to try to prevent the development and use of autonomous weapon systems. For the past few years there has been work to address the risks and challenges of incorporating AI into the military domain. Concerns are mounting in relation to the integration of AI into nuclear command, control, and communication systems. As Mexico argued, “It is imperative that the international community avoid a narrative of the benefits of artificial intelligence for military purposes.” It pointed out that arguments that AI will improve “efficiency” only “reinforces the vision of more efficient militarization, rather than a preventive approach to conflict.”
Yet, once again, Russia and the United States appear to be moving full steam ahead with disregard to any of the legal, security, political, moral, and ethical concerns around weaponising or militarising AI. The United States said it is integrating AI capabilities into its armed forces and asserted that “efforts to control AI through the UN or other global bodies are counterproductive.” It emphasised that the US government “rejects all attempts by international bodies to assert centralized control and global governance over AI” and that “AI governance must respect national sovereignty.” Similarly, Russia argued that there are no convincing arguments to limit any weapon system using AI and that the principles of humanity, the dictates of public conscience, and human rights are not a “sufficient condition for the introduction of additional restrictive and prohibitive regimes.”
Some governments try to have their cake and eat it, too, arguing that it is possible to integrate AI into military and weapon systems in a “responsible” manner. Some states called for “harnessing potential while mitigating risks of misuse.” But the risks aren’t just related to misuse, they are inherent to the technology. As I outlined at a side event on military AI hosted by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute and the Permanent Mission of Germany to the UN this past week, bias is either intentionally or unintentionally coded into algorithms. AI systems hallucinate and generate other erroneous and often hateful outputs. AI is environmentally catastrophic, with its use already using more energy than entire cities. Where AI has been used in military operations, it has aided genocide and war crimes. The risks, then, of military AI are known, documented, and devastating.
Ongoing bloodshed and threats of more violence
Meanwhile, as a few states develop even more technologies of harm and pursue even more battlefields to use them in, there is already a staggering amount of weapons being used to commit unconscionable levels of violence globally. As the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) reported earlier this month, there are currently more than 130 conflicts worldwide. Among these, genocide is ongoing in Sudan, with just this week a massacre of thousands of civilians in El-Fasher after 18 months of siege. Russia’s unlawful invasion and war in Ukraine continues. Conflict continues to devastate lives and land in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Myanmar, Yemen, and many more places.
As if ongoing bloodshed weren’t enough, the US government is trying to manufacture consent for war in Venezuela. In recent weeks, the US military has launched several attacks against boats in the Caribbean, killing dozens of Venezuelan, Colombian, and Trinidadian citizens in a series of extrajudicial killings. The United States is using the pretext of its “war on drugs” to justify these actions and for sending B-52 bombers to the region and threatening a ground invasion. However, most of the world understands that this is about regime change and control of Venezuelan oil. The US government is also escalating its threats against Colombia, which has been a leader in the Hague Group’s effots to end Israel’s genocide. As a joint statement of Latin American and Caribbean leaders says, “We have lived this nightmare before. US military interventions of the 20th century brought dictatorships, disappearances, and decades of trauma to our nations. We know the terrible cost of allowing foreign powers to wage war on our continent. We cannot—we will not—allow history to repeat itself.”
In another case of history repeating itself, this past week the US president also instructed his war department to resume nuclear testing on an “equal basis” with China and Russia. This is confusing, because neither China nor Russia are testing nuclear weapons. And if he means testing nuclear weapon delivery systems, then the US already regularly does that. And, in the US, it is the department of energy, not the department of war, that is responsible for nuclear weapons. While it is thus unclear what the order is, it is very clear that any resumption of explosive nuclear testing would mean a return to an era of devastating humanitarian consequences and heighten risks of nuclear war even further. It would be reckless and dangerous for global and national regional security. Testing means using a nuclear weapon.
Meanwhile, Israel’s genocide of Palestinians continues despite the “ceasefire,” with Israel launching airstrikes and restricting humanitarian aid, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians since the ceasefire was agreed. During right of replies in the First Committee this past week, the Israeli delegation continued to deny reality, repeating its claims that supporters of Palestine “hate the truth” and are violently anti-Semetic. Israel’s loss of control over public perception of the situation, with the genocide being livestreamed and documented despite Israel’s best efforts to conceal reality, means the government seems to be increasingly unhinged in its attempt to suppress facts.
Over in the Third Committee, the Israeli delegation accused Francesca Albanese, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, of being a witch, saying that her latest report is another page in her spellbook. Albanese responded by noting that it is “grotesque and frankly delusional that a genocidal state can’t respond to the substance of my findings” and instead resorts to calling her a witch. She said, “If I had the power to make spells, I would use it not for vengeance, I would use it to stop your crimes once and for all.”
The implicit violence of this accusation cannot be overstated. Throughout history, the UN Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights explains, “witchcraft related beliefs and practices have resulted in serious violations of human rights, including, beatings, banishment, cutting of body parts, and amputation of limbs, torture and murder.” Morever, many women throughout history who have spoken truth to power have been accused of witchcraft and subjected to this violence. To have a representative of a state currently committing genocide make such hostile, gendered accusations, in the United Nations no less, is chilling and unacceptable.
Time for a new world order
Reflecting upon all of this ongoing violence, threats of new violence, and development of new weapons and battlescapes, it’s clearer than ever that we urgently need to change course. As Kyrgyzstan said this past week, we don’t need new weapons. We need new approaches to peace and security.
We need approaches that are rooted in justice, for peace is not possible without it. We need approaches that addresses root causes of violence, including the political economies of war that drive so much of the global armed conflict and genocide that the world is suffering through today. We need approaches that confront the economic profit from weapon manufacturing and arms sales; we need approaches that address the quest for dominance and the material reality of death and destruction that our current world order reflects. And we need approaches that address past harm and create new, effective institutions for accountability, reparation, and building a future of solidarity and equality.
In its regional disarmament statement, Equatorial Guinea pointed out that Africa “has witnessed the devastating consequences of military interventions and policies of interference that, far from resolving conflicts, have destabilized entire regions.” It called for “a profound ethical and political reflection,” asking:
Shouldn't those who caused the destruction of African states and facilitated the spread of terrorism assume their responsibility and repair the damage suffered by the African people, just as Germany compensated the countries affected by the Second World War? Africa cannot continue to be the silent victim of other people's mistakes, nor the stage where powers experiment with their geopolitical strategies without being held accountable for their consequences.
The same is true of all other regions and peoples whose lives, land, and water have been destroyed through colonialism, imperialism, and militarism. Preventing future violence and repairing the damage caused should be the only priority on the international community’s agenda. As delegations continue taking action on the First Committee’s resolutions next week, and then translate these agreements into policy and practice, they must let this approach guide their decisions.
[PDF] ()