First Committee Monitor, Vol. 22, No. 2
Editorial: Genocide, Nuclear War, and AI Weapons Aren't Normal. Let's Shut It Down.
12 October 2024
By Ray Acheson
The perception that we’re in a time of transition at this First Committee isn’t just coming from the autumn leaves changing colour outside the United Nations. It’s also coming from inside the building, where feelings of uncertainty lead to feelings of insecurity, creating a sense, as Austria said, that things are in motion. “New and multiple arms race dynamics are accelerating,” remarked Ambassador Kmentt. “From a re-emergence of nuclear armament and nuclear threats, to the rapid development and deployment of autonomous weapons,” to “outer space becoming seen by some as a war-fighting domain.”
Switzerland added to this list of things in motion, highlighting that there “are more than 120 armed conflicts worldwide, and we are witnessing massive violations of international humanitarian law.” The UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs noted, “Global military expenditure continues unabated with skyrocketing investment in new weaponry and equipment—all against the backdrop of a fast-approaching deadline for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals,” while Cambodia lamented that, “Despite the tireless efforts of many states, we are witnessing the resurgence of arms races, the modernization of nuclear arsenals, and the unchecked flow of conventional weapons into conflict zones.”
Yet so far, UN member states have not been able to effectively address these challenges. Part of this is because of the problematic institutional structure of the UN. Most of the core threats to international peace and security stem from the violent behaviour of the five permanent, nuclear-armed members of the UN Security Council and the other nuclear-armed states. Whether it’s their arms racing and arsenal modernisation, or their provision of weapons to zones of conflict and their proxy wars, or their past and current colonial and neoimperialist interventions around the world, the nuclear-armed states are responsible in one way or another for most of the world’s ills. As Mexico said, the possession of nuclear weapons “is an unacceptable part of the problems we are currently experiencing; it is not part of the solution.”
Ever more militarism
The dominance of the nuclear-armed states over the UN system is exactly why, as Egypt pointed out, “the disarmament-related content [of] the Pact for the Future demonstrated a low level of ambition to address the worrying state of disarmament, particularly nuclear disarmament.” It’s also why, instead of finding ways to collaborate and cooperate, these same states are working with allies to further militarise the world, including through the development of autonomous weapon systems and the weaponisation of artificial intelligence (AI), outer space, cyber space, and any other space they think they can utilise to kill and control others.
Thus, as Ireland regretted, just as it failed to advance nuclear disarmament, the Pact for the Future also “failed to restate the essential commitment that human beings must make, and remain accountable for, decisions over the use of lethal force.” The drive to use algorithms and AI in the operation of weapons and warfare, as well as policing and border control, poses grave risk to human life and dignity. Mexico noted that while “arguments used by proponents of integrating artificial intelligence into the military field, especially those related to autonomous weapons, speak of a better selection and discrimination of military targets that, in theory, would protect civilians and other non-combatants,” this argument only “reaffirms the vision of a more efficient militarization, rather than a preventive vision of conflicts.” Indeed, the reality is that there is no weapon that can make war “safer” for civilians. Weapons only make war more likely, and, as the Nordic countries pointed out, “Every conflict makes disarmament more difficult.”
We have seen this clearly with Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the response of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, which have increased their military expenditure, enhanced the profits of their weapon manufacturers, and even expanded their alliance’s membership. We’re also seeing the impact of conflict on disarmament with Israel’s genocide of Palestinians and now its war against Lebanon, which has enriched the shareholders of the major military contractors, oil companies, and technology firms supplying weapon systems and war support while resulting in the death, displacement, detention, and untold suffering of Palestinians and others in the region.
Expanding explosive violence
A key part of Israel’s genocidal campaign against Palestinians over the past year, since Hamas’ attack on 7 October 2023, has been relentless bombing of populated areas, which has destroyed homes, hospitals, schools, markets, orchards, water and sanitation facilities, refugee camps, humanitarian aid convoys, and other civilan infrastructure. “The use of explosive weapons in populated areas remains one of the most significant threats to civilians in armed conflict,” said the UN High Representative for Disarmament Affairs. “Such use of these weapons is unconscionable in light of the observed pattern of civilian harm and the likelihood of indiscriminate effects. The horrific scenes from Ukraine or Gaza speak for themselves.”
Along with several delegations, the High Representative urged all countries to endorse and implement the Political Declaration on Strengthening the Protection of Civilians from the Humanitarian Consequences Arising from the Use of Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas. As the Nordic countries said, if fully implemented, the political declaration can ensure compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL).
Yet, despite widespread recognition of the catastrophic harm being caused, Israel’s bombing of Gaza continues with impunity. This has emboldened it to now attack Lebanon. This, too, has been met with condemnation—but little action to stop it.
During the first week of general debate at the First Committee, many delegations—to varying degrees—criticised Israel’s actions against Palestinians and/or against Lebanon, including the Arab Group, the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf, the European Union, the Non-Aligned Movement, Brazil, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Mauritania, the Netherlands, Palestine, Peru, South Africa, Sweden, and Yemen.
The Arab Group decried “the bloodbath” being carried out by Israel, which has destroyed Gaza and caused massive displacement. The Arab Group noted that the Israeli war machine is driven by an appetite for more death, and as such is now claiming lives in Lebanon. The Lebanese delegation described the extent of these attacks, including Israel’s rigging of mobile and wireless communication devices to explode, its thousands of airstrikes against populated areas, and its use of incendiary weapons, including white phosphorus.
The African Group, meanwhile, expressed deep concern with the “unfortunate statement by an Israeli Minister last October for suggesting detonation of nuclear weapons on Gaza strip,” saying, “These are shocking statements that require solemn condemnation, and further reinforce the urgent necessity of a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the region.” The Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf echoed these concerns and said the UN Security Council must ensure these threats are not acted upon.
The Nordic countries expressed concern that the “war in Gaza is causing immense suffering among the civilian populations,” and noted that “the possibility of a larger regional conflict, with a negative impact on nuclear non-proliferation, looms over the Middle East.” Switzerland urged all parties to respect their obligations under international law, while Estonia noted the importance of protecting civilians. Many delegations called for a ceasefire in both Palestine and Lebanon, and urged Israel to comply with international law and relevant UN Security Council resolutions, including 1701 (2006) and 2735 (2024).
Only Israel spoke categorically in defence of its actions, claiming that it has a right to defend itself—which is not accurate. As several Arab states pointed out during their right of replies, occupying forces do not have a right to self-defence under international law. While Israel has experienced attacks from Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran, which have impacted Israeli civilians to varying degrees and are also subject to IHL, it is Israel’s actions as an occupying state and its attacks against other countries that have led to this escalation. Further, as Liechtenstein noted, “Acts of revenge are never permitted under international law, while retaliation and reprisals must comply with IHL.” Indeed, IHL is not for when countries feel “safe;” it is in force all of the time. Similarly, Ireland pointed out, “Disarmament conventions are not obligations for peace time only. Civilians must be protected in war.” The Chair of the First Committee, Ambassador Maritza Chan of Costa Rica, likewise argued, “It is times of heightened hostilities that our commitment to humanitarian disarmament is more critical than ever.”
As an evasive manoever around these facts, Israel tries to claim that it is the victim, not the aggressor. In the fields of psychology and domestic violence, there is an acronym for this: Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender (DARVO). It describes a manipulative tactic often used by abusers to avoid taking responsibility for their actions and to shift the blame onto their victims. Israel’s denial of war crimes (i.e. claiming it has not bombed hospitals or targeted journalists or killed children), its rhetoric against those condemning its actions (i.e. accusing everyone who wants the massacre to stop of being antisemetic), and its attempt to reverse the roles of victim and abuser (i.e. trying to gaslight the world into thinking that the victim is the nuclear-armed state unleashing untold destruction upon an entire civilian population that it has occupied and oppressed for decades), is arguably classic DARVO.
And yet, even as many delegations—including the United States—say they want a ceasefire, their governments continue to facilitate Israel’s violations of international law by providing it with weapons or other material support. The United States alone has sent more than 50,000 tons of weapons and military equipment to Israel since 7 October 2023. Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, Italy, and possibly other governments also continue to arm Israel with the bombs, bullets, aircraft, parts, components, and other material it needs to continue the genocide and now its war in Lebanon as well. Some governments, such as those of Canada and the United Kingdom, have announced halts to certain arms export licences, yet continue to ship essential parts and components, including for the F-35 fighter jet. Several countries are supplying Israel with jet fuel while others are providing communications and electronic intelligence support.
This material support for genocide undermines any critique of Israel’s behaviour made by the states supplying this aid. It offers Israel impunity, creating safe passage for it to continue its rampage throughout the region.
Normalising massive violence
This impunity and material support for genocide also does the work of trying to normalise extreme violence. This has a huge psychological impact on most of us who have empathy for the suffering of others and who want to prevent harm.
Listening to most statements in the First Committee this past week, it’s easy to allow oneself to treat it as abstract. We act as if it’s normal that once a year we gather all the recognised governments of the world in one place and then listen to a few of them justify genocide or defend their capacity to unleash a nuclear holocaust. We pretend its normal to sit in a conference room and appeal to governments to stop killing people, to stop building new kinds of weapons to kill people, to get rid of the weapons they already have that are killing people or that could kill people. But none of this is normal.
Switzerland referred to comments made Giles Duley, the UN Global Advocate for persons with disabilities in conflict and peacebuilding situations, who recently highlighted the bombing of Guernica in 1937 and the global protests it sparked. Duley’s asked: “Where is that anger and outrage? […] How have we lost that anger and outrage?”
Not all of us have lost our anger or outrage, of course. People around the world have been out in the streets protesting the genocide, setting up encampments, blockading ports, disrupting weapons production, spray-painting banks and media institutions that are financially or rhetorically facilitating Israel’s violence. Some states have also taken direct action, with Namibia and Angola blocking a ship carrying explosives to Israel from docking in their ports, Colombia refusing to supply Israel with coal, and South Africa bringing a case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Activists, politicians, and workers in Palestine, Cyprus, France, Gibraltar, Greece, Italy, Malta, Morocco, Spain, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have coordinated their efforts to successfully delay military jet fuel deliveries.
All of these actions require anger and outrage, but also love and compassion for our fellow human beings. And here at the First Committee, several delegates, in particular those of Arab states, have spoken with justified intensity and emotion this past week. Hearing these interventions was a welcome relief—they marked a stand againt the normalisation of genocide, a refusal to accept slaughter as some kind of status quo.
Of course, emotion in such forums is often ridiculed in a gendered way. We have seen this time and again with nuclear weapons in particular, where nuclear-armed states describe those who want to ban these weapon or talk about their horrific impacts on human beings as being “emotional”. These same states promote nuclear weapons and deterrence doctrines as being essential for security, and insist that “real men” need to make these hard choices to “defend” their countries. This speaks precisely to why, as Liechtenstein said, “we need leaders who understand the risks and consequences of militarization and armed conflict” and “leaders who challenge the patriarchal system of weapons as expressions of masculinity and dominance,” among other things.
We also need, as Kuwait said, to hold states to account for their grave violations of human rights and international law. Offering a compelling vision of the future, the Kuwaiti representative said that people are documenting the heinous crimes committed by Israel so that justice will ultimately prevail. Israel will “face the justice of the international community,” it will “not remain outside the scope of accountability forever, and it will stand before the court of history to receive its just punishment.” This genocide, he said, “will be a dark memory that we will remind our future generations of, and we will cite it as evidence that every oppressor has a consequence, and every aggressor has a punishment. History bears witness, and will continue to witness, what we say.”
Taking action
Right now, we also need to stop the genocide and save lives. As Indonesia remarked, urgent action is required to stop “the supply of weapons, ammunition, and other military equipment to fuel war, and the indiscriminate use of explosive weapons in populated areas in contravention of international humanitarian law.” In this regard, Lebanon emphasised “the responsibility of the countries exporting weapons to Israel to monitor how they are used and the extent to which this complies with international humanitarian law, especially since a large number of these countries continuously demand that Israel respect its obligations.” Lebanon urged that practical measures “must be taken by them to investigate the crimes committed against unarmed civilians and to prohibit the export of weapons that are used in violation of international humanitarian law by Israel.”
In a similar vein, South Africa called “on those who have influence over Israel to go beyond mere condemnation and exert pressure on the country’s leaders to stop the bloodshed.” South Africa recalled that the ICJ concluded “that all states have an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by Israel’s illegal presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.” Accordingly, South Africa called on all states “to halt the transfer of weapons, parts and ammunition to parties to the conflict,” noting, “The unconditional transfer and sale of weapons, parts and ammunition by governments, where there is clear risk of use in harming civilians and violating international law has enabled the violence and indiscriminate killing of civilians to continue unabated.”
Stopping the genocide is the responsibility of all UN member states. The First Committee is a key forum to hold those that are providing weapons to account. The process to negotiate and adopt the Arms Trade Treaty was established in the First Committee, making it uniquely relevant to now use this space to demand a two-way arms embargo on Israel.
Member states must also stand firmly against the unravelling of IHL and humanitarian disarmament. The shocking news that Lithuania is planning to withdraw from the Convention on Cluster Munitions must be condemned, and the government of Lithuania should be urged to reconsider this action that will put lives at risk. The “erosion” of international law is not a natural process—it is based on deliberate decisions by states to prioritise profits and power over people and the planet. Such blatant disregard for humanity and the international system must be stopped.
More broadly, the First Committee is also an ideal venue to “abandon the logics of war and militarism,” as Malta urged this past week. Delegates to this forum can make a difference; as Switzerland said, “While the political leeway is currently limited, we still have numerous initiatives and proposals before us that could advance international security and disarmament.”
These proposals include the new resolution on autonomous weapon systems that seeks to establish consultations on this topic through the UN General Assembly. Such a process would complement the work undertaken through the Group of Government Experts (GGE) in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. It would add value to the GGE’s work by broadening the conversation to additional states—the responses to the UN Secretary-General’s report this year clearly show global interest in this topic. A consultation process would also widen the scope of discussion beyond armed conflict and IHL, to address the relevance of ethics, dehumanisation, bias, human rights, security, the global arms race, proliferation, use by non-state actors, use by police or border control, and more. All states should co-sponsor and vote in favour of this resolution.
Another important opportunity to advance disarmament in the First Committee comes from the new resolution seeking to establish a UN study on the impacts of nuclear war. As noted in last week’s edition of the First Committee Monitor, “At a time when nuclear threats are being made, arsenals are being modernised, and arms races are underway, it is important to bring up-to-date the international community’s shared understanding of what science today has to say about the devastating effects of nuclear war.” Zia Mian, co-director of Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security, noted, “A UN-mandated expert study assessing and addressing the current knowledge of the effects of nuclear war can help enable a more fully informed and inclusive global debate on what nuclear war means in terms of the harm that would come to people and planet.” Furthermore, he argued, “An impartial science and evidence-based benchmark for the global consequences of nuclear war would be especially important for people and countries that have not done nuclear war studies of their own, but would be innocent bystanders in any nuclear war.”
In relation to innocent bystanders, it is significant that the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded this year’s Nobel Peace Prize to Nihon Hidankyo, a grassroots movement of atomic bomb survivors from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The Committee explained that the organisaton is receiving the prize “for its efforts to achieve a world free of nuclear weapons and for demonstrating through witness testimony that nuclear weapons must never be used again.”
Emphasising the message that nuclear weapons must never be used again is critical in this moment of mounting justifications for nuclear weapon possession and deterrence policies, alongside the insidious attempt by nuclear-armed states to normalise war and genocide. As Peace Boat’s Executive Director, Akira Kawasaki, said in relation to the announcement about the Nobel Peace Prize, “More than ever, now is the time for the world to listen to the voices of the Hibakusha.” As memory fades of both the horrific impacts of the US atomic bombing of Japan and of the fear generated by the Cold War arms race, the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Nihon Hidankyo is an opportunity to remember that the world will never be safe from nuclear weapons until they are eliminated.
As Kawasaki said, even in Japan, “the reality is that the experience of war and the atomic bombings is becoming a faded memory. Politicians speak of strengthening nuclear deterrence and even of nuclear sharing.” He said that if the government of Japan is to congratulate Nihon Hidankyo, it should also commit to sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).
The TPNW, too, is an artificate of the First Committee. All states should join the Treaty and support the TPNW resolution in this forum, as well as the resolutions on the impacts of nuclear war and other texts calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons.
These are all critical—and doable—actions for delegations to the First Committee. Many more such recommendations are included in this year’s First Committee Briefing Book. And while it’s important to take these actions that are related to specific weapons or treaties, the bigger picture is also important. The answer to the problems being discussed at the First Committee are simple: no more weapons, no more war.
Seventy-nine years after the creation of the United Nations, states should not still be reaching for war as the answer to tensions or competition. It’s absurd that states invest relentlessly in militarism, which clearly only leads to more death and destruction, while ridiculing those of us who want to try a different way. We are not ridiculous. The warmongers, the weapon builders, the political leaders who seek power and dominance—they are ridiculous. We know why they do what they do: Capitalism. War profiteering. The catastrophic influence of the military-industrial complex over politics. But here in the First Committee, delegates must continue to take a stand against the normalisation of genocide, war, and violations of international law, and take the actions needed to build a better world for us all.
[PDF] ()