First Committee Monitor, Vol. 23, No. 3
Editorial: Disrupting the Cadence of Catastrophe
18 October 2025
By Ray Acheson
As the First Committee continued its general debate, most delegations appealed to all states to engage with multilateralism and dialogue, comply with international law, and fulfill their disarmament obligations and commitments. Outside the conference room, Israel continued to kill Palestinians and withhold about half the promised humanitarian aid despite the “ceasefire,” while the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) practiced committing nuclear war crimes by conducting yet another military exercise. The appeals inside Conference Room 4 clearly have a long way to go to have a real impact on government policies, but dedication to diplomacy and disarmament is more important than ever.
Forging a path to peace
“We are pained by the scenes of death and destruction around the world, and it saddens us that disarmament systems and their limitations face unprecedented challenges,” said Lebanon. “We need to relaunch a serious, frank, and inclusive dialogue on all issues related to disarmament,” it urged, warning, “If we abandon our commitment to multilateralism in favor of unilateralism, we risk returning to a horrific path previously followed, and its end is predetermined.
As the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) warned, we are already on that horrific path: “Over 130 conflicts are raging today, twice as many as 15 years ago. Wars are lasting longer, growing more complex, and trapping entire generations.” To forge a new path forward, one based on multilateralism that leads away from war, Mauritania called on states to tackle common challenges instead of each other and to invest in “development, combating poverty, and addressing climate change, instead of what seems to be a frantic race towards the extinction of the human species.”
A variety of delegations condemned this “frantic race” and the relentless investments in weapons that sustain it. The ICRC noted that “more weapons mean less security,” while Norway noted, “When brute power rules, everyone loses.” In the same tune, Trinidad and Tobago said, “True security is not forged through weapons, but through trust” and Cabo Verde asserted, “The security of some states cannot be built upon the vulnerability of others.” Palestine agreed that “security built on armaments is fleeting; lasting security is built on law, justice, development, and cooperation,” while Paraguay said the best tools for achieving peace are respect for international law and dialogue, diplomacy, and negotiation.
Most delegations also underscored disarmament as a critical necessity. Zambia said, “Disarmament is not merely the elimination of arms—it is the creation of space for peace, for justice, and for the sustainable development of all nations;” the Maldives noted, “Disarmament is not a choice; it is a responsibility. We must restore trust, renew dialogue, and redirect resources from weapons to development;” and Rwanda urged, “Disarmament must be understood not only as a matter of state security, but as a pressing humanitarian imperative.”
The ICRC called on states to comply with humanitarian disarmament law and obligations, including in relation to the arms trade, the use of explosive weapons, the possession of nuclear weapons, and more. The ICRC also expressed dismay with the decision of some states to withdraw from the conventions on cluster munitions and antipersonnel landmines. “The very last thing that States should do in times of insecurity and conflict is to abandon disarmament treaties,” said the ICRC, warning:
Preparing for war by abandoning treaties that provide for a minimum of humanity is the wrong choice. And where would it end? With the Geneva Conventions themselves? We must work together to reinforce our common understanding that true security comes from collective adherence to disarmament treaties, not from abandoning them.
The cadence of these remarks from so many delegations is clear and coherent. The world that those seeking fortune through violence have built has led not away from war but toward it—toward arms profiteering, genocide, and nuclear armageddon. As San Marino pointed out, there is a direct line from “all the ongoing conflicts around the world, which continue to spread death, destruction and immense suffering to civilians, trapping them in cycles of violence and trauma,” to the possible risk of nuclear weapon use. “Aggressive nuclear rhetoric and threats have regrettably reappeared, increasing the risk of deadly escalation, threatening to spiral out of control and putting all humanity in global danger,” warned San Marino.
Radioactive spirals
The danger of tensions escalating and spiralling out of control was exemplified earlier this year in the conflict that erupted between India and Pakistan, which both states addressed during the First Committee general debate. At the end of last week, Pakistan said that India launched an “unprovoked military assault” against Pakistan and has continued to threaten to strike again, “indulging in the dangerous delusion that one nuclear-armed state can simply wipe another off the face of the earth.” This week, India charged Pakistan with launching cross-border terrorist attacks against India and of using International Monetary Fund “bailouts” to do so. India questioned the implications of a country in such a perilous “financial condition possessing nuclear weapons.” In a right of reply, Pakistan pointed out that it is India “that repeatedly vows to undertake future strikes ‘under the nuclear overhang,’ imagining that such reckless rhetoric enhances deterrence. It does not,” said Pakistan: “It only exposes the delusion of a political leadership that mistakes brinkmanship for strategy.”
This exchange—and the conflict in April, which resulted in civilian deaths on both sides—demonstrates how militarism will always bring countries to war. No matter how loudly nuclear-armed states claim that nuclear “deterrence” prevents conflicts and keeps other countries’ aggressive impulses in check, the opposite is true. This past year, five nuclear-armed states have waged open conflict—India, Pakistan, Israel, Russia, and now the United States, which has declared “war” against “narcoterrorists” and is bombing ships in the Caribbean Sea in violation of international law. The nuclear-armed United Kingdom provided weapons to Israel’s genocide, as have other states in the NATO nuclear alliance or in “extended nuclear deterrence” relationships with the United States.
Nuclear weapons do not prevent war; they provide cover for those waging it.
Overall, as Malaysia highlighted, the prevailing “cycle of escalating military investment … stifles human development and feeds systemic instability.” This cycle is an endless loop of violence and militarism, in which military spending and arms racing is justified on the basis of war and aggression, which leads to more militarism, which leads to more war, ad infinitum until we are all dead. In contrast to the demand for diplomacy, dialogue, disarmament, and demilitarisation described above, the cadence of “might makes right” marks the march to war, endlessly and forever.
The double speak of deterrence
Just this week, for example, Czechia lamented, “The profound deterioration of the security environment, driven above all by Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, leaves us no choice but to increase our defence spending—not out of preference, but out of necessity to protect our people and uphold peace.” It said that this also justified the decision of several states with withdraw from the treaty banning antipersonnel landmines—as if deliberately and willfully putting civilians in harm’s way can ever be justified. This position also suggests that some countries are letting others determine their foreign policy and spending priorities, which states usually claim is their “sovereign decision”.
Moreover, the song of militarism often tries to hide behind refrains of peace. Croatia, for example, declared, “Arms control, disarmament, and non-proliferation are not ideals but instruments of peace and security.” Yet in the next breath, Croatia asserted that “nuclear deterrence within NATO’s collective defense posture, remains a key to strategic stability and peace. It is defensive, proportionate, and consistent with the UN Charter and international law, providing credible security assurances to non-nuclear allies that reduce proliferation incentives.”
The claims that weapons bring security and that peace can only be achieved through “deterrence” has led directly to genocide. A week after a “ceasefire” has been agreed between Israel and Hamas, Israel has killed dozens of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, has bombed Lebanon, has imposed restrictions on humanitarian aid, and is threatening to resume its full-scale genocide at any moment, with the full backing of the United States. Meanwhile, the US government and contractors, along with those from the United Kingdom and other countries, are salivating at the chance to “rebuild” Gaza in one of the most brazen preparations for disaster capitalism the world has ever seen.
Following two years of relentless genocide and war crimes, double standards still dominate the Western narrative about Israel and Palestine. During the general debate, some countries continued to (rightfully) condemn Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine. They criticised Russia’s threats to use nuclear weapons, its attacks on nuclear facilities, and, as Czechia said, Russia’s “neocolonialist objectives”. But Israel is doing the same across all fronts—and Israel’s actions are not neocolonial, but unabashed settler colonialism, determined to eliminate the Palestinian people.
As the Palestinian delegation said in its general debate statement, “A Genocide can be perpetrated by using conventional weapons when employed in unconventional manners.” It described the devastating effects of Israel’s use of explosive weapons in populated areas and its integration of “advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence, into military surveillance, targeting, and strike systems specially when rigorous human review and control are not guaranteed.” Palestine warned, “As we have witnessed the horror of its use in Gaza, AI‑assisted systems including Autonomous Weapons Systems can accelerate targeting cycles, generate expansive target lists, and heighten the risk of misidentification and disproportionate harm to civilians.”
Then, building on the back of a real genocide, this past week NATO ran its week-long genocide training exercise. Involving 71 aircraft from 14 countries, NATO pitched it as a “routine” training activity—but there is nothing routine about preparing for nuclear war.
The detonation of even the smallest nuclear weapons would kill and injure hundreds of thousands of people and animals, cause lasting environmental disaster, destroy homes, hospitals, schools, markets, water and sanitation facilitaties, and other critical civilian infrastructure, overwhelm medical and emergency response capacity, and devastate the economy. The ICRC and UN humanitarian organisations have made it clear that none of the countries taking part in this exercise has the capacity to respond to the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear detonation. Yet, they are practicing to inflict a catastrophe for which no one could handle the consequences.
NATO says it is committed to nuclear disarmament and claims that its approach to nuclear weapons is responsible, while at the same time saying that as long as nuclear weapons exist, it will remain a nuclear alliance. As the countries that have signed and ratified the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons have clearly stated, possessing and practicing to use nuclear weapons is an obstacle to disarmament and is a threat to the security of all countries around the world.
Disarming the war machine
The contrast between states calling for peace and those justifying war cannot be clearer. Ever since World War II, while most states have been building the architecture for arms control and disarmament, a handful of others have built war machines. Right now, those machines are churning out blood and bodies. They must be stopped before they destroy us all. To this end, states must “choose cooperation over competition, solidarity over silence, and justice over indifference,” said Timor-Leste, arguing, “Disarmament is not a distant aspiration; it is a moral, legal, and strategic imperative for the survival of humankind.”
[PDF] ()