‘Bombs and Missiles Serve Armies Well on Battlefields,’ but Cause Massive Suffering in Populated Areas, First Committee Hears as Debate Concludes
“Nuclear weapons are a loaded gun pointing to the head of humankind,” the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) heard today at the conclusion of an annual debate that reflected a growing appetite for weighing the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and the imperative of putting an end to their testing, frustration over the stand-off in the disarmament treaty-making body, and the disproportionate impact of small arms and light weapons — for which progress hinged on consistency with national interests.
The representative of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL) said that the movement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons was growing, and the fact that no acronym was yet attached to it showed that “content and political meaning, not form” were its hallmark.
Weapon systems capable of delivering massive explosive force from afar and across a wide area had been the defining feature of armed conflict of the last century, the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross said. While bombs and missiles had served armies well in open battlefields, when used in populated areas, those weapons caused tremendous suffering for civilians. Additionally, the collateral damage to critical civilian infrastructure, such as water and electrical facilities and supply networks, severely disrupted essential care systems, on which civilians depended.
In a similar vein, she said that the compelling evidence of the tremendous human costs of nuclear weapons made it difficult to envisage how their use could be compatible with international humanitarian law. During times of global instability, it might be tempting for some States to view nuclear weapons as a tool for security, but she could not understand how weapons that risked catastrophic and irreversible humanitarian consequences could be viewed as protecting civilians or humanity as a whole. For that reason, the ICRC had called on States to negotiate a legally binding international agreement to eliminate nuclear weapons and ban their use.
Indeed, the threat to the human race posed by nuclear weapons was ever present for non-nuclear-weapon States, Madagascar’s representative said, and their possible use was very disturbing. She appealed to those States to “not be discouraged” and to take every opportunity to make a humanitarian commitment to an instrument to ban those weapons.
Ethiopia’s representative said the step-by-step approach had failed to make concrete and systematic progress towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. He endorsed the Humanitarian Pledge, and stressed that multilateralism and international cooperation were crucial to effective and long-term disarmament.
At a time when the world was witnessing trends in increased military expenditures, which were estimated to be at more than $1.7 trillion a year, Nepal’s representative said that if those funds were spent on development instead, then the lives of the “bottom billion” people on Earth could be improved. It was time to invest resources in socio-economic development and cut military spending if the world community wanted to address the root cause of conflict and poverty.
Citing Pope Francis’s recent appeal to States to avoid war, which he said was a “negation of all rights and a dramatic assault on the environment”, the observer for the Holy See agreed that resources spent on militarization and weapons development continued to rise while funding for programmes devoted to peace and development “pales in comparison”. Conflicts “scarring landscapes” and moving people from their homes to “perilous deserts and seas – indeed, to cemeteries” testified to the lack of political will to stamp out the “gun culture” that still stood as an obstacle to people’s peaceful development.
Also speaking were the representative of Kyrgyzstan, Jordan, Gabon, Madagascar, Montenegro and Morocco.
The First Committee will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 19 October, to begin its series of thematic discussions.
Background
The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met today to conclude its general debate. For more information see Press Release GA/DIS/3526.
Statements
NURAN NIYAZALIEV (Kyrgyzstan) said that international safeguards and the physical protection of nuclear materials and facilities were the “first line of defence against nuclear terrorism”, and his country supported efforts to implement United Nations Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) to address proliferation challenges posed by non-State actors. Kyrgyzstan also advocated for the prevention of an outer space arms race and had made a voluntary political commitment in 2005 not to be the first to deploy weapons of any kind in space. Article 18 of the Central Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty had designated his country as the instrument’s depositary, and Kyrgyzstan had hosted a meeting earlier in the year on outstanding issues. France, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation and China had ratified the Treaty’s Protocol, and he called on the United States to do so without delay.
MOH’D KAIS MUFLEH ALBATAYNEH (Jordan), associating with the Arab Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the adverse consequences on social-economic development and security due to the use of all types of weapons, without exception, was a grave concern to his country. Being one that opened its doors to refugees from different conflicts in the Middle East, it was well aware of the destructive humanitarian consequences of weapons. He reiterated support for all initiatives designed to achieve global stability and security, particularly strengthening joint action to achieve disarmament. International efforts to establish a world free from weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, emanated from the firm conviction of the lethal nature of those weapons and their disastrous humanitarian consequences. The sole and absolute guarantee of their non-use was to eliminate them. He called on Israel to submit all its nuclear institutions to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards system, while reaffirming the right of States to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
BAUDELAIRE NDONG ELLA (Gabon), associating with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said that conventional weapons had also become weapons of mass destruction judging by the number of victims they claimed around the world. Most conflicts in several regions, including in Africa, were fuelled by irresponsible and lawless use of small arms and light weapons with dramatic consequences for the populations, especially women and children. Central Africa had been destabilized by many conflicts and was suffering from the threat of terrorism. He noted that his country had held three workshops in Libreville, on the proliferation of small arms in Central Africa. Later this year, Gabon would host a ministerial meeting on security issues in the region.
TEKEDA ALEMU (Ethiopia), associating with the African Group and the Non-Aligned Movement, said it was perhaps not that much of an exaggeration to describe the era as a “dangerous” time. The threat of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction was growing, and it was becoming more urgent to avert the possibility of them falling into the wrong hands. When considering the deficit of wisdom in so many areas, and the capacity of States to commit follies, one could appreciate the current challenges. Hence, it was vital to take concrete action now to conclude a legally binding and effective treaty to curtail the illicit trade and transfer of such weapons, in particular, to non-State actors. The step-by-step approach had failed to make concrete and systematic progress towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons. He endorsed the Humanitarian Pledge, and stressed that multilateralism and international cooperation were crucial to effective and long-term results in the field of disarmament.
HELENA RAJAONARIVELO (Madagascar), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African Group, said that the threat to the human race of nuclear weapons was ever present for non-nuclear-weapon States, and their possible use was very disturbing. She appealed to those States to “not be discouraged” and to take every opportunity to make a humanitarian commitment to an instrument to ban nuclear weapons. The insecurity and violence resulting from proliferation of small arms and light weapons was too widespread and “completely out of control” in several countries, including her own. She hoped that States’ cooperation could be strengthened to put an end to the illegal trade, manufacture and dissemination of those weapons, and called for universal membership in the Arms Trade Treaty. She was also horrified by the large number of people fleeing atrocities, which had given rise to the refugee crisis of refugees.
IVANA PAJEVIC (Montenegro), associating with the European Union, said her country remained committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and would play its part to achieve the common objective of building peace and security. Reaching agreement at the 2015 NPT Review Conference had been too challenging, but her delegation was firmly convinced that the NPT should remain a road map to freeing the world of nuclear weapons. Montenegro had built its national legislative framework and administrative capacities in order to fully implement Security Council resolution 1540 (2004), and was also developing its institutional capacity to address chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear-weapon risks. She strongly supported efforts towards full implementation and universalization of the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and welcomed the adoption of the Dubrovnik Action Plan at the treaty’s first review Conference, which would guide further activities to prohibit use, production, transfer, and stockpiling of those inhumane weapons.
BOUCHAIB ELOUMNI (Morocco), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement and the African and Arab Groups, regretted that that the ninth NPT review had been unable to make progress on convening a conference for establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. A world free from nuclear weapons depended on the political will of States. The impasse in the Conference on Disarmament was of a political nature, and required flexibility and a well-balanced programme of work to overcome. It was important to exchange information and cooperate in the fight against illicit trafficking of radioactive material. Morocco had participated in a summit on nuclear security, where the expertise exchanged would strengthen multilateral action in security. The disquieting situation in the Sahara region was exacerbated by the illegal trafficking of small arms and light weapons, and he supported the United Nations Programme of Action and the Arms Trade Treaty.
SEWA LAMSAL ADHIKARI (Nepal), associating with the Non-Aligned Movement, said that world leaders had adopted the ambitious 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda at a time when the world was witnessing trends in increased military expenditures, which were estimated to be at more than $1.7 trillion a year. If that amount of money had been spent on development activities, then the lives of the “bottom billion” people on Earth could have improved. The time had come to invest resources and make strong commitments in socio-economic development and cut military expenditures, if the international community wanted to address the root cause of conflicts and poverty. She attached high importance to multilateral negotiations in disarmament and non-proliferation, with a view to promoting effective deliberations, collective ownership and shared responsibility.
PIERCE CORDEN, observer for the Holy See, cited Pope Francis’ recent appeal to States to avoid war, which was a “negation of all rights and a dramatic assault on the environment”. The resources spent on militarization and weapons development continued to rise while funding for the United Nations programmes for peace and development “pales in comparison”. Conflicts “scarring landscapes” and moving people from their homes to “perilous deserts and seas – indeed, to cemeteries” testified to the lack of political will to stamp out the gun culture that still stood as an obstacle to people’s peaceful development. There could never be sustainable development without peace. Preventive means, mediation, peacekeeping and peacebuilding were the most useful tools to resolve conflict, and must be employed more fully. The failure of the ninth NPT Review Conference to agree on a final document was dissipating political will to fulfil the promise of that Treaty. At the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, Pope Francis had said “nuclear deterrence and the threat of mutually assured destruction cannot be the basis for an ethics of fraternity and peaceful coexistence”.
LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES, Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL), drew attention to the absence of the group from the panel slated for 19 October to examine arms control and the role of international organizations with mandates in that field. That exclusion was evidence of some States’ aversion to “any change in frozen world of nuclear-weapon politics”. OPANAL had taken an active part in the NPT Review Conference by submitting a working paper containing 16 elements necessary for the success of the final document, but no such document had emerged. The movement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons was growing, and the fact that no acronym was yet attached to it showed that “content and political meaning, not form” was its hallmark. Nuclear weapons were “a loaded gun pointing to the head of humankind”.
VÉRONIQUE CHRISTORY International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), said that the defining feature of armed conflict over the last century had been the use of weapon systems capable of delivering massive explosive force from afar and across a wide area. Large bombs and missiles, indirect fire weapon systems including mortars, rockets and artillery, as well as multi-barrel rocket launchers, had served armies well in open battlefields. But when used in populated areas to fulfil military objectives, those weapons were prone to have indiscriminate effects and devastating consequences for civilians. The use in populated areas of improvised explosive weapons by non-State armed groups also caused tremendous suffering and had significant reverberating effects on civilians, which were worsened during protracted hostilities. Collateral damage to critical civilian infrastructure, such as water and electrical facilities and supply networks, severely disrupted essential care systems, on which civilians depended.
She said that the compelling evidence of the tremendous human costs of nuclear weapons made it difficult to envisage how any use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with international humanitarian law. On that basis, the ICRC had called on States to negotiate a legally binding international agreement prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons and comprehensively eliminating them. During times of international instability, it might be tempting for some States to view nuclear weapons as a tool for security, but she could not understand how weapons that risked catastrophic and irreversible humanitarian consequences could be viewed as protecting civilians or humanity as a whole.