Mr. Chair, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
This First Committee takes place amid steadily increasing levels of armed conflict, and the shadow of growing fears of large-scale war.
Over 130 armed conflicts are raging today, twice as many as 15 years ago. Wars are lasting longer, growing more complex, and trapping entire generations. As ICRC staff see every day in our work around the world, the human cost is enormous, and appalling.
In parallel, as detailed in the Secretary-General’s recent report, military spending has grown to extraordinary levels. Many States appear to be re-orienting their policies and capabilities towards preparing for major conflict in ways not seen for decades.
Yet the conclusion of the first special session of the General Assembly devoted to disarmament, held almost half a century ago in 1978, remains valid: more weapons mean less security.
In these grim circumstances, the work of this Committee is all the more important and urgent. Disarmament, including arms control and non-proliferation, is a necessary and effective tool to prevent war and strengthen international peace and security.
Humanitarian disarmament in particular is also a critical means to mitigate the impact of armed conflict when it occurs – in other words, it is both a vital component of and means of giving effect to international humanitarian law (IHL).
In times of increased conflict and tension, therefore, the treaties and arrangements overseen by this Committee must be reinforced, developed and expanded – not ignored, neglected or abandoned.
Now is the time for States to redouble their efforts to fully implement existing disarmament treaties, to bring them closer to universality, and to develop new treaties and other instruments and mechanisms to address the risks posed by new technologies of warfare.
What does this mean in specific terms?
First, States must take concrete steps to turn legal obligations and political commitments into real changes that save lives. For example, through the Pact for the Future adopted here a year ago, as well as the political declaration on explosive weapons in populated areas (EWIPA), States have committed to address the civilian harm caused by the use of EWIPA, to strengthen the protection of civilians, and to restrict or refrain as appropriate from the use of explosive weapons in populated areas when their use may be expected to cause harm to civilians or civilian objects.
But the use of heavy explosive weapons in cities continues to cause unacceptable civilian harm – death, injury, lifelong disability and destruction – on a shockingly large and still-increasing scale throughout the world. Action is clearly needed to move these commitments from a record of good intentions to an effective means of protecting civilians from the indiscriminate effect of the use of EWIPA in reality.
Similarly, proliferation and diversion of conventional weapons exacerbate humanitarian suffering and pose a serious threat to security. The ICRC is deeply concerned about the gap that seems to exist between the commitments made by States to respect and ensure respect for IHL, and to faithfully implement instruments such as the Arms Trade Treaty, and the arms transfer practices of too many of them.
The law is straightforward: States must refrain from transferring arms where there is a clear risk that they would be used to commit or facilitate IHL violations.
Second, States must make progress on nuclear disarmament, through universalization and full implementation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), and regional nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties. This must be done not in spite of the current international security situation, but because of it.
Strident nuclear rhetoric and threats of use, accelerated modernization and strengthened roles for nuclear weapons in national security doctrines must be replaced with renewed efforts to deliver on long-standing nuclear disarmament obligations and commitments, and with parallel actions to reduce the risk of nuclear weapons being used.
Chief among the latter must be measures to condemn and suppress nuclear threats, and efforts to increase awareness of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons.
Third, States must preserve and protect existing treaties and the norms they embody. The very last thing that States should do in times of insecurity and conflict is to abandon disarmament treaties. The ICRC is dismayed that, after a State withdrew from the Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM), six states have announced their intention to withdraw from or suspend the Anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention (APMBC).
Not only is this a step backward that risks eroding life-saving protections and threatens decades of global efforts to eradicate these inhumane weapons, it undermines IHL and the entire multilateral disarmament enterprise. 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 and rigorous implementation of disarmament treaties, not from abandoning them.
Fourth, and finally, States must accelerate their efforts to limit the human cost of new technologies of warfare. Over the past year, innovation in means and methods of warfare has accelerated the killing and devastation we see in many of today’s armed conflicts.
We join States in calling for the peaceful use of new technologies and for preventing arms races in areas such as outer space. Yet States must also ensure that if new technologies are used as a means or method or warfare, IHL is applied and fully respected. This requires a range of approaches, according to the technologies involved.
With respect to information and communication technologies (ICT), we call on States to build common understandings on how to interpret and apply IHL to adequately protect civilian populations against the damage – both physical and non-physical - caused by ICT activities during armed conflict.
On the regulation of autonomous weapon systems, we join the call of a large and growing number of States to build on the promising work in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Group of Governmental Experts on lethal autonomous weapon systems and move quickly to negotiate a legally binding instrument.
On the development and use of artificial intelligence in the military domain, we call on States to ensure that human control and judgement are preserved in decisions that pose risks to the life, liberty, and dignity of people affected by armed conflict.
The ICRC has published 16 preliminary recommendations on this; we welcome the report by the Secretary-General and urge States to support follow-up action.
Mr. Chair,
It is well-documented that, properly maintained and conscientiously implemented, humanitarian disarmament treaties and commitments save lives, moderate the inhumanity of war, and foster peace. They are needed now more than ever.
As the President of the ICRC states in the progress report on the Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law, “This is not an abstract legal debate; it has irreversible consequences on millions of lives. When warfare abandons restraint and pursues total annihilation, the toll – both human and economic – is catastrophic, and the seeds of the next cycle of violence are sown”.
Finally, while we are concerned by the moves by a small number of States to withdraw, we are heartened by others which are joining disarmament treaties, strengthening their effectiveness and the norms they embody.
We congratulate Kyrgyzstan and Ghana for their respective signature and ratification of the TPNW, the Marshall Islands and Tonga for joining the APMBC, and Vanuatu for joining the CCM.
We urge other States to follow their example.
Thank you.
