In the International Disarmament Week, an urgent call for course correction.
—
THE global madness of nuclear weapons; the use of chemical weapons such as sarin and chlorine gas against civilians in Syria; the unprecedented humanitarian crisis caused by armed conflict in Yemen; and the impact of small arms and light weapons on children in Central African Republic, all represent pressing reasons for disarmament, particularly in areas that face severe human rights issues.
The United Nations Disarmament Week (October 24–30), is an annual observance. It is a reminder of the international community’s commitment towards disarmament, and the critical need for non-proliferation and elimination of nuclear weapons.
Source: United Nations
Disarmament efforts are overseen by the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) that plays a crucial role in disarmament of nuclear and conventional weapons, lethal autonomous weapons systems, and discouraging use of weapons by UN member States and non-State actors such as Islamic State (ISIS).
What is the UN Disarmament Week?
The United Nations (UN) has been actively involved in disarmament efforts since its establishment in 1945. UN Disarmament Week aims to raise awareness about this issue and mobilise support for disarmament initiatives.
As the positions of member States on nuclear weapons and disarmament evolve over time, influenced by complex geopolitical and other considerations, the UN serves as a platform for dialogue and negotiation among nations with differing perspectives.
The UN promotes the reduction and elimination of all types of weapons, including chemical and conventional weapons. Disarmament aimed at a wide range of weapons is key for the creation of a safer and more peaceful world, where resources can be redirected towards sustainable development and the well-being of all people.
Source: UNODA
As the positions of member States on nuclear weapons and disarmament evolve over time, influenced by complex geopolitical and other considerations, the UN serves as a platform for dialogue and negotiation among nations with differing perspectives. It encourages member States to find common ground and advance disarmament efforts, even in dire situations.
What is the role of the UN vis-à-vis war and conflict?
The UN has consistently played an important role when it comes to war and conflict. Along with the UNODA, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) plays a crucial role in addressing human rights issues in times of war and conflict. Apart from assisting affected populations, it monitors and documents human rights violations.
It investigates and compiles comprehensive reports on the human rights situation in conflict-affected areas based on information from victims, witnesses and local organisations. Often, these reports serve as a basis for advocating for disarmament and holding perpetrators accountable.
Most recently, the UN OHCHR launched a Commission of Inquiry to collect evidence of war crimes committed by all sides in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories since October 7, 2023. The commission has already found clear evidence of war crimes in the recent escalation of violence in Gaza.
Apart from investigating serious violations that amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, the OHCHR helps establish tribunals, and facilitates fair and impartial trials.
Apart from investigating serious violations that amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide, the OHCHR helps establish tribunals, and facilitates fair and impartial trials.
Along with the Security Council and the International Impartial and Independent Mechanism, it advocates for the referral of the ongoing Syrian Civil War to the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Its investigation and documentation of the human rights violations in Syria include evidence of indiscriminate attacks on civilians, extrajudicial killings, brutal torture, enforced disappearances, sexual and gender-based violence, and the use of chemical weapons.
How do UN instruments impact disarmament?
The UN has also established and supported several treaties related to weapons and armaments, including nuclear non-proliferation.
Source: UNODA
The landmark and controversial Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), 1996, aims to ban all nuclear explosions, for both military and peaceful use. Although the treaty has not yet entered into force, it has contributed to the global reduction of nuclear weapons. Through mechanisms such as the International Monitoring System (IMS), undetected nuclear testing has become impossible since the CTBT was established.
While nuclear powers such as the United Kingdom (UK) and France have ratified it, it awaits ratification by other major countries, including India, China, Israel, North Korea and the United States of America (US), to enter into force.
Despite its successes, recent escalations of conflicts have driven Russia from continuing its support as one of key nations that originally ratified the convention. Citing concerns about the US’s possible plans for continuing testing, on October 18, the Russian Parliament passed a Bill to revoke its ratification of the CTBT, while retaining cooperation with its verification system and implementing organisation.
As of September, Russia has blamed the US for the failures of the CTBT and, in the recent past, the US has blamed Russia for failing to comply with the ban on nuclear testing. Critics have pointed out that the Russian offensive in Ukraine, preceded by arms supply by Western countries such as the US, have led to a proxy-war.
These recent developments have raised fresh concerns about modernisation and the development of new nuclear and other weapons systems.
Non-nuclear-weapon States argue that nuclear-armed States have not done enough to fulfil their disarmament obligations under international conventions. The stockpiling and modernisation of arsenals, as a deterrent or otherwise, contradicts the goal of complete disarmament.
In this regard, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is another crucial instrument that has been supported by the original five nuclear States (USA, Russia, UK, China and France). The UN has also established instruments that address other weapons.
Human rights groups have documented a total of 222 chemical weapon attacks by the Syrian regime and the ISIS between December 2012 and August 21 2023, which marks the tenth anniversary of the worst attack that occurred in Ghouta.
Chemical weapons and warfare are prohibited under customary law and various international instruments such as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (the Chemical Weapons Convention or CWC), 1997. The CWC aims for the reduction and destruction of existing arsenals.
The ‘challenge inspections’ provision allows any State party in doubt about another State party’s compliance to request a surprise inspection. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), established under the CWC, oversees the implementation of the treaty and inspections.
India has ratified the instrument, enforced the Chemical Weapons Convention Act, 2000, and destroyed its chemical weapon stockpile. Syria had also declared complete compliance and destroyed its stockpiles in 2016. However, the OPCW and the UN found that Syria conducted nine chemical weapons attacks against its own citizens since acceding to the CWC.
Human rights groups have documented a total of 222 chemical weapon attacks by the Syrian regime and the ISIS between December 2012 and August 21 2023, which marks the tenth anniversary of the worst attack that occurred in Ghouta.
Although Israel, Iraq and Libya have asserted that they will never use chemical weapons first, they represent a small number of countries that have reserved their rights to retaliate in kind with chemical weapons.
What prevents disarmament?
While there have been notable successes in UN and other international initiatives on disarmament, disarmament initiatives often face challenges due to the lack of consensus among States and the absence of strong political will.
Disarmament requires collective action and cooperation among States which is hampered by differing priorities, geopolitical considerations, and divergent perspectives on disarmament goals.
Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Slow progress in nuclear disarmament has led to frustration among non-nuclear-weapon States and a perception of a double standard. The lack of consequences for non-compliance allows States to act with impunity. Possession of nuclear weapons by some perpetuates a sense of insecurity and encourages proliferation by others.
Also read: The only language Israel understands
For instance, a consequence of India’s nuclear weapons programme is the arms race between India and Pakistan which has created a regional security dilemma. Rather than engaging in confidence-building measures, both countries are investing heavily in nuclear and other weapons.
Instead, India can play a more proactive role in the negotiations for the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty to meaningfully contribute to global efforts and to demonstrate its commitment to disarmament.
Limited engagement, lack of participation and low commitment to international and multilateral disarmament initiatives contributes to the problem. The untimely collapse of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty, 1987 between the US and Russia in 2019 illustrates this issue.
While there have been notable successes in UN and other international initiatives on disarmament, disarmament initiatives often face challenges due to the lack of consensus among States and the absence of strong political will.
The limitations of international conventions are undeniable. The alleged use of white phosphorus by Israel in Lebanon and Gaza in the ongoing and previous conflicts, is not prohibited by the CWC. Its use is only partially limited by the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) as an incendiary weapon air-dropped on civilians.
The verification of disarmament commitments also poses a challenge. Ensuring transparency and confidence in the disarmament process requires robust verification mechanisms, but disagreements over verification protocols and concerns about national security have hindered progress in this area.
Geopolitical tensions have led to a stalemate and a trust deficit. For instance, the presence of armed groups such as Hamas in the Middle East complicates consensus on the peace and disarmament discourse. Israel does not publicly acknowledge possessing nuclear weapons but is widely believed to be modernising its nuclear arsenal.
The economic interests of the arms industry also act as a barrier to disarmament. Defence job losses are a concern against disarmament measures. However, not everyone agrees with this reasoning. For instance, the UK non-profit Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) posits that the UK’s prioritisation of nuclear weapons comes at the cost of fair wages and adequate housing.
Source: Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Addressing these failures requires renewed commitment from States, increased dialogue, and a willingness to overcome political and geopolitical obstacles. Even as the post-Covid world struggles with a spike in conflicts, building trust, promoting transparency, and strengthening ties are essential for stability and peace.
How are disarmament and human rights related?
The use of weapons results in the loss of innocent lives, displacement of populations, and has severe implications for human rights. Not only does it violate the right to life but also undermines the well-being of all individuals.
In the ongoing Israel–Palestine crisis, arms and weapons have already claimed countless lives including those of children, injured many more and destroyed homes, schools and hospitals. Until October 21, at least 42 per cent of all housing units in the Gaza Strip have been either destroyed or damaged since the start of the hostilities, according to the Ministry of Housing in Gaza.
Disarmament efforts safeguard human rights by reducing the potential for devastating armed conflicts. Moreover, the resources that would otherwise be allocated to the military can be redirected towards education, healthcare, poverty alleviation, sustainable development and in furtherance of essential rights.
International humanitarian initiatives against nuclear weapons have made a significant difference.
Exemplarily, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, 2021 (TPNW) has its origins in the Humanitarian Initiative, which also birthed the Humanitarian Pledge against nuclear weapons. Although it has not yet entered into force, the TPNW enlivens the growing global momentum for nuclear disarmament.
By emphasising the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, 2021 aims to stigmatise, delegitimise and prohibit their development, possession and use. As of October 2023, 55 countries have ratified it.
By emphasising the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, it aims to stigmatise, delegitimise and prohibit their development, possession and use. As of October 2023, 55 countries have ratified it.
Such initiatives highlight and shift the discourse towards the humanitarian imperative for disarmament. They have also united governments, civil society organisations and international institutions. For instance, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a global civil society coalition that advocates for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons, played a significant role in the negotiation and adoption of the TPNW in 2017.
Source: ICAN
The need of the hour is a shift in mindset and increased urgency in pursuing disarmament to prevent the devastating humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. At the same time, treating nuclear weapons as the sole priority neglects the concerns of non-nuclear-weapon States and undermines the principle of equal security for all.
Further, a narrow focus on nuclear disarmament perpetuates a discriminatory approach and creates a false sense of security as other weapons still pose significant threats.
Also read: The future of international law in light of the Russian-Ukraine conflict
The recent aerial bombardment of Gaza with conventional weapons has created a health crisis. The health infrastructure faces dire challenges as it struggles to cope with mounting casualties, face electricity and fuel shortages, and the risk of lethal bombardment of critical facilities such as hospitals.
The right to good health is a widely recognised international human right. Inclusive and equitable global security requires a more comprehensive approach that encompasses all forms of armament.
For instance, the Mine Ban Treaty and the Convention on Cluster Munitions are international agreements that prohibit the use, production, stockpiling and transfer of anti-personnel landmines and cluster munitions respectively.
These dangerous weapons have caused a crisis in many regions. The indiscriminate use of landmines in Afghanistan has caused long-term harm, hindered post-conflict reconstruction, and impeded the safe return of displaced populations, fuelling the refugee crisis.
Source: United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Global Trends 2022 Report, 2023
According to UN Afghanistan, over 50,000 civilians have been recorded to have been killed or injured by landmines and explosive remnants of war (ERW) since 1989. Cluster munitions used in Yemen and Syria have led to civilian casualties, left behind unexploded ordnance, and hampered post-conflict safety.
The treaties have successfully reduced their use and impact worldwide, and led to the destruction of millions of weapons, clearance of affected areas and assistance to victims. They have also raised awareness about the humanitarian consequences of these weapons.
Finally, the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), 2014 regulates the international trade in conventional weapons including its impact on international human rights and humanitarian law in armed conflicts. It was designed to stop the illicit use of lethal weapons to commit human rights violations, such as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and was supported by major arms exporters.
What is the way forward?
Rapid technological advancements create new challenges for disarmament efforts. Cyber weapons have emerged as a significant threat to digital infrastructure and global interconnectedness.
Also read: Drop that atomic load on me baby! (An essay on Christopher Nolan’s Oppenheimer)
The development of LAWS and “killer robots” have raised fresh humanitarian concerns as they have the potential to make life-or-death decisions without human intervention and accountability.
According to UN Afghanistan, over 50,000 civilians have been recorded to have been killed or injured by landmines and explosive remnants of war (ERW) since 1989. Cluster munitions used in Yemen and Syria have led to civilian casualties, left behind unexploded ordnance, and hampered post-conflict safety.
Undeniably, disarmament needs to go beyond nuclear weapons to effectively address the total humanitarian impact of weapons, prevent conflicts, redirect crucial resources towards development and promote comprehensive security.
The potential for space militarisation and weaponisation, such as through anti-satellite weapons, threatens global security and undermines the peaceful use of outer space. However, even as the disarmament dialogue shifts its focus to new-age weapons systems, the old spectres of war remain.
The use of weapons against Israel by Hamas, Israel’s weapons jingoism and retaliation, and the overall increase of weapons use in the region must lead to a renewal of demand for disarmament in the Middle East.
It is essential for governments, international organisations, civil society and individuals to work together to prioritise human rights as we strive for disarmament. Only a world free from all types of weapons of mass destruction can realistically contribute to a peaceful and secure future for all.
