Nuclear deterrence divides UN disarmament debate

Delegates at the UN General Assembly’s First Committee set out sharply different positions on nuclear deterrence on 14 October, ahead of the committee’s planned work on draft disarmament proposals. The two meetings were part of a general debate, not a vote on new measures. [1] [3]

Ukraine’s delegate warned of Russian nuclear threats and said Moscow had deployed tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus and held joint exercises there. North Macedonia defended NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangements as part of collective defence. Hungary’s representative went further, arguing that deterrence had kept the Euro-Atlantic region secure and prevented an arms race. [1]

Iran’s delegate took the opposite view, arguing that nuclear sharing and extended deterrence violate the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. He accused governments scrutinising Iran of double standards and alleged that Israel was expanding its arsenal. Suriname pointed instead to the nuclear-weapon-free zone in Latin America and the Caribbean as an example of regional security without such weapons. Japan called on North Korea to stop its nuclear and missile activities. [1]

The debate also turned to people affected by nuclear weapons. Kiribati’s delegate recalled tests conducted near the country’s reefs, lagoons and fishing grounds, and said it hoped for progress towards an international trust fund for victims and affected communities. The Holy See’s UN observer warned that bringing artificial intelligence into nuclear-related systems could heighten the risks surrounding consequential decisions, and called for disarmament and effective human control of weapons systems. [1] [2]

Those appeals did not establish a fund or change nuclear policy. Under the timetable outlined by the committee chair on 5 October, action on draft resolutions and decisions was planned for later in the session, from 27 October to 3 November. [1]