The opening sessions of the UN Disarmament Commission were punctuated by procedural issues, a few misplaced comments from 2010, and many expressions of urgency that the DC conduct its work more effectively and build, as France's delegation noted, “a safer world for all.”
Many delegations raised the urgency issue in the early days of the DC: in the context of addressing nuclear weapons; of revitalizing disarmament structure; and of fulfilling commitments on disarmament to an anxious world.
In English, when we think of ‘urgency’ two things come to mind. The first usually occurs in relation to some situation in the world requiring immediate attention. With relevance to the DC we can cite the multi-lateral bodies which, as India noted, are running out of time; to the elimination of weapons that continue to threaten populations, drain resources, and exacerbate development crises; to the energies and resources of UN officials and member states which are being deployed in challenging and sometimes frustrating circumstances.
The second and related sense of ‘urgent’ has to do less with objective circumstances and more with our own responsibilities. The ‘facts’ of a militarized world, including unregulated transfers, unmanaged stockpiles and unbridled spending, create objective conditions for urgency. But so do the expectations of families, friends, neighbors, constituents and more. The public sense that it is high time – even past time – to move together resolutely towards general and complete disarmament weighs heavily on many in the diplomatic community.
There is urgency from within as well as from without that motivates the language that we use to define our most challenging disarmament tasks.
To many observers, the ‘decade’ question in the DC might appear to be a classic example of ‘low-hanging fruit.’ Absent concrete benchmarks on negative security assurances, WMD-free zones, the regulation of arms transfers, or key provisions of the PoA, the ‘decade’ would seem (especially to those who have lived through previous iterations) to be as much a substitute for movement on weapons as an inspiration for that movement. This characterization may not be fair, but it is relevant to how the DC is perceived, and it is something that we all have power to change.
Of the many synonyms conjured up for the English term ‘urgency,’ the two that seem most relevant are ‘compelling’ and ‘burning.’ The compelling part is related to the millions of weapons – so many of them unregulated -- that threaten our security and even our very existence. The burning part is related more to us – the sense that we have the skill and the will to do more in the name of that ‘safer world’ that so many people in our countries and communities clamor for. This is the urgency of responsibility which diplomats – and those of us who seek to support their disarmament work – must be more mindful of.
Urgency is an important dimension of disarmament efforts and the diplomats were wise to raise it. The reminder is that it is public expectation and not only objective circumstance that drives these challenging efforts. Whatever number and title we eventually give to a resolution on this ‘decade,’ it is most assuredly an urgent one.
The next open meeting of the UNDC will be on Friday, 22 April and a final post will be published then to report on the Commission's work this year.
No comments:
Post a Comment