البيان الذي أدلى به ألفريد دي زاياس، الخبير المستقل المعني بإقامة نظام دولي ديمقراطي ومنصف، في الدورة السابعة والعشرين لمجلي حقوق الإنسان

Human Rights Council 27th Session

Geneva, 10 September 2014

Mr. President,
Distinguished delegates,
Ladies and gentlemen,

Council Resolution 25/15 reaffirms that a democratic and equitable international order requires the realization of the right of all peoples to peace and to this end urges all States to “do their utmost to achieve general and complete disarmament under effective international control, as well as to ensure that the resources released by effective disarmament measures are used for comprehensive development, in particular that of the developing countries.”

In compliance with this and earlier Council resolutions, I have continued to study obstacles to the establishment of a democratic and equitable international order, and submit this preliminary report on how disarmament for development constitutes a win-win proposition for both States and Peoples and a contribution to the implementation of article 26 of the UN Charter which stipulates that  “in order to promote the establishment and maintenance of international peace and security with the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources, the Security Council shall be responsible for formulating… plans… for the establishment of a system for the regulation of armaments”. This is a noble task not only for the Security Council, but for the entire United Nations system including the Human Rights Council.

We all recognize that today’s international order is not peaceful, democratic or equitable. As indicated in my prior reports, the international community should progressively make necessary reforms within the United Nations system and the world financial institutions so as to promote participation by all States and peoples in global decision-making, particularly in addressing challenges such as extreme poverty, climate change, environmental degradation, acute water shortages, pandemics and the protection of the common heritage of mankind.  Domestically, States should make efforts to grant the populations under their jurisdiction greater voice and the opportunity to participate in the shaping of domestic and foreign policy.  When we assert that disarmament is necessary for development, we mean that military expenditures must be reduced and that a strategy must be devised to gradually convert military-first economies into peaceful economies and thereby promote job creation. In light of the world financial crisis and growing budgetary deficits, we hear a call for “austerity” measures.  But where should economies be made so as to reduce government deficits without violating the obligations of States under the Human Rights Covenants, notably their commitments to strengthen the rule of law, the administration of justice, the right to work, to education, health care and retirement benefits?

My report surveys the level of military spending by States, which according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reached 1.75 trillion US dollars in 2013, and according to the World Bank tables, consumed 20, 30 or even 40% of the national budgets of some countries.  It is here that economies must be made. Yet, we see States cutting social services, reducing the number of teachers, civil servants and poverty-reduction programmes.

The “elephant in the room”, about which the media consistently underreports is the role of the military-industrial complex in all of its international ramifications.  We must come to grips with the continued production and stockpiling of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, which constitute a sword of Damocles suspended over our heads. We must challenge the democratic legitimacy of expenditures devoted to research into the development of new and frightful lethal autonomous weapon systems, killer robots, radiological weapons, unmanned combat aerial weapons and cluster munitions. 

Military spending is driven by a range of factors, including threat perceptions, which may be real or imagined, and which are exacerbated by war-mongering and propaganda. During the cold war, the superpowers justified almost any level of spending because of the “missile gap” numbers game. Today a new all-purpose enemy has been identified: national and international terrorism. Although the threat does exist, this new adversary has given military alliances and defence contractors more than just a new lease on life.  I suggest that it would be more important to focus on the root causes of human insecurity and ensure conflict prevention and resolution than to apply stopgap solutions.

Notwithstanding the jus cogens obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means stipulated in article 2 (3) of the Charter, the demonization of adversaries and sabre-rattling is practiced by politicians, resulting in an atmosphere hardly conducive to fruitful negotiation.  In fact, the prevalent culture of fear and paranoia fuels the fires of distrust and hostility among peoples and artificially creates a perceived need to buttress “security” by increasing military expenditures. This in turn provokes the designated  “enemy” to reciprocate in kind, unleashing a spiral of armament and rearmament.  Solutions must be sought which are consistent with the UN Charter and article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which specifically prohibits war propaganda.  This culture of hostility appears to be nurtured by the military-industrial complex, which has an interest in greater profits through the production and use of weapons.  It is not surprising that the international arms trade reached 385 billion dollars in 2012.

Instead of focusing on real or imagined “national security” threats, States should endeavour to guarantee human security, a concept already found in Franklin Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms”, notably in the concepts of “freedom from fear” and “freedom from want” .  The 1994 UNDP Human Development Report defined human security as “[t]he security of people through development, not arms; through cooperation, not confrontation; through peace not war” .  More than sixty years ago US President Dwight Eisenhower eloquently addressed the predicament: “[e]very gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.” Expenditures for military nuclear research, production and stockpiling of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction are staggering, exceeding 100 billion per year .  

Since the invention of the atomic and hydrogen bombs, mankind has possessed the capacity to annihilate itself.  Eminent figures like Mikhail Gorbachev have pointed at the constant danger that nuclear weapons pose for humanity and the urgency to eliminate this danger, because nuclear destruction can occur not only as a result of a deliberate first strike by an aggressor but also by human, electronic or technical error.   In view of numerous “close calls” since 1945, it is fortunate that a technology glitch has not already ushered in the end of humanity.

With this in mind, senior statesmen launched the Global Zero campaign advocating total nuclear disarmament.

Local military-employment concerns and a worrisome level of disinformation also hinder efforts to downsize the military. A frequently heard argument is that the military creates jobs. Sure, but civilian investment actually generates more jobs than military investment.

Among positive developments in the reporting cycle, I would like to highlight the adoption on 29 January 2014 by the Comunidad de Estados Latinoamericanos y Caribeños (CELAC) of a Declaration proclaiming the entire region a “zone of peace” This Declaration recalls the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which established a nuclear-free zone in Latin America and the Caribbean, 45 years ago.  The establishment of zones of peace and cooperation in an increasing number of regions of the world is to be welcomed, as it carries the commitment of the governments towards a significant decrease in military budgets and spending. 

On 15 June 2014 at Santa Cruz, Bolivia, the G77 countries adopted a Declaration on National Development and South-South Cooperation which focuses on global challenges such as poverty eradication, food security, and the Sustainable Developments Goals.

In Geneva, the International Peace Bureau convened a panel attended among others by the Acting Secretary-General of the UN Disarmament Conference, a representative of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), and myself.  There was consensus that budgetary decision-making should be open, with the reasons for spending clearly outlined so as to be understood by the electorate.  Parliaments should monitor accountability in the budget decision process, with procurements controlled by rigorous procedures and subject to civilian control. Auditing of military spending should be regularly carried out, with improper practices investigated and prosecuted. 

Another promising development is the enhanced interest in military expenditures shown by the Human Rights Council.  Indeed, the Universal Periodic Review provides an ideal forum for the examination of the human rights commitments of States as implemented in their budgetary priorities.  If a State is committed to the larger concept of human security, it will allocate the budget accordingly. Thus a systematic examination of the level of military expenditures by States and a comparison with national expenditures in the social sector is necessary.

By way of conclusion, the report notes that since peace is indispensable to achieve a democratic and equitable international order, every effort must be undertaken to settle disputes through peaceful means, to prevent armed conflict and to end on-going wars. Disarmament and demilitarization are keys to development and human security. 

Among the pragmatic recommendations contained in the report I should like to highlight the following proposals that:

• States should regularly report to the Human Rights Council on their military expenditures and contrast them with expenditures for education, health care and the administration of justice.
• States should reduce military spending and develop conversion strategies to reorient resources towards social services, the creation of employment in peaceful industries, and the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. In particular States should individually and multilaterally devote savings to resourcing the economic and social transition required to respond to global climate change, as envisaged by the Green Climate Fund established by the United Nations pursuant to the Framework Convention on Climate Change.
• States should increase funding for research into conflict-prevention, addressing the roots of conflict and promoting sustainable development.

Mr President,

Let me conclude with the words of Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon:  “The world is overarmed and development is underfunded”.   We must act on this vision.

I thank you for your attention.

________________