General Assembly in Development and Disarmament

Der Spiegel - Kaya Dupuis

March 8, 2025, 3:33 pm

The United Nations General Assembly convened in heated discourse this morning to address the complex issue of balancing disarmament and development. What began as an orderly discussion regarding policy framework quickly escalated into a geopolitical blame-game where major global powers collided over the future of nuclear proliferation and deterrence. 

Russia was quick to point fingers on the United States and European Union member states, arguing that Western expansionism has left Moscow with no choice but to remain armed. “Western aggression has threatened our borders for much too long”, a Russian delegate cautioned. “If the West wants peace, they must disarm so we can.”

The United Kingdom expressed a contradictory position, stating “The UK is taking a hard stance with disarmament of nuclear weapons in powerful countries. But, we would not be happy to give up any of our nuclear weapons or disarm.” This double standard underscores the contrast of finding a solution to nuclear disarmament. Most states claim to seek peace, but few are willing to make the first move. 

Saudi Arabia reiterated similar concerns, arguing that “disarmament is the future” but only “when aggressive states and militias stop operating around the world.”

The climax of the assembly was reached between China and the US, as Beijing blatantly dismissed the Trump Administration’s leadership as “twisted and backwards”. The PRC later went on to criticize, openly asking the conference “why are we giving so much power to a nation that doesn’t even trust women with their own bodies?” Which sparked a fiery response from the US, asking China “why [they] cannot even trust their people with their own free will?”

This debate led the US to maintain their stance that nuclear deterrence remains crucial in limiting the chance of a large-scale nuclear conflict, claiming “we would like to work towards preventing nuclear tragedy, which is why we believe that bigger countries who possess nuclear weapons should be able to keep them to deter potential threats, such as China or Iran.”

Then, the most shocking suggestion was proposed from the US: “current weapons in untrustworthy countries shall be seized by military force”, obviously targeting China, where the seized arms would be transferred to “trusted states, such as the US”. Iraq commented on this suggestion, stating that “forced disarmament has never worked” highlighting the Islamic Republic’s personal history with disarmament. “The same countries that are nuclear powerhouses are the countries that fund wars and conflict in other countries.” This appears to be a jab at the lack of ethics regarding foreign interference policy.

The United Arab Emirates expressed concern towards the entire discussion, questioning the legitimacy of military superpowers advocating for peace treaties. “[We are] baffled that the countries with the largest militaries want trust and peace” a representative remarked. “The reason we are meeting here in the first place is because there is no trust.” As many delegates applauded the UAE, there is an obvious general consensus among smaller states regarding abuses of power. 

For now, a mutual cycle of distrust, resentment, and deterrence continues between major global powers, which leaves smaller states to navigate peace in a world ruled by double standards and pride. The question still remains: will dominant states ever be willing to commit to nuclear disarmament at the expense of their national security?