Topic: Autonomous Weapon Systems
Country: Angola
Delegate Name: Gregory Poole
School: Forest Hills Northern High School
Topic page: background guide and all position papers All Angola position papers GLIMUN 2015 committees
This world has, unfortunately, always seen conflict between, as American historian Jared Diamond put it, “the haves and the have nots.” And, as one might expect, they generally, with a few exceptions, end in favor of the “haves”. Industrialized nations have many advantages: superior guns, tanks, planes, boats, armor, training, resources. They can bomb, shoot, and missile their enemies, hardly giving them the chance to fight back.
But it’s that chance that is important. Though the odds are against them, it is possible for the underdeveloped nation, the impoverished country to hold off a much larger attacker by simply making it too costly for them to continue. That cost, as unfortunate as it is, must be in human lives.
Sadly, it is true that no country properly values the lives of its enemies. They are a foe, to be shot and killed as soon as looked at. But it is also true that every country values the lives of its servicemen above all else. Few nations will risk the lives of their own soldiers if the benefit does not seem as great as the losses suffered or that will be suffered.
But now we have come to an age of technology and information, of robotics and machines. These unmanned fighting units could prove invaluable in the field of combat, as they can be deployed in more risky situations without threat to a country’s human personnel. They soon will be able to assess situations with superhuman ability, potentially allowing them to out-think their human counterparts.
This cannot be allowed to continue. Increasing use of current AWSs, such as UAV drones, could significantly reduce to perceived downsides to military intervention by lowering the threat of human casualties. More significantly, AWSs can be used to cross territory lines without the threat of international retribution; though Angola believes such actions to be illegal, the legal ramifications are currently ambiguous and unclear.
There are obvious humanitarian issues that arise with the use of AWSs as well, owing to the lack of compassion and discrimination of targets an automated system currently and for some time is capable of. AWSs have difficulty with the difference between a target and a citizen, and determining when lethal force is necessary.
But the biggest issue is that it devalues human life. One of the big equalizers in war is the idea of a life for a life. When a nation decides to take the path of violence, the path of war, it is done on the understanding that lives will be lost, that some of their soldiers will die. AWSs remove that price. AWSs cost money, not life. The price of an automated weapon will never be held to the same level as that of human life.
But AWSs are not available equally. The technology, money, and infrastructure necessary to create, maintain, and operate these robots is only accessible to already industrialized nations; in other words, the already powerful nations. Only superpowers and their choice of allies could afford to utilize such weapons. As such, the underdeveloped or developing nations would once more be left behind; the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” would only increase, and such an increase would only serve to devalue the lives of industrialized nations’ enemies.
We, the Disarmament and International Security Committee, must take the vital step and ban the use of automated weapon systems. Though the details must be worked out through dialogue and discussion, Angola will never back down. Angola will never stop fighting for the rights and value of humanity, and for the rights of nations.
The use of AWSs could ruin our perception of humanity and each other. Your life is no longer worth as much as mine, we would be saying. Your life is worth the same as my robot.
