Recently our office hosted a dialogue focused on the story of Costa Rica’s path to disarmament, where the former President of Costa Rica, H.E. Carlos Alvarado Quesada, offered insights into what the nation has achieved since that time. He acknowledged that Costa Rica’s path was unique, and recognized the challenging geopolitical realities facing many nations. But what struck me was his case for de-escalation, and his thought-provoking question, which still reverberates in my mind: have large scale investments in armaments truly made the world a safer place? 

As it stands, the disarmament debate is rooted in two outwardly opposed assumptions: on the one hand, nations must arm themselves to defend their borders. On the other, the only way to achieve peace is through disarmament. The seeming legitimacy of the first premise and the assumed naivete of the second are a reflection of the lack of trust at all levels of the global order: we cannot trust our neighbor to eschew the pursuit of conquest nor can we trust them to disarm. 

Are these our only options?

Even the most peace-loving among us cannot reasonably expect the leaders of the world to suddenly disarm voluntarily. Brinkmanship, transboundary crises, and lack of trust are too pronounced at this moment.

Yet crisis is often followed by peace, and the most bold and creative of solutions can be born of trying times. How unimaginable was the thought of an organization enjoying universal membership, dedicated to the pacific resolution of disputes, in the immediate years prior to the establishment of the United Nations? Similarly, could anyone have fathomed the possibility of a collaborative economic union between European countries which had, for centuries, been at war with each other? 

These advances depended on a deep acknowledgement that the systems in place had not provided adequate safety and security. What was evident in both those instances was a stark appraisal of the shortcomings of previous arrangements, the regrettable loss of life of previous wars, and the call for some kind of shared development and the necessity of a degree of disarmament and collective security.

Perhaps we stand at another moment where we must honestly ask ourselves: are our current systems and investments leading to the world we wish to live in—a world of safety and flourishing for all? If they were, violent conflict would have ceased (not to mention other ailments eradicated). 

Let us return to the original dichotomy: nations must increase armaments in the name of self defense and the surest path to peace is through disarmament. Many of the questions relating to disarmament today are premised on an understanding of the world governed by an inviolable norm of state sovereignty. Concepts such as the non-interference in the affairs of others and of every people’s right to determine their own future are essential to the effective ordering of the world. Yet these ideas are less clear-cut given today’s realities. 

We can easily become trapped by outdated models and concepts. Is our understanding of sovereignty suited to an age of interdependence? As more and more concerns are global—climate change, digital technology, trade, or space governance—is it not naive to assume that the state has either full control, or none? In many instances matters are still the purview of the nation, but effective resolution of other challenges requires a level of global coordination. This is not about control, but organizing global affairs in ways that can find lasting solutions to planetary-scale challenges. A key question therefore arises before the international community: what concerns are global and require governance at that level, what are national, and what are local? 

This rebalancing of the international order may lead to new ideas regarding disarmament and development: peace and security, for example, need not be the exclusive purview of the state, and arrangements that recognize this could be explored further. To this end, the concept of collective security, called for in the Charter of the United Nations, though never realized, is worth revisiting. Not only could such an arrangement reduce armaments at the national level—allowing for greater investment in the education, healthcare, and other necessities for the people—but it could contribute to the cultivation of greater trust across boundaries. It is true that advancing such a proposal in the current context may prove challenging—legitimate concerns would need to be addressed in transitioning our current approach to one of collective security. Such matters of collective security governance would need ample consultation. 

However, by setting out a vision: one where no nation is superior to another, where any rogue government is deterred from taking up arms against another, and where resources otherwise expended in the name of military spending can be channeled to human advancement, we can begin to articulate approaches to achieve it. The question, then, is not whether to introduce collective security for implementation now—but how to introduce it so that it can eventually find fertile soil. 

While brinkmanship is on the rise and notions of “us” versus “them” can be found in even the most noble of approaches, it can be difficult to imagine a future that reflects the reality of our shared humanity on a shared planet. But limiting our vision to what is achievable in the short term makes long term goals less likely to be realized. What we need today is to consider approaches to disarmament that can both ensure humanity’s security while also reducing military expenditures (opening fiscal space for other pursuits). The pooling of resources is the natural solution. How to achieve that should be a question for ongoing deliberation. 

Liliane Nkunzimana is a Representative of the Bahá’í International Community to the United Nations