The rhythm picks up in the war against “killer robots”
[ad_1]
Foreign Affairs
Supporters of the “killer robot” ban hope for progress by the end of the year, as nations debate pros and cons. What role is New Zealand playing – and could we do more?
Are we about to reach a turning point in the war against “killer robots”?
About 50 countries gathered at the United Nations in Geneva last week for the first official diplomatic meeting on lethal autonomous weapons systems in nearly a year.
Talks will continue this week, but observers are pleased with the tone of the conversations that have already taken place.
Mary Wareham, director of advocacy for Human Rights Watch’s arms division and longtime activist for the ban on “killer robots”, told Newsroom that the heightened sense of urgency appeared to be a direct result of the extra time reflection granted by the Covid -19 pandemic.
Disarmament and Arms Control Minister Phil Twyford also welcomed the developments in Geneva, saying there was an emerging consensus for action.
“We are quite encouraged by the greater level of engagement, and our view is that the time has come for the international community to come together to ban and regulate autonomous weapons systems.”
Twyford has previously expressed enthusiasm for New Zealand to take a leading role in this work, and Wareham said the country could act as “a total catalyst for action,” citing Canada’s leadership on a treaty banning landmines and Norway‘s on cluster munitions.
âThat’s what’s missing – we can’t let diplomats and officials fix this. He must have a bold political push behind him. ”
“If you have machines and algorithms that basically make the decisions to identify, engage and execute on the battlefield, that, to me, is unacceptable.”
Many countries seem to agree that fully autonomous weapon systems should be banned and that meaningful human control is a necessity for those who are authorized – which then raises the question of how to define full autonomy and meaningful control.
Twyford said the government is still developing a national policy to address some of these definitional issues, while preserving the ability of the New Zealand Defense Force to exercise with partners.
But on one issue, New Zealand’s position was already clear: that it was “morally unacceptable” to delegate the decision to kill another human to a robot.
âThis is the starting point for this discussion. Just because an autonomous weapon system can have the pause button pressed, I don’t think so – if you have machines and algorithms that basically make the decisions to identify, engage, and execute on the spot. battle, that, to me, is unacceptable.
Twyford said he hoped to present a document to Cabinet by November, with an official position finalized ahead of a December “review conference” in Geneva seen by human rights organizations as a deadline for the action.
But Wareham said the government couldn’t afford to stand back in the meantime.
âNew Zealand is losing a huge opportunity if it can’t step in and start pushing the substance like other governments are doing right now. It sort of scuttles any opportunity to make it look like we’re taking bold action and sort of relegates us to countries that really don’t say much.
Support has emerged for a total ban on weapon systems which by their nature select and engage without significant human control, particularly those which use machine learning algorithms with “unpredictable and inexplicable effects”, while that there is also strong opposition to anti-personnel weapon systems. which relied on profiles derived from data collected by sensors to identify, select and attack people.
While a number of smaller countries take a more active role in defending a treaty, some of the larger powers continue to drag their feet.
China has indicated support for a ban, but other permanent members of the UN Security Council seem lukewarm at best, with the US and UK suggesting best practice guidelines (rather than a legal treaty) might be preferable. .
The most hostile opposition came from Russia, with the delegate from Moscow arguing that “to require machines to conform to principles and social conscience would be absolutely absurd”.
The Russian representative claimed that it is the military officers responsible for operating these systems who could be held responsible – an argument according to Twyford “just does not match”.
âThe whole point of autonomous weapon systems is that humans will be absent from target identification, selection, engagement and execution, and that is exactly what we are trying to stop. “
For similar reasons, he ignored an American suggestion that advancements in technology might actually improve compliance with international law, reducing human error and killing more accurately.
Wareham said the P5 members were “a little freaked out that there is a fleeing train here, and developing countries and the kind of middle country are starting to fight for the treaty they want.”
Wareham said New Zealand had to do better than its “weakly worded” endorsement of a treaty in Geneva, given the urgency to reach a deal.
The opposition of the major military powers is hardly a surprise, as Twyford has said.
âIf you look at all the major disarmament treaties, the P5 and the major military powers had to be brought to the table to accept these things, and a number of the major military powers around the world are doing their utmost to try to develop this technology. for a military advantage.
“This is the very reason why we must act as an international community, because a new arms race is underway and it will be impossible to stop it.”
In our statement to the meeting, the representative of New Zealand said the country’s usual preference was to agree on legally binding rules, rather than less important documents like a code of conduct – but said suggested that was not a result.
“Our overriding goal is the effective regulation and control of autonomous weapon systems and we will pursue this in any form.”
Twyford said he believed a set of legally binding rules was the best solution, but New Zealand needed to remain flexible and willing to consider stepping stones, given the need to convince “a critical mass of other countries” .
But Wareham said New Zealand had to do better than its “weakly worded” endorsement of a treaty in Geneva, given the urgency to reach a deal.
âSure, be open, you know, but this is the last chance: that’s what you do at a review conference.
“Even if we are not going to start negotiations in December, we have to call it, we have to fight for it.”
[ad_2]