Arms control in times of arms race

Arms control is about navigating the ‘arms paradox’: states need weapons for their security, but weapons can also be a source of insecurity. That is why Belgium – through our Directorate for Arms control – tirelessly advocates for international dialogue to prevent destabilising arms races.

Firsts for Belgium

The first large-scale chemical weapons attack took place in Belgium. On 22 April 1915—during the Second Battle of Ypres 110 years ago—the unsuspecting Allied troops were engulfed by 150 tonnes of German chlorine gas. During World War II, Antwerp was one of the primary targets of new German weapon systems: ballistic and cruise missiles. Uranium from the Belgian colony of Congo found its way into the very first atomic bombs.

Years later, our country was the first to ban both anti-personnel mines, depleted uranium munition and cluster munition — the latter being weapons that release smaller explosive submunitions. Belgium was also a pioneer in the global fight against illegal firearms.

A fragile immune system

For Belgium, neither armament nor disarmament is an end in itself. What really matters is security, the safeguarding of peace, freedom, and the international rule of law. Military weapons play an essential role as tools for deterrence and defence against external aggression. But they can also fuel conflict and by their very nature have the capacity to cause death and destruction. Think of it like your biological immune system: it protects your body against viruses and bacteria. But when it goes into overdrive, it can make you seriously ill or even kill you.

Agreements

Because of this ambivalence, it is essential that the production, trade, storage, and use of military weapons are regulated and monitored. States must ensure that:

• only weapons that can be used in accordance with international humanitarian law are manufactured;
• weapons are traded, stored, used, and dismantled in a responsible manner;
• weapons do not end up in the hands of aggressors, terrorists, or (war) criminals.

That’s why, in the past, states have decided to ban certain types of weapons—such as chemical and biological arms, anti-personnel mines, and blinding laser weapons. Other categories have been subjected to restrictions. In the interest of strategic stability, major military powers have struck agreements regarding their arsenals, and since the 1990s, human security has also become a motive for humanitarian arms control.

There are agreements in place for the peaceful application of emerging technologies, and to combat the illegal arms trade. Many states are wary of costly and destabilising arms races that do nothing to advance the goal of peace and security. Such agreements often include provisions for transparency, along with confidence-building measures to prevent unintended and potentially catastrophic escalation. Support for victims and mutual cooperation in the field of peaceful use also feature on the international agenda.

No one wants to be weak

However, international arms control is currently facing major challenges. The rules-based post-war world order is at risk of being replaced by the old adage: “The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.” No one wants to be weak. In the television series Fargo, Sheriff Tillman shoots a lawyer after uttering the words, “If you’re so smart, then why are you so dead?” The victim had tried to pressure the sheriff using legal arguments.

In a world without rules, it is sadly military might that has the final say. Our country has felt the full force of that—twice—in the 20th century. That is why Belgian diplomacy helped to build a new European and global order—one that proved far more capable of delivering lasting security and prosperity than the old approaches.

Harmel doctrine 2.0

At the same time, the old rules of violence and blackmail still hold sway. The world is not yet governed by the rule of law. That means we have to strike a balance between, on the one hand, deterrence through military strength, and on the other, arms control through international dialogue—a kind of permanent Harmel doctrine, if you will. That is precisely the role of the Directorate for Arms Control of our Federal Public Service and its counterparts around the world.

As a reminder, the Harmel Doctrine refers to the Belgian statesman Pierre Harmel. In the late 1960s, he argued that NATO should not position itself solely as a military alliance but should also actively pursue dialogue with the then Eastern Bloc countries.

Primal fear

Besides the erosion of the rules-based order, we are also witnessing a meteoric development of technologies with military applications. Just think of the militarisation of space, artificial intelligence, autonomous weapon systems and quantum and biotechnology.

A state’s primal fear is being blindsided by a new weapon system against which there is no effective deterrent or defence. In 1914, for instance, Germany’s 420 mm artillery forced the surrender of Antwerp’s fortress ring. In 1940, the German Luftwaffe brought the Netherlands to its knees with strategic bombing, and in 1945, American atomic bombs caused Japan to capitulate.

No country wants to be subjected to blackmail by an aggressor. Besides espionage and military deterrence, diplomacy also plays a key role here: first, in easing tensions that arise from these technological developments, and second, in helping to shape global frameworks for managing these technologies.

International dialogue

A secure Europe in a better world—the title of the 2003 European Security Strategy—illustrates the concept of inclusive security: one's own safety can only be sustainable if it does not come at the expense of the safety of others. In 2025, when we are constantly bombarded with si vis pacem, para bellum—if you want peace, prepare for war—this notion of inclusive security may sound like a naïve fairytale. And yet, we must not forget the costly lessons from Europe’s violent past.

That is why arms control remains a vital pillar of international security policy. International dialogue can mitigate the risk of destabilising and costly arms races and wars. Belgium plays a significant role in this regard and continues to advocate for sustainable and inclusive security that is also based on international dialogue and rules. The alternative has been thoroughly tested over the past millennia—and has consistently failed.