NZ needs to join those countries that have called for an international prohibition on autonomous weapons and to work with them to make it happen, writes Thomas Nash.

The drive towards artificial intelligence and robots on the battlefield is the kind of seismic shift in military technology not seen since the inventions of gunpowder and nuclear weapons. Yet while big data and privacy have been high on the political agenda, killer robots have largely flown under the radar. People are rightly concerned at Cambridge Analytica manipulating social media to swing the UK toward Brexit and the US towards Trump. Closer to home there’s dismay at immigration algorithms profiling people to be deported.

What hasn’t made it into the mainstream is that weapons manufacturers are gearing up to build autonomous weapons operating in the air, on land and in the sea. The US already has 10,000 armed drones in its inventory. Right now they are operated by human pilots who select the targets and fire missiles at them. Technologically, though, we’re not far away from that function being devolved to the machine. The UK “Taranis” and US “X47B” combat aircraft are in testing, designed to take off, navigate, refuel in mid-air and land, all autonomously. With next generation systems for automated target recognition and algorithms to determine mission parameters, such combat aircraft could be capable of undertaking attacks without meaningful human control. One US research project envisages swarms of aerial drones that carry out “all steps of a strike mission – find, fix, track, target, engage, assess”. That means we launch them, they fly off and kill people and then they come back. Despite how terrifying that might sound, the issue of killer robots hasn’t quite got cut through yet. That might just be about to change.

Last weekend filmmaker Chris Paine premiered a film online called “Do you trust this computer?” It’s compelling viewing on the risks of pursuing digital super-intelligence (if you can get past its procession of educated white males.) Elon Musk paid for free streaming last weekend and it had over 5 million views in the first 36 hours. Musk probably didn’t do this just because he features in it heavily. Along with the late Stephen Hawking, Musk has been a leading voice raising alarm at the prospect of autonomous weapons powered by artificial intelligence and operating beyond human control.

As the UN kicks off its fifth year of meetings on autonomous weapons in a conference room in Geneva this week, the film will no doubt be playing in the background on more than one diplomat’s laptop. The Guardian’s story on this week’s talks was headlined ominously: “Countries spending billions on ‘third revolution in warfare’ as UN debates regulation of AI-powered weapons”. Meanwhile, last Friday, Newshub interviewed Auckland University’s Dr. Paul Ralph about an academic boycott that forced a South Korean University to pull out of a project to develop autonomous weapons.

Things are starting to bubble up to the surface. That’s good because with the scale of investment and pace of development in this field of technology, there’s little time left to stop the emergence of autonomous weapons. In our current climate this will be a major challenge for international disarmament diplomacy. Precedents should give us hope though. Negotiations between the US and Soviet Union to get rid of long range missiles in the 1980s took place at the height of the Cold War. Today, despite nuclear sabre-rattling and the recent use of chemical weapons in Syria, the taboos established in international law against weapons of mass destruction remain strong. There are many more examples of countries coming together to outlaw weapons – from exploding bullets and blinding lasers to landmines and cluster bombs. There’s also a well-organised international campaign, run by New Zealander Mary Wareham, dedicated to a global ban on fully autonomous weapons.

As the world’s only Minister for Disarmament and Arms Control, Winston Peters should be doing everything he can to promote an international law prohibiting killer robots before it’s too late. We’re a small country, but we have a big appetite for principled leadership on the biggest questions facing humanity. This is most certainly one of those questions and our leadership is sorely needed.

Some might say there’s no hope or that nobody would listen to us anyway. To that last point, you might be surprised how keen other countries are to get New Zealand on side during diplomatic negotiations. I’ve seen countries fist bump after signing up New Zealand’s vote at the United Nations. As for those who say there’s no hope in trying to prevent a world of autonomous mechanised slaughter, well, just in case it turns out that we can, I reckon we should give it a crack.

New Zealand has every interest in making the most of AI and technology so that it benefits humanity rather than ushering in our demise. We’re a thriving innovation hub relying increasingly on technology as a crucial link to the rest of the world. Jacinda Ardern and Winston Peters should direct New Zealand’s negotiators at the United Nations to join the countries calling for an international prohibition on autonomous weapons and work with them to make it happen.

This section is made possible by Simplicity, New Zealand’s fastest growing KiwiSaver scheme. As a nonprofit, Simplicity only charges members what it costs to invest their money. It already has more than 12,500 plus members who, together, are saving more than $3.8 million annually in fees. This year, New Zealanders will pay more than $525 million in KiwiSaver fees. Why pay more than you need to? It takes two minutes to switch. Grab your IRD # and driver’s licence. It really is that simple.

The campaign launched by the US with France and UK is a breach of international law. These bombs will kill and maim more people, bringing irrevocable suffering to an already traumatised people, writes Green MP Golriz Ghahraman

The harrowing reality of Syria’s war, with chemical weapons, a trapped civilian population and blocked UN security council, just got a whole lot more frightening. Today, the United States, under President Trump, together with its allies, France and the United Kingdom, entered another war in the Middle East. Of course the Syrian war has been a proxy war in the model of perpetual wars happening throughout that oil-rich region for some time.

The United States, Russia, and regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran have all been fanning those flames and literally providing the firepower. But it does make a difference when a superpower breaches international borders to bomb another nation, without even the pretense of lawful sanction. It matters because the rule of law matters, because might should not be right. But mostly, it matters because those bombs will kill and maim more people, they will bring more violence and irrevocable suffering to an already traumatised people. No one has ever in fact bombed for peace, we know that so why do it again?

The thing about watching the horrors of war in Syria is that we feel powerless but desperate to help. The population is trapped, much of the violence is actually being perpetrated by Syria’s own government and armed forces, but rebels and other ad hoc armed forces are also being backed by foreign powers interested in the regional power play, interested in promoting their own interests. It isn’t fair, because on the ground ordinary Syrians are caught in the cross-fire. Millions have lived in refugee camps for years now, ordinary children who once worried about birthday presents and homework have had no regular schooling well into their teens.

Some have lost their lives trying to reach safety. Chemical weapons have caused painful deaths and horrifying injuries to entire villages. It isn’t fair, and the deep outrage felt around the world each time Russia vetoes a Security Council resolution on something like investigations into those chemical attacks, we all feel defeated. That’s understandable. But what comes from that sense of anger and frustration cannot be blind vengeance at the expense of more lives lost.

If history has taught us anything, it is that violence doesn’t and hasn’t ever stopped violence, in that region or elsewhere. So it matters, and is telling to me, that everyone involved is well aware that strike action is almost certainly not going to make victims safe, stop the use of chemical weapons, or end the war. The airstrikes must be seen for what they are: a continuation of a policy that protects American and western interests and a breach of international law.

While the question of lawfulness may seem pedantic in the face of chemical warfare, the opposite, an acceptance of a “might is right” ad hoc approach to something as grave as the integrity of international borders and the use of force, is worth guarding against with vigilance. Leaving the US to do what it wants creates a precedent that we have to live with in future, at the whim of the Trumps in this world, with little respect for the rules and airstrike capability to match. New Zealand, as a small country that relies on multilateralism and the rule of law, needs to stand up against ad hoc unlawful international violence.

It was very telling that in Trump’s statement on air strikes he did not claim the attack was consistent with the UN Charter or was a legal response to the use of chemical weapons. He simply said that the attacks were in the national security of the United States. What he should have said was the attack served US economic interests. This war would not have been as bloody or long lived had it not been for the eager involvement of the US, Russia and their allies and for their unwillingness to pressure their regional allies, to divest from the cheap oil coming from either Iran or Saudi. We cannot say we’ve exhausted all diplomatic options, when the war being waged is literally itself a tool to secure other diplomatic and economic interests. If we were willing to forego those interests there would be no weapons or financial resource for this war.

My family has suffered under US sponsored bombs in my childhood. I’ve lost friends, lived terrified, and known teenagers drafted away into a war that would not have continued for eight long years had it not been for the western appetite to fight for its interests in the Middle East. That is important to remember as we are sold the moral authority of the US, UK and France here against Russia.

Given that we know bombing terrible regimes in the Middle East only creates or extends its wars these bombings only makes the people of Syria less safe. It is the perpetration of violence on behalf of those already at breaking point, wreaking more havoc and death just to feel like we’re doing “something”. We can’t let the end point, peace in Syria be obscured by the immediate need for us to feel better. We can’t accept a weakening of international law. This bombing is the end point of the venomous, divisive electioneering rhetoric that saw Trump win his presidency. It isn’t what New Zealand stands for.

Aotearoa is the land that gave my family and me safety and dignity when we arrived as refugees, because Kiwis stand for peace and for inclusion. What we should do is engage with the international community in ensuring the victims have access to aid, safe passage out of targeted areas, can settle as refugees without being accused of terrorism or banned from that safety by the likes of Trump. What New Zealand can do is never support any nation on the East/West divide who sponsors violence. We can, as we have always done, stand against violence, with ordinary people, sharing our values.

This section is made possible by Simplicity, New Zealand’s fastest growing KiwiSaver scheme. As a nonprofit, Simplicity only charges members what it costs to invest their money. It already has more than 12,500 plus members who, together, are saving more than $3.8 million annually in fees. This year, New Zealanders will pay more than $525 million in KiwiSaver fees. Why pay more than you need to? It takes two minutes to switch. Grab your IRD # and driver’s licence. It really is that simple.