[Embargoed until November 25, 2020]
Wanda Muñoz has been working for the inclusion of people with disabilities, assistance to victims of war, and humanitarian disarmament for the past fifteen years. She has contributed to the development of the victim assistance provisions of the Convention on Cluster Munitions. She also contributed to the development of the Latin American Network of Mine/ERW (Explosive Remnants of War) survivors launched in 2019. Currently, she is researching practices to respond to gender-based violence against women and girls with disabilities through inclusive, intersectional models. Wanda is a member of the Human Security Network in Latin America and the Caribbean (SEHLAC) and her current disarmament efforts focus on the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots.
“Many people think that killer robots belong to the world of science fiction. But we need to take action now because decisions are being made now that will affect our peace and security.”
Q. Can you start by you telling me a bit about your work, generally, as an activist?
A. I started working on the rights of people with disabilities and on providing assistance to victims of war 15 years ago. I was working on projects that were looking at people with disabilities, in particular victims of anti-personnel mines, and how their rights could be supported. I started working on disarmament because I was seeing that women and children were victims of anti-personnel mines and other explosive devices. And they were not combatants and should not have been injured by these weapons. The field work I do looks to improving people’s quality of life, but I also work at the international level to try to stop these weapons from being used. And for that we turned to international humanitarian law. I, also, focus on gender-based violence because when we started talking with women, and particularly women with disabilities, everything came into place with a gender lens. These women are being discriminated against because they are poor, because they are victims of war, because they have disabilities and because they are women. Men and women have both been victims of mines and have lost limbs, but in addition, women have also then been abandoned by their husbands. The women have medical needs that must be addressed, but they are also left alone to raise their children. And afrodescendent or indigenous women face even more discrimination.
Q. Can you expand on how you got involved in the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots?
A. I started by working on the implementation the land mines treaty. And then, I worked on a campaign to ban cluster munitions and also making sure that that treaty included provisions for assistance to the victims of cluster munitions. Then, I started to work with the Human Security Network in Latin America and the Caribbean (SEHLAC) on the campaign to stop killer robots. Many people think that killer robots belong to the world of science fiction. But we need to take action now because decisions are being made now that will affect our peace and security. If we think that this is something from the world of science fiction, well, we will realize that it isn’t when we see killer robots in our countries.
Q. What are killer robots and why should they be banned?
A. Killer robots are also known as autonomous weapons. These are weapons that can select a target and decide whether or not to attack, but without any meaningful human intervention.
Killer robots should be banned for many reasons. First of all, if you take a moral or ethical perspective, it is unacceptable for a machine to decide, basically on its own, whether a person lives or dies. And from the perspective of international humanitarian law, it is impossible to program a machine to respect principles. For example, the principle proportionality, meaning that an attack needs to be as minimum as possible to achieve its military objective and that you cannot attack civilians or civilian infrastructure such as hospitals and schools. These laws that are designed to protect civilians are for humans and not for robots. A robot cannot be expected to follow international humanitarian law.
In addition, there are a lot of technical issues to be concerned about when it comes to killer robots. With machines, there is a bias based on using facial recognition technology. There was a recent study by MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) where they found out that facial recognition technology with white men had a 1 % error rate. In identifying black men, there was a 19% error rate. And with black women, the error rate went up to 35%. So, we can see that technology such as facial recognition is not neutral. And if killer robots are deployed, it will have negative impacts on populations that have already been discriminated against.
With killer robots, we mainly think about how they can be used in international conflicts, but once they are developed, in a very short time they can be used for national security ventures. They can be used by a country to police its own citizens and to violate human rights. And we are seeing this already with facial recognition programs being used to target people participating in protests. So, police can start using killer robots too.
Work to stop killer robots needs to be done nationally, regionally and internationally. Internationally, with diplomats by engaging in dialogue so that they understand why they need to ban killer robot. In individual countries, we need to raise awareness of the campaign to stop killer robots because most people, when they hear about killer robots, are asking: Why should we care about killer robots when we are faced with the more pressing issues of poverty and violence against women?
We also work on disarmament and how disarmament, human rights and the use of technology are interlinked. We need to make sure that new technology being developed isn’t being used to develop arms. Often, when we think about technology, we think that technology is neutral. But it is not. We have to think about who will benefit from it and who will be harmed: indigenous people, women, those living in poverty. We cannot develop this weapon as it will have an impact on those that have been historically marginalized.
Q. What are the gender-based implications of killer robots? And why is a feminist approach to disarmament needed?
A. Well, first there is the issue I have already mentioned: the issue of bias. Technology is not neutral. There is systemic discrimination against women and people of colour and against people with disabilities. But beyond that, there is the existence of toxic masculinity and its relationship to weapons. There is this idea that the world needs more weapons. We cannot keep thinking that this is normal. We know that in societies with more weapons, there is more violence against women. The men hold the power and they hold the weapons. And they will use this power and the weapons against women.
Accountability is also a key factor. If a soldier makes a mistake, that soldier can be held accountable. But if killer robots make mistakes, who is accountable? How will responsibility be allocated? This means that victims will have even more difficulty assessing and obtaining justice. And finally, developing killer robots means that we are accepting weapons as a legitimate tool to use internationally, instead of negotiations and dialogue. And this will just lead to more violence, death.
Q. Has the work on killer robots been impacted by COVID-19?
A. Yes, generally, there have been a lot of disarmament processes that have been disrupted with many international meetings cancelled. The meetings that are still taking place, often, are less participatory. Meetings are being closed to civil society. They are making processes less open. But we are finding ways to meet and to move forward.
The pandemic also means that people have even less time to think about killer robots. But, I think that we need to turn this around and say: look at all the weapons we have and how they are not helping in the pandemic. These weapons can do nothing to help with the health and quality of life for people around the world. Countries need to invest more health care, in education, and not weapons. This is the argument that must be made.
Read “Stopping Killer Robots: Country Positions on Banning Fully Autonomous Weapons and Retaining Human Control” to find out where your country, and others, stand on banning killer robots.