Can the United Nations Ever Trust a Promise It Can’t Verify?
Almost every government on Earth says it wants peace. Almost every one of them also says its weapons are only there for defense.
So who checks?
That question sits underneath every peace treaty ever signed. Imho it’s also the question the United Nations was built to answer, and never has. The UN runs on promises from 193 member states. Can it ever trust a promise it isn’t allowed to verify?
1945.
The UN Charter is signed, and it already sees the problem. Article 26 gives the Security Council a job almost nobody talks about. It has to draw up plans for “a system for the regulation of armaments”, so that peace comes with “the least diversion for armaments of the world’s human and economic resources.”
The cost of weapons, named in the founding document.
The bill has only grown. The world spent $2.89 trillion on militaries in 2025. Researchers put the price of ending chronic hunger for close to half a billion people, plus closing most of the clean water gap in the poorest regions, at about $169 billion a year. Under 6%.
The math isn’t the obstacle. No country disarms first, because no country believes the other one actually will. Trust is the obstacle. And trust needs a number someone can check.
1949. The UN actually tried.
Its Commission for Conventional Armaments adopted a plan so plain it’s almost boring. Every member state reports its soldiers and its weapons on the same date. International teams check the numbers with spot-checks and physical counts, and no inspector may come from the country being inspected. A census. That’s it.
In October, the Soviet Union vetoed it in the Security Council. Its objection wasn’t stupid. The census covered soldiers and tanks but left out atomic bombs, and Moscow said that meant collecting everyone’s conventional numbers while the atomic ones stayed hidden.
The General Assembly approved the plan anyway, 44 votes to 5, with 5 abstentions. It changed nothing. The plan needed every permanent member of the Security Council on board, and it didn’t have them.
Over the years the Security Council dropped the subject. Its Article 26 plan was never written.
It’s simple, on paper. Count. Check. Publish. Somehow it’s never simple once a general has to open the door.
It isn’t impossible though. That’s what makes it hurt.
1987. Two Cold War rivals signed the INF Treaty and accepted inspectors on each other’s soil. By 1991, 2,692 missiles were destroyed. The inspections ran until 2001.
Chemical weapons went further. The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has 193 member states and its own inspectors. In July 2023 it verified that every stockpile any member had declared, 72,304 metric tonnes, was gone. The last munition went at a plant in Kentucky.
“Declared” carries weight in that sentence. More than a decade on, inspectors were still chasing gaps in what Syria had declared. Checking doesn’t make lying impossible. It makes lying visible.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, founded in 1957, applies safeguards on nuclear material in 190 states today, though not in the same way everywhere. So the tool exists. It works between governments that agree on almost nothing else.
What’s missing is the will to be counted. And nobody gets to feel superior about that.
Biological weapons were banned in 1975 with no verification at all. States spent years negotiating an inspection protocol. In 2001 the United States rejected the draft, saying it wouldn’t help compliance and could hurt American security. A working group has been trying again since the end of 2022.
1949, Moscow said no. 2001, Washington said no. Different capitals, same reflex. Wrong is wrong, whoever says it.
Then there’s the treaty that shows how a promise can outlive its own checking. New START capped the US and Russia at 1,550 deployed warheads each. It expired on February 5 this year. For the first time since 1972, the two largest arsenals have no binding limit.
The inspections had died long before that. They were paused in March 2020 for the pandemic and never came back. Russia suspended its participation in 2023. On paper, the treaty lived three more years.
Russia offered to keep the limits for a year. Washington wants a new deal that includes China. Beijing says its arsenal is far smaller and stays out. No inspector is counting in the meantime.
There’s a difference between rearranging what’s visible and giving up something real. A signing ceremony photographs beautifully. It costs nothing. An inspector walking through a missile base costs something. Too much of arms control has been ceremony.
Here’s what keeps bugging me, though. All of this covers the weapons that could end a civilization. Those aren’t the ones doing most of the killing.
Small arms killed about 260,000 people in 2021, according to the UN. That’s 45% of all violent deaths that year. The UN has itself described most modern conflicts as fought mainly with them.
And for ordinary weapons, the UN has a logbook. The Register of Conventional Arms asks governments each year to report the major weapons they bought and sold. Voluntary.
126 governments reported for 2001. By 2009 it was 72. In 2022, the UN’s disarmament committee heard that 2021 was the lowest participation yet.
Part of that drop is less dramatic than it sounds, since many of the old reports just said there was nothing to declare. Still. It’s a logbook fewer people bother to open.
The Arms Trade Treaty, in force since 2014, looks at weapons crossing borders. Neither it nor the Register sends anyone to count what’s already in the warehouse.
Why the difference? My guess is that states only accept being seen when being guessed about feels more dangerous. Nuclear and chemical weapons crossed that line. Rifles never scared the powerful enough. They mostly kill someone else.
Tanks did cross that line, once.
1990. As the Cold War ended, NATO and the Warsaw Pact signed a treaty on conventional forces in Europe. Equal ceilings on tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, combat aircraft and attack helicopters. Data exchanges. Inspectors on site. More than 72,000 pieces of equipment were eliminated.
Russia suspended the treaty in 2007 and left it in 2023, saying it no longer matched reality. NATO members then froze their side too. So it can die. But ordinary weapons have been counted, on site, by former enemies.
So imma say what I actually think. Imagine the 1949 census rebuilt for today.
It starts with one form, once a year. Every UN member that joins, same reference date, same columns. Soldiers, tanks, artillery, aircraft, warships, missiles, automatic weapons. Only totals. No locations, no plans, no research. The 1949 paper already drew that line: numbers only, research left out.
Then the checking. A permanent UN inspectorate, paid for by a fixed share of what members already contribute, with staff from every region. No inspector works in their own country. That part is straight from 1949.
Get Azhar Ali Iqbal’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Each year, a lottery picks a sample of declared depots and bases, so nobody knows which door comes next. The team counts, compares the count with the form, and leaves. Nobody will ever count every rifle on Earth. A sample doesn’t need to. It only needs to show whether the form is honest.
What about secrets? Chemical inspectors already deal with this. A state can point out what it considers sensitive, inspections have to be as unintrusive as possible, and reports can only contain facts relevant to compliance. An inspector here checks a number. Nobody reads a war plan.
And when a number doesn’t match? The inspectorate publishes the gap. The government gets 90 days to explain or correct it. If it doesn’t, the gap stays public, under its name, in the UN’s yearly report. Being seen is the first step. It isn’t the last.
It still matters though. I believe more and more people notice when their governments break what they signed, and more of them are willing to take to the streets over it. A checked number gives them something firmer to stand on than a rumor.
Now the veto, which is where 1949 died. So don’t ask the Security Council. The UN Register was created by the General Assembly in 1991. The Arms Trade Treaty was adopted there in 2013, 154 votes to 3, and entered into force once 50 states had ratified it. A census treaty could take the same road.
That means the big powers can stay out at the start. Fine. The first members would be the countries with the least to hide, and that’s a weak beginning. But the list of who counted and who refused would be public too. Refusing would start to cost something.
The hardest objection isn’t the veto. Published numbers can calm a neighbor who feared a country was stronger. They can also tell a stronger neighbor that the country is weak. For a small state next to a big one, that’s a real risk. Totals without locations reduce it. They don’t remove it, and I don’t have a clean answer for that.
What happens after that is another question. Who steps in when a country ignores the gap, or goes after someone weaker? My conviction is that the veto has to go. In 2026, five countries shouldn’t be able to block the answer. But the answer needs an essay of its own.
This isn’t disarmament. Nobody gives up a single bullet. It’s just a number everyone can see and someone has checked, which is where any real trust would have to start.
I could be wrong about this. Governments would hide things, as they always have. But a lie that can be checked is a very different thing from a promise that can’t.
“A promise nobody checks isn’t really a promise. It’s just a sentence that sounds like one.” — Azhar Ali Iqbal
So can the United Nations ever trust a promise it can’t verify? I don’t think it can. Its founders didn’t think so either, which is why Article 26 exists.
Someone handed the world that form in 1949. Seventy-seven years later, it’s still blank. What exactly are we so afraid it would say?
Sources
Security Council Report, Collective Security and Armament Regulation (UN Charter Article 26) — https://securitycouncilreport.org/update-report/lookup_c_glkwlemtisg_b_4756793.php
US State Department, Foreign Relations 1949, census and verification proposals — https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v01/d82
New Zealand parliamentary report on the 1949 General Assembly vote — https://dynamic-rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/imageserver/parliamentary/P29pZD1BSkhSMTk1MC1JLjEuMTY5JmdldHBkZj10cnVl
SIPRI, Global military spending rise continues — https://www.sipri.org/media/press-release/2026/global-military-spending-rise-continues
IFPRI, Big costs, bigger rewards — https://www.ifpri.org/blog/big-costs-bigger-rewards-how-33-billion-spending-each-year-can-help-end-hunger-sustainably-2030
World Bank, Funding a Water Secure Future — https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water/publication/funding-a-water-secure-future
Arms Control Association, The INF Treaty at a Glance — https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/intermediate-range-nuclear-forces-inf-treaty-glance
OPCW, All declared chemical weapons stockpiles verified as irreversibly destroyed — https://www.opcw.org/node/19325
OPCW, OPCW urges Syria to fulfil Chemical Weapons Convention obligations — https://opcw.org/media-centre/news/2024/12/opcw-urges-syria-fulfil-chemical-weapons-convention-obligations
IAEA, IAEA Applied Safeguards for 190 States — https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/iaea-applied-safeguards-for-190-states-iaea-report
Arms Control Association, The Biological Weapons Convention at a Glance — https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/biological-weapons-convention-bwc-glance-0
Arms Control Association, Russia Suspends New START — https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2023-03/news/russia-suspends-new-start
The Washington Times, US halts Russian arms inspections and data exchange — https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jun/1/us-halts-russian-arms-inspections-data-exchange-mi/
PBS/AP, Russia regrets expiration of last nuclear arms treaty — https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/russia-says-it-regrets-expiration-of-last-nuclear-arms-treaty-but-trump-says-he-wants-a-new-pact
Africanews, US, Russia seek new arms talks as last nuclear pact expires — https://www.africanews.com/2026/02/06/us-russia-seek-new-arms-talks-as-last-nuclear-pact-expires
UN Press, Security Council briefing on small arms, 2023 — https://press.un.org/2023/sc15533.doc.htm
UN Secretary-General, Small arms report S/2008/258 — https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/{65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9}/Arms%20S%202008%20258.pdf
SIPRI, Fact sheet on the UN Register of Conventional Arms — https://sipri.org/sites/default/files/files/FS/SIPRIFS1105.pdf
UN First Committee record A/C.1/77/PV.16 — https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/4016669/files/A_C.1_77_PV.16-EN.pdf
Congressional Research Service, The Arms Trade Treaty — https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IF10567.html
US State Department, Commission for Conventional Armaments working paper, 1949 — https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1949v01/d52
NTI, Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe — https://www.nti.org/education-center/treaties-and-regimes/treaty-conventional-armed-forces-europe-cfe/
Arms Control Association, Russia Formally Withdraws From CFE Treaty — https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2023-06/news/russia-formally-withdraws-cfe-treaty
Jurist, NATO countries freeze participation in arms control treaty — https://www.jurist.org/news/2023/11/russia-nato-withdraw-from-arms-control-treaty/
OPCW, Annex on the Protection of Confidential Information — https://opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/annexes/confidentiality-annex
UNODA, UN Register of Conventional Arms — https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/node/87394
UNODA, Arms Trade Treaty adopted 2 April 2013 — https://disarmament.unoda.org/update/20130402/
