Public Opinion: There is hard evidence that public opinion does not want an arm’s race in space; wants outer space free of weapons; and wants a treaty permanently banning all space-based weapons.
In a public opinion poll published on April 15, 2004 by the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) and the Knowledge Networks, 74 percent of respondents said they thought a treaty banning all weapons in space was “a good idea.” Moreover, “only 21 percent favored building a missile defense system right away. Sixty-eight percent said more research should be done first.”
Space-based weapons
A large majority favors a new treaty banning weapons in space. Only a small minority favors deployment of a ballistic missile defense system, but a large majority favors continued research.
Consistent with its support for promoting international arms control agreements, a large majority favors a new treaty banning weapons in space. Simply asked whether such a treaty would be a good idea or a bad idea, 74% said that it would be a good idea, while 22% said it would be a bad idea.
Treaty on Weapons in Space
Good idea – 74%
Bad idea - 22%
Do you think that a new treaty banning all weapons in space would be a good idea or a bad idea?
A separate part of the sample was presented a question that contained more information about a possible treaty banning weapons in space. Respondents were presented the following:
As you may know, since the 1960s a number of treaties have banned nuclear weapons in space. Some people have proposed negotiating a new treaty against any kind of weapon in space, including weapons designed to knock out satellites. Here are two positions on this issue.
a. Such a treaty would stop a new arms race in space and would forbid weapons that would threaten US satellites, which are very important for managing US military capabilities.
b. Such a treaty would make it harder for the US to do research into missile defense, intended to protect the US homeland, and to build systems to protect US satellites from attack.
They were then asked, “Do you think that a new treaty banning all weapons in space would be a good idea or a bad idea?” In this case support was a bit lower, though still a large majority, with 65% saying it was a good idea and 33% saying it was a bad idea.
Non-Governmental Organizations – There are committed NGOs who do not want an arm’s race in space; want an outer space free of weapons; and want a treaty permanently banning all weapons in space.
For example, a coalition of support of 274 U.S. and International Non-governmental organizations has been assembled by the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power, in support of the Space Preservation Act, calling upon the President of the United States to work for a worldwide ban on weapons in space as well. The Space Preservation Act (H.R. 3657) provides that in “Sec. 4. International Treaty Banning Space-Based Weapons And The Use Of Weapons Against Objects In Space In Orbit. The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing an international treaty banning space-based weapons and the use of weapons to destroy or damage objects in space that are in orbit.”
The Supporting NGOs pledged: “We wholeheartedly support this bill
and call upon the U.S. Congress to enact this legislation. If the U.S.
places weapons systems in outer space, a new arms race among nations
will surely follow. The world will become less secure, not more. The
environment will be further polluted. And the economic drain on the
people of the U.S. and the rest of the world will be enormous.”
Significant NGO policy conclusions emerged from international conferences held during 2004, including “Safeguarding Space For All: Security And Peaceful Uses,” (Geneva
March 25-26, 2004) A joint conference of Foreign Affairs Canada; Henry
L. Stimson Center; Project Ploughshares Canada; Simons Centre for Peace
and Disarmament Research; Simons Foundation Union of Concerned
Scientists; United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR).
International Legal Approaches and the Role of the Conference on Disarmament
Regarding an international treaty banning space weapons, the Conference Report concluded:
Thomas Graham Jr. from the Eisenhower Institute in Washington, DC
spoke on the law and the military use of outer space. He pointed out
that military activity in space was largely unregulated, and there was
as yet no legal regime preventing the weaponization of space. The Outer
Space Treaty (1967) laid the groundwork for international order in
outer space, but was limited in its application, as it did not cover
outer space in toto, but only celestial bodies. In addition, the Outer
Space Treaty and the Partial Test Ban Treaty (1963) had few inspection
or verification provisions. As Graham also pointed out, however, there
existed a large arsenal of international resolutions attesting to the
intended peaceful use of outer space. Examples included several United
Nations General Assembly declarations, specific domestic national
legislation governing space related activities, and parts of the Outer
Space Treaty. This legal corpus might serve as a point of departure for
devising an international legal regime securing outer space as a common
good. On the issue of international lawmaking on outer space, Lucy
Stojak from the McGill Institute of Air and Space Law (Canada)
presented a snapshot of the current situation. She argued that legal
norms could emerge in incremental steps and at the initiative of few
countries. The Partial Test Ban Treaty (1967), which prohibited nuclear
weapons testing in outer space, started out as an initiative of the
United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union, with these
countries recognizing that regulation was in their own self-interest.
She also referred to the Registration Convention (1975) and
the Moon
Agreement (1979) as being the first incremental steps to arms control
in space, as these treaties required that certain information on
satellites be provided to the United Nations body by space-faring
nations. Stojak also stated that the United States, even though it
withdrew from the ABM Treaty (1972) in 2002, still adhered to the
principle of non-interference with foreign owned space objects. While
the Conference on Disarmament is the designated forum to discuss outer
space issues, she concluded, countries should go ahead with designing a
comprehensive legal framework on outer space in any form or forum.
Rebecca Johnson from the Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy in the United Kingdom outlined her action plan for outer space. Johnson advocated a holistic approach, where issues fed into each other, establishing behavioural norms and eventually resulting in legally binding treaties. Firstly, Johnson advocated making more use of networking to foster cross-fertilization between commercial and government space users. Secondly, while the Conference on Disarmament should continue to work towards a treaty on PAROS, for example by building upon the useful Chinese-Russian draft proposal of 2002, other forums should be used in the meanwhile. This could include work in the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) or the First Committee of the General Assembly. Such forums should begin negotiating issues such as mitigating space debris, pre- and post-launch notification of satellites, or building an international space security index. Lastly, legal documents could be expanded including treaties under the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) or the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Arms in Europe (CFE). Alternatively, a protocol could be added to the Outer Space Treaty, for example detailing a code of conduct or banning ASAT weapons. Johnson urged countries to take action, as she viewed the new Bush Space Agenda’s push for Mars as a clear sign on the road to the weaponization of space. More specifically, she feared that Bush’s plan to establish ABM —capable satellites by 2008 was a pretext for establishing space objects with ASAT capabilities—in other words, the first weapons in space.
Anton Vasiliev from the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation
to the Conference on Disarmament reiterated in his speech Russia’s firm
stand behind its proposal made with the People’s Republic of China in
the Conference on Disarmament in 2002 (CD/1679) on the prevention of
the weaponization of outer
space. This proposal urged the banning of
weapons placed in space, including space objects with ASAT
capabilities. However, as Vasiliev pointed out, the Russian-Chinese
proposal did not prohibit the militarisation of space, i.e. the use of
space for military purposes such as surveillance or other data
gathering operations. In Vasiliev’s eyes, the Conference on Disarmament
was ripe to negotiate these issues. Transparency in space matters, he
concluded, led to a framework of trust and world stability.
Participants varied in their views about the right approach to treaty making with regard to outer space. Most participants favoured a step-by-step approach to treaty making as opposed to trying to negotiate a comprehensive treaty in one go. They favoured treating the outer space issue in different forums and coming up with an international division of labour. Regional bodies were proposed as an option.
The role of the Conference on Disarmament was also debated. Most participants favoured discussions there on a treaty while at the same time treating the subject of outer space in other bodies. Some participants were worried that taking the issue of PAROS away from the CD would complicate matters. Many participants recommended bringing in experts and conducting informal discussion meetings in the Conference on Disarmament.
Some participants urged certain countries just to go ahead with a treaty. They believed that this move would have a snowballing effect, drawing in more signatories to the treaty at a later stage.
World Community: The overwhelming majority of the world community has voted for an outer space free of weapons; and supports a treaty permanently banning all weapons in space. The most recent U.N. General Assembly vote, on December 8, 2003, on the prevention of an arms race in space (Resolution 58/36) was 174-0. Only four nations abstained: Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), and the United States of America.
Emerging Leaders: Three U.N. Member Nations, Canada, Russia and China, have taken special initiative at the United Nations Conference on Disarmament to seek consensus on an international treaty banning space weapons.
On February 24, 2004, Canada announced that it was seeking a new treaty on space weapons at the United Nations. Jeff Sallot of the Globe & Mail reported that:
Canada is trying to get the United States and other countries to agree to a treaty banning weapons in outer space.
Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham has asked his counterparts in
the Group of Eight leading industrial countries to consider how the
nations of the world can keep space free of weapons.
Long a dream
of peace activists, a ban on space weapons is an issue that could make
its way back on to the international arms-control agenda as a result of
the debate about the U.S. ballistic-missile defence program, senior
Canadian officials said yesterday.
Mr. Graham wrote the other G-8 foreign ministers recently to see if they would join Canada in pushing the idea at the UN Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, said Jim Wright, the assistant deputy minister of foreign affairs for security.
There has been no response yet to Mr. Graham's letter.
However, many of the other countries that are, like Canada, in discussions with Washington about possible participation on missile defence are also interested in an international ban on space weapons, Mr. Wright said.
China and Russia in particular are showing fresh interest.
Thus the time might be ripe to revisit what had been a stalemate in Geneva on a space-weapons ban and another arms-control proposal to cut off production of new fissile material that could be used to make nuclear weapons, Mr. Wright said.
The United States first tested a nuclear warhead in space in 1962, but reached agreement with the former Soviet Union and more than 80 other countries to ban weapons of mass destruction in the Earth's orbit, on the moon or on other planets in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.
U.S. military scientists are researching new kinds of weapons, such
as high-energy directed lasers and "kinetic kill" interceptors. These
weapons are not covered by the Outer Space Treaty.
The chairman of
the Senate committee on national security, Liberal Colin Kenny,
suggested weapons in space are inevitable. He asked why the Canadian
government is "making a big deal" out of the issue of space weapons
when the military of the U.S. and Canada already make extensive use of
space for communications and surveillance.
Mr. Wright said "we make a clear distinction between the military in space and the weaponization of space. Space is a pristine environment" in regards to weapons.
Space is already crowded with satellites and debris. Putting weapons into space that could blast apart satellites will only make it more difficult for countries who want to use space for commercial purposes, such as telecommunications, global navigation, weather forecasting and for peaceful research, Mr. Wright said.
Mr. Wright, the government's chief negotiator in ballistic-missile
defence talks with Washington, said the Americans fully understand
Canada's strong opposition to weapons in space. "This policy will not
change."
Many Americans in the U.S. Congress, and even the Pentagon,
oppose space weapons, he said, if for no other reason than the huge
estimated costs.
China and Russia
On August 26, 2004, China and Russia again took a strong initiative at the UNCD by again calling for an international treaty preventing an outer space arms race.
Xinhua News Agency reported that:
China called Thursday for international consensus and a legally-binding agreement on preventing an arms race in outer space.
China's
Ambassador for Disarmament Affairs, Hu Xiaodi, told delegates to the
United Nations Conference on Disarmament here: "In our view, the
priority concern is to further consolidate an international consensus
on prevention of weaponization and an arms race in outer space in the
form of a legal commitment or a legal instrument."
Hu introduced
two informal papers - initiated jointly by China and Russia - outlining
the two countries' concerns over the lack of definition and
verification of arms in outer space and concluding that verification
will be highly difficult in terms of cost and technology.
Hu said a verification protocol may be needed in the future.
The
papers also conclude that existing treaties have failed to effectively
prevent the testing, deployment and use of weapons, other than those of
mass destruction, in outer space.
"None of these instruments covers the threat or use of force from the Earth against objects in outer space," Hu said.
China and Russia release two joint non-papers: “Verification Aspects of PAROS,” and "Existing International Legal Instruments and Prevention of the Weaponization of Outer Space."
United Nations
On August 26, 2004, key members of the UNCD issued statements indicating strong support for an international treaty banning weapons in space:
China And Russia Present New Contributions To Conference On Banning Weapons In Outer Space
Canada, France, Sweden and Sri Lanka Support Re-Establishing an Ad Hoc Committee on Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space
China and the Russian Federation today presented new contributions to the Conference on Disarmament on their proposal concerning the elaboration of a legal instrument in the Conference to ban weapons in outer space, prompting immediate reaction from Canada, France, Sweden, Sri Lanka and the United Kingdom.
The Russian Federation recalled that filling the gaps in existing international outer space law had been the purpose of the proposal by Russia and China, co-sponsored by a group of other States, which aimed to prohibit space-based weapons and the use of force against outer space objects. The two countries were today distributing two non-papers on the verification of implementation of the future instrument, and on a review of existing international law related to weaponization of outer space.
Russia hoped an Ad Hoc Committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space would be re-established within the framework of an agreed programme of work of the Conference, and it was ready to support consensus on the programme of work based on the Five Ambassadors proposal. As a practical first step in this direction, Russia proposed to declare a moratorium on placement of weapons in outer space, pending conclusion of an appropriate agreement by the international community.
China said the priority concern was to further consolidate the international consensus on the prevention of the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space in the form of a legal commitment or a legal instrument. In June 2002, seven delegations including China and the Russian Federation, had tabled a working paper entitled “possible elements for a future international legal agreement on the prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects”. In order to advance the work of the Conference on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, China and the Russian Federation had jointly prepared two non-papers.
Concerning the programme of work of the Conference, China said it had demonstrated considerable flexibility by agreeing to the proposed formulation of the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee on prevention of an arms race in outer space although its mandate was far too weak. However, it at least struck a delicate and acceptable balance between various issues. China hoped that other relevant sides would also show the necessary political will and flexibility by accepting the Five Ambassadors proposal to enable the Conference to step out of its stalemate and to begin substantive work.
Canada said any treaty seeking to prohibit or limit space weapons would require a definition of “space weapon” in order to be precise about what the treaty would govern. Canada also believed that verification provisions must be included in any space weapons ban as a necessary element of any eventual treaty. It expressed support for re-establishing the Ad Hoc Committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space.
France said it had always supported an Ad Hoc Committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Unfortunately, for the past two years, this issue had been linked within the Conference to other subjects of a different nature. This situation was artificial. France remained convinced that the prevention of an arms race in outer space, like other issues, should be considered independently, with no artificial linkages.
Sweden said it supported the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee in the Conference to deal with outer space. It suggested, as a first step, that informal technical meetings involving a wider range of actors in the space field from international organizations, space agencies, space law and the private sector, be held. Since space activities often were of a dual-use nature and involved cross-cutting issues between civil and military activities, future work would benefit from an over all perspective.
Sri Lanka noted that the majority of delegations had expressed support for the re-establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in the Conference during the open-ended informal consultations and informal plenaries. Today two-non-papers had been presented which was a positive contribution towards efforts to elaborate an agreed mandate for the re-established Ad Hoc Committee, which would take into account the urgent need to address this issue in the Conference.
And the United Kingdom agreed that it was better not to link progress on different issues in the Conference, and that issues should be kept separate. Also it was not possible to separate what was happening in outer space from what was happening on earth. What might be creating the situation was the proliferation of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, so it was on the ground that the world needed to start to address the problem. A Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT) would be one such step and it was the next step that the Conference should and could take.
Ambassador U Mya Than of Myanmar, the President of the Conference, said it was with shock and sadness that the Conference had learned about two almost simultaneous airplane crashes yesterday in the Russian Federation which had killed many people. On behalf of the Conference, he extended his deepest condolences to the Government of the Russian Federation and the families of the victims. Ambassador Leonid Skotnikov of the Russian Federation said he was grateful for the condolences of the Conference on these tragic events and said he would convey these words of sympathy to the Government, which would then convey them to the families of the victims.
The President said that on Tuesday, 31 August, an informal plenary would be held to discuss “assessment and stocktaking of the informal plenary meetings”. The next plenary would be held at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 2 September, and it would be followed, if necessary, by the second reading of the draft annual report of the Conference. The first reading of the draft was held at an informal plenary immediately following today’s plenary.
Statements
LEONID SKOTNIKOV (Russian Federation) said the issue
of preventing the placement of weapons in outer space and thereby
preventing an arms race in outer space was Russia’s clear priority
among the items of the agenda of the Conference. Outer space was
rapidly gaining importance in the life of mankind and in ensuring its
further progress. More than 130 States currently participated in outer
space activities. The use of outer space, on the one hand, was
objectively one of the most important ways of solving global problems
facing mankind. On the other hand, should the situation take an
unfavourable turn, outer space may also become a new sphere of military
face-off, a source of new threats to all.
The use of space systems for military purposes was now constantly on the rise. Naturally, the Russian Federation was talking about activities carried out in accordance with international law. In the course of such activities in the Russian Federation, both stand-alone spacecrafts and orbital satellite groups had been developed and put in use. Although these outer space systems had military predestination, they obviously were not weapons, as they were not designated to strike an enemy in a military combat and did not create a threat of attacking outer space or from outer space.
The placement of weapons in outer space could undermine existing arms control agreements, first and foremost those related to nuclear weapons and missiles, and could provoke a new spiral of an arms race. Transformation of outer space into a potential arena of military combat could carry serious threats of disrupting strategic stability and international security. Placement of weapons in outer space would increase the risks arising from the short time for taking decisions on their combat use. In addition to missile defence, space weapons were capable of destroying spacecrafts. The damage may not be confirmed to the military segment of an outer space grouping. The emergence of weapons in outer space was fraught with arrival of a tangle of serious complications and dangers.
The Russian Federation found it difficult to accept statements that existing international outer space law was sufficient to prevent an arms race in outer space and that there was no need to further develop it. There are obvious lacunae. Filling these gaps, at least partially, was the purpose of the proposal by Russia and China, co-sponsored by a group of other States. It was suggested that this treaty should provide for three basic obligations. First, “not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying any kinds of weapons, not to install such weapons on celestial bodies, or not to station such weapons in outer space in any other manner”. Second, “not to resort to the threat or use of force against outer space objects”. Third, “not to assist or encourage other States, groups of States, international organizations to participate in activities prohibited by the Treaty”. In practical terms, all these three obligations boiled down to the prohibition of space-based weapons and the use of force against outer space objects. The Russian Federation was sure that the proposal was realistic, practically feasible and that it corresponded to the interests of all.
In conclusion, Ambassador Skotnikov said that the Russian-Chinese working paper was not carved in stone. The two countries were satisfied with ongoing discussions, and would be distributing two non-papers today on the verification of implementation of the future instrument, and on a review of existing international law related to weaponization of outer space, to stimulate further more substantive and profound discussions on the Russian-Chinese working paper. It was also Russia’s contribution to the future work of an Ad Hoc Committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, which Russia hoped would be re-established within the framework of an agreed programme of work of the Conference. Russia was ready to support consensus on the programme of work of the Conference based on the Five Ambassadors proposal. As a first practical step in this direction, Russia proposed to declare a moratorium on placement of weapons in outer space, pending a conclusion of an appropriate agreement by the international community.
HU XIAODI (China) said the peaceful use of outer space was the common aspiration of mankind. At the Conference, the Chinese delegation had repeatedly elaborated on the urgency and necessity of preventing the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space. The priority concern was to further consolidate the international consensus on the prevention of the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space in the form of a legal commitment or a legal instrument. In June 2002, seven delegations including China and the Russian Federation had tabled a working paper entitled “possible elements for a future international legal agreement on the prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects”. Over the past two years, various delegations had put forward many pertinent suggestions to further develop and improve the proposal, which had been compiled.
In order to advance the work of the Conference on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, China and the Russian Federation had jointly prepared two non-papers on “verification aspects of prevention of an arms race in outer space” and “existing international legal instruments and the prevention of the weaponization of outer space”.
The non-paper on verification began by listing the verification measures of the prevention of an arms race in outer space that had been proposed, and then analysed the feasibility of a verification regime of a future outer space legal instrument. It offered the view that a verification regime in a future outer space treaty would be highly complicated and difficult and would encounter great challenges technologically and financially. Thus the non-paper considered that for the time being a future outer space legal instrument could be formulated without a verification mechanism.
The non-paper on existing international legal instruments gave a detailed analysis of the major provisions of the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Outer Space Treaty, the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and other Celestial Bodies, the Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques and relevant bilateral agreements.
These instruments were unable to effectively prevent the testing, deployment and use of weapons other than those of mass destruction in outer space. They also did not cover the threat or use of force from the Earth against objects in outer space. He hoped the non-papers would play a positive role in deepening the understanding of all parties on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, formulating consensus and pushing forward the Conference’s work in this field.
Concerning the programme of work of the Conference, in order to facilitate an early start of the substantive work in the Conference, China last August stated its readiness to join the consensus on the Five Ambassadors proposal. Although China was not satisfied with the proposal since its mandate on the prevention of an arms race in outer space was far too weak, it at least struck a delicate and acceptable balance between various issues. The Chinese side had demonstrated considerable flexibility by agreeing to the proposed formulation of the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee on prevention of an arms race in outer space and hoped that other relevant sides would also show the necessary political will and flexibility by accepting the Five Ambassadors proposal to enable the Conference to step out of its stalemate and to begin substantive work.
PAUL MEYER (Canada) said Canada’s position on the prevention of an arms race in outer space, as confirmed by its Prime Minister, was that it profoundly opposed the weaponization of space. Canada sought to protect space as a universal good. Canada was pleased by the favourable reactions to the 25-26 March workshop on “safeguarding space for all” that Canada co-sponsored with several partners.
Concerning the issue of a possible treaty banning space-based weapons, Canada appreciated the significant contribution China and Russia had made to the Conference’s thinking in this regard, including the leadership they showed in producing their joint working paper on elements of a convention on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. As a contribution to further work in this area, the Canadian delegation would like to discuss some key issues related to a space weapons ban. These included definitional questions related to such terms as “space objects” and “space weapons”, as well as the need for verification provisions in a space weapons ban.
Delineating the scope of an arms control agreement was an important requirement of negotiation that was linked in turn to how one defined the principal elements of such an agreement. Similarly, any treaty seeking to prohibit or limit space weapons would also require a definition of “space weapon” in order to be precise about what the treaty would govern. Canada also believed that verification provisions must be included in any space weapons ban as a necessary element of any eventual treaty. It believed that deciding to negotiate a space weapons ban without verification provisions, in the hope of adding them later, would only make such provisions more difficult to achieve in the long run. While the technical challenges surrounding verification of a space weapons ban were significant and complex, Canada did not consider them to be insurmountable.
In conclusion, Ambassador Meyer said that he hoped that this brief discussion of some of the diplomatic, legal and technological considerations involved in such a negotiation would wet the appetite of the Conference for the main course: renewed work in the context of a re-established Ad Hoc Committee on prevention of an arms race in outer space.
JEAN-MICHEL DESPAX (France) said that he would like to react to the interventions which the Conference had just heard. France had taken an active part in the work in the Conference on the issue of the prevention of an arms race in outer space since the start of the 1980s. France had come out in favour of the peaceful use of outer space. In June 2001, the President of France said the non-weaponization of space was an essential element which had been maintained thus far and should continue. Otherwise, there would be a new arms race which would be disastrous for everyone. The position of France remained the same. It supported free access for all for the peaceful use of space; maintenance of security for orbiting satellites; and taking into consideration legitimate security interests of States.
France had always supported an Ad Hoc Committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Unfortunately, for the past two years, this issue had been linked within the Conference to other subjects of a different nature. This situation was artificial. These were important efforts made by China and Russia to be more flexible with regards to the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee. France remained convinced that the prevention of an arms race in outer space, like other issues, should be considered independently, with no artificial linkages. France took note of the two non-papers which it would study.
ANNIKA THUNBORG (Sweden) said that her country had stated in the informal plenaries that outer space must be preserved for peaceful purposes. The risk of an arms race was of great concern to Sweden. Exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, must be assured as the province of all mankind. The legal regime for outer space provided fundamental rules on international responsibility and liability for national space activities both civil, military and for national security purposes. Sweden was open to consider suggestions on different ways to strengthening this regime.
Sweden supported the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee in the Conference to deal with outer space. It suggested, as a first step, that informal technical meetings involving a wider range of actors in the space field from international organizations, space agencies, space law and the private sector, be held. Since space activities often were of a dual-use nature and involved cross-cutting issues between civil and military activities, future work would benefit from an over all perspective. The Conference should take into account important work currently going on in the United Nations and elsewhere on this issue, and it should come in where there was a need to complement and fill the gaps in the existing regimes as regards aspects of security, military and weaponization.
SARALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said that she was pleased to note that the majority of delegations had expressed support for the re-establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in the Conference during the open-ended informal consultations and informal plenaries. Today, there was a widespread recognition of the notion that outer space should be preserved as a sanctuary for the common heritage of mankind. Since the 1960s, the world had witnessed unprecedented advances in space technology coming within the reach of an increasing number of both developed and developing countries. It was also becoming increasingly clear that the line between commercial and scientific use of space technology and military use of such technology was fast blurring, to the point that there was an urgent need today to ensure that space, the last frontier of humankind, was used only for non-offensive and non-belligerent purposes.
She recalled that the Conference had extensively addressed issues pertaining to the prevention of an arms race in outer space through the Ad Hoc Committee on the subject established between 1985 and 1994. In 2002, China and Russia had presented to the Conference a working paper on possible elements for a future international legal agreement on the prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects, which had been subsequently revised through informal discussions. Today two-non-papers had been presented which was a positive contribution towards efforts to elaborate an agreed mandate for the re-established Ad Hoc Committee, which would take into account the urgent need to address this issue in the Conference. Sri Lanka had proposed a moratorium on the testing and development of space weapons preceding multilateral negotiations on a treaty to prohibit weapons in space as far back as 1985. Sri Lanka saw merit in recent calls for a series of independent declarations from major space faring nations that they would not be the first to deploy weapons in space, which would provide considerable protection to existing space assets until a treaty could be negotiated.
DAVID BROUCHER (United Kingdom) said he had not intended to take the
floor, but after hearing several interesting interventions on outer
space, he wished to draw some reflections from them. The United Kingdom
would study what had been said in detail and might come back with more
comments. However, for now, he had two brief observations to make. The
United Kingdom agreed with France that it was better not to link
progress on different issues, and that issues should be kept separate.
Also it was not possible to separate what was happening in outer space
from what was happening on earth. What might be creating the situation
was the proliferation of ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons, so it
was on the ground that the world needed to start to address the
problem. The European Union had already outlined what measures should
be taken to arrest this proliferation. A Fissile Material Cut-Off
Treaty (FMCT) would be one such step and it was the next step that the
Conference should and could take. The United Kingdom believed that if
each issue was approached separately on its merit, the Conference might
be able to make some progress.
The Role of the United States
Much recent analysis has focused on creating the leverage necessary to bring the United States of America, the world’s major space weaponizing power, into joining a consensus that a permanent ban on space-based weapons is necessary, and into the process of negotiating and entering into a permanent agreement banning space-based weapons.
Some analysts suggest that there may be a basis for bringing a post-2005 United States Administration into the process of banning space-based weapons. In “Space Weapons and U.S. Politics after the War in Iraq,“ By James Clay Moltz, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of International Studies:
"In the context of this conference, the question I would like to
conclude with is: What can the international community do to encourage
the United States not to develop or deploy space-based weapons? Given
the loss of the administration’s political momentum, the good news is
that there is likely to be more time to change the overall framework of
the international space debate. While a treaty with under the Bush
administration to ban space weapons is not likely to be possible,
certain actions by the
international community could begin to have
an effect on the U.S. Congress and the perceptions of the American
people in regards to the future feasibility of achieving U.S. space
security without space-based defenses.
"First, governments could begin to promote efforts to reduce the
vulnerability of global space assets. One concept would be to make the
forthcoming guidelines on orbital space debris—being developed by the
U.N. Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space— mandatory instead
of voluntary. The rules should also be extended to encompass military
as well as civilian activities. Another useful initiative would be for
major space powers (such as Russia and China) to announce that they
will not be the first
to test weapons in space or deploy them. This would help establish a norm for the nonoffensive
uses
of space, reduce the potential threat faced by the United States, and
increase the pressure on Washington to comply with this norm.
Similarly, states could focus greater attention on verification and
enforcement of existing treaties affecting space. Specifically,
multinational efforts to reaffirm the Limited Test Ban Treaty and the
Outer Space Treaty could be undertaken, and states still outside these
agreements could be strongly encouraged to sign and ratify them.
Finally, greater international financial
support could be provided
to imperiled international space projects, such as the International
Space Station and Mars exploration efforts. The European Union, Japan,
and other countries could play a useful role in helping to make such
cooperative efforts more economically viable, thus reducing the
incentives for space weaponization.
"Second, non-governmental organizations could also contribute to
this process. Greater education of the public and policymakers could be
conducted on critical issues related to the impact of weaponization on
manned space activities as well as on commercial uses of space. In this
regard, providing a fuller explanation and greater publicity to the
issue of space debris might be particularly useful. In addition, more
attention could be paid to alternative means of achieving space
security, such as “nonoffensive”
defenses: adding fuel to satellites
to facilitate evasive maneuvering, deploying decoy satellites, and
storing spare satellites in a ready-to-launch mode. Pursuit of these
non-aggressive efforts in space could make substantial progress in
reducing the vulnerability of U.S. and other space assets and thereby
the need for space weapons.
"I would like to close my remarks with an observation. In other
areas relevant to weapons of mass destruction, nonproliferation efforts
have often been difficult—but not impossible—to achieve. The greatest
successes have been accomplished in areas where there is overwhelming
international support, such as in eliminating chemical weapons, which
is now taking place under the CWC. In regards to space, states will
need to come to come to a collective decision about preventing
weaponization if current technological trends leading toward
weaponization are to be avoided. Accomplishing these goals will
require
that the economic, political, and security-related trade-offs involved
in deploying space weapons be well understood and that policymakers be
offered practical alternatives. Thus, the task is clear. Analysts need
to make a stronger case for the nonweaponization of space and to
communicate the means to get there to a broader audience."
Campaign for Cooperation In Space (CCIS)
The Campaign for Cooperation In Space (CCIS) is based on the successful model of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) stimulating and leading Canada and key U.N. Member Nations to hold the 1997 Ottawa Land Mines Treaty Conference. Without the concerted NGO efforts of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), the 1997 Ottawa Land Mines Treaty Conference would have never taken place. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL) in effect mobilized and “held the feet to the fire” of all major governmental actors starting with Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Lloyd Axworthy to follow through on a stated intention to ban land mines.
The International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), launched in 1992, was coordinated by a staff of 8 and a committee of thirteen organizations. It has brought together over 1,300 human rights, humanitarian, children, peace, disability, veterans, medical, humanitarian mine action, development, arms control, religious, environmental and women's groups in over 90 countries who work locally, nationally regionally, and internationally to ban antipersonnel (AP) mines.
A similar NGO-based Campaign for Cooperation In Space (CCIS) would be coordinated by a small, decentralized staff and a network of cooperating Non-Governmental organizations committed to preventing the weaponization of space.
Initial activities of the Campaign for Cooperation In Space (CCIS)
would include (1) Seeking a U.N. General Assembly Resolution placing a
time limit for the UNCD to negotiate a Treaty banning space-based
weapons, and mandating a Space Preservation Treaty Conference process
in the alternative.
The Campaign for Cooperation In Space (CCIS)
would carry out the following goals and promote the prevention of the
weaponization of space, including:
· Activating public opinion to pressure their governmental leaders and the community of nations to take effective international measures to ban space-based weapons.
· Media, grass-roots education & organizing – Media, television, radio and Internet talk shows and advertisement; Internet organizing and fund-raising in the style of Moveon.org in support of banning space-based weapons, by bringing U.N. Member Nations, including the United States, to a consensus and Treaty process.
· U.N. General Assembly – Seeking a U.N. General Assembly Resolution placing a time limit for the UNCD to negotiate a Treaty banning space-based weapons, and mandating a Treaty Conference process in the alternative.
· Supporting Willing U.N. Member Government(s) which would enter into an effective international treaty banning space-based space weapons and warfare in space, through the United Nations (UNCD-PAROS, COPOUS, Ad Hoc Committee, etc.), including the implementation of interim measures such as a moratorium on deployment of space-based weapons, and a no-first use pledge.
· United States – Active promotion with the U.S. Administration, Congress, NGOs, and public for the United States Government to join in the consensus at the United Nations (and/or at a Treaty Conference) to prevent the weaponization of outer space, including interim measures and a Treaty.
· Terms of Treaty - Developing the terms of an effective Treaty to ban space-based weapons along the criteria set out below. Facilitating expert sessions for the development and implementation of measures for preventing the weaponization of space that U.N. Member Governments can undertake.
· Monitoring and Activating Institutional Track United Nations Negotiations, and promoting a breakthrough in the impasse at the United Nations to permit an effective Treaty banning space-based weapons to be signed.
· If necessary, Promoting and Developing a Treaty Conference Alternative as in the 1997 Ottawa Process, where the ICBL played a crucial role in activating the Host Governments and U.N. Member Nations to participate in the Land Mines Conference. (See Vancouver Space Preservation Treaty Conference option, already under development).
Terms of Space Preservation Treaty – There are several
possible Treaty approaches to banning space-based weapons. Each
approach has its advantages and disadvantages. The two most compelling
options are:
· Amendment to the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty –
This option would amend the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty to incorporate
bans on anti-satellite weapons, space-based weapons, and warfare in
space, and add an effective enforcement mechanism.
· Development of a new Space Preservation Treaty – This option would develop a new Space Preservation Treaty to comprehensively ban research, development, testing, manufacturing and deployment of anti-satellite weapons and space-based weapons, ban space war-making, and create an independent Peace Agency for Outer Space (PAOS) in outer space. NGOs such as the Global Network and the Institute for Cooperation in Space (ICIS) have developed and posted a Space Preservation Treaty
· Russia-China UNCD Draft – This option sets out three basic obligations:
Basic Obligations
Not to place in orbit around the Earth any
objects carrying any kinds of weapons, not to install such weapons on
celestial bodies, or not to station such weapons in outer space in any
other manner.
Not to resort to the threat or use of force against outer space objects.
Not
to assist or encourage other States, groups of States, international
organizations to participate in activities prohibited by this Treaty.
Regardless of format, an international treaty to prevent the weaponization of space should ideally include the following legal elements:
(1) A permanent ban on space-based weapons;
(2) A permanent ban on anti-satellite weapons (ASATs) and on weapons that damage or destroy objects in space;
(3) A permanent ban on research and development, testing, manufacturing, production and deployment of anti-satellite weapons, weapons that damage or destroy objects in space, and of all space-based weapons;
(4) A permanent ban on threat or use of force, war-making and war-planning in space;
(5) A ban on the weaponization of space systems such as navigational and surveillance systems, including geo-positional satellite systems for cruise missile and smart bomb guidance;
(6) General Prohibition: Not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying any kinds of weapons, not to install such weapons on celestial bodies, or not to station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.
(7) Definition of space weapons – Because of the emerging weapons technologies in research and development space applications, the Treaty should incorporate a specific weapons definitions section. For example:
MODEL TREATY DEFINITIONS.
(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 110 kilometers above the surface of the earth.
(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:
(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--
(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;
(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;
(III)
directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy,
subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or
extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy
radiation) against that object; or
(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.
(ii)
Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or
the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and
economic well-being of a person)--
(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);
(II)
through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using
radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other
energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the
purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such
persons or populations; or
(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.
(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--
(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;
(ii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;
(iii) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;
(iv) laser weapons systems;
(v) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and
(vi) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.
(C)
The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage
space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper
atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose
of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on
earth or in space.
(8) Demilitarization of Space: All spacecraft, space technology, space platforms, objects in space, the moon, the planets, and other celestial bodies shall be used exclusively for non-weapons, peaceful purposes, and may not be used for war-making or war-planning. The establishment of weapons-related, war-related military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies or space-based objects shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel and or military equipment for scientific research or solely peaceful, public purposes such as emergency preparedness shall not be prohibited and the use of military personnel and/or equipment for any other purpose is prohibited in space. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration or habitation of the moon, the planets or other celestial bodies, or on objects in space shall also not be prohibited.
(9) Peace Agency for Outer Space (PAOS) – Creation of a new jurisdiction on outer Space; a United Nations of Outer Space not subject to the terrestrial limitations of the UN Security Council and other Permanent Member veto mechanisms of the UN Charter. The function of the Peace Agency for Outer Space (PAOS) would be to make peace and advanced non-violent conflict resolution an organizing principle of outer space and all exploration, habitation, science, research, and human activity in outer space. PAOS would be responsible for regulation and administration of legal standards in outer space, and for enforcement of the Treaty using advanced non-violent conflict resolution techniques.
(10) Space exploration – Exploration of outer space shall only proceed with a comprehensive ban on the weaponization of space. The Treaty shall permit space exploration, space research and development, testing, manufacturing or deployment such as civil, commercial, or defence activities such as communications, navigation, surveillance which does not violate personal civil liberties, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing not related to space-based weapons or systems, war-making, or prohibited militarization of space.
(11) United Nations Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty - The 1972 ABM Treaty between the United States and Russia, which outlawed "land-based, sea-based, air-based, and space-based" anti-ballistic missile defense systems was unilaterally abrogated by the U.S. Administration on June 13, 2002. Missile Defense Systems, such as U.S. Ballistic Missle Defense, are highly de-stablizing, dual-use nuclear first strike weapons, which inevitably will lead to the weaponization of space. They must be permanently outlawed, through a U.N. Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty.
STRATEGY IN PROGRESS.
Email us with your suggestions.
Thank you!
SIGN OUR U.N. PETITION: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/832338563
Comments