8 June 2006

The Conference on Disarmament today held a structured debate on the issue of the prevention of an arms race in outer space, first addressing the importance and significance of prevention of an arms race in outer space, and then debating the scope and basic definitions of a future international legal agreement on prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space, and the threat or use of force against outer space objects.

The Russian Federation outlined its vision on the scope and possible basic definitions of the terms of a new treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space, and the threat or use of force against outer space objects, which was proposed by Russia and China in CD document 1679. To start with, it would be more accurate to refer to the new treaty as a treaty on the non-weaponization of outer space, i.e. the non-placement of weapons in outer space, not a treaty on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The new treaty could have three basic obligations which established its specific scope; 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; and third, not to assist or encourage other States, groups of States, or international organizations to participate in the activities prohibited by this treaty.

There was widespread support among delegations which took the floor for the Conference to start negotiating a treaty on prevention of an arms race in outer space. A number of speakers stressed that while it was true that there were still no weapons in outer space, the Conference should engage in preventive diplomacy as dealing with the issue at this stage was easier than attempting to control and decelerate such a race after it had begun and to deal with the issue of non-proliferation of weapons in outer space. Delegates acknowledged that there were a number of treaties which dealt with outer space, but said they had lacunae.

There were repeated calls for the re-establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee within the Conference to deal with the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space.

Some delegates said that the issue of a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty was ripe for negotiation within the Conference, while the question of the prevention of an arms race in outer space was not, adding that States should not hold on to “linkages” which had caused the current stalemate in the Conference on Disarmament.

Speaking on the importance and significance of prevention of an arms race in outer space were China, India, Austria on behalf of the European Union, South Africa, Sri Lanka, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, New Zealand, Egypt, Indonesia on behalf of the Group of 21, the Republic of Korea, Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada, Syria, Germany and the United Kingdom.

The Russian Federation and Belarus spoke about the scope and basic definitions of a future international legal agreement on prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space.

The next plenary of the Conference will be held on Tuesday, 13 June at 10 a.m. to discuss the issue of transparency and confidence-building measures in outer space.

Discussion on Importance of the Issue of Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space

CHENG JINGYE (China) said China welcomed the focused debate on prevention of an arms race in outer space. It was true that there were still no weapons in outer space, but this should not become an excuse for sitting idly by. It was also true that there were already some international legal instruments in this field, but all of them had apparent lacunae. China was of the view that there was a sound basis and the conditions were ripe for negotiating a new international legal instrument to prevent the weaponization of outer space.

The issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space enjoyed broad political support. The Conference had had the experience of establishing an Ad Hoc Committee dealing with the issue. There had been growing awareness and broader common ground on the importance of prevention of an arms race in outer space in the international community. And the framework of a new legal instrument on outer space was taking shape. It was China’s view that prevention of an arms race in outer space, together with other main agenda items of the Conference, had a bearing on global security which was closely linked to the maintenance of world peace and stability, and therefore they all deserved serious consideration by the Conference. China was in favour of negotiation on the prevention of an arms race in outer space and this position remained unchanged. China shared the concerns of all sides over the protracted deadlock of the Conference, and believed that the Five Ambassadors’ proposal which had been accepted by the vast majority of members offered a practical and feasible way out.

JAYANT PRASAD (India) said India had placed satellites in outer space for establishing global connectivity, eradicating illiteracy, providing health security, improving navigation and meteorological services, optimising management of natural resources and the environment, and coping with natural disasters. There had therefore been a dramatic acceleration in recent years in the peaceful uses of outer space and in international cooperation for this purpose. Given the increasing efforts to use outer space for developmental purposes and the all-pervasive application of space technology for almost every aspect of modern life, India would like to emphasize the importance of the security of assets based in outer space and the enormously harmful consequences of any threat to them. Therefore, India strongly supported the quest to upgrade the present international legal framework for regulating space activities, set at the relative infancy of the development of space technology, and to strengthen the existing space law for the peaceful use and exploration of outer space. The placement of weapons in outer space might herald a new arms race and disrupt the peaceful uses of outer space.

India supported the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee in the Conference to deal with the issue of prevention of an arms race in outer space as outlined in the Five Ambassadors’ proposal. India believed that this provided a good basis for commencing the work of the Conference on prevention of an arms race in outer space, which India stood ready to join. Any solution to end the current impasse in the Conference must be responsive to the security concerns of all the constituents of the Conference. India hoped that the deliberations on prevention of an arms race in outer space this week and structured discussions on the other remaining issues on the agenda of the Conference would pave the way for reaching a consensus allowing the Conference to begin its substantive work, which was its principal vocation and raison d’être.

WOLFGANG PETRITSCH (Austria), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said the European Union and its Member States were conscious of the growing involvement of the international community in outer space activities for development and progress and of the increasing dependence on outer space for their economic and industrial development as well as their security. It also recognized a growing convergence of views on the elaboration of measures to strengthen transparency, confidence and security in the peaceful uses of outer space. The European Union therefore appreciated the attention given so far by the Conference to the issue of the prevention of an arms race in outer space and the decision of the 2006 Ambassadors of the Conference to dedicate a focused structured debate on the issue. The risk represented by space debris for the operability of all space activities was an additional source for concern. Discipline in the launching of objects into space was also fundamental to space security.

Since the Conference was the single international multilateral negotiating forum for disarmament, it had the primary role in negotiating on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The European Union supported the establishment of a subsidiary body in the Conference to deal with this matter on the basis of a mandate which would be the subject of an agreement by all.

GLAUDINE MTSHALI (South Africa) said the possibility of the weaponization of outer space remained a concern to the international community and general concurrence existed that an arms race in outer space should not be allowed to develop. Views had been expressed that an arms race in outer space did not exist at present and that it would be premature to focus attention on the weaponization of outer space. However, it was more than probable that if one State should start pursuing the weaponization of outer space, others would follow. If the world waited for space to become weaponized before it took action, it would not be long before it would have to address the non-proliferation of weapons in outer space. This would not only be too late, but would also reflect the fact that the Conference had missed a golden opportunity to be pro-active. It was for this reason that South Africa remained supportive of the view that the Conference should establish a subsidiary body to address the prevention of an arms race in outer space, including the possibility of negotiating an international instrument on the matter.

For some years now, the Conference had been unable to agree on a programme of work, in part due to linkages between issues such as prevention of an arms race in outer space and a Fissile Material Treaty. South Africa welcomed the flexibility shown by most delegations that could facilitate the adoption of a programme of work and reiterated its appeal to all members to set aside their differences for the greater good of allowing the Conference to re-commence substantive work on the items on the agenda.

SERALA FERNANDO (Sri Lanka) said Sri Lanka’s active engagement on the prevention of an arms race in outer space was well known and dated back to the early 1980s when with likeminded developing countries, it called for the preservation of outer space as the common heritage of all mankind to be used in cooperation and solely for peaceful purposes by all States. 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. At the same time, it was 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. Over the past 35 years, a number of treaties and agreements had been concluded to protect assets in space. Although so far no violation of international law in space had been detected, the world could not presume that no violation would take place in the future.

Preventing an arms race in outer space was an easier task than attempting to control and decelerate such a race after it had begun. As far back as 1985, Sri Lanka had proposed a moratorium on the testing and development of space weapons preceding multilateral negotiations on a treaty to prohibit all weapons in space. Sri Lanka saw merit in recent calls for major space faring nations to make independent declarations not to be the first to deploy weapons in space, which would provide considerable protection to existing space assets and help build confidence in the security of space.

RI TCHEUL (Democratic People’s Republic of Korea) said outer space was a common heritage of mankind and an area directly linked to the future development of mankind. Exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, should be for peaceful purposes and carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries, irrespective of their level of scientific and technological development. Outer space, however, was turning into an area where the results of advanced science and technology and huge amounts of funds were poured for the purpose of military strategy. Plans were openly being carried out to militarise outer space and incite an arms race. The fact that the existing relevant international legal instruments lacked the provisions to fully check the deployment of space weapons, as well as the abrogation of the treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems, and the pursuit of missile defence systems gave rise to the deep concern that outer space might be reduced into a military monopoly.

A new international legal instrument for comprehensive and effective prevention of an arms race in outer space was urgently needed in the light of the circumstances in which certain space-related agreements had been abrogated or were insufficient, and the move to establish space weapons systems were practically in place. The Conference on Disarmament, as the sole multilateral disarmament negotiating forum, had the primary role in the negotiation of a multilateral agreement or agreements, as appropriate, on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea supported the proposal to establish an Ad Hoc Committee on prevention of an arms race in outer space and to start negotiations on the issue. It believed that the Five Ambassadors proposal could serve as a basis of efforts to seek agreement on a programme of work.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said making outer space a theatre for combat actions was fraught with the most serious consequences. It would threaten normal functioning of satellites, on which everyday life of humankind was becoming increasingly dependent. Weaponization of outer space was akin to the emerging of a new type of weapons of mass destruction. And the probability of technology disasters, such as an increase in the amount of space debris, would grow significantly. The threat could be removed. Prevention of an arms race in outer space was the most important item of the agenda of the Conference on Disarmament. The problem was far from superficial.

Russia remained open-minded to various ideas and proposals aimed at preventing an arms race in outer space and it was ready to consider them in a constructive way. On its part, Russia believed that the most simple, direct and effective measure would be a ban on placement of weapons in outer space, threat or use of force against outer space objects. In the view of the Russian Federation, a new treaty was needed. That was why the Russian Federation believed that at the centre of attention of the Ad Hoc Committee on prevention of an arms race in outer space should be the elaboration of the treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects.

DON MACKAY (New Zealand) said preservation of a weapon-free space was rightly a core issue for the Conference. The issue was highly relevant for all States, even those without space programmes such as New Zealand. The commercial and scientific applications of outer space were continually expanding for an increasingly diverse range of functions, from communications to climate change monitoring, and the world must ensure that future opportunities for peaceful development were not compromised by militarization. During the discussions on prevention of an arms race in outer space, the Conference should take the opportunity to evaluate prospects for a more comprehensive legal framework regulating the demilitarisation of space. Arguments that there was no current arms race in space, and therefore no need to address this issue, ignored the preventive benefits that adopting a precautionary approach might provide.

New Zealand was committed to ongoing consideration of issues related to the prevention of an arms race in outer space within the Conference on Disarmament. Space, by its very nature, was a global frontier. As such, all countries had a stake in ensuring that future development of space resources was peaceful and weapon-free.

SAMEH SHOUKRY (Egypt) said Egypt welcomed the renewed interest in the Conference on the core issue of the prevention of an arms race in outer space, especially since Egypt and Sri Lanka rotated presenting the annual resolution in the General Assembly on this issue. This resolution was closely linked with ensuring that outer space remained an oasis of peace and security for the joint benefit of all mankind. Egypt, along with a majority of countries, believed that concluding a legal, binding and comprehensive treaty was the only way to deal with the clear shortcomings in the legal framework dealing with outer space. The Conference had dealt with all the issues related to prevention of an arms race in space within the Ad Hoc Committee on the issue in the Conference between 1985 and 1994. Egypt hoped that the Ad Hoc Committee could be re-established at the closest opportunity within the Conference.

Egypt welcomed efforts by Russia and China on concluding 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. These efforts represented a great step in dealing with weaponization of outer space and could provide a valuable contribution to the future work of the Ad Hoc Committee on the issue once the Conference established it. Any future legal instrument on prevention of an arms race in outer space should include explicit and clear articles that prohibited the military use of outer space. It should also include provisions on cooperation and assistance that would ensure that the use and exploration of outer space would be always for the benefit of all States, regardless of their scientific and economic development.

I GUSTI AGUNG WESAKA PUJA (Indonesia), speaking on behalf of the Group of 21, said the Group of 21 emphasized the importance and urgency of preventing an arms race in outer space and the readiness of States to contribute to the common objective, in conformity with the provisions of the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. The Group also reiterated that outer space and other celestial bodies were the common heritage of mankind and their exploration should be for peaceful purposes and carried out for the benefit and interest of all countries. The Group of 21 was deeply concerned over the negative implications of the development and deployment of anti-ballistic-missile defence systems and the pursuit of advanced military technologies capable of being deployed in outer space which had, inter alia, contributed to the further erosion of an international climate conducive to the promotion of disarmament and strengthening of international security.

The Group of 21 stressed the need to consolidate and reinforce the legal regime applicable to outer space and enhance its effectiveness. It also emphasized the urgent need for the commencement of substantive work in the Conference on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The Group of 21 also called upon all States, in particular those with major space capabilities, to contribute actively to the objective of the peaceful use of outer space and the prevention of an arms race in outer space, and to refrain from actions contrary to that objective.

DONG-HEE CHANG (Republic of Korea) said economic development and scientific and technological advances had enabled human activities to extend far into outer space. All nations, both space-faring and non-space-faring, had become stakeholders in safeguarding the peaceful use of outer space. But the peaceful use of space could not be taken for granted. The possibility of an arms race using advanced space and related technologies, as well as the proliferation of space debris, by-products of increased space activities, all gave rise to an importance question: how to safeguard the uninterrupted and free use of outer space for peaceful purposes. The Republic of Korea was of the view that the prevention of an arms race in outer space was a relevant international security issue rightly to be dealt with by the Conference.

Concerning CD document CD1769, definitions of such essential elements as outer space, space objects, military and peaceful use etc, needed to be explored in depth. Also, confidence-building measures constituted one of the most important aspects of the whole process, and these might include building up the support for an effective regime, readiness to negotiate it and the full and effective implementation of it. The Republic of Korea was ready to participate in the exchange of views on these and other issues during the focused discussion sessions.

ELISABET BORSIIN BONNIER (Sweden) said preventing an arms race in outer space and preserving it for peaceful uses had been a twin priority for the international community for nearly half a century. It remained a priority for the Government of Sweden. Outer space was a fragile environment which belonged to all mankind. The benefits of the free and peaceful exploration and use of outer space should serve all. Protecting outer space for peaceful uses was intimately linked to preventing the weaponization of outer space and the use, or threat of use of force from or against such objects in outer space. So far, no strike weapons had been placed in outer space. Breaking the barrier of weaponization would certainly have immediate and serious effects not only on strategic stability and the military planning of the major space-faring nations, but also on all space related activities. It would also most likely provoke counter-measures with the risk of triggering an arms race in outer space.

Last year, Sweden had made clear that the issue of space security and the prevention of the weaponization of outer space were too important to be paralysed by the inability of the Conference to agree on a programme of work. Substance matters more than form and all possible venues and formats must, if necessary, be considered. Nevertheless, Sweden believed that it was still within the grasp of the Conference to make progress on prevention of an arms race in outer space during this year’s session. Sweden supported the establishment of a subsidiary body at the Conference to deal with this matter.

JOHANNES LANDMAN (Netherlands) said as a member of the European Union, the Netherlands fully supported the intervention made by Ambassador Petritsch on behalf of the European Union. On a national basis, he would like to make some additional observations. This year had been relatively successful for the Conference so far and there were possibilities to find a way out of the deadlock that was suffocating the Conference. But there was a need to be imaginative and creative at the same time in order to let go the counterproductive notion of linkage, without ignoring the different priorities of the various Member States of the Conference. There was a need to be bold and break new ground, even when this might mean taking a risk.

The Netherlands attached great importance to a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). After listening carefully to all the statements and discussions, it believed that the Conference should make the most of the momentum created. Prevention of an arms race in outer space was also of great importance to the Netherlands and it was ready to seriously engage in the forthcoming debates. The Netherlands looked forward to an open and profound discussion on prevention of an arms race in outer space. Taking into account the present situation, it was the opinion of the Netherlands that while the political climate to start negotiations on an FMCT was moving in the right direction, these other issues still needed further discussion. The Conference could and should start negotiations on a FMCT, while simultaneously discussion on prevention of an arms race could be started. When the time was ripe, these discussions could be followed by negotiations on the issue. In this way, the Conference would be able to circumvent the problems that the package approach posed.

PAUL MEYER (Canada) said that over the coming meetings, Canada would be presenting two papers: analysing gaps in existing international space law in relation to certain types of weapons, and considering space verification issues. Canada believed that the work of the international community could be optimised by enhancing dialogue between the various UN bodies with an interest in outer space. The UN Inter-Agency Meeting on Outer Space Activities was a useful coordination forum and consideration should be given to strengthening dialogue on issues of common interest. The Conference had a role to play on both fronts: first, a new international legal instrument and second, confidence building measures. One key element of a multilateral architecture for space security would be the negotiation in the Conference of an appropriately scoped legally-binding ban on space-based weapons.

It was sometimes said that the international community should not bother with prevention of an arms race in outer space, as no arms race was in the offing. Canada saw this situation in a different light – as an exercise in preventive diplomacy, to take advantage of the present non-weaponized status of outer space so that the world could be assured that outer space continued to be available for peaceful uses by all nations. Canada believed that the international community’s collective interest in preserving secure and sustainable access to and use of space, free of space-based conventional threats, required similar preventive diplomatic action. Redoubling efforts to build mutual confidence and to establish an international architecture to ensure space security was the collective challenge in the Conference.

HUSSEIN ALI (Syria) said Syria was one of the countries that had co-sponsored CD document 1679 by the Russian Federation and China and it believed that a new convention on the basis of this document was essential for mankind. Syria reiterated its support for the creation of a subsidiary body within the Conference so that it could proceed to discuss this issue as part of the Five Ambassadors’ proposal which remained the best basis to help the Conference adopt a balanced programme of work.

BARNHARD BRASACK (Germany) said the right of all States to explore and use the unique shared environment of outer space for the benefit and in the interest of all humankind was a universally accepted legal principle. Germany acknowledged that there was no international consensus on the need for further treaties and further legal codification of the use of space yet. Some might say that there was currently no arms race in outer space and that the military uses of outer space for surveillance, navigation and communication were legitimate. Germany would like to point out that it was an easier task to prevent an undesired militarization in outer space than to attempt to control and decelerate such a development after it had begun. Any negotiations on space weapons would be challenging and in probability would encounter numerous difficulties relating to a broad range of issues, among them definitions and verification. But the prospect of a thorny path ahead should not prevent the Conference from embarking on the road to a multilateral instrument against the weaponization of space. The need for it today was more obvious than ever.

Outer space was now part of everyday life for most of the planet’s population, from television to telephone service to weather prediction and disaster monitoring. Physically, space systems were quite vulnerable to deliberate disruption. A multilateral instrument that prevented an arms race in outer space would be a major contribution to a secure space. However, space security was not only about security policy, but mainly about preventing all kinds of threats for countless future generations on mankind’s one and only space vessel, a pale blue dot in space, as Carl Sagan said, our earth.

FIONA PATERSON (United Kingdom) said the United Kingdom continued to believe that discussion on prevention of an arms race in outer space was at an early stage and there were many unanswered questions, not least on defining the terms of the debate. Views also differed on whether weapons used for the defensive or peaceful use of space would be classified in the same way as offensive space or anti-space capabilities. The United Kingdom’s position on prevention of an arms race in outer space and the military and civil use of space more generally remained unchanged. The focus on the United Kingdom’s policy was on civil and scientific uses, and it firmly believed that all States had the right to explore outer space and make the most of opportunities for scientific, economic, environmental and communications advances. As well as these civil and scientific uses, the scope of military and national security activities in outer space had also grown. The security benefits the United Kingdom derived from the military use of space were important. However, the United Kingdom had no plans to deploy weapons in space.

The right of all States to benefit from the exploration and use this unique shared environment was a universally accepted legal principle. The United Kingdom recognised that as national security activities in space had grown, so had concerns by some States about the risk of an arms race in outer space. The United Kingdom understood that some States would wish to see additional and more extensive arms control measures. However, it did not believe that there was an international consensus on the need for further treaties or further legal codification. At this stage, the United Kingdom did not claim to have answers to the many unanswered questions, but it planned to actively participate in the debate.

Discussion on the Scope and Basic Definitions of a Future Legal Instrument to Prevent Placement of Weapons in Outer Space

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said he wished to outline the vision of the Russian Federation on the scope and possible basic definitions of the terms of a new treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects, proposed by Russia and China in CD document 1679. The question he would like to answer today was what exactly did the treaty intend to prohibit or limit, and what it did not and why. He would not read out the whole statement, but invited delegations to consider it in detail, even thought the points being made were preliminary in nature. To start with, it would be more accurate to refer to the new treaty as a treaty on the non-weaponization of outer space, i.e. the non-placement of weapons in outer space, not a treaty on the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

The new treaty could have three basic obligations which established its specific scope. 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. Unlike the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, this treaty proposed to ban the placement of any kind of weapons in outer space, not only nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction. Second, not to resort to the threat or use of force against outer space objects. This obligation contained a comprehensive legal formula that prohibited any use of force – whether with the help of anti-satellite devices or by other means – against spacecraft. And third, not to assist or encourage other States, groups of States, or international organizations to participate in the activities prohibited by this treaty.

SERGEI ALEINIK (Belarus) said Belarus considered the issue of the prevention of an arms race in outer space to be one of the most important areas concerning international security and arms control. There were a number of international instruments that governed States in this area and Belarus believed that they played a specific role in preventing an arms race in outer space and had defined the parameters of States’ liabilities concerning the peaceful exploration of outer space. These instruments should be supported universally. Belarus also recognized that there were some lacunae in the existing legal framework concerning outer space. Technological developments meant that it was necessary to continue to work to adopt legally binding norms to prevent an arms race in outer space.

Belarus supported General Assembly resolutions on the prevention of an arms race in outer space and had spoken in the Conference in favour of starting negotiations on a treaty on this issue. Belarus had also welcomed CD document 1679 and other documents presented by Russia and China. It believed that the treaty proposed by Russia and China could be a significant step in removing the lacunae in international law on this issue. Belarus was in favour of including in the future agreement the issues of peaceful purposes, peaceful use, permitted military activities, space objects, weapons and trajectory.

777 UN Plaza - 6th Floor - New York, NY - 10017 - Ph: 212.682.1265 - Fax: 212.286.8211 - info@reachingcriticalwill.org
This site was created by Kache Productions ©2008