8 June 2006
The Conference on Disarmament (CD) held its first structured debate on the issue of Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) on 8 June. The session focused on the importance of PAROS and the scope and basic definitions of the future international legal agreement on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space and the use of force against outer space objects. The first part, devoted to the importance of PAROS, compelled 17 states to take the floor.
“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”
Many speakers emphasized that it is in all of our interest to keep space free for peaceful purposes because we have become more dependent on space technology. Many also recognized it is easier to prevent than reduce and remove.
Canada, China, Sri Lanka, Germany, Russia and South Africa all emphasized the need to prevent the weaponization of space. Russiastated, “We deal with prevention of something which does not exist yet, with preserving the current status quo. It’s a win-win case for all.”
And as Ambassador Fernando of Sri Lanka, asked “Can we really afford an expensive competition in outer space when there remain so many other challenges before as such as poverty, hunger, disease and deprivation?”
The world will soon celebrate the 40th anniversary of the signing of the Outer Space Treaty. The Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission recommended a review conference of the Outer Space Treaty be held in 2007 to mark this special anniversary, noted by both Sri Lanka and Sweden. Swedish Ambassador Bonnier also brought up the possibility of an additional protocol to the Outer Space Treaty prohibiting all weapons in outer space.
Germany urged member states of the Outer Space Treaty to work towards its universalization, as there are currently only 98 states party to the Outer Space Treaty. “It should be seriously considered that States Parties assess the continued, even increased importance of that important instrument of preventive arms- limitation and space security,” said Ambassador Brasack.
Sweden also stated that “while in the CD we should aim at a mechanism or instrument for a clear-cut prohibition of weaponization of Outer Space, other concepts should also be fully explored, such as transparency and confidence building measures, codes of conduct and rules of the road.”
States also mentioned other treaties relevant to this issue, including the Moon Agreement of 1979, and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treatyof 1972. Together with the Outer Space Treaty they are all international legal instruments in this field, but China pointed out, “Some focus on WMD only, some are limited to a certain celestial body or area in outer space and lack universality, and some have even been scrapped. In order to remedy the lacunae and close the loopholes of existing legal framework and fundamentally prevent the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space, a new international legal instrument is obviously needed.”
The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea was concerned about the implications practical tests of space weapons and increasing budgets for space militarization. “The fact that the existing relevant international legal instruments lack 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 (ABM), the pursuit of missile defense systems, etc, give rise to the deep concern that outer space might be reduced into military monopoly.”
Indonesia, on behalf of the Group of 21, was also concerned about recent developments in space and their impact on the disarmament regime. “The Group, however, is deeply concerned over the negative implication of the development and deployment of anti-ballistic-missile defense systems and the pursuit of advanced military technologies capable of being deployed in outer space which have contributed to the further erosion of an international climate conductive to the promotion of disarmament and strengthening of international security.”
Establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee on PAROS
There were a number of statements that called for establishing a body for prevention of an arms race in outer space. China was of the view that the conditions are ripe for negotiating a legal instrument, and now is the time to carry out substantive work.
Belarus, Canada, China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the EU, Germany, India, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, and Syria were all in favor of establishing an Ad Hoc Committee on PAROS in the Conference.
China, Germany and India also emphasized the importance of a comprehensive and balanced program of work in accordance with the Five Ambassadors' or A-5 proposal. China responded to the US rejection of linkages in support of an FMCT only by stating “Isn’t it a form of 'linkage' when some people insist on negotiating one issue, while refusing to conduct any substantive work on others? Each and every country has its own priority. To focus exclusively on one’s priority, while disregarding the priorities of others, would only lead to an unbreakable deadlock of CD.”
Although the United Kingdom agreed with the joint EU statement, it added, “As national security activities in space have grown, so have concerns by some states about the risk of an arms race in outer space. We understand that some states would wish to see additional and more extensive arms control measures. However, we do not believe that there is an international consensus on the need for further treaties or further legal codification.”
The Netherlands suggested the CD be “imaginative and creative... bold and break new ground, even when that means taking a risk” when considering how to break the CD deadlock. Ambassador Landman said in his view and the view of his authorities, “the CD could and should start negotiating on an FMCT, while simultaneously discussions on PAROS could be started. When the time is ripe, these discussions could be followed by negotiations on the issue. In this way the CD would be able to circumvent the problems that the package approach poses.”
Importantly, Russia called on states to not deploy space based weapons while either waiting for this ripe time, or during negotiations of a treaty: "The important prerequisite for the progress towards the ultimate goal is to ensure that the States, which possess military space technologies, refrain from any practical activities aimed to place weapon systems in outer space while the international agreement on non-weaponization of outer space is being elaborated."
Cooperation with other UN bodies
There were some ideas on how to move forward with the work on PAROS. Canada suggested that the work of the international community could be optimized by enhancing dialogue between the various UN bodies with an interest in outer space, including the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS), International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the CD, and the UN General Assembly, particularly its First and Fourth Committees. Canada thought the UN Inter-Agency Meeting on Outer Space Activities would be a useful coordination forum for this. Sweden has on several occasions called for closer links between the CD and COPUOS.The EU also said interaction between the work in the CD and COPUOS was desirable.
Prevent weaponization or de-militarize outer space?
There are currently no weapons in outer space, and a PAROS treaty would legally ban that from ever happening. There are military objects in space, such as satellites, surveillance, communications and targeting tools, which are used for military purposes. While most countries aim to prevent weaponization of space, Egypt and New Zealand expressed the need to de-militarize outer space. New Zealand said the peaceful use of outer space should not be compromised by militarization and therefore there is a need for a more comprehensive legal framework for de-militarizing space. Egypt suggested including specific articles prohibiting military use of outer space in a future legal instrument.
Russia's second statement proposed three obligations for a possible treaty, none of which would cover supporting outer space military systems like communication, navigation, monitoring, early warning, meteorological and geodesic information. “These systems are not weapons as such or a source of threat or use of force. On the contrary, such military space systems are capable of playing a positive role.”
Scope and definitions
The second part of the Plenary Meeting was dedicated to scope and definitions, and Russia and Belarus took the floor. In a lengthy and detailed statement, Russia outlined its vision of the scope of a treaty and discussed the pros and cons of it containing various definitions. As contained in CD/1679, their proposed three basic treaty obligations would be to not place weapons in space, to not resort to the threat or use of force against outer space objects, and to not assist others in doing either of the former.
Russia drew a clear line between “placement” and “deployment”, as deployment is limited to placement for combat purposes, while placement includes other activities as well, such as weapons tests in outer space.
The next plenary meeting will be focused on transparency and confidence building measures. It will be held Tuesday 13 June at 10 am.
-Beatrice Fihn, Disarmament Intern
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom