We use Google Analytics to learn more about who is reading the resources on our website. Please read Google Analytics privacy policy for further information. Close

logo_reaching-critical-will

13 February 2007

On Tuesday, February 13th, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) held a formal plenary session focusing on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) and Negative Security Assurances (NSAs). The United States (US) delivered one of its most extensive explanations of its position on PAROS. Russia recommended the CD focus on elaborating elements of a new treaty. South Koreasuggested governments explore strengthening the Outer Space Treaty and extending its scope. Several states recommended immediate confidence-building measures in outer space activities. Germany on behalf of the European Union (EU), South Korea, Russia, Israel,New Zealand, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Myanmar, Syria, the US, Japan, Australia, Canada and Mexico on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela made statements. China, Iran, Egypt, the US and Japan also used their rights of reply.

Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS)
China and Russia continue to promote a new international agreement preventing the placement of weapons in space, which the US continues to oppose. The US did, however, state that its space policy “does not advocate, nor direct the development or deployment of weapons in space,” which China questioned, citing military doctrines like Star Wars, in a right of reply. Russia proposed that in the forthcoming PAROS discussions, the CD “concentrate on... working out a new Treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space, the threat or use of force against outer space objects (PPWT)”. Russia suggested the CD discuss “PPW issues” following the draft elements paper circulated by China and Russia in 2002. Accordingly, Russia and China presented an updated version of their Compilation paper (CD/1679). The US reiterated and elaborated its opposition to a new PAROS treaty based on its claims that there is no arms race in space and that the existing legal regime is sufficient to control arms in space. New Zealand countered that such arguments “ignore the preventative benefits that adopting a precautionary approach might provide.”

The US and Japan raised concerns about definitions in a PAROS treaty, while Russia suggested that particular definitions merit separate consideration. South Korea recommended that due to the difficulties in definitions and the fact that “many concepts have already been in use in other international instruments governing outer space,” the CD should be cautious about adopting new definitions. Japan faulted the “vague and obscure” nature of the core concepts of PAROS for the previous CD PAROS ad hoc committee's failure to produce substantive results, and said that as the definitions remain vague, negotiating a new treaty would be “considerably difficult”. In explaining the difficulty in defining “space weapon” and “anti-satellite weapon” (ASAT), the US went into detail on its previous failed ASAT arms control negotiations with the Russia.

The EU, while advising against being “overambitious” on PAROS in the short term, also counseled that it would be “irresponsible to block the further discussion on this agenda item for fear of too ambitious goals to be pursued.” Presumably, this refers to the US blocking an ad hoc committee on PAROS with a discussion mandate due to its opposition to negotiating a new PAROS treaty.

South Korea noted that the Outer Space Treaty will celebrate its 40th anniversary this year, and said that “in addition to renewing efforts towards universality and more effective implementation of the Treaty, as the WMD Commission recommended in its report, we may need to consider the possibility of strengthening the treaty and extending its scope.”

Confidence-Building Measures (CBMs)
Several states recommended that CBMs in space be used to immediately reduce tensions among states. Canada, the Coordinator for PAROS, gave regulations for Space Traffic Management and Guidelines on reducing the production of space debris as examples of helpful CBMs. The EU suggested that CBMs could “be based on the principle of non-interference with non-aggressive activities in space and drawing up a 'code of conduct' and 'rules of behavior' or 'rules of the road' in space.” One would hope that such a formulation would appeal to the anti-PAROS US, which noted “the importance of [the Outer Space Treaty's] non-interference provision” in its statement. However, the US was the only state to vote against a Russian resolution on transparency and CBMs in space at the 2006 UN General Assembly's First Committee on Disarmament and International Security.

Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS)
The EU, South Korea, Russia, the US, Japan and Canada mentioned the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPOUS). The EU said that because COPUOS dealt with space debris, a risk for all space activities, “some form of interaction between the work in the CD and COPUOS would... be desirable”, and suggested the Conference invite the Committee's Chair to brief the CD. Canada said it “will be working to ensure the adoption” of the COPUOS's Guidelines on reducing the production of space debris (Space Debris Mitigation) at the COPUOS Plenary in June and the 62nd UN General Assembly in the fall. South Korea also hoped the Guidelines would be adopted.

China’s anti-satellite (ASAT) test
Australia, the European Union, Japan, and New Zealand expressed concern about China's recent anti-satellite (ASAT) test. Australia invited China to explain how they thought their test would affect other nations' space assets during the upcoming CD informals on PAROS. Japan also requested that China “display greater transparency in its outer space activities, as well as its military activities as a whole.” In a right of reply, China asked Japan if they had expressed their concerns about space debris when the US tested ASATs, noting that the US is responsible for 41.6% of the over 10,000 pieces of space debris over 10cm.

Negative Security Assurances (NSAs)
Egypt, Myanmar, Syria and Mexico on behalf of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, agreed that the best assurance against the non-use of nuclear weapons was their total elimination, but that in the meantime, nuclear weapon states should provide NSAs to non-nuclear weapon states. After listing how various international fora have supported NSAs, Egypt welcomed “unilateral declarations made by some nuclear weapon states that provide [NSAs].” However, it said these declarations “fall short of our security requirements and do not deal adequately with the issue.” It then explained that effective NSAs “must be unconditional, comprehensive, legally binding and negotiated multilaterally.” The EU, on the other hand, called on the nuclear weapon states to reaffirm their (non-binding and conditional) security assurances in UN Security Council Resolution 984 (1995), and ratify protocols to Nuclear Weapon Free Zones (NWFZs). Mexico was particularly interested in discussing NSAs in the CD in light of the Agency for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean's resolution 477, which declares that responding to a conventional weapons attack with nuclear weapons is not sanctioned by international law, because it is disproportionate.

Regional issues
Intractable regional conflicts again came up in the CD. Israel reminded the CD that it agreed to adopt the CD agenda in parallel with a presidential declaration reserving the right to bring up any issue at any time, and then took that liberty. Israel stated that “two fundamental threats to global peace and security... deserve to be placed as the highest priorities of the CD: the threat of terrorism in all its dimensions, and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.” Ambassador Levanon then named Syria as an arms supplier to Hizbullah and Iran as “source of proliferation for sensitive components of conventional and WMD programs”, sparking rights of reply statements from Syria and Iran. Syria called Israel the terrorist of the region, having dropped 4 million cluster bombs on Lebanon over the summer, the equivalent of one bomb per person. Iran asked whether the admitted nuclear weapons of Israel or the peaceful nuclear energy program in Iran was the greater threat.

South Korea noted that the outcomes of recent talks with the North Korea were positive and would soon be transmitted to the CD.

The next formal plenary meeting will be held on February 20, at 10 am, when Ambassador Juan Antonio March of Spain will assume the rotating presidency.