Thematic discussion on prevention of an arms race in outer space

Beatrice Fihn | Reaching Critical Will

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) met on Tuesday, 8 February to discuss prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS). Statements were delivered by the delegations of the European Union, Brazil, Russian Federation, Algeria, Switzerland, China, Sri Lanka,Chile, Argentina, Turkey, Japan, Republic of Korea, Canada, Pakistan, South Africa, Cuba, Iran, United States, United Kingdom,Belarus, India, Indonesia, Egypt, and Serbia.

Highlights

• All delegations that took the floor emphasized the growing need for space technologies and the importance of keeping space safe for peaceful activities.
• Ms. Giannella, Director for Disarmament and Non-proliferation at the European External Action Service in Brussels, updated the CD on the consultations around the EU draft Code of Conduct for outer space activities and announced that the EU is considering holding an expert meeting in preparation for an eventual signing conference.
• The United States announced that the US will make a decision in the near term as to whether it can sign on to this code, including, what if any modifications it believe may be necessary.
• Many delegations supported recent progress in transparency and confidence-building, such as the EU draft Code of Conduct, but emphasized that such measures cannot substitute a legally-binding instrument.
• China and Russia’s delegations highlighted their joint draft treaty on the prevention of the placement of weapons in outer space (PPWT), which was welcomed by the majority of speakers.

Transparency and confidence-building measures (TCBM) 
While highlighting that it did not reject TCBMs measures, the delegation of Brazil noted that efforts in the CD should be focused on a legally-binding instrument. Likewise, the delegations of Chile, China, Pakistan, India, Belarus, Egypt, and Iran argued that while TCBMs and codes of conduct are certainly welcomed, they cannot substitute a legally-binding instrument for protecting outer space.The Republic of Korea’s delegation argued that TCBMs and a legally-binding instrument are not mutually exclusive and need to be explored “in a balanced and simultaneous way.”

The EU Code of Conduct
Ms. Giannella, Director for Disarmament and Non-proliferation at the European External Action Service for the EU, highlighted the draft Code of Conduct, which consists of voluntary guidelines that can limit or minimise harmful interference, collisions, or accidents in outer space, as well as the creation of debris. She noted that after extensive consultation with some major space-faring states, the EU produced a revised version of the Code in October 2010. Ms Giannella assured the CD that it was a voluntary instrument and would not compete with or substitute initiatives dealing specifically with the placement of weapons in outer space, but would instead act as a TCBM and a valuable contribution for upcoming discussions in the Group of Government Experts on TCBMs in outer space activities.Ms Giannella also announced that the EU is considering organizing a multilateral expert meeting in 2011 to discuss this initiative, which would serve to prepare an ad hoc diplomatic conference, “open to participation by all States on a voluntary basis,” at which the code would be open for signature. Ambassador Kennedy of the United States said that in line with its new space policy, the USA will continue to consult with the EU on the draft Code of Conduct. She announced that the US will make a decision in the near term as to whether it can sign on to this code, including, what if any modifications it believes may be necessary.

Brazil’s delegation stressed that the idea of using codes of conduct “as a modality of regulating international activities, are a novelty,” and argued that by not being legally-binding, such codes would have to rely solely on the “good will” of states for. However, the delegations of Switzerland, Chile, Argentina, Japan, Republic of Korea, Canada, Belarus, and Algeria and Serbia welcomed of the Code.The delegation of Argentina argued that this initiative would not undermine, but rather strengthen the use of outer space.

Other initiatives
The EU noted that it co-sponsored General Assembly resolution 65/68, which calls for TCBMs and looked forward to working constructively with the Group of Governmental Experts (GGE) established by this resolution.  The US delegation also said it looks forward to working with the GGE and hoped it would serve as a constructive mechanism to examine voluntary and pragmatic TCBMs in space.

The Canadian delegation drew attention to its proposal for TCBM principles in its 2009 working paper, CD/1865, in which it encouraged states to declare that they will not place weapons in outer space; not use satellites themselves as weapons; and not test or use weapons on satellites so as to damage or destroy them. While being in favor of pursuing a treaty on outer space security, Canadabelieved that proposals such as those contained in CD/1865 could significantly contribute to confidence-building and setting out principles for responsible behaviour in space.

Legally-binding initiatives 
The delegation of Indonesia drew attention to working paper CD/1679, in which Indonesia together with China, Russia, Viet Nam, Belarus, Zimbabwe, and Syria, outlined the possible elements for a future international legal agreement on the prevention of the deployment of weapons in outer space and the threat, or use of force, against objects in outer space.  The ambassador of Indonesia believed that this working paper still would be relevant for the discussions in the CD on PAROS. Most delegations reiterated their support for a programme of work in the CD which would initiate negotiations or discussions on a legally-binding treaty on PAROS.

A draft PPWT
The Chinese and Russian delegation both drew attention to their draft from 2008. Ambassador Qun of China stated that he would like to see an early start of substantive work in the CD so delegations could carry out in-depth discussion and further flush out and improve this draft in order to eventually negotiate a legal instrument on outer space security.

While differing in the views on the content, the delegations of Algeria, the EU, Brazil Switzerland, Chile, Sri Lanka, Argentina, Republic of Korea, Pakistan, South Africa, Iran, Belarus, Indonesia, Egypt, United Kingdom, and Serbia welcomed the discussions raised by the submission of the draft PPWT. The delegations of Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Egypt, and Argentina particularly highlighted that it could constitute a basis for negotiations of an international binding instrument. Brazil’s delegation argued that while the draft is a contribution to the discussions on a legally-binding instrument, it was still a schematic framework, with some elements that could be useful in a treaty. The Brazilian ambassador emphasized that further substance and more precise language is needed. While appreciating the efforts of Russia and China, Ms. Adamson of the United Kingdom expressed belief that further reflection and work is required on the elements for an effective treaty.

Ambassador Kennedy of theUS stated that the PPWT does not meet the criteria set out in the US National Space Policy of “equitability and effective” verifiability. She argued that the US position on the PPWT, outlined in CD/1847, had not changed, and called the draft “fundamentally flawed” and that it provides no basis for a negotiating mandate in the CD for a binding arms control agreement.

The Russian Ambassador argued that the PPWT is an effective and practical way to reach the goal of a secure outer space, and called for the start of serious practical work in this field. The Russian delegation shared some in-depth comments on critical issues of the draft.

Definitions
Ambassador Oyarce of Chile highlighted the need for discussing definitions on “space attacks,” “testing,” and “space weapons”. The delegations of Argentina and the EU also noted that definitions are essential to the effective implementation of any legal regime and argued that the topic remained a challenge.

Ambassador Loshchinin of Russia explained that the definition of “outer space” given for the PPWT is “space beyond the elevation of approximately 100 km above ocean level of the Earth”. He reassured delegations that this definition will not have universal scope and should be applicable only for the purposes of the PPWT. He also highlighted that the draft indicate tht for any device to be regarded as a “weapon in outer space” it must be “specially produced or converted” to perform the tasks enumerated in this paragraph. He noted that such a device should be equipped with specific features. When discussing the definition of “placement,” Ambassador Loshchinin argued that a weapon will be considered as “placed” in outer space if it “orbits the Earth at least once, or follows a section of such an orbit before leaving this orbit, or is stationed on a permanent basis somewhere in outer space.” He stated that it follows from this definition that the flights of ballistic missiles do not come within the scope of the draft PPWT.

Anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons
Ambassador Loshchinin noted that while the draft PPWT does not prohibit ASATs as a class of weapons, it limits the spatial spread of ASAT weapons by imposing a total ban on the placement of any kind of weapons in outer space, and prohibits the use of ASATs based in other spheres in hostile purposes, including land-based.

US Ambassador, Laura Kennedy, argued that the PPWT text does not contain prohibitions on the testing or deployment of terrestrially-based ASAT weapons of the kind that China tested in January 2007, and argued that this was one of the main reasons for US opposition to the PPWT. The UK and the EU both noted that any effective treaty on this topic must address the issue of ASAT tests.  The Egyptian delegation noted that any new legally-binding treaty also must prohibit any earth or space-based ASAT weapons, not just testing.

Ambassador Lauber of Switzerland argued that the establishment of international norms should focus on attacks on satellites and testing of ASAT weapons. Ambassador Suda of Japan argued that the CD could engage in further study the possible measures to effectively ban ASATs with a view to prevent further generations of space debris.

Verification
On verification, Ambassador Loshchinin highlighted that in order to ensure compliance with the treaty, article VI stipulates that TCBMs are to be practiced in a voluntary basis, and verification could be come the subject of a “separate article or an additional protocol”.

The US delegation argued that the draft treaty is not effectively verifiable, “which both Russia and China acknowledged in CD/1872.” Both the US and the UK delegations argued that the draft PPWT does not include an integral, legally-binding verification regime for effectively monitoring compliance with its obligations. The EU also argued for “an effective and robust verification system” to be a part of any future treaty, and that addressing this in a future possible additional protocol would not be sufficient.

The Egyptian delegation stated that verification of such treaty is possible and noted, “just as positions on the ability, or rather the lack thereof, to verify a Fissile Material Treaty was reversed in recent years, many studies including the recent studies by UNIDIR suggests that an outer space treaty could also be verified.”

Space in the CD
After highlighting the references to the need for measures on PAROS already made in the Final Document of the SSOD I in 1978, the Brazilian ambassador noted that today, “the CD is nowhere near the fulfillment neither of that first mandate from the General Assembly nor of a mandate of its own.” Ambassador Soares argued that there is a widespread recognition that “the absence of a legal instrument to deal with the potential problem of weapons in space is a vacuum that creates global insecurity and undermines confidence among major space-faring countries.” Ambassador Soares also noted the new US space policy, and argued that he understood that it meant that the US could support a mandate on PAROS along the lines of the Brazilian draft programme of work in CD/1889.

Ambassador Oyarce of Chile argued that in order to improve outer space governance, it is necessary to overcome the lack of coordination between the three main multilateral frameworks, the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, the International Telecommunication Union and the CD. The Turkish delegation also expressed belief that the CD and other relevant UN institutions responsible for space should continue and further strengthen the cooperation with each other. Effective cooperation and coordination would pave the way for establishing the international legal and regulatory framework to facilitate the peaceful use of outer space.

Ambassador Lauber of Switzerland argued that it was important that the CD make its own contribution to this area and that it needs to be practical in carrying out this task. He stressed that coming up with legally-binding measures should be the ultimate aim, however, he recognized that politically-binding measures could be a short term goal.

Side events on definitions fissile material
Last week, the Australian delegation announced that it would hold three side events focusing on definitions for a future FMCT. Ambassador Qun of China wanted to counter “rumors which has been going around” that China would be ready to take part in these side events, and stated that China was not in favour of the proposal made by Australia and other countries for a side event outside the CD to carry out substantive discussions on FMCT and that it would not participate in such a side event.

Notes from the gallery
While the views on characteristics and scope of space security initiatives differ widely amongst delegations, it is apparent that all governments are interested in preserving space and current or future assets placed there. As no delegation appeared to oppose the convening of an ad hoc committee devoted to PAROS in the CD, perhaps space is now the only issue “ripe” for negotiations. The US space policy notes that the US is ready to consider arms control measures in space if they are “equitable, effectively verifiable,” and enhance the national security of the US and its allies. However, placing prerequisites, for example, “equitable,” on future negotiations has shown to be problematic for the agreement on a mandate for working groups on other issues, such as a fissile material cut-off treaty.

Aside from efforts in the CD, the EU’s announcement that it is preparing for an eventual signing conference for its draft Code of Conduct is an encouraging sign. However, while the US announced that it will make a decision soon on whether or not to sign the code, a group of 37 Republican senators led by Senator Jon Kyl has drafted a letter saying the senators are deeply concerned the US administration may pursue an agreement they fear poses “a multitude of potential highly damaging implications for sensitive military and intelligence programs … as well as a tremendous amount of commercial activity.” These developments clearly highlight the difficulties of achieving progress in multilateral security areas, even in cases of voluntary and non-binding measures.

Next meeting
The next plenary meeting will be held on Thursday, 10 February at 10:00 am, where delegations will focus on discussing negative security assurances.