CONFERENCE ON DISARMAMENT DISCUSSES THE PREVENTION OF AN ARMS RACE IN OUTER SPACE

The Conference on Disarmament held a plenary meeting this morning in which 23 States and the European Union made statements focusing on the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

In the statements, speakers said that outer space belonged to all mankind and States had a responsibility to adhere to the peaceful exploration and use of space that would benefit everyone. Many speakers pointed out that the nature of space use had changed dramatically in the last few decades. The peaceful uses of outer space played a critical role in people’s everyday lives; from communications to navigation, environmental monitoring and support for sustainable development, scientific exploration and national security, the use of space was increasingly embedded in their daily lives. The number of satellites in space was growing, as was the number of people benefitting from those satellites. But the amount of debris in outer space was also growing. The sustainable use of outer space was clearly a concern and a responsibility for them all. It was not an exaggeration to say that the security challenges facing them in outer space grew more complicated with each passing year and delegations were convinced that discussions regarding the prevention of an arms race in outer space must resume in the Conference on Disarmament as soon as possible.

It was noted that over the years the prevention of an arms race in outer space agenda had had many opportunities to progress, but despite these opportunities the Conference on Disarmament was nowhere near fulfilment of the first mandate of the General Assembly given in 1981 or of a mandate of its own. It was relevant that the Member States of the Conference took this opportunity to remind themselves that the reasons put forward 30 years ago by the international community to negotiate a treaty had not lost their validity. On the contrary, there were more concerns today on security in outer space and therefore more arguments in favour of such a treaty. In this new overpopulated space environment, with more than 3,000 satellites in operation, the number of inactive devices and the innumerable pieces of space debris posed increasing dangers.

Numerous speakers pointed out that the existing legal framework governing outer space was not sufficient to deal with the myriad of issues faced by the international community, especially since the policies had been articulated 30 years ago before the development boom in space-based technologies. Of grave concern to all delegations was the potential weaponization of space and an arms race in outer space, which would threaten all nations, both space-faring and those without space technology or capacity. Many speakers said that any new legal instrument should prohibit attacks on satellites, the placement of weapons in outer space and the use of satellites as weapons. Verification would have to be addressed as well. The subject was urgent, but as had been stressed in previous meetings, in order to deal with this and other substantive issues, the Conference needed to adopt a programme of work. In the meantime informal meetings could be helpful.

Speaking this morning were Hungary on behalf of the European Union, Brazil, the Russian Federation, Algeria, Switzerland, China, Sri Lanka, Chile, Argentina, Turkey, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Canada, Pakistan, South Africa, Cuba, Iran, the United States, the United Kingdom, Belarus, India, Egypt, Indonesia and Serbia.

The next public plenary of the Conference will be held on Thursday, 10 February, at 10 a.m. to discuss effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Statements

MARIUS GRINIUS, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Canada) said they had had very good exchanges last week on the first two core issues and he hoped and expected that the same would be true of the issues under discussion this week.

ANNALISA GIANNELLA, Director for Disarmament and Non-proliferation, European External Action Service, (Hungary), speaking on behalf of the European Union, said that while the European Union had identified itself with the overall goal to preserve outer space as an area free from armed conflict, further reflection and work was required on the elements for an effective international treaty. For example, it remained a difficult challenge to consensus on the definitions needed for a legally binding instrument. As a matter of principle an effective and robust verification system must be an integral part of any future treaty concerned with space security. The European Union considered it insufficient to only refer to a possible future additional protocol. Also, any treaty would need to clearly address the issue of anti-satellite weapons tests. These difficulties should not however prevent them from working on this proposal. The European Union was committed to the development and implementation of transparency and confidence building measures as a means to achieve concrete, rapid and enhanced safety and security in outer space. They were also particularly sensitive to the issue of the risks posed by space debris which was detrimental to present and future activities.

To this end, the European Union had elaborated a draft for a Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities. The European Union had conducted extensive consultations with some major space-faring States. In light of these consultations, they had produced a revised version of the draft Code of Conduct, on the basis of which the European Union Council gave a mandate to the European Union High Representative to carry out further and wider consultations.

LUIZ FILIPE DE MACEDO SOARES (Brazil) said that over the years the prevention of an arms race in outer space agenda had had many opportunities to progress, but despite these opportunities the Conference on Disarmament was nowhere near fulfilment of the first mandate of the General Assembly given in 1981 or of a mandate of its own. It was relevant to take this opportunity to remind themselves that the reasons put forward 30 years ago by the international community to negotiate a treaty had not lost their validity. On the contrary, there were more concerns today on security in outer space and therefore more arguments in favour of such a treaty. In these three decades, the world had become more and more dependent on satellite services. The global community had also become aware that all space activities were vital, but also vulnerable to accidents and failures as events in recent years had shown. In this new overpopulated space environment, with more than 3,000 satellites in operation, the number of inactive devices and the innumerable pieces of space debris pose increasing dangers.

The launching of weapons in orbit could be the extra element to make satellite networks even more vulnerable and more prone to collapse, by accident or otherwise. It was in this light that a prevention of an arms race in outer space treaty could be a solution to rule out the threat of a collapse. Needless to say, such a collapse would affect all countries, without distinction, those that had and those that did not have technological capacity to launch weapons into orbit. Compared to the “nuclear winter” imagined by Carl Sagan, they could face a “global black out”.

VALERY LOSHCHININ (Russian Federation) said Russia had repeatedly argued for the importance of preventing the placement of weapons in outer space and the necessity of concluding a legally binding agreement. It was time, by way of pre-emption, to start serious practical work in this field. Otherwise, they could miss the opportunity. Indeed, preventing a threat was always easier than eliminating it. Russia suggested focusing on specific, practical aspects of the Russia-China draft Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects submitted to the Conference on Disarmament on 12 February 2008. The preamble of the draft contained general provisions on the objectives of the proposed treaty. The main among these was to prevent the placement of weapons in outer space and to ensure the security and safe functioning of space objects. The existing legal regimes and agreements in this field were unable to effectively prevent the placement of weapons and an arms race in outer space. Mr. Loshchinin said that outer space needed to be defined as well as a weapon in outer space. He said it should be noted that the draft Treaty provision on the right to self-defence did not leave any loopholes for the use of anti-satellite weapons.

IDRISS JAZAIRY (Algeria) said this topic was relevant to peace and security and everyone’s daily life. Outer space was playing an increasingly important role in numerous sectors of scientific, technological, economic social and cultural life. Therefore, these outer space activities required an environment of transparency and trust. Algeria supported the exclusive use and exploration of outer space as a common human heritage that should be used to serve the interest of all and to preserve international peace, stability and cooperation in line with principles enshrined in international rules and obligations. The militarization of outer space was a source for concern as it could lead to imbalances and create a new dynamic that would lead to an arms race with highly negative repercussions in international peace and security, not to mention negative effects on the economic and social fields. Algeria considered that the current legal system governing outer space had a number of deficiencies and was not sufficient to prevent an arms race in outer space. Therefore, a collective effort was required in the Conference on Disarmament to strengthen the legal framework and address any gaps in it. Algeria had also taken note of the Russia-China draft Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects as well as the Code of Conduct on Outer Space Activities drafted by the European Union and the Conference on Disarmament could be the multilateral forum that drew up the measures and rules that responded to the concerns of all parties.

JÜRG LAUBER (Switzerland) said that outer space had gone through numerous changes in the last 15 years, with the number of State and non-State actors active in outer space seeing a dramatic increase. These were critical infrastructures for developing and developed countries and any breakdown in these systems would have a disastrous effect for everyone. Space based systems also played an important role in military operations which made outer space an attractive target for many actors. The need to specify and streamline rules governing activities in outer space seemed to be recognized by the vast majority of States. Having noted the initiatives taken by the European Union and Russia and China, Mr. Lauber said it was important that the Conference on Disarmament made its own contribution in this area. The Conference on Disarmament needed to be practical in carrying out this task and coming up with legally binding measures should be the ultimate aim, but politically binding measures could be a short term goal. Switzerland was of the mind that the rules should focus on the prohibition of attacks on satellites, the placement of weapons in outer space and the use of satellites as weapons. Verification would have to be addressed as well. The subject was urgent and attention needed to be drawn to the need to find a solution. To deal with these issues in a formal process, it was important for the Conference on Disarmament to adopt a programme of work, but in the meantime informal meetings could be helpful, such as those informal meetings dealing with the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty.

WANG QUN (China) said that first of all he wanted to convey a message from his capital that the rumours that China would be participating in a side event hosted by Australia and Japan were untrue and gave the wrong impression. They would not participate in such a side event. They should continue discussions and consultations on equal footing to bridge their differences and reach their programme of work. If they could not come up with a programme of work, they should continue informal meetings. China was always in favour of the peaceful use of outer space and they were against the weaponization of outer space and an arms race in space. In addition to a growing dependence on outer space, there was also the growing danger of an arms race there and the international community should start negotiations on a new international legal instrument to prevent such an arms race and to safeguard space security.

KSHENUKA SENEWIRATNE (Sri Lanka) said that Sri Lanka recognized the importance of the usefulness of space based on technologies and supported their use for peaceful purposes. Information, communication, banking and navigation sectors had become dependent on space based technologies. Sri Lanka was of the view that the exploration and use of outer space and other celestial bodies should be for peaceful purposes and for the common benefit of all countries regardless of their level of economic or scientific development. The growing use of outer space called for redoubled efforts in areas of transparency, confidence building and better information on the part of the international community to enable them to make advancements in the field. Sri Lanka believed that the prevention of an arms race in outer space would avert a grave danger for international peace and security, and recognized the importance of forging ahead as a matter of priority to commence negotiations on an international legally binding instrument governing the military use of space. The Sri Lankan delegation continued to be concerned by the existence of nuclear weapons and of their possible use or threat of use, as it posed a menace to humanity and therefore joined the collective voice for the elimination of nuclear weapons from national arsenals. Pending this achievement, Sri Lanka was of the view that there was an urgent need to reach an early agreement on a universal, unconditional and legally binding instrument to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

PEDRO OYARCE (Chile) said that prevention of an arms race in outer space was one of the main four items before this Conference so they should try to advance in fulfilling the mandate in this forum. Reality showed them a great dependence on space activities and services. The placement of weapons in outer space would have serious consequences and would affect all countries, regardless of whether they had space technologies and capacities. It was a shared resource of all mankind and they needed to ensure unfettered access to space. Regional and voluntary initiatives were good, but they did not take the place of a binding legal instrument. The current regime was not sufficient to deal with current and future problems of the use of space. There was a need to formulate measures to increase transparency, trust and security in the use of outer space as the preservation of space assets was a shared objective. Definitions, transparency, the recognition of military applications in space, and provisions related to legitimate self defence were all issues that needed to be further studied. They also needed to address the lack of coordination between the three main bodies that dealt with peaceful uses of space.

HECTOR RAÚL PELEAZ (Argentina) said that because of the development of new technologies they needed to discuss adapting existing regimes. Argentina believed that the Russia-China draft Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or use of Force against Outer Space Objects was an important contribution to identifying consensus elements that could strengthen the current regime. Definitions and verification would be key in implementing a useful regime. Confidence building measures could also be seen as appropriate measures and could facilitate movement toward consensus and building trust. Mechanisms to exchange information between States and ensure transparency would also be a substantive contribution. The Conference on Disarmament had undertaken the informal exercise of debates which had been useful despite their informal nature. A legally binding instrument would strengthen the peaceful use of space by all States.

OÐUZ DEMIRALP (Turkey) said that Turkey relied on space based assets for data and voice communication, navigation, broadcasting, cable television and internet. Naturally, as science and technology developed, this reliance on satellite technology would only grow. In this connection, Turkey attached particular importance to the peaceful use of outer space. Turkey supported the views and proposals on strengthening the existing international legal framework directed at preventing an arms race in outer space. For Turkey, protecting the right of unrestricted access to and use of outer space for peaceful purposes was more important than the shape and modalities of the discussion. Turkey believed that the Conference on Disarmament and the relevant UN institutions responsible for space related issues should continue and further strengthen the cooperation among themselves. Effective cooperation and coordination would pave the way for establishing the international legal and regulatory framework to facilitate the peaceful use of outer space. Until then, they had to make the best use of the existing transparency and confidence building measures.

AKIO SUDA (Japan) said that since the dawn of the space age, a vast number of satellites had been launched into space for a host of different purposes such as communication, earth-observation, navigation and other beneficial functions. These satellites had taken on an indispensable role for humanity and had made an enormous difference to the daily lives and welfare of all members of the international community. However, increasing dependence on outer space had led them to confront numerous problems. The most urgent concern was the creation of debris, which posed an immense danger to satellite operations and a threat to the space environment and international security. Space debris had many causes, both civilian and military. But while the civilian aspect of debris was being tackled, the military aspect remained unaddressed. From this perspective, they needed to advance substantive discussions on how the Conference on Disarmament could promote enhanced space security, in particular through the possible introduction of transparency and confidence building measures. These measures would contribute to creating the conditions whereby the production of space debris due to military activities could be avoided. Mr. Suda said that Japan believed that the European Union draft Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities, which focused on both civilian and military operations, was an example of an international initiative even though it was outside the Conference on Disarmament. The Conference on Disarmament could contribute to such international endeavours and it could engage in further study on possible measures to effectively prevent the further generation of space debris.

IM HAN-TAEK (Republic of Korea) said that the Republic of Korea considered it of great importance to hold discussions on prevention of an arms race in outer space. There seemed to be a broad consensus that the existing outer space framework needed some improvements in order to address any loopholes by improving the implementation and universalization of the existing international regime, by developing transparency and confidence building measures, or by introducing a new legally binding instrument. Regarding these three approaches, Mr. Im wanted to emphasize that they were not mutually exclusive and needed to be explored in a balanced way. Indeed, he wanted to remind everyone that they had already made meaningful progress on all three approaches. They could not disregard any one of those three approaches. The Republic of Korea believed that a pragmatic approach in each of these three areas was the most viable option at this stage. His delegation also believed that the Conference on Disarmament was the right forum to discuss ways to protect the peaceful use of outer space in cooperation with other relevant international fora. The Conference on Disarmament had failed to yield any meaningful agreement in the last few years and the prospect for any early agreement was as bleak as ever. The problem was not that they did not know the possible solutions, but that the Conference on Disarmament appeared to lose its own internal dynamics from within to reach an agreement. It was all the more strange to see enthusiasm evaporate all of a sudden, particularly since the adoption of the programme of work two years ago. Now, it was unfortunate to see that the Conference on Disarmament was not able to move forward. He believed the Conference was down, but not out and he expressed the hope that it would turn over a new leaf, instead of turning into a white elephant.

GEOFF GARTSHORE (Canada) said that it was not an exaggeration to say that the security challenges facing them in outer space grew more complicated with each passing year. Canada was therefore convinced that discussions regarding the prevention of an arms race in outer space must resume in the Conference on Disarmament as soon as possible. The peaceful uses of outer space played a critical role in their lives every single day. From communications to navigation, environmental monitoring and support for sustainable development, scientific exploration and national security, the use of space was increasingly embedded in their daily lives. The number of satellites in space was growing, as was the number of people benefitting from those satellites. But the amount of debris in outer space was also growing. The sustainable use of outer space was clearly a concern and a responsibility for them all. Canada remained convinced that the long term sustainability of space would remain in jeopardy unless the security dimensions of outer space were fully addressed. The Conference on Disarmament was clearly the appropriate forum to address the issue of security in outer space, and therefore had an important mandate. With the goal of ensuring the sustainable use of outer space for peaceful purposes and enhancing the individual and collective security of all nations, Canada proposed transparency and confidence building measures in document CD/1865, which encouraged States to declare that they would not place weapons in outer space, use satellites as weapons and test or use weapons on satellites so as to damage or destroy them.

ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) said that the Conference on Disarmament had an obligation to commence negotiations on a legally binding instrument to ensure the prevention of an arms race in outer space. In this regard, their work did not need to start from scratch and Pakistan did not see an impediment in commencing substantive work in the Conference on Disarmament on this agenda item. Member States which considered these negotiations as contrary to their national security concerns should share their views openly in the Conference and assume their responsibility in preventing the Conference on Disarmament to commence substantive work on this core agenda item. Regarding the utility of proposed codes of conduct and transparency and confidence building measures, Mr. Akram said that these were useful interim measures and must be explored to bring order to outer space. However, they could not and should not obviate the quest for a legally binding treaty on the prevention of an arms race in outer space in the Conference on Disarmament.

MICHIEL COMBRINK (South Africa) said that in an effort to explain the current impasse in the Conference on Disarmament, some Members continued to argue that the Conference on Disarmament could not be divorced from international and regional security realities. While South Africa concurred with the view that the Conference on Disarmament did not operate in a vacuum, they strongly disagreed with the notion that such realities constituted a basis for inaction by the Conference on Disarmament, implying that they had to wait for such external complications to be resolved before they could take action. The Conference on Disarmament should not be a victim of international and regional security realities. It was, in fact, a vehicle that could shape a new reality through multilateral negotiations and the adoption of appropriate international instruments. In South Africa’s view, the Rules of Procedure, particularly the consensus rule, were never intended as a veto right to stop the Conference on Disarmament from dealing with issues under its agenda, but rather to facilitate negotiations among less than equal partners through a set of rules that provided the necessary assurance that the vital national security interests of all negotiating parties would be adequately protected.

Mr. Combrink said it was clear to his delegation that the weaponization of outer space by one player would most probably prompt others to do the same, which could well lead to an arms race in outer space. If they waited for space to become weaponized before they took action, it would not be long before they had to find yet another cure for something that could have been prevented, namely the proliferation of weapons in outer space. The South African delegation believed that this should and could be prevented if they took action now.

JUAN ANTONIO QUINTANILLA ROMAN (Cuba) said outer space and celestial bodies must be explored and utilized for the benefit of all mankind. There was a need to adopt more transparency and confidence building measures and for the international community to be more informed. Cuba reiterated its concern about anti-ballistic and anti-satellite technology. It was necessary to take more substantive steps, and Cuba supported the establishment of a special committee within the Conference on Disarmament. Consultations and cooperation could be conducted within the current framework.

MOHAMMAD HASSAN DARYAEI (Iran) said that the goal of space security should be to ensure and sustain freedom in space for all. A serious threat to peaceful uses of outer space was the development of anti-satellite weapons and anti-ballistic missile systems. Technologies developed for missile defences had many potential threat applications to space based assets. This threat would double when some countries developed their complicated space to earth strike capability. Seeking dominance in space was a self-defeating route to space security. It took several decades of the Cold War arms race for the nuclear powers to realize that a nuclear war could never be won. They should not replicate the past in regard to outer space. For strategic and military dominance in space, a State would need to develop a complicated space weapons programme. This would include planning for war in space and therefore would arouse an arms race. Weaponizing space would not bring security for those concerned. Given the growing number and diversity of actors in space as well as the rapid growth in technologies, the other key challenges included preventing space debris and developing a legally binding international instrument for cooperation, regulation and transparency. In Iran’s view, the current legal framework on this issue was not sufficient to deal with all the security matters related to outer space.

LAURA KENNEDY (United States) said the United States released its own space policy in June 2010. This has recently been augmented by another policy, which was premised on the interest of all space faring and space using nations. Space had become increasingly congested, contested, and competitive and they had sought to address these challenges by working with others to develop safe and fair uses of space. The United States had listened with interest to the European Union’s description of the Code of Conduct on Outer Space Activities and looked forward to developing a comprehensive set of transparency and confidence building measures. They also listened with interest to the comments of the Russian and Chinese delegations, but unfortunately they did not feel that the proposed draft Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects met the requirements of equitability and verifiability; it was fundamentally flawed and should not be used as a basis for treaty negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament. Ms. Kennedy outlined the ways in which the United States felt the Russia-China draft treaty was deficient, including the lack of a verification regime. On another note, she added that side events brought a great deal to the work of the Conference on Disarmament, and they were not meant to undermine or undercut the work of the Conference, but rather to augment it.

JO ADAMSON (United Kingdom) said the Conference on Disarmament could play a useful role in increasing their understanding on this topic. There were concerns about the Russia-China draft Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects that was on the table, but they appreciated this effort and believed that further reflection and discourse was required. The issue of verification was one area that needed more reflection, for example. Regarding the European Union Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities, the United Kingdom attached great importance to this as well as the peaceful exploration of space for the benefit of all. The Code of Conduct was not the only such initiative and it was not in competition with other initiatives, but it did offer the opportunity to create “rules of the road” in a relatively short period of time. It could be used as a tool to strengthen the safety and security of all space activities.

ALEKSANDR PONOMAREV (Belarus) said the prevention of an arms race in outer space was even more acute now than it was 20 years ago. There needed to be clear, transparent rules of the game in outer space. Belarus supported regional initiatives on this subject and it was their hope that the European Union’s draft Code of Conduct on Outer Space Activities would work globally. At the same time, this could not replace a universal, legally binding treaty. Belarus needed additional guarantees regarding the peaceful research development and use of space. They supported the submission of Russia and China of a draft treaty and they had been actively involved in the informal discussions regarding this draft. This discussion had helped improve their understanding of the subject.

HAMID ALI RAO (India) said the prevention of an arms race in outer space had been on the agenda of the Conference since 1982 and the importance of addressing it had dramatically increased. India had entered the space exploration phase and had completed at least one lunar mission. This illustrated the importance they placed on cooperation on the utilization of outer space for peaceful purposes and exploration. As this global common became more crowded, it was natural to ask whether the current framework, developed more than 30 years ago, was up to the challenge now and into the future. Given the global dimensions of space activity, ad hoc and piecemeal approaches could not be the way forward. This placed a responsibility on space faring nations to contribute to advancing the process by achieving legally binding measures complemented by transparency and confidence building measures. In the Conference on Disarmament, their first priority was to agree on a programme of work so they could return to substantive work. Once they did that, there were a number of measures on the table that they could then tackle.

MOHAMED HATEM EL-ATAWY (Egypt) said that the prevention of an arms race in outer space required their immediate attention. As they had seen with nuclear weapons, it was much easier to prevent an arms race from happening rather than trying to control it and roll it back after it started. The existing legal framework was not enough. Also, while the sustainable management of space was a noble cause and the threat of debris generating accidents was real, the threat of an arms race in outer space was equally real and deserved their full attention. Transparency and confidence building measures were welcomed, but as a complement to, not a replacement for, a legally binding instrument. Verification was possible, and the weaponization of outer space was not the same as the militarization of outer space. While there were legitimate military uses of outer space, placing weapons in outer space and targeting satellites threatened the utilization of outer space and affected the entire world community. Any treaty regarding prevention of an arms race in outer space must be universal, verifiable, equitable and have the same obligations and benefits on all Member States. This could and should be done.

NINA S. DJAJAPRAWIRA (Indonesia) said the prevention of an arms race in outer space had assumed greater urgency in light of the fact that the existing framework was insufficient. The joint Russian-Chinese draft Treaty on Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space and of the Threat or Use of Force against Outer Space Objects was welcomed and Indonesia believed it deserved further consideration. They wanted to underline that all States had the responsibility to not engage in any activity that would jeopardize the goal of having a weapons free outer space.

UGLJESA UGI ZVEKIC (Serbia) said that space had no known borders and it was a common resource for the good of all. It must be preserved and further explored in a peaceful, safe and secure way. The prevention of an arms race in outer space was yet another common value and orientation which united them all. On this there was no excuse for the Conference on Disarmament not to reach a methodical and goal oriented consensus. As a small observer State to the Conference on Disarmament, Serbia saluted all efforts to enhance international cooperation in the prevention of an arms race in outer space.

Concluding Remarks

MARTIN GRINIUS, President of the Conference on Disarmament (Canada) said at the next meeting the fourth core issue concerning effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be the focus.


For use of the information media; not an official record

DC11/007E