APPENDIX Senator LARRY PRESSLER, WASHINGTON, D.C., April 25, 1984. Chairman, Subcommittee on Arms Control, Oceans, International Operations and Environment, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR PRESSLER: Enclosed is a statement of the results of the symposium held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, The Netherlands on CONDITIONS ESSENTIAL FOR MAINTAINING OUTER SPACE FOR PEACEFUL USES The symposium was sponsored by the United Nations University and the International Institute of Space Law and was really a workshop of some 30 international experts giving legal attention to all potential harmful influences that could damage or destroy the space environment, including but not confined to the military role in space. Ambassador Buchheim, who testified at your hearing on "Arms Control and the Militarization of Space" was one of the participants. The Soviet Union sent a representative at the decisionmaking level, one who had participated in the Vienna antisatellite negotiations. I anticipated that we would be able to conclude only optional proposals based on different assumptions concerning the role of the military in outer space, but finally we were successful in agreeing on a consensus statement. This was ready in time for presentation at the session in Geneva of the Legal Subcommittee of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. And it is hoped that we can also be helpful to those who are negotiating in Geneva at the Conference on Disarmament. A future meeting is planned with a smaller number of participants. One of the Judges of the International Court of Justice presided over the symposium, The Honorable Manfred Lachs. Sincerely yours, EILENE GALLOWAY. CONDITIONS ESSENTIAL FOR MAINTAINING OUTER SPACE FOR PEACEFUL USES Symposium organized by the International Institute of Space Law and the United Nations University in cooperation with the Palace and The Hague Carnegie Foundation. THE HAGUE, MARCH 12-15, 1984 The participants in the Symposium agreed to the following summary of their work; it was understood that the United Nations University will publish the written contributions and an account of the discussions where the details of the analysis and proposals made by participants will be found. The list of participants is attached. I. General conclusions The basic common view shared by participants was a sense of risk and danger: the danger of an extension of the arms race into outer space and the risk of armed conflict in outer space; the direction of armament development might jeopardize existing international agreements designed to limit and control the military uses of outer space. The symposium recalled the expressions of concern over current developments in international fora such as Unispace 82 and the United Nations General Assembly as well as by groups of concerned citizens in different parts of the world. The meeting recognized the importance of renewed efforts at all relevant levels in developing the appropriate political climate and, at the same time, underlined the important role of international law in these efforts to safeguard outer space for peaceful uses. In respect of legal measures designed to safeguard outer space for peaceful uses, the participants recalled the applicability of general international law, in particular the Charter of the United Nations and the body of law specifically dealing with outer space and emphasized the need to strengthen and supplement existing rules in response to new situations brought about by technological developments and changing circumstances. The meeting analyzed the proposals for new legal instruments submitted to the United Nations General Assembly and noted that these proposals were presented as drafts in the sense that they were negotiable. Consequently, the meeting emphasized the urgent need to move towards actual negotiation, in good faith involving all concerned parties and, in particular, the two major space powers. The objective of developing international agreement and international law for the purpose of maintaining outer space for peaceful uses should be seen in the larger context of working towards the creation of an appropriate legal environment for the future. Within the framework of general international law, two special bodies of law are relevant: international law specifically related to disarmament and international law specifically governing outer space activities. Efforts in each of these areas should be mutually reinforcing. In both scientific and legal terms outer space represents with land, sea and air the fourth realm of earth's environment. Within this general framework, the special body of law which has developed in response to the specific characteristics of outer space activities needs to be strengthened and developed. The meeting stressed the desirability of all countries becoming parties to existing treaties in this area. Further efforts should build on existing agreements and the preferred approach would be to supplement, as required, existing treaties by new legal instruments in appropriate form. The urgency of new agreements had been expressed by the United National General Assembly in resolution 38/70 of 1983 concerning the prevention of an arms race in outer space: the Assembly had also requested the Conference on Disarmament to deal with this matter on a priority basis. In keeping with the primary role thus entrusted to the Conference on Disarmament, the meeting emphasized the urgent need for action by the Conference: in addition, the meeting pointed to the important role of other fora such as the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. II. Specific issues and proposals The symposium also discussed a number of specific issues and proposals which could assist in the task of elaborating new agreements designed to safeguard outer space for peaceful uses. In particular, the symposium wishes to draw attention to the following: 1. In terms of the method of approach consideration should be given to the advantages of focusing on activities in outer space by strengthening and extending the system of permitted, prohibited and desirable activities. In fact desirable activities in the form of international cooperation in outer space would be an important aspect of confidence building in this area. 2. While recognizing the obvious requirement of agreement by the two major space powers, participants stressed the importance of involving the international community of states so as to gain wide acceptance for new agreements. Also, while recognizing the value of unilateral declarations of intent, the meeting pointed to the importance of unilateral constraint by those countries possessing technological capability for outer space activities. 3. Participants felt that in the work on new legal texts designed to maintain outer space for peaceful uses, the control provisions in the Moon agreements would be a viable alternative for early inclusion in a separate agreement. 4. In relation to verification, the meeting discussed monitoring by satellites as an instrument for confidence building. Participants recognized the problems associated with the proposals for the establishment of an international satellite monitoring agency but felt that this matter should be kept under review and that consideration might be given to the possiblity of establishing regional monitoring agencies. 5. A special point was made to the effect that new agreements should be formulated so as to ensure the prohibition of antisatellite activities (ASAT's). 6. The participants also discussed certain issues connected with the interpretation of existing treaties and the divergences of interpretation. In this connection atten tion was drawn to the desirability of considering the terminology used in relevant instruments and, as far as possible, providing for a coherent use of definitions and terms. 7. In discussing applicable agreements, participants identified areas where a strengthening of existing rules would be required. Among these areas figured the desirability of strengthening and updating rules concerning information to be provided in connection with registration of space objects, the need for better communications in relation to settlement of disputes. Attention was also drawn to the need for including appropriate procedures for adjustment or rules in keeping with technological developments, scientific research and international cooperation in this field. 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 1. Professor Priyatna Abudrrasyid, Air & Space Law Research Center, 15, Jalan Banyumas, Jakarta, Indonesia. 2. Ambassador Abdel_Abdel-Ghani, Former Deputy Secretary-General of UNISPACE Conference and Former Director of Outer Space Affairs Division, Sh. Osoris, Tagher Bldg., P.O. Box 262, Cairo, Egypt. 3. Mr. Abderrazak Berrada, member, International Frequency Registration Board, International Telecommunications Union, Palais des Nations, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland. 4. Prof. Dr. Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel, Director, Institut fur Luft- und Weltraumrecht der Universität Köln, Albertus-Magnus-Platz, 5 Köln 41, F.R. Germany. 5. Ambassador Robert Buchheim, Former Head of U.S. Delegation to U.S.-U.S.S.R. Negotiations on Anti-Satellite Systems and Activities, 312 East State Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85020, U.S.A. 6. Dr. Alexandre Carnelutti, Legal Adviser, French Embassy, 58 Knightsbridge, London SW1X 7JT, United Kingdom. 7. Dr. Carl Q. Christol, Professor of International Law and Political Science, University of Southern California, 1041 Anoka Place, Pacific Palissades, Ca 90272 U.S.A. 8. Prof. Dr. Aldo Armando Cocca, Ambassador-at-large, Juan Francisco Segui 4444, Buenos Aires 25, Argentina. 9. Mr. Sune Danielson, Permanent Mission of Sweden to the United Nations, 825 Third Avenue, 39th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10022, U.S.A. 10. Prof. Dr. I.H.Ph. Diederiks-Verschoor, President, International Institute of Space Law, Institute of Public International Law, University of Utrecht, Janskerkhof 3, 3512 BK Utrecht, The Netherlands. 11. Prof. Guya Gal, Legal Adviser, Lecturer in Air and Space Law, University of Budapest, Varga J.U.P./8 11.10, 1161 Budapest XVI, Hungary. 12. Mrs. Eilene Galloway, Honorary Director, International Astronautical Federation's, International Institute of Space Law, 4612, 29th Place N.W., Washington, D.C. 20008, U.S.A. 13. Prof. D. Goedhuis, Chairman, ILA Committee on Outer Space, Flat 37, Cadogan Square, London SW1, United Kingdom. 14. Prof. Stephen Gorove, School of Law, The University of Mississippi Law Center, Editor, Journal of Space Law, University, Mississippi 38677 U.S.A. 15. Mr. He Qizhi, Counsellor, Legal Advisor, Department of Treaty and Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Beijing, People's Republic of China. 16. Ambassador Peter Jankowitch, Chairman, UN Outer Space Committee, Franziskanerplatz 5, Z-1010, Vienna, Austria. 17. Dr. Bhupendra Jasani, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Bergshamra, S-171 73 Solna, Sweden. 18. Mr. N. Jasentuliyana, Deputy Director, Outer Space Affairs Division, United Nations, New York, N.Y. 10017 U.S.A. 19. Dr. Vladimir Kopal, Director, Outer Space Affairs Division, United Nations, New York, N.Y. 10017 U.S.A. 20. Judge Manfred Lachs, International Court of Justice, Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague, The Netherlands. 21. Dr. Nicholas Matte, Director, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, 3690 Peel Street, Montreal, P.Q., Canada H3A 1W9. 22. Mr. B. G. Mayorski, Legal and Treaty Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Smolenskaya-Sennaya Square 32/34, Moscow 121200 U.S.S.R. 1 1 Participants were present in their personal capacity only. 23. Dr. Ogunsola Ogunbanwo, Co-ordinator, United Nations Disarmament Fellowship Programme, Department for Disarmament Affairs, Rm D612, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland. 24. Mr. G. S. Raju, Deputy Director, Legal & Treaties Division, Ministry of External Affairs, Patiala House, New Delhi-11 00 01 India. 25. Mr. Richard Saint-Martin, Counsellor, Permanent Mission of Canada to the United Nations, 250, 866 United Nations Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10017 U.S.A. 26. Dr. Paul Stares, Lecturer, University of Lancaster, U.K., Presently at Brookings Institute, 1775 Mass. Avenue N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 U.S.A. 27. Mr. Ronald Stowe, Vice-President, Satellite Business System, 8283 Greensboro Drive, McLean, Va 22101 U.S.A. 28. Professor Hubert Thierry, Deputy Director, United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research, Palais des Nations, Geneva, Switzerland. 29. Mr. Edward W. Ploman, Vice-Rector, Global Learning Division, the United Nations University, 2-15-1 Shibuya, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo, Japan. STATEMENT OF THE CENTER FOR DEFENSE INFORMATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. STAR WARS: MYTH AND REALITY On the face of it, everyone should welcome the hope held out by President Reagan's Star Wars plan, hope for a world in which nuclear weapons can be rendered "impotent and obsolete." It is imperative, however, that we look beyond the glossy rhetoric and generalities with which Administration spokespeople have been trying to sell this scheme and search out the facts. We must strive to determine what kind of world a Star Wars defense would really bequeath to future generations. Such a searching examination exposes the President's vision as, at best, an appealing illusion. At worst, it is a cynical hoax on the American people. Far from making us more secure, pursuit of a Star Wars defense-estimated to cost between $300 and $1,000 billion--will only spark a new round in an already ruinously expensive and perilously dangerous arms race. Support for the President's ill-considered proposal is founded on at least five pernicious myths. First is the myth of MAD. A sponsor of last year's People Protection Act has claimed that, "What the President has proposed is no less than a moral recovery in American strategic policy which would take us from the horror of MAD [Mutual Assured Destruction] to the promise of mutual assured survival." This fallacy must be laid to rest, once and for all. There is not, nor ever has been, an official U.S. MAD policy. Assured destruction is not a doctrine which can be discarded at will, any more than it can be replaced with "mutual assured survival." MAD is a tragic technological fact of life, an inescapable consequence of the United States/Soviet nuclear competition. And it is a fact of life Star Wars can do nothing to change. The Defensive Technology Study Team (Fletcher Report) acknowledged this in its statement that the proposed 5-year, $25 billion Star Wars R&D effort "drives [the Soviets] to try and develop possible countermeasures, increase emphasis on their air-breathing forces and conduct research and development on new families of weapons delivery systems." Far from disposing of the nuclear threat, Star Wars would only spur the development of new means of nuclear devastation. The cost of building up our air defenses against new Soviet cruise missiles and bombers, which are immune to space weapons, must thus be charged to the Star Wars account. It would cost more than $100 billion simply to reconstruct air defenses equivalent to those we had in the early 1960's against a relatively small Soviet bomber force. It is more difficult to estimate what it would cost to attempt to counter such other feasible offensive measures as depressed trajectory submarinelaunched missiles. Second is the myth of the last move. It is illogical to assume that either superpower will abandon the capability of inflicting devastating damage on each other. It is naive to assume the means to continue to be able to do so won't be found. And it is insane to assume that a U.S. Star Wars effort will force the Soviets to concede U.S. superiority at the arms reduction table. Rather, as the Future Security Strategy Study (Hoffman Report) acknowledges, "they would be more likely to respond with a continuing buildup of their long-range offensive forces." A central component of the Strategic Defense Inititiative is research into the means to counter a Soviet Star Wars system. The Soviets will work just as hard to |