Overview of the Current Stage of Militarization of Outer Space  Karl Grossman, professor at the State University of New York

 

 

The U.S. military is seeking to “control space” and the Earth below, to base weapons in space—and we must all join to stop this.

 

Here’s the plan: the United States Space Command’s Vision For 2020 report, issued last year. Look at the cover of the report: laser weapons shooting their beams down from space zapping targets below. And, the report goes on, in wording laid out like in the start of the Star Wars movies: “US Space Command—dominating the space dimension of military operations to protect US interests and investment. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict.” This was not written in Hollywood; it’s an official U.S. military publication.

 

Here’s the plan: General Joseph Ashy, commander-in-chief of the U.S. Space Command—its motto “Master of Space”—speaking in Aviation Week and Space Technology in an article headlined: “USSC  [U.S. Space Command] Prepares for Future Combat Missions in Space.” General Ashy talks of “space control,” the U.S. term for control of space, and “space force application,” the U.S. military’s definition of control of Earth from space.

 

Says General Ashy: “We’ll expand into these two missions because they will become increasingly important.  We will engage terrestial targets someday—ships, airplanes, land targets—from space. We will engage targets in space, from space.”

 

“It’s politically sensitive, but it’s going to happen,” says the general. “Some people don’t want to hear this, and it sure isn’t in vogue, but—absolutely—we’re going to fight in space. We’re going to fight from space and we’re going to fight into space….

That’s why the U.S. has development programs in directed energy and hit-to-kill mechanisms.”

 

Here’s the plan: “Space-Based Laser Readiness Demonstrator” are the words on top on this poster of a laser weapon in space, with a U.S. flag waving in space above it. (I didn’t know U.S. flags were able to wave in space.) “Preparing Today To Protect Tomorrow,” say the words below, next to a seal of the “team” involved in the project, a contract for which was signed last year: TRW, Boeing, the U.S. Air Force and the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, the new name for the U.S. Star Wars operation.

 

Here’s the plan: Guardians of the High Frontier, the publication of the Air Force Space Command, proclaiming: “Air Force Space Command Vision: Defending America through the control and exploitation of space.”

Here’s the plan: Phillips Laboratory, the Air Force research and development facility, describing itself: “Phillips Laboratory supports the war fighter…Phillips Laboratory is helping control space for the United States.”

 

Here’s the plan: Asst. Secretary of the Air Force for Space Keith Hall, who is also Director of the National Reconnaissance Office (which has a $6.8 billion annual budget, nearly three times the CIA’s), declaring: “With regard to space dominance, we have it, we like it, and we’re going to keep it.” Here’s the plan: in Time magazine last month. The headline: “Star Wars: The Sequel, Hey, What ever happened to arms control? Well, here comes the new Bill Clinton, Star Warrior.” The article began: “Disregard previous orders. It’s back to the future after Clinton this month sent Congress a military budget proposing to pump $6.6 billion into development of a national missile-defense shield by 2005.”

 

Missile defense? Examining the new Clinton Son of Star Wars drive in context, it sure appears that what’s up the sleeves of the U.S. military is in large part not defense but offense.

 

“The U.S. government, particularly the new unified Space Command, has become more and more brazen in saying that it wants to achieve total dominance of the space around the planet, both in terms of weaponization and in control of all resources, imaging resources, communication resources, everything,” magazine editor Loring Wirbel and specialist in the U.S. push to weaponize space says in the TV documentary I’ve just completed, Nukes In Space 2: Unacceptable Risks.

 

He cites this U.S. Space Command report, also issued last year, the Command’s Long Range Plan, which talks about—as Wirbel notes—projecting U.S. power from space over Earth below and taking “over everything between now and 2020 to achieve complete dominance for the United States alone—no other nations are invited to be involved.”

 

Says Wirbel: “America needs to express its leadership through good works and good examples. The more we try to achieve dominance through wielding power and having our own way all the time, the more we lose the essence of our democracy that makes us an exceptional nation and the more we move towards this dominance regime, the more I have to say I’m embarrassed to be an American.”  I, too, am embarrassed.

 

Here’s the plan: “Seeking American Space Dominance” was the title of Thiokol Corp. Vice President Tidal W. McCoy in Space News last year. Asserted McCoy: “Phony arms control issues and over-sensitivity to calculated rhetoric should not continue to stand in our way”

 

Here’s the plan: The Future of War: Power, Technology & American World Dominance in the 2lst Century is the name of the book. It is written by U.S. “defense experts” and consultants, George and Meredith Friedman. The book’s thrust: “Just as by the year 1500 it was apparent that the European

experience of power would be its domination of the global seas, it does not take much to see that the American experience of power will rest on the domination of space,” the Friedmans write.

 

“Just as Europe expanded war and its power to the global oceans, the United States is expanding war and its power into space and to the planets,” they say.

“Just as Europe shaped the world for a half a millennium”--by the Britain, France and Spain dominating the oceans with their fleets--“so too the United States will shape the world for at least that length of time.”

 

The Future of War: Power Technology & American World Dominance in the 2lst Century—as do various government reports—see as critical to the new weapons the U.S. seeks to deploy in space, nuclear power in space.

 

As New World Vistas: Air And Space Power For The 2lst Century, a U.S. Air Force board report, states: “In the next two decades, new technologies will allow the fielding of space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness to be used to deliver energy and mass as force projection in tactical and strategic conflict…These advances will enable lasers with reasonable mass and cost to effect very many kills.” But, notes the report, “power limitations impose restrictions” on such-based weapons systems making them “relatively unfeasible….A natural technology to enable high power,” it goes on, “is nuclear power in space.”

 

“Setting the emotional issues of nuclear power aside, this technology offers a viable alternative for large amounts of power in space,” it goes on.

 

Weapons in space. Nukes in space.

 

Emphasizes Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years, a book “commissioned by the U.S. Congress” and written by John M. Collins, senior defense specialist at the Library of Congress: “Nuclear reactors thus remain the only known long-lived, compact source able to supply military space forces with electric power between about 10 kilowatts and multimegawatts. Cores no bigger than basketballs are able to produce about 100 kw, enough for `housekeeping’ aboard space stations and at lunar outposts. Larger versions could meet multimegawatt needs of space-based lasers, neutral particle beams, mass drivers, and railguns. Nuclear reactors could support major bases on the moon.”

 

Collins ends this work by speaking of “strategic superiority” as “unilateral control of space, which overarches Planet Earth, all occupants, and its entire contents…Possessors of that vantage position could overpower every opponent.”

 

What about the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the “basic framework on

international space law?”--as notes the United Nations in describing the landmark treaty now signed by 91 nations. The U.S., the United Kingdom and former Soviet Union were its initiators.

 

What about the declaration of the Outer Space Treaty that space shall be used “for peaceful purposes…The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries?”

 

What about the provision of the Outer Space Treaty that nations shall not “place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction?” Meanwhile, the U.S. is speaking about, “in the next two decades…the fielding of space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness,” as New World Vistas states.

 

Already the U.S. is in outright violation of the Outer Space Treaty’s provision that “states shall be liable for damage caused by their space objects.”

 

In 1991, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the U.S. Department of Energy entered into a Space Nuclear Power Agreement to cover its nuclear space flights—including the current Cassini plutonium-fueled space probe mission--with the Price-Anderson Act.

 

This is a U.S. law which limits liability in the event of a nuclear accident to $8.9 billion for U.S. domestic damage and just $100 million for damage to all foreign nations.

 

Thus if the “inadvertent reentry” of Cassini back into the Earth’s atmosphere which NASA is concerned could occur on Cassini’s planned August 1999 Earth “flyby” does happen, and a part of Europe or Africa or Asia or Latin America is impacted, all the nations and all the people affected could collect in damages—despite the amount of land left contaminated, the number of people left with cancer—would be $100 million.

 

As Dan Berkovitz, a long-time counsel in the U.S. Congress involved in this issue, explained to me about this outrageous U.S. double-standard: “You have to understand that the rest of the world is not much of a constituency here in Washington.”

 

And we’re speaking of potentially huge damage.

 

NASA intends to send the Cassini space probe and its 72.3 pounds of plutonium dioxide fuel hurtling at Earth at 42,300 miles per hour for a “gravity assist” or “slingshot” maneuver—to give it additional velocity so it can reach its final destination of Saturn. It’s supposed to buzz the Earth at 496 miles high this coming August 18.

 

But, says NASA its Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini Mission, if the probe does not come in at 496 miles high, if it dips down after hundreds of millions of miles in space into the Earth’s 75-mile high atmosphere—and makes an “inadvertent reentry”--it will break up, the Final Environmental Impact Statement concedes. Plutonium will be released. And, says the Final Environmental Impact Statement, “approximately 5 billion of the estimated 7 to 8 billion world population at the time…could receive 99 percent or more of the radiation exposure.”

 

NASA in the statement says 2,300 fatal cancers could result. It also outlines its plan, if plutonium rains down on areas of natural vegetation, to “relocate animals,” if it falls an agricultural land, to “ban future agricultural land uses” and, if it rains on urban areas, to “demolish some or all structures” and “relocate affected population permanently.”

 

The U.S. government’s Interagency Nuclear Safety Review Panel Safety Evaluation Report on the Cassini Mission speaks of the possibility of “several tens of thousands” of cancer deaths. It also notes that in a Cassini Earth “flyby” accident, because the plutonium canisters “have not been designed for the high speed reentry…much of the plutonium is vaporized” and provides “a collective dose to the world’s population.”

 

Independent scientists say far more than “several tens of thousands” of people could die. Dr. John Gofman of the University of California projects 950,000 dying as a result of a Cassini “flyby” accident. Dr. Ernest Sternglass of the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine estimates the death toll as high as 40 million.

 

And even if the Cassini Earth “flyby” is not scuttled and Cassini not redirected in coming months—as it can and should--to fly into the sun and be consumed, but goes ahead and works, NASA is planning eight more plutonium space probe shots in coming years, according to a report issued last year by the U.S. General Accounting Office. With a 12% failure rate already in the use by the U.S. (and also the Soviet Union and now Russia) of nuclear power in space, accidents—and disaster—are inevitable. And U.S. liability will be shielded under the Price Anderson Act, in violation of the Outer Space Treaty.

 

What the government of my country, the United States of America, is involved in space is in violation of international law. It gravely endangers life on this planet. It pushes us toward nuclear catastrophe.

 

The military use of space being planned by the U.S. is in total contradiction of the principles of peaceful international cooperation that the U.S. likes to espouse. The aim is to develop a world in which it would literally be USA uber alles.

 

This flies in the face of the spirit, the ideals of the United States of America. It denigrates those courageous men and women who came to this continent and fought the horrific evil of fascism in World War II.

 

 It pushes us—all of us—toward war in the heavens.

 

George Friedman, co-author of The Future of War: Power, Technology & American World Dominance in the 2lst Century, claims that the U.S. can dominate the Earth for centuries ahead because of its technological prowess. He says other nations—he names Russia, Japan and China—are just “passing blips…to compete with the U.S.”

 

I’ve been to Russia; I’ve been to Japan; I’ve been to China. They are no passing technological “blips.” And if the United States moves to arm the heavens, to utilize space as what one high U.S. military officer calls the “ultimate high ground,” other nations will follow—leading to a new arms race—and ultimately war—in space.

 

This all must be stopped before it gets completely out of hand.

 

Stopped…and now!

 

 

 

Development of Antiballistic Missile System vs. the Prevention of An Arms Race in Outer Space Wang Xiaoyu, First Secretary, Delegation  of China to the UN

 

 

Madame Secretary-General,

Ladies and Gentlemen,

 

At the outset, please allow me to express my appreciation to the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) for organizing this seminar.  It has provided us with a good forum to discuss an important issue of common concern: prevention of an arms race in outer space (PAROS).  Last Monday was the International Women’s Day.  I would also like to take this opportunity to extend warm congratulations and greetings to all the ladies present.  We are glad to see that women are playing an increasingly important role in the field of international peace and security, including arms control and disarmament, and have made valuable contributions to it.

 

It is a great pleasure for me to have this opportunity today to share views with you on issues relating to the peaceful use of outer space and prevention of an arms race in outer space.

 

Outer space is the common heritage of the human beings. It should be used entirely for peaceful purposes and for the economic, scientific and cultural development of all countries as well as the well-being of mankind.  It must not be weaponized and become another arena of the arms race.

 

Some country insists that at present there is no arms race in outer space and therefore there is no need to discuss the issue of PAROS in any forum, including the Conference on Disarmament (CD).  However, the fact is that the same country has over the years continued its efforts in developing space weapons with a view to deploying such advanced weapon systems in outer space in the near future.  Huge amount of human, material and financial resources have already been put into relevant plans and programmes.  The momentum has recently been greatly intensified.  These ominous efforts will bring about the weaponization of outer space and lead to an arms race there.  So PAROS has already become a present and pressing issue.

 

Now, let’s have a close look at some of those plans and programmes.

 

A Future Oriented Plan to Dominate the Space

 

It is estimated that the space-related industries of the country with the most advanced space technologies are growing 20% annually.  The total investment of the country in space has already exceeded $100 billion and is expected to reach $150 billion in the year 2000.  Had such investment been used entirely for peaceful purposes and for the well-being of mankind, it would have been gratifying.  What is worrisome is that, the same country, on the basis of the research and development of its space military technologies over the years, including the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), launched last April its ambitious, 21^st century oriented Long Range Plan for space military strategies.

 

According to the plan, military space capabilities will become the major leverage in implementing national security and military strategies.  Therefore, the priority task of the space force of the country in the 21st century is to gain and maintain space superiority.  Its Space Command has thus put forward several operational concepts such as Control of Space and Global Engagement.  Control of Space is aiming at assuring itself access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and denying others the use of space if required.  Global Engagement combines global surveillance with the potential for a space-based global precision strike capability.  It is projected in the plan that the country will deploy its second generation system for National Missile Defense in the year 2020, with many weapons and sensors moving into space then to improve surveillance and strike capabilities for land, sea and air.  It is projected that in the year 2020 the Space-Based Platform and Space Operations Vehicle will be able to engage ballistic missiles in different phases of their flight course as well as cruise missiles at most altitudes.

 

To put it simply, the country is seeking to deploy in some years from now the Ground-Based Interceptors which use outer space as a battlefield, and strategic defense weapon systems that are directly deployed in outer space, such as the Space Operation Vehicles, Space-Based Platforms and Lasers.  In order to clear the legal obstacles against the implementation of the above plan, that country believes that “treaties that maintain stability and strategic balance during the Cold War may need to change”.

 

The plan reveals that some of the missile defense weapons, such as the Patriot Advanced Capability (PAC), Theatre High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) and even the limited National Missile Defense, are only a preclude to a long story of Strategic Defense Initiative.  Thus people have come to realize that the weaponization of outer space has already become the sword of Damocles.

 

Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) programs

 

In 1993, the SDI came to an end and was replaced by BMD. Phase I of BMD is to develop ground-based Theatre Missile Defense (TMD) system and the development of ground-based National Missile Defense (NMD) system is the primary mission of phase II.  Phase III is a longer term program named “Advanced Technology” which includes Space-Based Laser and other systems.  Recently the program of developing NMD and TMD was announced.  Now the green light is on.

 

Both TMD and NMD in the above programs consist of ballistic tracking guidance systems deployed in outer space and interceptors performing intercepting operations in outer space.  The Space-Based Laser still under research is a weapon system directly deployed in outer space.  According to the current plan, 14-24 Space-Based Lasers would be deployed at an altitude of 1300 kilometers in outer space.  In 1997, one country conducted a comprehensive ground test of this weapon system in which laser and some other weapon systems were tested.  The plan to finalize their integration into a weapon system is being studied.

 

The operational principle of NMD is that the space-based sensors would provide global, continuous surveillance and tracking of adversary missiles, then interceptors would intercept them at the altitude of 100 to 500 kilometers which means in outer space.

 

A Haunting Ghost of Strategic Defense Initiative

 

Space domination is a hegemonic concept.  Its essence is monopoly of space

and denial of others’ access to it.  It is also aiming at using outer space for

achieving strategic objectives on the ground.  Therefore, SDI is still a haunting ghost; weaponization of outer space is looming large; and maintaining tranquillity in outer space in the years to come has been called into a big question.

 

The above disturbing developments would lead to either of the following

consequences: 1. Other countries would accept the status quo and acquiesce in the space power’s privilege to achieve even greater and absolute strategic superiorities on the ground and in the space, in addition to its currently largest and most advanced nuclear and conventional arsenals;  2. Other countries would in response launch their own plan to develop weapons on the ground, in the sea, in the air and in outer space.  Both would result in unpredictable consequences.  It is my belief that people all over the world would reject either of the above scenarios.

 

Though the existing international legal instruments concerning outer space,

such as Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, prohibit the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in outer space, they do not ban in a comprehensive way the testing, deployment and use of any other kind of weapons or weapon systems, thus inadequate in preventing an arms race in outer space. 

 

A few treaties did set certain very important rules.  For example, the Anti-

Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) of 1972 prohibits the testing and deployment of strategic missile defense systems in outer space by state parties and also prohibits the development and deployment of national missile defense systems. This treaty has played an indispensable role in maintaining global strategic stability, preventing an arms race in outer space and ensuring gradual nuclear disarmament progress.  Regrettably, the ABM Treaty has been seriously weakened through the so-called understanding or re-interpretation. Recently, it has been announced that efforts will be made to amend and even to abolish this Treaty.

   

After the Cold War, the rivalry between the two superpowers disappeared and peace and development have become the main theme of the times, reflecting the common aspiration of all peoples.  Against this background, arms control treaties like ABM should play an even more important role.  Any attempt to breach legal obligations of the treaty or even abolish it at will may set an ominous precedence in the field of arms control and disarmament.  It will lead to the weaponization of outer space, undermine global and regional strategic balance and stability, and obstruct or even reverse the nuclear disarmament process.

 

Against this backdrop, the international community should act without any

further delay to take effective measures, with a view to keeping the worst from happening.  China believes that, in order to achieve the overall objective of peaceful use of outer space and truly prevent the weaponization of and an arms race in outer space, the international community should focus on the following aspects:

 

1. Ensure the peaceful use of outer space, resolutely oppose arms race in

outer space. At the current stage, the primary objective should be the prevention of the weaponization of outer space, i.e. prohibiting the testing, deployment and use of any weapons, weapon systems and their components in outer space.

 

2. Negotiate and conclude as soon as possible international legal instruments on the prevention of an arms race in outer space to supplement the existing ones concerning outer space.  In this regard, the Conference on Disarmament, as the single multilateral disarmament negotiation forum, should live up to its obligations. It should establish an ad hoc committee to negotiate and conclude legal instruments banning the test, deployment and use of any weapons, weapon systems and their components in outer space, with a view to preventing the weaponization of outer space.

 

3. Countries with most advanced space capabilities, especially those that are

currently intensifying their efforts in the development and testing of weapons or weapon systems, should assume special responsibilities and demonstrate genuine political will through undertaking not to research, develop, test, deploy and use any weapons, weapon systems as well as their components in outer space and to destroy all those weapons.

 

4. The international community, including all women, should, through joint

efforts, strengthen the supervision of and oppose all activities that run counter to the peaceful use of outer space or detrimental to the global and regional peace and security as well as the strategic stability.

 

Let us work together to maintain a weapon-free and peaceful space for the

21st century.

 

 

 

UN and CD Response to the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space H.M.G.S.Palihakkara, Sri Lankan Ambassador and CD’s Special Coordinator on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space

 

 

It is good that the UN is engaged in this subject and the important issue of preventing an arms race in outer space.

 

I will begin by giving you a brief factual description of two levels of UN work:

• the UN deliberative bodies that deal with this subject and

• how the negotiating machinery of the UN deals with this subject.

 

I want first to say, frankly, that as delegates we have some optimism about what can be done within the UN.

 

Deliberative Machinery

 

There is general agreement within the UN that an arms race in outer space should be prevented. This general agreement includes all space capable countries. The U.S. in their statement at the last UN General Assembly spoke of this. Our work, then, comes in determining the steps toward that objective. Some of these challenges have already been discussed. The international consensus includes principles or concepts of what is needed in order to prevent an arms race in outer space.

 

• First, outer space should be preserved for peaceful uses.

• Second, it is necessary to prevent an arms race in outer space.

• Third, prevention of an arms race in outer space is critical for international        

   peace and security.

• Fourth, the growing use of outer space has increased the need for

   transparency and better flow of information in the international community.

• Fifth, this is an important and urgent concern.

• Sixth, although there are treaties and other agreements regarding aspects of

   militarization or weaponization of outer space, this is not enough. No

   country voted against the General Assembly resolution addressing this.

 

This is the easy part. Now we come to the more difficult part. If you agree that the arms race should be prevented and that the existing legal regime is not adequate, then it is only logical that we should negotiate further preventive measures. This must be done. To say there is not now an arms race, so we don’t need to bother is not acceptable. Precisely because there is no arms race, this is the time to prevent it. If we don’t do this now, in two years we will need to talk about nonproliferation. The terrestrial experience in nuclear non-proliferation should teach us that much.

 

Negotiating Machinery

 

The Conference on Disarmament is the primary body for negotiating this matter.  The item was first inscribed (included in the agenda) in 1982. The CD, in 1985, established a subsidiary body (not a negotiating body, but an ad hoc committee) to deal with this topic. The committee worked from 1985 until 1994 facing a number of challenges. These challenges prevented the committee from undertaking to negotiate any new measures. It analyzed issues and terminology, and examined existing and new agreements and proposals. It collected a valuable repertoire of information on the issue. Perhaps most importantly, this committee showed that it is possible to work multilaterally on this subject. This is critical because space capability, launch capability has not remained static; it has spread. So, this work must be multilateral. And the committee showed itself able to do a lot of technical work.

 

The challenge for this committee lies in part, in the practice of the CD to take decisions by consensus. Consensus is lacking within the CD regarding the specific mandate of the committee to do goal oriented work, as some countries believe it is not yet time for negotiations due to national security concerns.

 

There are other difficult issues as well. For example, regarding Professor Karl Grossman reference to Cassini, how do you describe Cassini? Is it a weapon? A satellite? A benign satellite? We can ask analogous questions about a nuclear reactor: is it a bomb? Or something else? One must apply the criteria of purpose. In this light, Cassini could be a weapon of mass destruction directed from space to Earth, but it isn’t designed to be that. This illustrates difficulties that arise in trying to define a space weapon.

 

At the same time, we don’t need to have such definitions completed before we do anything else. We could, in the CD, address proposals from the non-aligned countries, from France, Russian Federation, etc. We could, but unfortunately, we have not done so.

 

Looking Toward the Future

 

I think that there is great potential in the CD to establish another ad hoc committee. The last committee, before it concluded in 1994, made some very important conclusions. These conclusions, mind you, were made by consensus including all the space powers. The committee recognized the urgency of preventing an arms race in space; that they could advance their work by identifying areas of emerging convergence; and that a legal regime, by itself, does not guarantee the prevention of an arms race in space. By implication they were saying that more measures need to be negotiated and that there is a need to re-enforce and consolidate the existing regime. Although this may sound like very little considering the enormity of the problem, it is very important because everyone agrees with these elements. So, there is great potential for another ad hoc committee.

 

As my friend Wang Xiaoyu and Professor Karl Grossman said, the international community should do something about this. It will be far too late even for the space powers to wait and let the technological momentum dictate the next stage of outer space weapons development. The moment you do research, there is the urge to deploy. The moment you deploy, others will deploy. Then we have a race on our hands. This is the situation in which the CD left this subject.

 

On a positive note, I think that right now, at this moment, the CD president is consulting the regional groups with a new proposal to see what might be possible for the CD work this year. His proposal contains a very clear idea on the subject of outer space and also some elements from my own report as coordinator. I hope that the work will move forward, but as you know, the CD works by consensus and one does not know whether there will be a consensus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Criteria for the Assessment of Space Projects and Demands  on Space Policy Regina Hagen, Director of the Global  Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space

 

 

I am a member of the Darmstädter Friedensforum, the Peace Forum

Darmstädt, Germany, and also a director of the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space.

 

Why is my peace group concerned with space? Two years ago, in March 1997, the Interdisciplinary Research Group Science, Technology, and Security (IANUS) at the Darmstädt University of Technology (TUD) convened a conference on “The Ambivalence of Space Technology”. As this conference took place in our town, we attended and met with several persons who are also present here today, including Karl Grossman, Helen John, Donna Johnson, and Bill Sulzman. They talked about space, about the Cassini/Huygens mission with its 32 kg plutonium-238 on board, and about the military activities in space. About planned Mars colonies, powered by nuclear reactors, and plans to mine the sky - e.g. the rare element helium-3 which is present on the moon and important for fusion reactor technology. They talked about the so-called radomes which allow the US military to intercept telephone communication, fax messages, and e-mail anywhere, and about the US military Space Command (USSPACECOM) which has the logo “Master of Space”.

 

Soon after that conference, the Darmstädter Friedensforum started to co-

organize the German “Stoppt Cassini” campaign. We hence challenged the US National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the European Space Agency’s (ESA) current nuclear-powered Saturn mission Cassini/Huygens. We have been quite successful with respect to media and public attention.

 

In addition to the realization that the things we heard about at the conference (which sounded like science fiction) did actually take place in space or were being planned, we remembered the final speech of the conference given by Dr. Jürgen Scheffran of IANUS - he presented criteria for future space project assessment.

 

During our protest demonstration against the Cassini/Huygens mission we

talked about these criteria in public. And they had quite an influence on our group. Prospective assessment of space technology offered the advantage of being for something rather than against.

 

After the above mentioned conference on “The Ambivalence of Space Use,”

we stayed in touch with the IANUS scientists. We profited from their experience and scientific knowledge. In the course of time, we understood what was lacking in space policy: scientists and the military had been developing technology that was becoming part of our lives but was also threatening at the same time.

 

We understood that science, research, and industry tend to follow their own

interests as long as there is no protest. We were especially uneasy about the

space activities because we had not known about them - and we were not

supposed to know. The information was covered up. We wanted transparency and citizen participation. We did not want NASA and ESA, the space industry, and the military to merely show us colorful pictures and to tell us about the thrill and usefulness of space technology.

 

We are intelligent people. What gives the experts the right to arrogantly exclude us as “ignorant” and “unscientific” and to point out that they had things under control and we should just trust them - while simultaneously withholding important information from us and refusing dialogue.

 

This attitude is not just arrogant. It also undermines the social consensus on

which all democratic societies are based. This attitude is undemocratic. And

when it comes to democratic participation, it is grassroots groups like ourselves who are the experts!

 

The Cassini/Huygens Earth flyby? The ESA says: “Don’t worry, our engineers have full control.” Dual-use of space technology, civilian and military? No, of course not! The ESA and the German Space Agency (DLR) are strictly civilian organizations, they say. Really? And how about the communication satellite Skynet 4E launched for the British military two weeks ago - by ESA?

 

Last week, a second conference on space issues was convened by the IANUS

research group, the Darmstädter Friedensforum, and several other groups. It

focused on “Space Use and Ethics. Criteria for the Assessment of Future Space Projects.” At the conference, Jürgen Scheffran presented a revised version of his criteria. The Darmstädter Friedensforum presented a list of demands on future space research and policy.

 

Criteria for the Assessment of Future Space Projects

 

I would now like to present the eight criteria for the assessment of future

space projects developed by Jürgen Scheffran. He is a physicist, a Senior

Research Assistant with IANUS at the Darmstädt University of Technology,

and a long-time expert on space issues. I want to explicitly point out, however, that the following interpretation of his criteria is mine as he has not yet published a paper on this issue.

 

1. Exclude the possibility of severe catastrophe

 

A space project should be designed so that it excludes the possibility of a

severe catastrophe. Power generation in a space probe by means of

plutonium-238, for example, poses the danger of severe contamination in the case of a launch or flyby accident. There is the potential for poisoning the environment and increasing cancer probabilities of the residents of the accident area in the case of a launch accident. In the case of the flyby there is the potential of a catastrophe which could affect thousands or even millions of people.

 

2. Avoid military use, violent conflict, and proliferation

 

Space projects should be civilian by design and their use for military purposes

should be avoided to the largest extend possible. It should also be considered

whether the project could cause a conflict which might lead to the use of

violence. Caution should be taken to avoid proliferation of military technology.

 

3. Minimize adverse effects on health and environment

 

The manufacturing of launch vehicles, space probes, satellites, or space

stations requires a lot of valuable resources. Launch pads represent a major

intervention into nature. During the launch, huge amounts of propellants are

burned and exhaust fumes emitted. The consequences of plutonium use were

already mentioned above. The potential transfer of infectious material between Earth and celestial bodies should also be a matter of great concern.

 

4. Assure scientific-technical quality, functionality, reliability

 

A space project should only be conducted when it is assured that it can fulfill

the desired purpose. It should use reliable technology, the functionality should

be appropriate for the purpose, and the mission should deliver results which

fulfill scientific expectations.

 

5. Solve problems and satisfy needs in a sustainable and timely manner

 

A space project should help to solve problems on Earth rather than create

new ones (an example is weather forecast to predict the path a hurricane will take). The needs and requirements of current generations should be met and the needs of future generations should not be underminded. We should concentrate on preserving Earth rather than on conquering space. The time frame of the project should be adequate for the problem to be solved.

 

6. Seek alternatives with best cost-benefit effectiveness

 

In the course of the planning process of a space mission, alternatives should

be examined. A space mission should only be conducted if a terrestrial solution is not feasible or is considerably more expensive.

 

7. Guarantee social compatibility and strengthen cooperation

 

It should be ensured that funding for space projects does not increase levels

of social exclusion in our societies. Neither should the massive resources used in these projects further destabilize international relations. Space projects

should generally be conducted by open and cooperative exchange of the

international scientific community. The results and findings should be shared

with developing countries.

 

8. Justify projects in a public debate involving those concerned

 

Space projects should not be decided on by elite circles. The public has a right to be involved in the discussion and decision-making process. The information about the project as well as critical meeting schedules and agendas should be widely circulated.

 

Demands on Future Space Research and Policy

 

These above criteria were taken into account as the Darmstädter Friedensforum developed the following demands which are basically directed to our government, to any government. We insist that these be taken seriously by all involved in the planning and implementation of space-based projects.

 

1. Transparency and open dialogue about space use

 

In their coalition agreement, the new German government promised open dialogue with citizens on all major technological developments. And yet they did not fulfill these promises at last week’s Darmstädt conference. Last week, the German Ministry of Research, for example, as unable to send a representative to the Darmstädt conference. The management of the European Space Agency and the German space agency (DLR) decided less than a week before the conference that none of their representatives could attend. This attitude is unacceptable.

 

The DLR guidelines (Leitlinien) talk about promoting employees, securing and creating the future, contributing to national defense and security, and improving competitiveness. However, they do not mention anything about citizen participation. The closest statement to this is that the DLR wants to contribute to social needs - whatever they might mean by this. Why shouldn’t citizens contribute to defining their own needs?

 

During the conference, we understood that the refusal to enter into dialogue was related to current budget debates. The ESA wants an increase in the German funding from DM 970 million to approx. DM 1.6 billion in 2003 -this is a 60% increase. Such a proposal should be widely discussed in the public as well as in parliament.

 

Although the proposed budget increase is due to be approved at the ESA Ministerial Council meeting in Brussels in May this year, clearly this does not

provide enough time to adequately discuss issues which are of grave importance to the European and international community. We therefore propose a moratorium on further budget increases so that these debates can take place.

 

2. Exclude use of nuclear power sources for space missions

 

So far, at least 71 nuclear-powered space missions have been launched. Ten

of them encountered serious problems or accidents. More plutonium-238 has

been dispersed into the atmosphere by an accident with a U.S. SNAP-9A plutonium generator in 1964 than by all atmospheric nuclear weapons tests, all nuclear reprocessing plants, and the Chernobyl accident in combination, according to NASA information.

 

Current NASA plans include eight nuclear-powered space missions for which

new plutonium generators are being designed and US production of plutonium-238 is expected to begin again. This represents not only considerable risks to life on earth but also undermines any attempts to prevent the proliferation of plutonium on a world-wide scale.

 

Development of solar power supplies should be improved. If solar alternatives

are not feasible, space missions should be postponed until technology has advanced.

 

3. Prohibition on military projects

 

Military space projects must generally be prohibited. Weapons must generally

not be deployed in space. Contractual provisions should also exclude the dual-use of civilian space technology and devices. Space agencies must not participate in military space projects.

 

4. Adherence to and enhancement of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

 

The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty which prohibits a national missile

defense for the U.S. and for Russia must be adhered to. Recent moves in the

US to undermine the treaty present a clear threat to international stability. We

demand that the treaty be multilateralized and its scope broadened to include

a European dimension.

 

5. Strengthen international law in space

 

The Outer Space Treaty reserves the use of space for peaceful purposes. We

must, however, not neglect the fact that civilian space technology has a high

potential for military use. Because the lines are blurred, there should be

closer cooperation between the Office of Outer Space Affairs (OOSA) in Vienna and the Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva.

 

We urge UN delegates to make clear statements against any military use of

space and to strengthen the position of the UN with regard to dual use.

 

6. Interdisciplinary dialogue about space use and responsibility

 

Space use should be discussed by interdisciplinary groups. The attitude of “it

is not my business” (“I just provide an experiment, I have nothing to do with the power supply,” or “All I do is observe desertification. I have nothing to do with military operations”) is not acceptable. We are all players on the same field - each scientist is responsible for his or her work and its overall context.

 

7. Disclosure of the usefulness or value of space projects

 

We should always be informed about the usefulness of space projects. Basic

research is of course legitimate, but it requires a consensus within the society

that this “luxury” is wanted. There should be a real, even if future, use for society as a whole. Private profit of companies, organizations, or individuals should not be the sole justification for space projects.

 

In this context it should also be made clear that the number of jobs created in

space industry or in technological competitiveness is not a justification per se. The space budget of the German Ministry of Education and Research, for example, amounts to approx. DM 1.3 billion. According to the industrial aerospace association BDLI (Bundesverband der deutschen Luft- und Raumfahrtindustrie), 6,150 people are currently working on space projects in Germany. This means that each employee is subsidized with DM 200,000 per year. To do so might well be justifiable, but the usefulness and value of this subsidy should be explained to the tax payer.

 

8. Right for complete and understandable information

 

We have a right to obtain complete information about planned projects. The

information must be presented such that it can be understood by educated citizens.

 

An example of incomplete information is the ESA’s public relations about the

Cassini/Huygens mission. The ESA simply ignores the use of plutonium

generators and thus conceals important information about the project from the public.

 

Another example is NASA’s latest campaign about the Deep Space 1 mission.

All public announcements stress the use of an innovative ion thruster which

continuously accelerates the probe during the flight to its destination. Therefore, ion thrusters are an ideal propulsion for deep space missions. NASA, however, withholds the information that ion thrusters require a lot of energy. The power can be provided by solar panels up to a certain distance from the sun only. For deep space missions, nuclear energy supplies would have to be used. To make an educated judgment about the desirability of this kind of propulsion for deep space missions, all facts must be published by NASA.

 

9. Space agencies must adhere to policy set by elected bodies

 

The decision about space projects is too important to leave it to industry or

space agencies. The government and other elected bodies in consultation with

citizens groups should set the policy guidelines for space research and use

which must then be adhered to by the space agencies.

 

10. Accountability of space agency executives according to the ethical criteria

 

Executives of space agencies should be accountable for their decisions and for any negative effects of their space missions.

 

Accountability and an open information policy are a must for all high-tech

organizations which are funded from tax-payers money. To put it bluntly: no

dialogue - no money!

 

11. Fair distribution of financial resources

 

Proper funding should exist not only for established and mainstream institutes but also for critical scientists. We need them. Many problems are caused by experts. We have the right to cooperate with experts who solve or, even better, avoid the problems and who are concerned with peace, conflict resolution, and sustainability.

 

12. Unbiased examination of feasible alternatives

 

Alternatives to the planned space missions should be examined. Investigations should be undertaken to find out whether simpler, cheaper, safer, better solutions are feasible. These investigations should be conducted by independent experts from various disciplines.

 

The Global Network’s Objectives and Demands for Space

 

Recently, the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space

has started promoting the following list of objectives and demands for space use:

 

1. Apply space technology to social and environmental needs here on Earth

2. Ban the use of nuclear power in space

3. Explore alternative technology paths for space power and propulsion

4. Solve problems on planet Earth instead of creating new imbalances and

    conflicts in space

5. Prevent confrontation and enhance international cooperation in space

6. Ban space weapons and space-based military installations by national and

    international law

7. Avoid oversized, costly, and risky space projects

8. Encourage and foster global democratic debate about space exploration and

    colonization

9. Strengthen existing international space laws that call for the collective,

    non-exploitive use of celestial bodies

 

Conclusion

 

As can be seen from the three sections above, a variety of criteria and demands have so far been developed which are closely linked to each other. The general idea of all three lists is to ensure that space is used for civilian and peaceful purposes, that dangerous projects are avoided, and that space use should help solve problems rather than create new ones. Preventing the further militarization of space and preventing an arms race in space is critical to the peaceful use of space to the benefit of the whole of humanity.

 

My group, the Darmstädter Friedensforum, will continue to demand public

discussion of the assessment criteria and their application to major projects. We will continue to network with other groups and to raise awareness about the ambivalence of space technology in public and in government.

 

We hope that the Conference on Disarmament will quickly and effectively move to prevent an arms race in outer space.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People Organizing Against the Militarization of Space Donna Johnson & Bill Sulzman, Citizens for Peace in Space

 

 

Thank you for the opportunity to attend the WILPF conference to talk about issues of space.  For several years a group of activists from Colorado Springs, Colorado have been networking with people in other countries who are interested in the problems that are raised by the exploration and exploitation of space.

 

My (Donna Johnson’s) interest in these issues began as a child in Colorado Springs.  My family lived south of town on the side of Cheyenne Mountain, which I considered my mountain because no one lived for miles around.  Imagine my surprise when we began to hear explosions and see fences built with "no trespassing" signs.  Soon I learned that NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, was being blasted into my mountain!

 

For the past 25 years I have been part of a community of activists.  We are a loose-knit, informal group, held together by our beliefs about nonviolence and simple living.  We do not live together as a group but we come together around our volunteer work with the poor and political activism.  Our activism has included everything from letters to the editor, to leafleting and bannering, to street theatre, to workshops, rallies and demonstrations, to tax protests, to trespassing, being arrested and jailed.

 

Colorado Springs is now a fast growing city of about 400,000 people.  Most of the people there are very conservative, with more retired generals than any other place in the country.  Almost half of the jobs in Colorado Springs are related to the military establishment.  Many of the other jobs are funded by the religious right or fundamentalist Christians.  The opinions of my small community group are not very popular at all.  But that is part of our challenge.  Remember what Margaret Mead said:  "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.  Indeed it's the only thing that ever has."

 

Colorado Springs is a beautiful, conservative city, but where did we get the idea that it is the headquarters for a U.S. plan to control and dominate space?  Didn't the U.S. join 88 other countries in signing the Outer Space Treaty in 1967 affirming "the common interest of all [hu]mankind in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes?"

 

Back in the 60s when NORAD was being built, Colorado Springs made a successful bid to bring the newly established U.S. Air Force Academy to town.  At the Academy, future pilots and astronauts and aerospace experts are trained.  We already had Fort Carson, a huge Army Base and Peterson Air Force Base. Now we also have Shreiver Air Force Base. These bases are home of the U.S. Space Command, the Air Force Space Command and the Space Warfare Center.  And in nearby Denver is Buckley Air National Guard Base, where intelligence information is gathered before it is transferred to the Colorado Springs bases.  It is one of a global network of spy bases such as Menwith Hill in England and Bad Aibling in Germany.

 

In the past couple of years we have been hearing some very belligerent

language from the U.S. Space Command, language that acknowledges what we thought was true all along. Now they boldly admit their plans to control and dominate space.  For example:

 

   * The Pentagon issued a 144 page "Long Range Plan" for dominating space.

 

   * The Air Force has opened an "Office of Space Domination."

 

   * Gen. Joseph Ashy, commander of the U.S. and Air Force Space Commands in 1996 said:  "It's politically sensitive, but it's going to happen.  Some people don't want to hear this, and it sure isn't in vogue...but-absolutely-we're going to fight in space.  We're going to fight from space and we're going to fight into space when [orbital assets] become so precious that it's in our national interest" to do so.

 

   * According to the Space Warfare Center, it is their mission "to defend the      United States through the control and exploitation of space."  The motto of the U.S. Space Command is "Masters of Space."

  

   * In November 1998, at a Space Policy Seminar at the U.S. Air Force Academy, Major Kevin Kimble gave Bill Sulzman the outline of his talk. It says: "there is a role for the military use of space.  Space is a medium useful for human endeavor.  Human endeavor is accompanied by conflict. Human conflict, at its extreme, requires military solutions.  Therefore, space is a medium requiring exploitation for military purposes."

 

This does not sound like the peaceful exploration of space for the benefit of all people. I am not a rocket scientist and I don't understand much about the technology of spying or building space-based weapons.  And sometimes I wonder whether I know enough to make a judgment about all of this.  It is complicated and I don't understand the technology or even the language.

 

But, when I step back and think about it, I remember that I don't need to know the caliber of a gun or how the trigger mechanism works to know that it is wrong to point it at a someone's head.

 

And I remember that even scientists, the big "brains" really understand very little sometimes. Exploding the first atomic bomb they did not know what would happen. Some thought there would be a chain reaction that would ignite the atmosphere. Some thought it wouldn't even explode.  Others thought it would blow the southwest U.S. off the map!

Finally this is a moral question.  And morality is simple.  It is simple, not easy.  Every day we are called upon to make decisions of morality.  There is no escape. Silence is consent. What each of us has to do is look at the purpose of a plan or the results it will accomplish.  Consider whether the means are consistent with the end.

 

But when we ask questions about this to the Space Command people they won't answer directly.  They say "morality doesn't really play into what we do."  When we ask whether they have a first strike policy they won't answer that directly either. They say: "trust us, we know more than you do."

 

They have spy bases, with the help of the other governments, to gather information on the whole world.  They plan to put first strike weapons in space.  They call themselves "Masters of Space."  They say the world is better off with the U.S. in charge.  They pay for this with a $35 billion black budget. Every year! Black budget means that money is allocated without the  knowledge or approval of the people or even Congress. No one gets to vote on it.  They say it's secret because of "national security."

 

People used to believe the "national security" talk when the USSR was a threat.  Now there is no other superpower so what is the threat?  I think the big threat is the threat to our lifestyle.  Remember, we in the U.S. comprise 6% of the world's population and we consume 50% of the world's resources.  I maintain that 6% of the world's population should not be in charge and cannot stay in charge forever.  Unfortunately, most people in the legislature, the courts, the schools, the churches, etc., cooperate through their silence without even asking questions.

 

But how can we not ask questions?  Do we not have a responsibility, a duty to resist this irrational plan to control the world by controlling space?  Doesn't this kind of control, domination talk smack of empire building? Of imperialism?  We demand inspections in Iraq, in case they have one bomb.  Shouldn't we have inspections of our own weapons systems?  Shouldn't we question plans to be "Masters of Space"?  For me there is an eerie connection between "Masters of Space" and "Master Race."

 

I do understand curiosity about space.  I understand scientists' interest in exploring space and gathering information that can be shared by all.

 

But I do not understand one government's plan to dominate and control space

for the "haves" at the expense of the "have nots".  Unfortunately, even the

peaceful and exciting exploration of Saturn or Mars is connected to the plan to build weapons systems to protect the lifestyle of the 6% who live in the U.S.  The use of Plutonium in these space exploration missions is a way to get us comfortable with the idea of Plutonium in space so that it can also be used in space weapons systems without concern.

 

A long time ago I decided to stop believing the word of generals and politicians.  Now I say, if you can't explain it to me, then I'm not buying it.  Not literally with my tax money.  Not figuratively with my support in words or in silence.  I will continue to raise these issues by speaking out and by my presence at the military installations where the spying and war planning is taking place.

 

Here are some slides from Colorado Springs which picture some of our resistance activities over the past 15 years.

 

In closing, I urge you to look for ways to question and challenge your own

government's participation in the control and domination of space. Think about how you can make a difference.  Take a step.  Make a moral stand.  Speak out.  Start where you are and do something.  Being here is a step.  There is room for each of us to do what we can do to stop the spying and the war planning. Lets get busy. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world.  Indeed it is the only thing that ever has."  Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

 

*********

 

I (Bill Sulzman) want to emphasize in my presentation the need for a revised agreement on the activities of countries in outer space.

 

First, I want to point out current U.S. policy on space as it is stated and carried out by the United States Space Command located in Colorado Springs.  In a seminar presented at the Air Force Academy to future Air Force Officers, Major Kevin Kimble stated that the U.S. must dominate space and control space because it is an important arena for commercial activities.  Since the U.S. is a major commercial power it must assure that its investments and interests are protected militarily. He went on to say that the U.S. cannot let any other nation have a dominant military role in space.  No where in his presentation did he acknowledge the Outer Space Treaty as having anything to say about the issue. 

 

It is clear from that presentation and from other recent Space Command printed materials that the U.S. does not recognize any international restrictions by treaty or otherwise to its military activities in space.  Even the ABM Treaty is being treated as a dead issue in future planning.  In particular, I refer to 3 documents which have come out in the past 2 years: Vision for 2020, The Long Range Plan for implementing Vision for 2020 and the Air Force Space Command's Guardians of the High Frontier.

 

Vision for 2020 puts the campaign for domination in very blunt 'North-South' language; "Although unlikely to be challenged by a global peer competitor, the United States will continue to be challenged regionally. The globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between 'haves' and 'have-nots.'”

 

The United States relies heavily on space for targeting and guidance systems for its nuclear missiles and all its major weapons systems including the cruise missiles used in recent bombing campaigns.  In a real sense the U.S. has already put parts of many weapons systems in space. And when there are actual battle platforms in space, there will be major elements of those weapons systems on the ground.  That is one of the reasons why we need a new outer space treaty.  Technology has made the current treaty obsolete in many ways.

 

The most direct action of the U.S. in nullifying the "peaceful purposes" concept of space law is its maintenance of a Space Warfare Center at Schriever AFB in Colorado Springs, where future wars are being scripted with space as an area of conflict.

 

In closure, I want to emphasize the positive.  Many astronauts from many different countries have returned from their space travels to sing the praises of cooperation in keeping space free from human conflict. They point out the stunning beauty of the planet with its blue atmosphere and they always refer to the lack or borders and boundaries which separate us who live here below.  Nationalism and militarism are the farthest things from their minds.  We need to build on that spirit as we try to work together in the future to keep space as the common heritage of all humankind and reserve it for peaceful purposes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mis-Using Space, Mis-Using Earth-Women Resisting the Space-Based War/Spy Battle Station in Yorkshire Helen John, Menwith Hill Women’s Peace Camp

 

 

The whole issue concerning the use of space as an example of a beneficial

humanitarian resource for the future, exposes the worst form of hypocrisy ever brought into being.

 

Satellites which could do so much to alert major powers and help avert disaster, are used in ways that help bring about the worst case scenarios even to the point of the Gulf War.  On the day Congress finally gave in and signed the articles of war, they had been shown the alleged statement that premature babies had been put to death by Iraqi soldiers, seventeen times.

 

The statements were later disproved by the W.H.O. and the young woman who made the impassioned appeal was in fact one of the Al-Sabbagh family, the Ambassador of Kuwait's daughter.  In so many cases the real story behind

conflict is distorted, withheld and we are all the victims of massive manipulation by the military forces - predominantly of the USA who have achieved dominance in global communication systems.  So if people say there are currently no weapons in space, I say they are wrong.  Is a communication satellite a weapon? I say yes, it is.  Is the Global Positioning System a weapon? I say yes, it is - this is one of the mainstays of modern weapons targeting.

 

Every space venture has a military payload that is masked by the notion that

exploration is being undertaken to provide greater scientific data.  The European Space Agency recently launched a spy satellite for the British Ministry of Defense.  The deliberate blurring of civil and military use of space has caste all future missions in the same category - as a dangerous, criminal waste of resources.  They should be used to create a safer and more effective environment for the women and children of the planet who have the least input into the discussion processes that impact so unfavorably on their lives.

 

The US Spy Base at Menwith Hill Station in North Yorkshire has the privilege of being the largest spy base in the world.  It sits in an area of 'outstanding natural beauty' (and has rightly been excluded from it). It employs spies who download information from commercial satellites, who justify their actions, we are told, to prevent terrorists and drug trafficking. (Who can really believe this?) In so doing they have access to all political, diplomatic, commercial, economic and private emails, faxes, telexes and telephone calls, whether encrypted or not, throughout the Northern Hemisphere. (US spy bases in New Zealand and Australia cover the

Southern Hemisphere.)  We who have protested outside the base at Menwith

Hill at a Greenham-style women's peace camp for the past five years, cannot

imagine how the international community can allow this to continue.  This

kind of power and this kind of spy technology is beyond Hitler's wildest dreams....

 

Following in the Furher's footsteps the USA now intends to dominate space to

protect the American military (1st priority) and American business and

commercial interests (having stolen everyone else's).  The US Space Command documents Vision for 2020 and the Long Range Plan spell out the far from peaceful future Uncle Sam's grandchildren have worked out for the rest of us.  It involves increasing use of deadly plutonium to produce the power sources for laser weapons (oops, sorry, 'anti-weapons').  Menwith Hill will play a pivotal role, along with Pine Gap in Australia and Peterson, Shriver and Falcon bases in the USA.  Werner van Braun and Edward Teller's dream of orbiting battle stations is about to come true.

 

One word of caution to the New World Policemen of the USA: breaching civil liberties and ignoring international law is not a good example for the rest of us to follow.  The United Nations should not be replaced by NATO.  To the spies who help kill by remote control, I urge you to follow that old-fashioned advice to love your neighbor, not spy on them, steal their jobs and plan to kill them.  The world we all need for the future should not reflect a

 

Nuclear

American

Take

Over.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

NGO’s Strategizing for Further Actions

 

 

Some of the international participants to the seminar met with their national

mission to the Conference on Disarmament (CD) and gave short feedback about their countries current priorities at the CD. Meetings took place with representatives of the following missions: Netherlands, Norway, Germany, the UK and the USA .

 

In a lively and well attended discussion participants from the NGO community and from missions focused on further actions and came up with a series of ideas:

  

*    The urgency and importance of the prevention of an arms race in outer space should be brought to the attention of UN Secretary General and the Under Secretary General for Disarmament Affairs. Governments should make a special effort to address the issue at the General Assembly and in the Security Council.

 

*    Many of the mission representatives to the CD present repeated their

commitment to intensify the CD’s work on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space and underlined the urgency of it.

 

*    The Vision for 2020 plan of the US Space Command should be sent to all

the members of the Conference on Disarmament, provided we will have enough copies.

 

*    The representative of the Iraq mission stressed the violation of international conventions and international law by the US government policies in various areas. The knowledge gained by the US army during the Gulf war, helped to improve space arms as well.

 

*    The mainstream media should be approached and informed about the

recent developments. Special attention needs to be given to youth, as many are attracted and interested in space issues.

 

*    National Parliaments need to be informed and lobbied to ask their governments views and to address the issue on national level.

 

*    Information on how the business community is profiting from the militarization of outer space is given in K. Grossman’s book “The Wrong Stuff” and should be used in the information outreach. The shareholders of the companies and Transnational Companies involved must be informed and discuss it under ethical investments.

 

*    Intensify and enlarge educating and informing the wider peace movement

and the general public about this issue. Good results have been reached by deligitimizing the legality of the militarization of Outer Space and by using the US force language in informing people.

 

*    Existing action days, should be used to talk about the danger of an Arms

Race in Outer Space:

- the peace movements annual Easter Marches in Europe

- the Chernobyl Day, April 26, highlighting the danger of nuclear energy

- the US action day, June 12, stressing to stop the flyby of the Cassini Nuclear

Space Probe

 

*    Coordination and information sharing amongst NGOs is needed and other existing networks like the women’s, development and environmental movements as well as religious communities must be reached. The existing Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space could take on this task. Address: P.O.Box 90083, Gainesville, FL 32607, USA.

 

*    An effort must be made to reach out to NGOs in the Global South, especially in Africa. The Cassini Space Probe will be over Africa during his flyby and therefore creates a particular danger. WILPF will provide this information to the African Women’s Peace Networks.

 

*    The obscenity of wasting resources for the militarization of outer space, who are not available for basic needs on earth, must be highlighted. The socio-economic linkages and the question of social ethics, within the North and between North and South must be discussed.

 

*    Participants watched the impressive video “Nukes in Space 2” from Karl

Grossman produced by Enviro Video. The video is an excellent tool for the education and public information work as well as the book “The Wrong Stuff”.

 

Activists and Researchers from the Global Network Against Weapons &

Nuclear Power in Space offered to be guest speakers at meetings and rallies.

 

*    It is of utmost importance that the US public is informed about the

governments’ policies on militarization of outer space. U.S. decision makers need to be questioned and lobbied from within the country. Unconventional methods like asking the show business community for support in promoting the Prevention of a Militarization of Outer Space need to be investigated.

 

*    Investigations need to be made to see if the militarization of outer space

violates a national US law. It is seen as a violation of the national environment report. Further plans are discussing the possibility of asking for a World Court Opinion.

 

*    The health risks of nuclear energy needs to be addressed in this context as well and the connection between disarmament and health and environmental issues must be underlined. The World Health Organization (WHO) should be informed and be asked for an advisory opinion.

 

WILPF has started a petition on health risks of nuclear energy, linking disarmament with health and environmental issues. (see annex)

 

*    NGOs need to do both: direct action and more formal lobby work, like asking for a World Court Opinion, in order to have a platform to build opinion and influence governments. Direct actions can be very different, like women’s peace camps near military bases or using the method of withholding tax. Withholding tax is a kind of fiscal conscious objection, where the money is put into a peace trust fund, instead of funding the military budget.

 

*    Beside the information sharing, the opposition to the militarization of outer space need to be open for creativeness, including having a strong emotional and moral element, as our whole globe and the universe is endangered.

 

*    The next meeting of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space will be held in Washington, April 23, 2000!

 

 

VIDEO “Nukes In Space 2: Unacceptable Risks”   This video documentary “Nukes in Space 2: Unacceptable Risks” is produced by Enviro Video. It gives an update on the Cassini space probe, with 72.3 pounds of lethal plutonium on board, the scheduled August 1999 Earth “fly-by”, consequences of an accident, plans for future launches involving plutonium.   NUKES IN SPACE 2 also investigates the military connection-the United States military’s desire to deploy weapons in space and have the U.S. become the “master of space” in order to “control space” and the Earth below.   It features Dr.Michio  Kaku, Dr. Rosalie Bertell, Dr. Helen Caldicott, and Alan Kohn, former emergency preparedness officer for NASA. They warn the danger of  Cassini space probe flyby to the Earth.   It is an excellent tool to educate and campaign!   To order your copy, contact: Enviro Video, Box 311, Ft. Tilden NY 11695 USA $29.95 + $8 shipping & handling (institutions $59.95 + $8 s&h) for each PAL VHS video

 

Message to the Conference on Disarmament

 

Message to the Conference on Disarmament from the Women’s Seminar to mark International Women’s Day, Palais des Nations Geneva, 1999

 

Distinguished Members of the Conference on Disarmament,

 

Once again women have gathered in Geneva in a seminar to mark 8 March,

International Women's Day, which had its birth more than one hundred and forty years ago in a massive demand by women textile workers for better wages and working conditions. We have come together, as in previous years, to give expression to the demand of women worldwide for disarmament and peace.

 

We, the participants in the women's seminar and the hundreds of thousands

of women we represent in more than 15 countries, appreciate the opportunity to bring to you our reflections on some of the issues on the agenda of this Conference on Disarmament. We also have a need to convey to you our deep concern at the slowness of advancing this agenda, keeping the achievement of complete disarmament still as a distant goal.

 

A year ago in March, the CD appointed a Special Coordinator under item 3,

entitled "Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space" to explore appropriate ways to deal with this question.  Our women's seminar this year has specifically dealt with this topic. We consider that the work done by the Special Coordinator should be continued and built upon, and we strongly urge you to re-establish as quickly as possible the ad hoc Committee with a view to negotiating measures to prevent Outer Space from being used for hostile military purposes and other strategic advantages. We see Outer Space as an integral part of the common heritage of humankind. All scientific exploration and any other use of Outer Space should be for civilian research only with a view to furthering the well-being of humanity and not for the destruction of life and the environment.

 

Also in August last year, the Conference on Disarmament established an ad

hoc Committee under item 1 of its agenda, to negotiate a "non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices". The ad hoc committee having been established late in its 1998 session could meet only twice. It recommended that the CD re-establish the ad hoc committee at the beginning of its 1999 session.  Given that there is consensus to begin talks on a fissile material treaty, we trust that you will quickly establish an ad hoc committee and not lose negotiating time.

 

It is our ardent hope that the treaty will be negotiated within the framework

of nuclear disarmament. Nuclear disarmament should be made truly irreversible and we therefore believe that the treaty must address the question of the existing stocks.

 

Again, a year ago this March, the Conference on Disarmament re-established

the ad hoc committee under item 4, to “negotiate with a view to reaching agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon states against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.” Since the ad hoc committee did not complete its work, it was recommended that the CD should re-establish it at the beginning of its 1999 session. We strongly urge that this be done without delay.

 

We are, of course, most deeply concerned that, overall, little progress is made

under item 1 of the CD's agenda, "Cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament". The danger of a nuclear catastrophe remains great.  A nuclear exchange can be set off by a misconception or an accident and obliterate all life on our globe within less than an hour's time. We therefore urge the Conference to take whatever possible steps that would at least lead to speedy de-alerting and de-activating of the existing nuclear arsenals. However, in the long run, complete nuclear disarmament under strict international control is the only future for humanity; de-alerting can be only one step on the road toward the abolition of nuclear weapons. We therefore express our sincere hope that this l999 session will decide on a multilateral approach to nuclear disarmament negotiations.

 

We recognize that the nuclear weapon states have the main responsibility for

freeing the world of nuclear weapons. It is incumbent on them to pursue with vigor negotiations on nuclear weapons reductions and bring this to successful conclusions. However, we consider that it is time for non-nuclear weapon states to be involved in nuclear disarmament. A renunciation of first-use of nuclear weapons and the withdrawal of nuclear weapons from non-nuclear weapons states are urgently needed steps. The Conference on Disarmament is the appropriate place to pave the way for broadening the base for nuclear disarmament by creating the legal basis for such commitments. We believe these steps to be the needed signal for advancing the preparations for the NPT Review Conference in 2000.

 

Last week the 1997 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling and

Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction came into force.  We applaud those countries who took the lead in bringing this treaty about and urge all those not yet party to it to ratify it without further delay, thus ensuring the universal application of the treaty.

 

Finally,  we wish to emphasize that in our view disarmament is a collective

responsibility. A responsibility not only of governments, but also of every individual citizen. It will best be achieved in partnership and trust based on political will.

 

In conclusion, thank you for the efforts you are making and we wish to assure

you of our support for all steps you take on the way to nuclear, and general and complete disarmament.

List of Participants

 

Aiko Tokusue, WILPF Japan

Amr Hafez, Egyptian Delegation to the UN

Anselmo S. H. Lee,  Pax Romana

Barbara Lochbihler, WILPF Switzerland

Bill Sulzman, the Citizens for Peace in Space Initiative,  USA

Bruna Nota, WILPF Canada

Catherine Euler, Menwith Hill Women’s Peace Camp, UK

Dahinden Carla, WILPF Switzerland

Daniel Bridell, ZONTA International, Switzerland

Dawn Plummer, WILPF USA

D.B.Venkatesh Varma, Indian Delegation to the UN

Donna Johnson,  the Citizens for Peace in Space Initiative,  USA

Edel Havin Beukes, WILPF Norway

Edith Ballantyne, WILPF Switzerland

Elias Khouri, Iraqi Delegation to the UN

Frank Ulrich, Austrian Delegation to the UN

Genevieve Comby, Swiss Delegation to the UN

Gustavo Laurie, Peru Delegation to the UN

Han Deggeller, WILPF Netherlands

Hazel Tamano, student at Webster University/ UNIDIR, USA

Helen John, Menwith Hill Women’s Peace Camp, UK

H.M.G.S.Palihakkara, Ambassador, Sri Lankan Delegation to the UN

Jenny Pickrell, Quaker United Nations Office

Jooyoung Lee,   Sarangbang group for Human Rights in South Korea

Jo Tyler, International Peace Bureau

J.S.Mukul, Indian Delegation to the UN

June Raynal, WILPF France

Jung Gyung-Lan, WILPF South Korea

Junich Eto, Japanese Delegation to the UN

Karl Grossman, professor at the State University of New York

Kazuhiro Yoshinaga, Rissho Kosei-Kai, Japan

Kipkorir Aly Azad Rana, Ambassador, Kenyan Delegation to the UN

Kirsti Kolthoff, WILPF Sweden

Koshelev Sergey, Russian Delegation to the UN

Loheswary Rajeswaran, WILPF Switzerland

Marcelo Valle Tourompe, Argentine Delegation to the UN

Marybeth Morsink,  Consumers International

Ma Shengkun, Chinese Delegation to the UN

May-Elin Stener, Norwegian Delegation to the UN

Michael A..O. Oyungi, Kenyan Delegation to the UN

Minhee Kim, student at Webster University

Michel Monod,  War Resisters International

M.J.A. Morsink, former United Nations official

Mostafa Shishechiha, Iranian Delegation to the UN

Mounir Zahran,  Ambassador, Egyptian Delegation to the UN

Neal Waldrop, US Delegation to the UN

Oliver Meier, the Berlin Information Center for Transnational Security

Pan Tao, Chinese Delegation to the UN

Philipp I.Saprykin, Russian Delegation to the UN

Preben Aamann,  Danish Delegation to the UN

Regina Birchem, WILPF USA

Regina Hagen, the Global Network Against  Weapons and Nuclear Power in

                         Outer Space, Germany

Rene Faure, French Delegation to the UN

Rosrio Padilla, WILPF Philippine

Shen Jian, Chinese Delegation to the UN

Silvie Sterr, WILPF Germany

Stefan Kordasch, German Delegation to the UN

Susan Wright, UNIDIR, USA

Tong Hyong Park, Republic of Korea Delegation to the UN

Thymen Kouwenaar, Dutch Delegation to the UN

Wang Xiaoyu, Chinese Delegation to the UN   

Wu Gang, Chinese Delegation to the UN

Yumi Lee, WILPF Australia

Zahra Khorram, Iranian Delegation to the UN

 

 

Resource Persons and Organizations

 

Karl Grossman, kgrossman@hamptons.com

 

Bill Sulzman, bsulzman@juno.com

 

Donna Johnson, Tel: 001-719-635-9091, Fax: 001-719-634-3320

 

Citizens for Peace in Space

PO Box 915, Colorado Springs, CO 80901, USA, Tel: 001-719-389-0644

 

Regina Hagen, regina.hagen@jugendstil.da.shuttle.de

 

Helen John

Kettlesing Head Layby, A59 Near Harrogate, North Yorkshire, UK  HG3 2LP

 

Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space

P.O.Box 90083, Gainesville, FL 32607, USA

Tel : 001-352-337-9274, Email:globenet@afn.org

Petition

 

 

Health risks of nuclear energy 

 

Amending the Agreement between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organization (Res. WHA12-40, 28.5.59)

 

Forty years ago, at the onset of the "Atoms for Peace" programme, the severe health and environmental risks of nuclear energy were generally unknown to the public. It was at these times that the World Health Organization (WHO) entered into an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which allowed for considerable IAEA authority over WHO studies and projects on health effects of radiation.

 

This outdated agreement has prevented WHO from being able to act fully and effectively to protect populations from the risks of nuclear technology.

 

Since then, specific nuclear disasters including those at Sellafield, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl have demonstrated both the health risks of nuclear energy and the shortcomings in this Agreement.

 

Therefore we request the World Health Assembly to amend the agreement between the IAEA and the WHO to:

 

i) remove the requirement that any WHO program on the health effects of nuclear energy must first be discussed with and agreed by the IAEA.

 

ii) amend the provision safeguarding confidential information to allow for nondisclosure of only such information which has no bearing on health or environmental risks of nuclear energy.

 

We request these changes for the following reasons:

 

WHO is Unduly Constrained by the Agreement

 

*       Article I of the Agreement between the IAEA and the WHO of  28 May 1959 recognizes that "... the IAEA has the primary responsibility for encouraging, assisting and co-ordinating research on, and development and practical application of  atomic energy for peaceful uses throughout the world without prejudice to the right of the WHO to concern itself with promoting, developing, assisting and co-ordinating international health work, including research, in all its aspects."

 

*        The right of the WHO to promote, develop, assist and co-ordinate international health work is unduly constrained by the requirement  in Article I (3) that "Whenever either organization proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organization has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual consent."

 

     *          According to the WHO Constitution, the open availability of all information relating to the health risks to a population or populations is crucial to enable WHO to carry out its functions.  Article III(2) of the Agreement between the IAEA and the WHO places undue constraints on such availability of information.

 

The IAEA Has a Conflict of Interest

 

*        Such constraint is most obvious in situations where the work of the IAEA to encourage, assist and coordinate research on the development and practical application of nuclear energy leads or contributes to a serious risk to the health of a population of populations.

 

The Agreement is Out of Date

 

*       The health and environmental risks of nuclear energy are known and manifest to a much greater degree than when the Agreement between the IAEA and the WHO was made.

         

Therefore the undersigned request that the World Health Assembly amend the Agreement between the IAEA and the WH0 (Res. WHA12-40 of 28 May 1959).

 

 

 

 

For further information contact:   WILPF 1 rue de Varembe, C.P.28, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland Tel: (+41 22) 733 61 75    Fax: (+41 22) 740 10 63 Email: wilpf@iprolink.ch http://www.wilpf.int.ch