30 May 2002
U.S. Committed to Peaceful Use of Outer Space, Official Says
(Ambassador Javits addresses space security conference) (1960)
The United States remains committed to the peaceful exploration and
use of outer space by all nations, as declared in the 1967 Outer Space
Treaty, "and we see no need for further outer space treaties," says
Ambassador Eric Javits, U.S. representative to the Conference on
Disarmament (CD).
"We fully understand that maintaining international peace and security
is an overarching purpose that guides activities on earth as well as
in outer space, but in the final analysis preserving national security
is likewise necessary and essential," he told delegates to the
Conference on Future Security in Space, held May 28-29 in New Place,
England.
"For these reasons," he said, "the United States sees no need for new
outer space arms control agreements and opposes negotiation of a
treaty on outer space arms control."
Javits said there already exists an extensive and comprehensive system
for limiting the uses of outer space to peaceful ones and providing a
framework for the legitimate military uses of outer space. He cited
the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space, and the Outer Space Treaty.
"We believe that this existing multilateral arms control regime
adequately protects states' interests in outer space and does not
require augmentation." Rather, he said, the problems that need to be
addressed "are right here on earth - the need for effective
implementation of, and full compliance with, key regimes that tackle
the very real threat of weapons of mass destruction," including the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Chemical Weapons Convention, and
Biological Weapons Convention.
Javits also described as "groundless" concerns that missile defense
might upset strategic stability and lead to a new arms race. He said
the strategic arms reduction agreement signed by the U.S. and Russian
presidents in Moscow on May 24 "demonstrates that pursuit of missile
defense and the demise of the ABM (Anti-ballistic Missile) Treaty are
not an impediment to further reductions in nuclear weapons or to
increased U.S.-Russian cooperation."
Following is the text of Javits' remarks:
(begin text)
OUTER SPACE REMARKS BY AMBASSADOR ERIC M. JAVITS
TO THE CONFERENCE ON FUTURE SECURITY IN SPACE
NEW PLACE, ENGLAND, MAY 28-29, 2002
Opening Remarks:
Thank you all so very much for the kind introduction and the
opportunity to come here to the United Kingdom to discuss future
security in space with key opinion shapers, members of the Academy,
and government officials from around the world. It's great to be here.
Thanks also are due to both the Monterey Institute and the Mountbatten
Center for planning and organizing this interesting and rich
discussion.
I'm pleased to sit on a panel with my Russian and Chinese colleagues
to discuss this important matter in an informal setting.
The U.S., Outer Space, and the CD:
The United States continues to recognize the common interest of all
countries in the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful
purposes, as declared in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. When our
astronauts walked on the moon for the first time, they left the
message that they "came in peace for all mankind." The United States
and other nations have sent unmanned probes to explore outer space and
the celestial bodies, to explore the surfaces and atmospheres of the
other planets in our solar system in order to understand the
environment beyond our world.
The exploration and use of space has not looked solely outward.
Satellites orbiting the Earth monitor the weather, the climate, the
growth of crops, and the impact of drought and land use.
Communications satellites make possible rapid global sharing of
information. Satellites have revolutionized terrestrial navigation and
provided a new and powerful tool for accurate surveying of the Earth's
surface. The peaceful exploration and use of outer space have also
resulted in technological spin-offs that would take days to enumerate
in their entirety.
The commitment of the United States to the exploration and use of
outer space by all nations, for peaceful purposes and for the benefit
of humanity, is clear. But the peaceful exploration and use of space
obviously does not rule out activities in pursuit of national security
goals.
The security and well being of many nations depend on the ability to
operate in space, and Article 51 of the UN Charter makes it clear that
all Member States have the inherent right of individual and collective
self-defense. The global responsibilities of the United States, and
the new threats facing it in today's world, require that that right be
exercised both on the Earth and above it. As Under Secretary Bolton
told the Conference on Disarmament in his January 24 statement, the
security and well being of the United States and its allies depend on
the ability to operate in space. And we are not alone in having
military space programs. Russia and China, for example, have such
programs, too.
National security is the highest responsibility of a government, and
each nation must decide on the elements of its security policy. Arms
control and disarmament are not ends in themselves but tools to
enhance security. Our discussion should be framed in that context.
Free access to space and use of space by space-faring nations are
central to the preservation of peace and the protection of civil,
commercial and security interests. The United States sees no
justification for limitations on the right of sovereign nations to
acquire all forms of information from space.
We fully understand that maintaining international peace and security
is an overarching purpose that guides activities on earth as well as
in outer space, but in the final analysis preserving national security
is likewise necessary and essential. For these reasons, the United
States sees no need for new outer space arms control agreements and
opposes negotiation of a treaty on outer space arms control.
Some suggest that a new forum might be the appropriate place for outer
space arms control efforts. We do not share this view. Changing venues
would not change national positions. States would still have the same
concerns that they have in existing fora.
The Existing Outer Space Regime is Sufficient:
A number of standing agreements already sufficiently regulate military
activities in outer space. The Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963
prohibits parties from conducting nuclear weapon test explosions or
other nuclear explosions in outer space. The activities of the
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, which facilitated the
negotiation of the Outer Space Treaty itself, also reinforce the
existing regime. The Committee on Peaceful Uses does not deal with
disarmament and arms control aspects of outer space, of course; but it
is concerned with promoting international cooperation in the peaceful
uses of space.
Most important, however, is the Outer Space Treaty, to which the
United States remains firmly committed. The Outer Space Treaty puts
celestial bodies off limits to all nuclear weapons or other weapons of
mass destruction and prohibits States Parties from placing in orbit or
stationing such weapons in outer space - a far-reaching
non-proliferation measure in itself. It also provides that celestial
bodies shall be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and prohibits
their use for military establishments or maneuvers, or for testing any
type of weapons. In addition, the Outer Space Treaty clearly
establishes that States Parties retain jurisdiction and control over
objects they have launched into outer space, and have international
responsibility for national objects in outer space, including whatever
damage the launched item may cause.
In sum, there already exists an extensive and comprehensive system for
limiting the uses of outer space to those that are peaceful and
providing a framework for the legitimate military uses of outer space.
We believe that this existing multilateral arms control regime
adequately protects states' interests in outer space and does not
require augmentation. There simply is no problem in outer space for
arms control to solve. The problems we all need to address are right
here on earth -- the need for effective implementation of, and full
compliance with, key regimes that tackle the very real threat of
weapons of mass destruction -- above all the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, Chemical Weapons Convention, and Biological Weapons
Convention.
The United States is committed, through its national space policy, to
ensuring that exploration and use of outer space remain open to all
nations for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all humanity. For
us as for others, "peaceful purposes" does of course allow for
activities that support and serve national security goals. Improving
our ability to support military operations worldwide, monitor and
respond to military threats, and monitor arms control and
non-proliferation agreements are key priorities for our national
security space activities -- and they help strengthen international
stability and security. The lawful military use of space provides
broad benefits to the international community in the areas of
communications, global positioning, navigation, environmental
monitoring, combating terrorism, and cooperating in enforcement of UN
Security Council sanctions.
Time to Move On:
The United States continues to hear calls for immediate negotiations
in the CD to forestall all manner of ills: 1) the possibility that
missile defense would upset strategic stability, leading to a new arms
race here on earth; 2) the potential for disruption of the arms
control process; and 3) the risk of an arms race in outer space. The
United States has always believed these concerns are groundless.
Clearly, missile defense has not upset strategic stability or led to a
new arms race. The Treaty signed in Moscow on May 24 shows that.
Importantly, the Treaty of Moscow also demonstrates that pursuit of
missile defense and the demise of the ABM Treaty are not an impediment
to further reductions in nuclear weapons or to increased U.S.-Russian
cooperation. Clearly also, U.S. missile defense efforts, and the
various systems under development, are not directed against Russia or
China. Rather, they are designed to defend against limited ballistic
missile attack in a world where increasing numbers of states are
striving to be able to threaten such an attack. Finally, as we have
tried to make clear, it is not a replacement for deterrence through
response or retaliation, but a supplement to it-adding a new dimension
to deterrence. Indeed, if a non-state actor knew that a limited attack
on the United States was not likely to succeed, they would be much
less inclined to develop weapons of mass destruction. A system capable
of defending against a large-scale attack with sophisticated weapons
would be both qualitatively and quantitatively different from that
which the United States is pursuing.
The United States remains committed to the arms control and
disarmament process. The landmark strategic arms reductions agreement:
signed by Presidents Bush and Putin in Moscow on May 24 has reaffirmed
that commitment and finally laid to rest the Cold War world and the
arms race it spawned. There is no contradiction between that process
and pursuit of a limited MD system. And while the United States and
Russia have had different views on the merits of the ABM Treaty, its
disappearance is simply not a problem. The reality is that
U.S.-Russian relations are broad and strong enough to weather this
sort of disagreement. As the Moscow Summit showed, it is a new and
better day.
Summation:
The United States continues to recognize the common interest of all
mankind in the furtherance of the exploration and use of outer space
for peaceful purposes, as declared in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. We
see no need for further outer space treaties. We should move on to
other themes that address immediate and serious threats to mankind.
(end text)
(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
