SPECPOL
Chair: Siddhartha Ariga
PO/Vice Chair: Peter Kiley
1
Table of Contents
3. Letter from Chair
4. Members of Committee
7. Committee Background
8. Topic A: Sustainable Economic Development of
Former Colonies in Africa
20. Topic B: Demilitarization of Outer Space
2
Letter from the Chair
Hello Delegates! My name is Siddartha Ariga and I am this year’s chair of the Special Political
and Decolonization Committee. I would like to extend a warm and courteous welcome to the
Second Annual Lyons Township High School Model UN Conference and congratulate you on
taking advantage of the opportunity of a lifetime. This is my fourth and final year of Model UN
and I happy to say that it has been quite a journey for me. Model UN has forced me to sacrifice
sleep along with many other things, but I wouldn't have it any other way because for me Model
UN isn’t an extracurricular, it’s a way of life. It transformed me from a timid and socially inept
freshman into a charismatic, passionate, and intelligent problem solver. Whatever your
background, gender, socio-economic status, political ideology etc. I truly believe that Model UN
provides everybody with the ability to develop the skills needed to impact and improve the
world.
When it comes to awards I place an emphasis on public speaking and the ability to move
committee forward through debate. However, resolution writing is also vital to a delegate’s
success, as the ideas brought forth in your respective resolution demonstrate your creative
thinking and problem solving skills. What sets a best delegate apart from the rest however is
passion and determination. Whether you are Equatorial Guinea or the United States of America
my expectations are high for all of you. Just remember, the size of your country does not
determine the impact you will have in committee or how successful you will be. Only the
amount of effort you put in determines your outcome.
Thank you for taking the time to read this, and best of luck with your preparations. I look
forward to seeing you all!
Yours Truly,
Siddartha Ariga
3
Members in Committee:
Blocs:
African Nations: For far too long, Africa suffered because of the imperialistic greed of Europe.
After being stripped of both human and material capital, and then being ignored by the world as
a whole, the continent as a whole is frustrated. If you represent an African nation, you may find
it easier to draft and sponsor a resolution written primarily by African nations, in order to ensure
that your resolution is written by Africans, for Africans.
Developed Nations: Africa is a mess. Apologies for the frankness, but it’s the truth. As leaders of
the world, it is your duty to elevate nations that are falling behind. Utilizing success seen in your
nations, your goal is to apply the same blueprint to African with some tweaks here and there.
You are not required to work with an Africa nation, but keep in mind that some of the nations
gathered won’t look too favorably upon a resolution written entirely by non-African nations.
1. Algeria
2. Argentina
3. Brazil
4. China
5. Cameroon
6. Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
7. Egypt
8. France
9. Germany
10. Ghana
11. Greece
12. Hong Kong
13. India
14. Indonesia
15. Iran
16. Israel
17. Italy
18. Japan
19. Jordan
20. Kenya
21. Lebanon
22. Libya
23. Luxembourg
24. Madagascar
25. Malaysia
4
26. Mauritania
27. Mexico
28. Mozambique
29. Namibia
30. Netherlands
31. Nigeria
32. Norway
33. Pakistan
34. Philippines
35. Russia
36. Rwanda
37. Saudi Arabia
38. Singapore
39. Somalia
40. South Africa
41. South Korea
42. Sweden
43. Tanzania
44. Thailand
45. Turkey
46. Ukraine
47. United Arab Emirates
48. United Kingdom
49. United States of America
50. Venezuela
5
Background
The Special Political and Decolonization Committee (SPECPOL), also known as the
Fourth Committee, was created in 1993 in accordance with General Assembly Resolution
47/233, with the main objective of addressing significant political matters, such as self-determination, decolonization and other international security concerns. SPECPOL originally
assessed issues that the First Committee (DISEC) was not able to handle, but it was given other
topics
to
address
and
a
broader
overall
scope
due
to
its
success in addressing the Palestine Question, among others.
In its current role, the Fourth Committee can be viewed as the United Nations Security
Council (UNSC) entrance door, since the questions discussed at the Security Council are often
assessed earlier by SPECPOL not only because the committee's approach is broader in terms of
international security, but also because it allows all United Nations (UN) member states to be
heard before the question reaches other UN instances. This explains the fact that although
SPECPOL's resolutions are not binding, they are still very appealing, since they reflect the
opinion of the majority of countries regarding substantive matters.
This year, LYMUN’s SPECPOL will be discussing two topics, the Fate of Africa and the
Demilitarization of Outer Space, both of which are of paramount importance to international
stability. Delegates who come to SPECPOL will face the challenge of thoroughly addressing
these international security questions in a very extensive way, since the results of their
discussions may affect the development of the international environment for the years to come.
6
Topic A: Sustainable Economic Development of Former Colonies in
Africa
1. Historical Background
1.1
Africa and The West Collide
It must be noted that the defining contact between Africa and the West originated with
the slave trade that saw the capture and forceful transportation of millions of African across the
Atlantic to work in plantations in the Americas. This was immediately followed by the
colonization of the continent whereby, the Europeans implemented various political, economic,
and social policies that enabled them to
maintain or
extend
their
authority and
control over different territories in Africa.
The colonization of Africa also indicates the
colonial
(stronger
partner)
exploitation of African colonies
(weaker
partner),
masters’
especially
the
resources,
to
strengthen and enrich the economies of Western nations. Colonialism, thus, had and still has a far
reaching effect (colonial legacies) on the continent because of its indirect impacts on the
political, social, economic and cultural life of ex-colonial societies—neo-colonialism. The
effects of colonialism begin with the economic interest that the West defended in their seizure of
foreign territories for the exploitation of its natural resources: a situation that had the opposite
(negative) effects on the exploited colony (see Meredith 2005: 95-97). Besides the economic
7
imbalance (Western profit at the detriment of the weak: Africa) resulting from colonialism, the
social, cultural and political lives of the people and societies in Africa were greatly interrupted
and transformed by the policies applied by the colonial masters during the colonial period. An
instrument of this transformation on the social and cultural life style of the African people was
the policy of Assimilation. For a nation like France who championed the policy of Assimilation,
the term meant the assimilating, or the enculturation and transformation of Africans in French
colonies into black French men and women (Eko, 2003). In other words assimilation implied the
social process applied by the colonial masters to absorb the cultural entities existing in their
colonies. It transformed them to think, to behave and live a way of life like the people in the
colonizer’s homeland. According to the French, the Belgians and the Portuguese, an African who
had received their kind of education and an understanding of their culture and life style stood the
chance of getting assimilated into their
culture (Rodney, 1972: 247). Education
was the major path to civilizing the native
African into a “superior” Western cultured
being. Anyone who had attained this level
became an assimilée for the French, or
assimilado or civilisado for the Portuguese
(Rodney, 1972: 247; Shillington, 1989: 357). The French was bent on eliminating the African
culture in their colonies and used only French censored and approved newspaper publications in
their colonies to propagate the “frenchification” of Africans (Eko, 2003). The application of such
policies brought about a serious interruption in the culture and whole way of life for the African
8
people and introduced to them something foreign, for which there was and still is no guarantee
that it could lead to an improvement of their lives in their African environment.
1.2
The End of Colonization
When colonialism finally ended, the big Western powers could not afford to keep their hands
completely off their colonies, thus, they continued to influence politics and developments in
these regions where their political and economic
relationship was based on their colonial ties on
multilateral
impact
of
relations
and
colonialism,
engagements.
and
the
The
subsequent
relationship and exchange between Africa and
the West has seen the continent moved from post
independent political and economic hope for
prosperity to despair and dependence on the West. This dependence in political processes and
economic development and sustainability has continued to preserve the continent as a poor and
devastate region of the globe. Even foreign aid with conditions for Africa which according to the
west should help steer Africa off poverty and underdevelopment has produce the opposite due to
the economic interest of the West behind it and the tyranny and selfishness African leaders.
9
2. The Problems Behind the Problem
Colonial Legacy and Impact Colonial legacy is the sum total of the political structure, culture
and general polity handed over to the elite nationalist rulers or that which was left behind by the
colonial administrators, “neocolonial” nationalist leadership, which affected post-independent
Africa and still has an impact on contemporary African states and politics. The colonial ruling
style of oppression of the colonial administration
that was imposed on African states by the new
African nationalist rulers was not based on the
choice, consent, will and purpose of the African
people.
In other words, and considering the fact that
some post-independent rulers run their states as
if it were their personal property, colonial legacy
is the inheritance of the state that belonged to the
colonial administration from this administration
by the post-colonial rulers in Africa. The DRC for instance was King Leopold’s personal
property (Shillington, 1989: 312; Meredith, 2005: 95). In like manner after the DRC gained
independence in 1960, President Mobutu S. Seko ruled the state as if it were his personal
property (see Young 1986). The selfish and exploitative character of the master-colony
relationship that reigned in the colonialism time continued in different forms even after
colonialism was long gone, and continues to impact contemporary African politics. The colonial
impacts on post-colonial states in Africa are categorized in this section as colonial legacies.
10
Some of these legacies include: neo-patrimonialism and clientelism, neo-colonialism (continuity
in continuation of western control and dominance), authoritarianism, ethnic division and rivalry
to name a few.
One of the major difficulties African states have had to deal with, which has repeatedly
been mentioned many African and non-African experts (Amoo, 1997; Rodney, 1972; Dumont,
1966; Nugent, 2004; Meredith, 2005), is the problem of ethnic divisions and the state conflicts
resulting from ethnic rivalry (Blanton et al. 2001). Ethnic division is one of the leading legacies
of colonialism which one always comes across when assessing the colonial impacts on the
continent. African authors as well as
non-African scholars concerned with
African
politics
divisions
and
blame
the
ethnic
rivalry amongst the
nations in Africa on the arbitrary
boundaries
and
cultural differences
created
and
imposed
peoples
by
the
(Mahoso,
27
upon these
colonial
masters
April 2010). When
scrutinizing problems and causes of ethnic conflicts in Africa for example, the conventional
explanation relating to external factors contributing to the ethnic conflicts, is that, the
polarization of ethnic communities and the outbreak of ethnic violence are a legacy of
colonialism which ignored cultural differences during the creation o f artificial state borders (see
11
for example Taras and Ganguly 2002: 3; Clapham, 1985: 57-58). According to Shillington
(1989: 356), the colonial masters emphasized the distinctions between the different ethnic
groups, thereby strengthening tribal differences and rivalries between these groups and
preventing them from forming a united opposition against the colonizers. Shillington continues,
by expostulating that, these groups had always lived in the past as a people despite some
customary differences that might have existed between them like their dressing, housing and
religious practices. Furthermore, even when these groups experienced competition and conflicts,
it was for political power or economic advantage and not “because they were of different
‘tribes’”: thus, Shillington (1989: 356) accentuation that the “colonial authorities invented
‘tribalism’”.
As if the “creation” and insistence of the differences between the African peoples
(separatist feelings) by the colonizers who compounded these different ethnic groups in one
nation together was not enough, successive colonial constitutions in Nigeria for example,
“entrenched political power on regional lines” (Ogunbadejo, 1979: 86). Ethnic divisions thus,
contributed to the formation of parties along ethnic lines, which later contributed to the
marginalization of parties which refused to be co-opted into the ruling party: consequently,
ethnic division and rivalry can be seen as a major trigger and cause of conflicts on the continent.
Ethnic groups who feel marginalized often develop feelings of revenge and hatred against those
who enjoy socio-economic well-being from the resources of their states because of their
affiliation to the ruler (the “owner” or “controller” of the national cake): based on clientelist
politicking. Since there are rarely any state guided structure and political arrangements or
12
functional governance procedures for rational and appropriate distribution of state resources and
power, there is usually a resort to conflict (also see Harris and Reilly 1998: 9). One of the worst
examples of colonialism founded ethnic rivalry and consequential conflicts is the 1994 Genocide
in Rwanda which was characterized by the attempted extermination of the Tutsi and moderate
Hutu races in the country (see Scherrer 2001): The death toll of this genocide is estimated at
937,000 people (Asiimwe, 04/04/2004). The colonizers created and stressed the difference
amongst African people within the same nation even when these differences did not exist, only to
facilitate their domination and exploitation of a divided people. According to a BBC report of
April 2004 titled “Rwanda: How the Genocide happened”, it is claimed that the Belgians created
differences between Tutsis and Hutus which did not exist before their arrival. These differences
went as far as creating identity cards for Tutsi minorities illustrating their superiority over Hutus
and giving them the leadership positions in the country. The result was hatred and the nurturing
of feelings of revenge by the Hutu’s, which culminated in the 1994 genocide which saw the
slaughtering of over 800,000 Rwandans within a period of four months (BBC News,
18/12/2008).
Ethnic conflicts are not only rampant in contemporary Africa but are also very severe
compared to those of other regions in the world. In a book titled “Ethnic Conflicts in Africa”
edited by Okwudiba Nnoli (2000), the different authors provide a sense of the genesis of ethnic
antagonism on the continent and the impact of colonialism on inter-ethnic relations. In line with
the argument in this book, the fact that the ethnic division is an ubiquitous precursor for political
instability strongly distorts the democratization processes on the continent. The impact of ethnic
13
division and rivalry has unfortunately not been properly addressed by the state-constructors of
these nations, a factor which cannot be underestimated in assessing the failures of state-systems
in Africa. However, colonialism could not be completely blame for “creating” multi-ethnic states
in Africa, but instead, for encouraging hatred based upon ethnic differences and for forging
differences amongst African peoples and nations in order to facilitate its rule, thereby destroying
the foundation for potential state building in Africa (see Nnoli 2000). Unfortunately for the
African people, post-colonial governments continued with the manipulation and disintegration of
ethnic identities and groups. This placed the ruling elites and the state at the centre of the
complexities and dimensions of the ethnic rivalry phenomenon on the continent (see Nnoli
2000).
Besides ethnic division and rivalry, another legacy which impacted African politics is the
administrative style of the colonizers. The colonizers ruled without the consent of the people:
they deposed and executed traditional rulers, when the latter failed to implement the instructions
of colonial administrators or failed to serve the need of the colonial government (Shillington,
1989: 354-357; Hochschild, 1998). Depending on the home country of the colonizers, the
administration practiced policies say of assimilation, as was the case in French Africa, or indirect
rule for British colonies on the continent. The ruling structure, which was based on the control by
a few, through oppression and the use of force, laid a basis for patron-client rulership after
colonialism. Neo-patrimonial leadership as practiced in many African countries is an extension
of the kind of autocratic and alien tyrant rule that the colonial master’s had initiated. Following
the disruption of the African pre-colonial leadership form and the corresponding political culture,
14
colonialism can be said to have set up structures and ruptured the dynamics and patterns which
curtailed different and contradicting interethnic relations and interests. According to John
Lonsdale (1986: 145) the instrument of political control and economic allocation in African
states had been violently constructed by outsiders, that is, the colonizers. Consequently, the new
“bandwagons” of rulers, as Lonsdale describe them, did not see the need for discipline and
responsibility in the constitution of political power but simply applied the principle of rewarding
and absorbing the recruitment of supporters and civil servants: neo-patrimonialism.
Colonial rule wiped out the dependency of the chief on his councilors, as was the case in
precolonial rule, replacing this with autocracy and replacing the rulers dependence on the people
to elite rulership which depended upon colonial superiors and later foreign powers (Nugent,
2004: 107-108). Colonial rule was thus a rulership by force and oppression, that is, autocracy in
its extreme. Ndirangu Mwaura (2005: 6) maintains that nothing in Africa changed after the
colonizers left. According to Mwaura, the only change that occurred was the replacement of
colonial governors with colonial ambassadors. The administrative structures were maintained as
well as the economic structures to preserve the flow of wealth from the continent to the West
which began in the colonial time (Mwaura, 2005: 6). National leaders who took over after the
colonizers left, Mwuara concludes, “were traitors, with a pretend and false patriotism”, who
upheld a political network that exploited the African people to the benefit of the ruling elites and
their western patrons. In the words of William Easterly (2006: 273), “colonial administration reenforced autocracy in Africa” and neo-colonialism continued to sustain and consolidate tyrant
15
autocratic rule, the result of which are bad governance and extremely selfish and cruel governors
in the likes of Mobutu in Zaire, Idi Amin in Uganda and Bokassa in CAR (Meredith, 2005).
Another major problem in Africa which can be seen as a legacy of colonialism is the
failure of the rule of law institutions; that is: application and practice. The rule of law has gained
increasing meaning in the last decades and has become one of the
major indicators for measuring governance matters by various
institutions concerned with issues of governance around the world
(World Bank Governance Indicators, Bertelsmann Transformation
Index, and Freedom House). The International Commission of
Jurists in 1959 in New Delhi, drew up the “declaration of Delhi”
which stated that rule of law “should be employed to safeguard and
advance the civil and political rights of the individual” and create
“conditions under which his legitimate aspirations and dignity may be realized” (The Economist,
13/03/2008). The rule of law from this point of view is inextricably linked to liberty and
democracy:
the
thick
definition.
An
extended definition of rule of law does not
focus on liberty and democracy but instead
stresses property rights and efficiency in
the administration of justice.
According to this definition – thin
definition – the laws must provide stability
16
in the society/polity. The thin and thick definitions of rule of law are indispensable for a just s
ociety for the preservation of the life, liberty, and property of its citizens (The Economist,
13/03/2008). The colonial administrations neither implemented the thin nor think version of the
rule of law in their colonies. There was neither property nor citizens’ rights for the people and in
many cases the people were not citizens but subjects (Shillington, 1989: 354). In addition to the
absence of the rule of law, colonial laws were by themselves very notorious and in many cases
entitled, as colonial “administrators to imprison any African subject indefinitely and without
charge or trial” (Shillington, 1989: 355). The general use of native chiefs, selected not in line
with traditional legitimacy but according to loyalty to the European administrator in what is
described as indirect rule in British Africa, has been described by Professor Mahmood Mamdani
of Columbia University, USA as “decentralized despotism” (as quoted by Easterly 2006: 273). In
regions were there were no chiefs, Europeans invented chiefs and imposed them on the people,
and always stressed tribal differences, thereby creating differences amongst the people. Chiefs
had to enforce forced labor, ensure compulsory crop cultivation, recruit labor, collect taxes and
fulfill other state requirements (Easterly, 2006: 275). These chiefs were made to rule as if they
were the law and the people were under their jurisdiction. The only higher authority was the
colonial authority who gave them instructions and command. The chiefs were prosecutors as
well as judges, who employed the jailer to hold their victims in custody as it pleased them:
Thanks to the command and support, chiefs had more power than any oriental despot (Easterly,
2006: 275). The conclusion is that, the method of ruling of the colonial administration, which
took over the decentralized system of the pre-colonial time but abolished its checks and balances,
made Africa safe for autocracy (Easterly, 2006: 275).
17
During the independence struggle, Africans fought to recover their rights and the rule of law
that “disappeared” with the advent of colonialism. During the fight for independence, Africans
sought to be represented in political decisions, wanted to form their own parliament and vote for
their representative as governors. This struggle and fight led to the change of laws and
constitutional amendments in many colonies. In Nigeria, for example, the bill of rights was
introduced into the country’s independence constitution and has remained a permanent
component of the constitution surviving changes, truncating and breaches of the constitution, as
has occurred in the past many decades after independence (Amadi, 2007). According to Sami
Amadi (2007), “whereas the constitution proclaimed citizenship rights for every Nigerian, the
colonial laws that regionalized and ethnicized access to privileges and rights remained effective”,
and remained a major problem during and after independence in most parts of Africa.
Unlike in Nigeria, which was a British colony, the French colony through the practice of
assimilation, forbade the publication of non-censored newspapers to enable them to have secured
control over which information reached the people through the media. When the colonies
became independent, they inherited this journalistic tradition in its “despotic extremes” and until
date many African countries are still not free despite major improvement since the second
liberation struggle which began in the early 1990s (Eko, 2003). According to the 2007 Freedom
House rating, only eight countries in SSA could be rated as free. The rest of the countries were
almost equally divided between “partly free” and “not free”. The abandonment and ignoring of
human rights and institutions of rule of law have continued to render the protection of citizen’s
rights on the continent, from the colonial period through to the fight for the second liberation in
the late 1980s, as an almost impossible task for states in Africa.
18
Questions to Consider:
• Should LDC assistance come from the public or private sector?
• Is monetary aid an effective tool to help LDCs? Who should provide aid?
How long should a nation be supported by foreign aid?
• How can international organizations address the cause of underdevelopment,
not just the symptoms?
• Is the developed world serious enough about global development to bring
about change?
• What is the best solution to the economic and environmental problems found
in LDCs? Are these solutions realistic?
• Is it possible for LDCs to “catch up” with other developed nations?
19
Topic B: Demilitarization of Outer Space
1. Historical Background
1.1 Outer Space Treaty and military use of space
The modern space age began in the early twentieth century with technological developments
in rocket and missile science. Building on the work of individuals like Hermann Oberth and
Walter Homann, Germany was responsible for major progress in rocket science at the time of the
Second World War. Immense government support led to the development of the V-2 rocket.
Although the V- 2 program was
enormously costly and the rocket
had limited military value, it is
acknowledged as being the first
viable space rocket.
After the
Second World War, a small group
of German rocket scientists from
the V-2 project were brought to the United States in order to continue their research, which
became the basis of the first space rocket program. The Soviet Union also had access to V-2
technology after the war. However, the post-war era was not one of rapid progress in the area of
space exploration. The United States was engaged with rebuilding its economy and aiding
Europe’s reconstruction. Despite the emerging preoccupation of countering the unfolding Soviet
threat, America’s superior airpower was considered sufficient to address this concern. For the
Soviets, however, development of long-range missiles was critical to counter American air
20
superiority. As the United States found itself in the Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union, it
recognized that it was heavily dependent on the ability to gather information via technical means,
most significant of which were aerial photographs. At the time largely high-altitude aircraft
collected such information. Increased Soviet proficiency at fighter interception and anti-aircraft
missile design was making surveillance risky and therefore interest in using satellites for
reconnaissance grew. The United States began to formulate its political and diplomatic strategy
concerning outer space on protecting the legality of satellite intelligence gathering. This
generated interest in the legality of satellite over flights; concerns that became real after the
Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the world’s first man-made satellite, in 1957. Sputnik
transformed the dream of space exploration into reality. Four years later, Yuri Gagarin was the
first human to see Earth from space. The launch of Sputnik marked the beginning of space
exploration and with it the start of the debate surrounding the militarization of outer space. As
work on space boosters progressed in the United States and the Soviet Union, more normative
aspects of space travel began to be explored. Scholars, politicians and diplomats began to take an
interest in the issue of space
law—more
should
specifically,
and
permitted
should
in
not
space.
what
be
With
Gagarin’s flight, human beings
became space travellers. Less
than
ten
years
later,
men
21
walked on the Moon. Since then, nine space stations have been built and occupied by astronauts
from different countries and the International Space Station—a sixteen-nation joint endeavor—is
currently under construction. Manned space vehicles, such as the Space Shuttle and the Russian
Soyuz, now fly regularly between Earth and low Earth orbit. Besides exploration and scientific
research, space is mainly used for the perspective it provides. This is done with the help of
satellites. The satellite industry is the largest sector of commercial space activities today.
Orbiting satellites, for example, facilitate communication between distant points on Earth.
However, space has also become an important military tool. Satellites have become the eyes,
ears and nerves of today’s military forces. This is true to such a degree that if the satellites of a
space power were to be destroyed, its military capability would be reduced dramatically. Much
of the difficulty of regulating activities in space is linked to the issue of dual use. This applies to
the technologies that can be used interchangeably for space launch vehicles and for ballistic
missiles intended as delivery vehicles for weapons. Even more so, the civilian or military
purposes of satellites can be difficult to differentiate. This pertains especially to communication
and observation satellites, as well as systems such as the Global Positioning System (GPS),
which is used for the guidance of many precision weapons but also for various civilian consumer
applications.
2. Peaceful Purposes
Initially, the world community—including the space powers—urged that space should be
used for peaceful purposes. In January of 1957, even before Sputnik was launched, Ambassador
John Lodge expressed on behalf of the United States the hope that ‘future developments in outer
22
space would be devoted exclusively to peaceful and scientific purposes’ in his address to the
United Nations General Assembly he even went so far as to suggest that the testing of satellites
and missiles be placed under international supervision (much as was the case with nuclear
technology and the Baruch Plan a decade earlier). Further moves to ensure that ‘outer space be
used exclusively for peaceful and scientific purposes and for the benefit of mankind’3 included
the joint submission by four Western powers (Canada, France, the United Kingdom and the
United States) to the United Nations Disarmament Commission, calling for a study on an
inspection system that would assure that objects launched into outer space would be used
exclusively for peaceful and scientific purposes. Adopted by the General Assembly, this became
the first United Nations resolution on outer space,
and the first time the phrase ‘exclusively for
peaceful
purposes’
would
be
used
in
an
authoritative United Nations text The thirteenth
session of the General Assembly, held in 1958,
provided a forum for the debate on ‘Questions of
the Peaceful Use of Outer Space’. During this session the term ‘peaceful’ was used as an
antonym to ‘military’. Sweden appealed to fellow Member States to ‘safeguard outer space
against any military use whatsoever’5 and the Soviet Union put forward a proposal to ban the use
of outer space for military purposes. The General Assembly adopted resolution 1348 (XIII),
which recognized the ‘common aim’ of humankind that outer space ‘should be used for peaceful
purposes only.’6 Resolution 1348 established the Ad Hoc Committee on the Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space (COPUOS). Its legal subcommittee issued a report in 1959 stating that the United
23
Nations Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice were not limited to the
confines of the Earth, and that the countries of the world have established a practice, in principle,
that ‘outer space is, on conditions of equality, freely available for exploration and use by all in
accordance with existing or future international law or agreements’.7 The Treaty on Principles
Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the
Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, (The Outer Space Treaty or OST) was concluded in the first
years of space exploration, after Yuri Gagarin’s historic flight and before Neil Armstrong’s walk
on the Moon. The OST, which entered into force in 1967, prohibits the testing of weapons, the
stationing of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons), the holding of military
maneuvers, or the establishment of military bases in space. However, the OST does not cover the
transit of nuclear weapons through space or nuclear weapons launched from Earth into space in
order to destroy incoming missiles (such as some of the American or Soviet missile defense
systems originally permitted under the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty). Nor does the OST
address other weapons (such as anti-satellite weapons or ASAT) or the placement of
conventional weapons in space. The existing legal structure concerning outer space has a number
of additional elements. The Partial Test-Ban Treaty entered into force in 1963 and prohibits
nuclear tests and explosions in the atmosphere or in outer space. The Astronaut Rescue
Agreement was reached in 1968. The Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into
Outer Space entered into force in 1976, which complemented the 1972 Convention on
International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects. In December 1979, the Agreement
Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies was signed and
entered into force five years later.8 A second body dealing with outer space issues, the Ad Hoc
24
Committee on the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), was established by the
Conference of Disarmament (CD) in 1985. Today PAROS is one of the main obstacles to
consensus on the CD’s program of work.
3. The Utility of Outer Space
During the first thirty years of the space age, the main military use of space was that of
communication and reconnaissance. Many experts agree that this had a stabilizing and beneficial
effect on world affairs. However, there have been efforts to acquire techniques for denying
enemies the ability to use space in this
fashion. The United States developed
projects in the late 1950s and both the
United
States and the Soviet Union
worked on ways of dominating space
throughout the 1960s and 1970s. It was
not until the 1980s however, that serious
prospects for more active military uses of
outer space began.18 Yet at the same
time, civil uses of space have exploded.
With an estimated
US$77
billion in
revenues and more than 800,000 people
employed worldwide in 1996, the global space industry is one of the world’s vital economic
engines. Civilian space activities fuel some of the most important high-tech economic sectors:
25
software
and
hardware
development,
sophisticated
electronics,
telecommunications,
and
advanced materials research. Furthermore, satellites have become essential to communications,
navigation, broadcast, meteorology, and numerous other fields essential to our daily lives. This
has therefore become one of the arguments put forward for the weaponization of outer space as
these civilian assets are ‘unprotected’ and an attack on them could have very serious
consequences on a technology-dependent state. In theory, outer space could be exploited
militarily in the same way that land, sea and air are. It could be utilized as a base for attacking an
enemy, as a source of materials, as a vantage point for observation (the ‘high ground’), and as a
means of rapid movement. Current military uses of space mainly involve the use of three types
of satellites: observation, communications and early warning satellites. Observation satellites are
capable of generating high-resolution images,
information concerning navigation,
weather,
monitoring communications, and producing
targeting adjustments,
troop
movement,
etc.
Communications satellites allow military commanders to exercise control over distant forces and
to receive real-time information about the progress of a campaign or about possible enemy
actions to a degree that was previously unknown. Early warning satellites can monitor enemy
territory for military activity, such as missile launches, thereby providing additional crucial
minutes of response time
4. Conclusion
Despite lofty commitments, the world failed to maintain outer space for peaceful purposes.
Militarization of outer space has been a fait accompli since the beginning of the space
exploration age. Until now space objects have only acted as force multipliers, however we are
approaching the threshold of space weaponization. We have managed to transcend the heavens, a
26
task long seen as impossible, yet we have done little to prevent the militarization of space. We
have the opportunity and responsibility to prevent its weaponization.
Questions to Consider:
• Should the militarization of outer space be allowed so long as rules and
regulations are created and enforced?
• Should this committee establish “sovereignty” for outer space?
• What space programs does your country have? What are they trying to
achieve?
• What can be done to prevent unilateral action aiming to militarize space?
• What is defined as “militarization of outer space”?
• Do reconnaissance satellites infringe on rights to privacy?
27
Works Cited
Boon,
Emmanuel.
"Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa." African Studies
Companion Online. TESA Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Web.
"Evaluation of the Role of Foreign Donors in Encouraging Sustainable Economic
Development in Africa." Evaluation of the Role of Foreign Donors in Encouraging Sustainable
Economic Development in Africa. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.
"How Sub-Saharan Africa Can Become a Stable Economic Region." EInternational
Relations. Web. 12 Nov. 2015. <http://www.e-ir.info/2013/12/23/how-sub-saharan-africa-canbecome-a-stable-economic-region/>.
"Outer
Space."
Critical
Issues.
Web.
12
Nov.
2015.
<http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/resources/fact-sheets/critical- issues/5448-outer-space>.
"Strength of International Space Law to Prevent Militarization of Outer Space, Respond to
Other Current Challenges Weighed in Fourth Committee | Meetings Coverage and Press
Releases." UN News Center. UN. Web. 12 Nov. 2015.
"Sustainable Development for a Democratic South Africa." (1994). Managing Land-Based
Resources for Sustainable Development. United Nations Economic Comission for Africa. Web.
<http://www.uncsd2012.org/content/documents/SDRA1%20managing%20landbased%20resources.pdf>.
"United NationsOffice for Outer Space Affairs." COPUOS. United Nations. Web. 12 Nov.
2015.
28