1

SPECPOL Chair: Siddhartha Ariga

PO/Vice Chair: Peter Kiley

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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.

7

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 masters’ (stronger partner)

exploitation of African colonies (weaker

partner), 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

8

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

9

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 relations and engagements. The

impact of colonialism, and 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.

10

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.

11

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 blame the ethnic

divisions and rivalry amongst the

nations in Africa on the arbitrary

boundaries and cultural differences

created and imposed upon these

peoples by the colonial masters

(Mahoso, 27 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

12

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

13

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

14

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,

15

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 re-

enforced autocracy in Africa” and neo-colonialism continued to sustain and consolidate tyrant

16

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

17

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).

18

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.

19

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?

20

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

21

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 specifically, what

should and should not be

permitted in space. With

Gagarin’s flight, human beings

became space travellers. Less

than ten years later, men

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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:

26

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, monitoring communications, and producing

information concerning navigation, weather, 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

27

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?

28

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-can-

become-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%20land-

based%20resources.pdf>.

"United NationsOffice for Outer Space Affairs." COPUOS. United Nations. Web. 12 Nov.

2015.