Statement by Permanent Representative Vassily Nebenzia at UNGA meeting regarding the use of veto in the Security Council on the draft resolution on non-placement of WMDs in outer space
Mr.President,
The meetings of the General Assembly pursuant to resolution 76/262 on cases involving the use of veto in the Security Council fall into two types. One is when the use of the veto is based on the acceptability (or non-acceptability) of a decision from the point of view of national interests. The other is when a provocative initiative is put forward to the Security Council with the sole purpose of making one of the permanent members appear in an unsightly light. The latter is precisely what happened with the US-proposed draft resolution.
On April 24, Russia voted against the American draft UNSC resolution on non-placement of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in outer space. For all its beautiful name, this document not only failed to solve the goal declared in its title (since it had already been solved by other international agreements), but could trigger grave implications for the entire disarmament process.
During the negotiations on the draft, we tried (to no avail though) to get the authors to answer the question, why try to reaffirm through the UNSC the already existing international obligations in the field of space exploration? After all, we all know that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, signed by 136 states, already contains an unconditional ban on the placement of WMDs in space. If there is reason to doubt its observance, why not start this discussion at specialized platforms where all members of the General Assembly are represented? The UNSC is authorized to respond to immediate threats to international peace and security, and that is where its resources should be spent, rather than on abstract discussions of legal and disarmament issues.
Our American colleagues were not able to answer this question.
It is important to mention another extremely dangerous element of the American draft resolution. I mean its obvious attempt to use the Security Council to introduce new restrictions that have not previously been envisaged elsewhere, including the Outer Space Treaty, which raises major questions from the legal point of view. Imposing such commitments without prior expert, legal and technical discussion is inadmissible. In this case, they are of no practical value for addressing the objectives of either preventing arms race in outer space (PAROS) or non-proliferation of WMDs.
This being said, we were even prepared to overlook this obvious shortcoming. At the same time, in order to give some meaning to the efforts of our American and Japanese colleagues, we proposed that this opportunity be used to give the necessary impetus to launch substantive work on these aspects at specialized disarmament fora. Such a signal would be very welcome given the current stagnation at this track of negotiations. At the core of our efforts was an amendment calling on states to take urgent measures aimed at a complete ban on the deployment of all weapons in space – not just WMDs, but any weapons at all. In other words, our proposals went much farther in terms of PAROS than the American draft resolution. This could have resulted in launching negotiations on a multilateral legally binding document that might have addressed, among other things, the American proposals on obligations regarding the development of WMDs specifically designed to be placed in space. Other than that, we have not interfered with the US-proposed text at all.
However, the American and Japanese co-sponsors flatly refused to take on board our proposals, although they were never able to explain why, either during the negotiations on the draft or in the Security Council Chamber. It is unlikely that they may dignify the delegations gathered in the GA Hall with any explanation of their position. Therefore, let us answer this question for them. They are unwilling to do so because the military doctrines of almost all key Western countries now envision exploration of space for military purposes. Lately, the US and its allies announced plans that include deployment of weapons, particularly strike combat systems, in outer space, the use or threat of use of force in space, from space, and against space and the use of space for combat operations. This is explicitly stated in a number of Western outer space strategies, which can be easily accessed in open sources. That is why it is no coincidence that the US has actively resisted any PAROS initiatives for years. A vivid example is the United States' longstanding opposition to the Russian-Chinese proposal for a treaty to prevent the deployment of weapons in space, which was drafted as early as in 2008.
Colleagues, make no mistake. All statements by Western countries about their alleged interest in a dialogue on how to keep outer space peaceful (which we will hear a lot in this Hall today) are nothing but hypocrisy and double standards. Their vote against our amendment on the non-deployment of any weapons in space is the best illustration of that. That said, we thank the seven members of the Security Council who voted in favor of our amendment. They proved that there are enough sober-minded delegations on the Security Council who represent the will of the UN majority, which shares the goals of PAROS.
Colleagues,
Russia remains committed to its obligations under international law. However, we will not indulge anyone's aggressive plans or give the green light to politicized double-dealing initiatives.
As everyone in this Hall is well aware, for many years we have pursued a constructive approach and promoted PAROS initiatives in relevant for a – the First Committee of the UNGA, the Conference on Disarmament, the UN Disarmament Commission and the UN Committee on Outer Space. We have also consistently maintained a position that outer space must be preserved exclusively for peaceful purposes. And although we do not see or expect a balanced and objective approach on the part of Western countries, following the vote on the American text we proposed an alternative draft UNSC resolution on PAROS, being guided by our special responsibility to maintain peace and stability that befalls us as a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
Our draft resolution is based on a well-known language that enjoys broad support from the vast majority of UN member states. Our draft has a broad scope and is aimed at reaffirming states' commitments not to use outer space for the deployment of either WMDs or conventional weapons. This is the only way to prevent outer space from becoming another sphere of tension and armed confrontation and to ensure free and equal access to space for all states without exception.
Before the vote on it, we will open our draft resolution for co-sponsorship by all members of the General Assembly. We call on delegations to co-sponsor it in accordance with the established procedure. We hope that this time common sense and interest in preserving outer space as a peaceful environment will prevail for the majority of UNSC members over attempts to politicize the topic that is crucial for the normal life on Earth. We call not to lose this chance.
Mr.President,
In conclusion, I should like to emphasize once again the absurdity of the situation surrounding the American draft resolution.
In an explanation of vote the American Permanent Representative herself referred to the words of the President of Russia who had repeatedly confirmed us having no plans to deploy nuclear weapons in space. She also recognized that non-adoption of this resolution would not affect Russia's effective commitments not to deploy nuclear weapons in space under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.
Then why did the US and Japan introduce this draft at all, if it has no effect on anything? Here is how the Permanent Representative of the United States, with the cynicism typical of our American colleagues, explained it to the journalists on April 24. She directly pointed out that Washington had introduced this draft in order, she said, to “expose” Russia. Expose Russia doing what? The US was not able to explain that. Have they come up with anything by today? For example, expose Russia’s willingness to adopt a document aimed at preventing an arms race in space? If this be the case, then the US has exposed itself by showing a complete lack of commitment to this goal. Whatever it is they plot in Washington, and whatever beautiful words they say, no one should doubt that we did the right thing by vetoing their draft in the UN Security Council.
To use soccer terminology, on April 24 our Western colleagues faked a fall in the penalty box, trying to earn a spot kick. However, since their deceit and foul play are obvious to the majority of those gathered in the General Assembly Hall today, let us show them a “red card” both by stressing it in statements and by co-sponsoring our alternative draft resolution of the Security Council.
Thank you.
