United Nations COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691

Committee on the Peaceful Unedited transcriptUses of Outer SpaceLegal Subcommittee

691st MeetingThursday, 3 April 2003, 3 p.m.Vienna

Chairman: Mr. Kopal (Czech Republic)

The meeting was called to order at 3.16 p.m.

The CHAIRMAN: Good afternoon distinguished delegates, I now declare open the 691st

meeting of the Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Spaces.

This afternoon, I expect only to have a short meeting of the Subcommittee to consider agenda item 9, Proposals to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space for New Items to be Considered by the Legal Subcommittee at its Forty-Third Session.

I will give you the floor Sir as soon as I read the opening text. Thank you. Please inscribe Chile on the list of speakers.

Proposals to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space for new items to be considered by the Legal Subcommittee at its forty-third session (agenda item 9)

Distinguished delegates, I would now like to resume consideration of item 9 of our agenda, Proposals to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space for New Items to be Considered by the Legal Subcommittee at its Forty-Third Session, in the Subcommittee Plenary.

I understand that informal consultations on agenda item 9 took place this morning, under the coordination of Mr. Niklas Hedman of Sweden, and that consensus was reached in these consultations on a proposed agenda for next year’s session of the Legal Subcommittee.

I would, therefore, like to begin by giving the floor to Mr. Niklas Hedman, Coordinator of these informal consultations, to allow him to report to the Subcommittee plenary on the outcome of these informal consultations. But prior to giving him the floor, I will give the floor, I will give the floor to the distinguished Ambassador for Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. My delegation would like to make a statement and that on the item related to new proposals. Unfortunately, I think we have a procedural and a substantive problem here. My delegation is a small one, without the necessary resources, and we end up running about from one place to another. This applies to my country and other Latin American countries. We are bilateral, multilateral and competitive at times even, which prevents us from having equal opportunity participation conditions with other delegations. We just do not have the opportunity.

So my delegation, and I believe probably several, many, of the countries in the Latin American country group, have been informally consulting for a letter to the Director of the Office for Outer Space Affairs, with a copy to New York, and that to complain formally about the fact that parallel meetings are organized on questions that are of great sensitivity to developing countries. We consider this a lack of respect and, furthermore, this runs counter to the interest of the developing countries.

________________________________________________________________________________________________

In its resolution 50/27 of 6 December 1995, the General Assembly endorsed the recommendation of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space that, beginning with its thirty-ninth session, the Committee would be provided with unedited transcripts in lieu of verbatim records. This record contains the texts of speeches delivered in English and interpretations of speeches delivered in the other languages as transcribed from taped recordings. The transcripts have not been edited or revised.

Corrections should be submitted to original speeches only. They should be incorporated in a copy of the record and be sent under the signature of a member of the delegation concerned, within one week of the date of publication, to the Chief, Translation and Editorial Service, Room D0708, United Nations Office at Vienna, P.O. Box 500, A-1400, Vienna, Austria. Corrections will be issued in a consolidated corrigendum.

V.03-83854

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 2

I would like to say that my delegation has no complaints against the Office for Outer Space Affairs. Quite the contrary. They have always done everything possible to accommodate our requests but this is a general situation, clearly designed to favour the interests of developed countries, very clear designed for that. We can see the list of participants. Here, we can see how many delegates are on each, the main members of each delegation and there is a surprise that can be had there. Some of our delegations have to beat speed records to be five minutes in one meeting, five minutes in another and against that we have the surprise, and here I come to my point of substance, and that is when you get to the meeting, you are informed, for example, that the proposal from Brazil on the remote sensing question was rejected with poor arguments, rejected because the principles on remote sensing are working well. Yes, they might be working very well, Mr. Chairman, but that in favour of the multinational undertaking data become more and more expensive, processed information is processed in the developed countries by multinationals and, it is just by chance, that we get information drawn from our own territories without taking into account one of the fundamental principles of the Charter of the United Nations which is respect or observance of sovereign access to natural resources.

So we reject outright what was said today and that basically by two or three developed countries whereby the principles are working very well on remote sensing. Those principles are not working. There is no accommodation for the current world scenario. These are subject to the discretion of developed countries as to how, when and in what form they might most generously choose to give data. I would urge those who rejected the Brazilian proposal outright please give a solid legal argument but do not treat us as if we were stupid.

Let us not go on letting people think that developing countries are ingenuous, naïve, innocent, knowing that the high level of commercialization of space activities and in the specific case of remote sensing, gives rise at least to some questions as to the benefits and advantages derived from it or activity being done by the private sector there, where the essential aim, after all, is profit. It is not charity, as far as I know. I have never come across any private undertaking with working for the purpose of charity for others, unless you think of convents, perhaps, as private undertakings.

However, from the strict legal point of view, and I would both urge, since on the first day, it was decided that the general exchange of views was just to be that, a

general exchange of views and not a series of statements or debates. I would urge somebody to show me, with figures, not with rhetoric, raw figures, this company is spending so much for developing countries in remote sensing of agricultural resources, fishing resources, observation of mining or others that are considered strategic, which might be used for other purposes, but I want figures. Developing countries demand that we be given equal treatment, in other words, show us convincing arguments. It is very easy just to say into a microphone we are against this, the principles are working well, who can prove to me that they are working well. That can only be done through numbers, figures. And I would like to ask representatives of those countries, first of all, to talk with exactly of the various private undertakings and Presidents of multinationals, ask them for statements of the commercial space activity situation, ask them what percentage of that, in terms of processed information, is being devoted to tending to the needs of developing countries.

And in connection with this same point, I remember just a few days ago the Secretary of the Committee said that out of 9,000 satellites, there are only 500 that are operational. I would like to know out of the 500 how many belong to developed countries, how many belong to developing countries. I will not even put the question but it is pretty clear that the proportional difference is quite great. Thus, countries such as our own, having access to remote sensing information, they might be significant for our interests, is a low possibility.

I just wanted to make this statement so that it is quite clear that, here, what we have is a lack of political will with an outright refusal with that considerable effort made by Brazil, a country we respect greatly, that being rejected flatly. Other developed countries are asking us in a week’s time to just accept their proposal with veiled threats accompanying that regarding possible forms of international cooperation.

And third, Mr. Chairman, here there are some topics that you can talk about, others that you cannot. There are great efforts being made by Algeria, with a critical mass being arrived at, and my delegation will stand out and object when there is any attempt made to suspend the question dealt with by them because we could just come out and propose the suspension of other questions at the same time. And I am saying that with a great sense of responsibility because there was a great amount of informal consultation here at the latest hour leading up to negative reactions to what has gone on in the new topics.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 3

I had an opportunity to read a very good speech of a special envoy of the distinguished delegation of the United States to the Geneva Conference on Disarmament, speaking about effective multilateralism, in other words, that is enough rhetoric, let us look at the results here. And here, in this forum, I would like to say that there is somebody who has just adopted that same position I proposed, effective and not rhetorical, multilateralism. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished Ambassador for Chile for your statement on item 9 of our agenda. As to your first announcement that you addressed a letter to the Director and probably through him also to the offices in the Headquarters of the United Nations, for this purpose, I will give the floor to the Secretary to respond, if he finds it appropriate.

Mr. P. LÁLA (Secretary, Office for Outer Space Affairs): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am sorry, I am not personally aware of any letter so I cannot respond to it in any considerable way. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Yes. As far as the proposal of Argentina to include a new point on the agenda for the next session of our Subcommittee, my understanding is that the Chairman of the consultative group, Mr. Hedman, who is now about to report about the proceedings of these informal consultations, will summarize the results of these consultations and will also explain what is the status of individual proposals, including the proposal of the distinguished delegation of Brazil.

You wish to speak now? You have the floor Sir.

Mr. S. SAYÚS (Argentina) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much. Just to clarify that the proposal was submitted by Brazil, co-sponsored by my country and others. I just wanted it noted that it is a proposal that was submitted by the distinguished representative of Brazil, co-sponsored by my country and others.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of Argentina that you drew my attention to the co-sponsorship of other delegations but I only said Brazilian proposal for reasons of time economy, it means as a technical designation of this proposal. I did not quote the exact title and the exact number and the list of co-sponsors.

The distinguished representative of Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. As I did not have an opportunity this morning to address the proposal submitted by the distinguished representative of Brazil, on behalf of several countries on satellite remote sensing. And since 1996, I believe, Greece has asked that the principles, and we have had it on the agenda since then, be transformed into an international treaty. I did not say this publicly at the formal session but Greece withdrew that proposal we have had on the floor since 1996 and Greece is associated in the proposal from Brazil and we insist further that this question should be on the agenda as of the next session of the Legal Subcommittee. We, too, believe that this item is extremely important. It is one which is of interest to countries that are observed without due payment. There are companies, private companies in particular, that make profits, and I might be simplistic, but they just sell pictures, if you wish, of specific countries without payment to observed countries and those countries which are observed have to pay to get their own picture. I am putting it in simplistic terms, as I have said, but this is just to describe the present situation.

So, I, too, Mr. Chairman, must insist there is a need to have on the agenda of the Subcommittee, the examination of this question. And if I may on the side, a discussion on this important question does not necessarily presuppose that we are initiating negotiations on a treaty. First of all, you have to clarify all the ins and outs of the problem, even the Brazilian proposal at present does not include a proposal for a text for a treaty on satellite remote sensing.

And, through you, if I may, I would like to thank our colleagues on the Brazilian delegation for their report which took me back to the glorious days of our Subcommittee, just 15 years ago or so. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): I thank the distinguished representative of Greece. Perhaps you could elaborate on those ideas. They are very interesting. I would not say they are without merit. Quite the contrary. Perhaps this could be elaborated on further in informal consultations because these matters, including the proposal from the Latin American States on remote sensing was submitted in informal consultations, led by Mr. Hedman and I think perhaps we should give Mr. Hedman a chance to inform the Subcommittee reporting on consultations, after which we can indeed discuss the matter. That, I believe, would be the right procedure please.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 4

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): Sorry, but I would like to react immediately to the conclusion you drew. As I said, at the beginning, I was not here this morning in order to contribute to the discussion of the group led by my colleague and friend from Sweden. But, as the informal consultations are exactly that, informal, views expressed are not recorded in any way, then officially we feel we should give our own views, ideas, attitude, and I would not want to bypass the functions of the Working Group, these consultation groups are most useful, first of all, to be able to meet and to be able to find a solution. But if it is a question of formally giving our official views, or those of our delegation, then we should be able to address the question publicly, as I have just done. I thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): I thank the distinguished representative of Greece. That is fine but that should be done after hearing the report of the Coordinator of the informal discussions.

(Continued in English) The distinguished Ambassador for Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): A point of order, Mr. Chairman. We cannot go into consultations. We cannot accept that right now for a simple reason and that is that today’s Journal says 3.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m., Item 9. We have not as yet concluded. And then we have informal consultations. After we have done our general statements, we can accept that, and then we might have another point of order afterwards. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished Ambassador for your observation. However, the report of the Chairman or (continued in French) the Coordinator will be speaking in the Subcommittee. This is the Subcommittee meeting addressing item 9 of the agenda. These are not informal consultations at this moment.

(Continued in English) The next speaker on my list of speakers the distinguished representative of Belgium.

Mr. J.-F. MAYENCE (Belgium) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I do not wish to enter into a controversy on this. However, I find it difficult not to react what was said just now by the Ambassador for Chile.

The discussions in the Legal Subcommittee are one thing. They are not necessarily a reflection of what happens in daily space activities. And going by my experience, my delegation, and I can only speak on behalf of my delegation, I cannot speak for others and I know that applies in the case of others, does its utmost to use remote sensing information as an instrument of cooperation. I have two examples that come to mind offhand. The International Space Charter is not a Belgian initiative, it is one that we take part in as we are members of the European Space Agency and along side the French and Canadian agencies are founders, thought the Charter has the comprehensive aim of using resources to the service of all including developing countries. That is the first example.

And then, I am sure that my distinguished colleague on the delegation of Argentina will not mind if I mention the example of cooperation that we have with that country, the SAOCOM Project and Earth Observation Project. Belgium takes part in it but it is an Argentine project and Argentine satellite where we have software provided, it is cooperation there. We, too, are learning quite a bit through contact with Argentine experts. So the difference that we might have in respect of the question of whether or not there should be a discussion on a future convention on remote sensing, is representative of what goes on every day in cooperation between so-called developed and so-called developing countries.

What I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that the fact that there might be a discussion on what has happened with the principles on remote sensing is something that I would not reject. We might regret that item 4 of the agenda is restricted to the treaties and not resolutions as well. Why not include all instruments on space law, in which case we could look at the state of progress of implementation of those as well. It is a whole different debate and we are open-minded on that. But the position adopted by my delegation and others on the Brazilian proposal, I do not believe, could lead to the conclusion whereby there is a clear break between the so-called developed countries and the so-called developing countries. I think that is a rather simplistic view of it. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): I thank the distinguished representative of Belgium and I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Mexico.

Ms. M. T. ROSAS JASSO (Mexico) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. My delegation would like to follow the line

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 5

followed by the distinguished representative of Greece and that is highlight the importance attached to the need to develop the legal regime for outer space and thus elaborate international law rules with appropriate regulation of the various activities carried out in outer space. Remote sensing activities are becoming more and more important, and in view of technological developments, might have great impact on social and economic development of countries. And, thus, my country believes that it is highly important that this Subcommittee be given an opportunity to deliberate on the elaboration of an international convention on remote sensing, an item submitted by Brazil, co-sponsored by Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Greece, Peru and Mexico. As the representative of Greece said it should be made clear that it is not a question of the Subcommittee examine a draft treaty as such but rather that it deliberate on the feasibility or advisability of having such a treaty.

As the distinguished representative of Belgium said it might be interesting to know the reasoning followed in both developed and developing countries as to the need to have more information and we feel that it is very important that the Subcommittee be open to addressing this issue. We believe that this is one of the areas that needs updating regarding the principles adopted by the General Assembly more than 10 years ago and my delegation believes that this is a question that should be addressed by the Subcommittee. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Mexico for your contribution to the discussion. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Brazil.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. A great part of what was intended to say was just said by my distinguished colleague from Mexico. Brazil has been in favour, not only for the last two years, in which we tried to approve a discussion concerning remote sensing as we think it is a fundamental issue for the whole humanity which has not been sufficiently developed. We have some comments. For example, say that the fact that we do not discuss a convention on remote sensing does not mean the lack of will to discuss. But what we, indeed, have seen lately is exactly this lack of will. We think that the Committee has been dealing primarily with issues that have direct interests from the private sector and all the developing countries have already recognized, including in the general exchange of views, the fact that the private sector is having an increasing participation in the space activities. But the proposal concerning remote sensing is a proposal to

safeguard the non-private sector, that means people who are suffering natural disasters, who are suffering droughts, (…) [inaudible], inundations, in Europe, a lot of huge problems in humanity. And there is no guarantee at all or at least a minimum framework that will make possible for some countries to have a clear picture of the possibilities that they would have in order to have their images from their own territories in fair conditions.

I would like to remember the last meeting of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, some delegations referred to the increasing prices of the images provided by space enterprises. They have to pay each increasing sum of money to have images for their own territories, like the Greek colleague referred, to the images that we have no access. It reminds me of the paparazzi. When they take pictures from people, they have to pay indemnity. As a private individual, I have the right not to be photographed. I am not so important, of course, I refer to artists, but the countries, as national, they are also figures of data national public rights. They have their individuality. Individuality must also be somewhat recognized and we cannot have the recognition of the sovereign rights of the countries without discussing all these matters. And I believe that the discussion on remote sensing has many aspects involved. Many of these aspects have been referred to by the distinguished Ambassador for Chile and I am sure that there are many other aspects that I cannot remember now so important and so wide is the scope of the activities that can be benefited for remote sensing. And I think that the Committee, the United Nations, have a primary role of trying to bring some advantage for the human development as has been stressed in the UNISPACE III and has been repeated in all the meetings that we have had for COPUOS. In this sense, we do not think we have to decide now on our convention but we are going to insist on keeping the discussion of remote sensing because we consider that the remote sensing is the agenda of the Legal Subcommittee would be the item and I hope it will be the item that will have more widespread interest for the whole of humanity and not only for the private enterprises which act and sell its images. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Brazil for your contribution to this discussion. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Peru.

Mr. M. ALVAREZ (Peru) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I can be brief. Brazil, Chile and Mexico and Greece

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 6

have already covered the substance of what I wanted to say but there are two things I would like to refer to.

My delegation would like to endorse what was said by the distinguished Ambassador for Chile. We have had a number of meetings related to the ministerial statement for the CND and those on the missions here in Vienna have to spread themselves in a thin way to cover all the meetings programmed here. But that procedure might actually help us in maintaining the debate, so while I was informed that this morning there was a discussion of the question from Brazil that we support, thank goodness that was handled only in the Working Group and fortunately we have an item on the agenda which allows us to expand on this and continue our debate since the decision on the question has to be adopted under the relevant item. And we are grateful to that and we are grateful to you for giving us an opportunity to clarify and expand on our views on this most valuable proposal submitted by Brazil, co-sponsored by more than 10 countries.

And, in this connection, Mr. Chairman, we would like to reiterate our support to the proposal and to the need to examine the question in the terms proposed in L.245. I do not think we should do too little here or be petty about the possible convention. I will not repeat what other people have said already, this is a question of utmost importance. And I think opening up to be receptive towards this possibility so that at the next Subcommittee meeting, we can look at the pros and cons of this. I do not think that would do any harm. Quite the contrary, it will allow us to sharpen our academic and intellectual attitude towards space affairs. We can look at the question and recognize that it could be a contribution. I think it is a valid request and we support it and we do hope we have the support of other delegations to include this item on the next meeting. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Peru. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Colombia.

Mr. C. RODRIGUEZ (Colombia) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. My delegation was another that could not take part in the Working Group this morning, that is the Working Group that we know is informal, therefore, it is our view that no decision has been taken as yet. And for that reason, we would like to give the views of the Colombian delegation here in the plenary of the Subcommittee.

Of course, Mr. Chairman, we do agree, as co-sponsors, with the proposal and we would like to

endorse the argument so clearly given by the distinguished Ambassador of Chile and the distinguished representatives of Greece, Mexico, Brazil and Peru. And this is all very well backed in writing in document L.244 and L.245. We believe that there you can find the reasons for which we believe this question should be included on the agenda for the Subcommittee. The Subcommittee is the appropriate body to take a decision as to whether or not it might be advisable to have a convention on the subject of regulation of remote sensing.

Mr. Chairman, what we cannot accept is to accept that it is all been dealt with, that the question of remote sensing, as was said by the distinguished Ambassador of Chile, is working well. So the Subcommittee which, as I have said is the appropriate body to take this type of decision, it would be a pity if that body could not address the matter. Thus, my delegation will insist on this. I would like to thank the delegation of Brazil for taking the initiative and we believe this question should be included on the agenda for the Subcommittee. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Colombia. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Ecuador.

Mr. F. CHAVEZ PAREJA (Ecuador) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. For the reasons given here by the Ambassador of Chile mainly, that is, reasons for which it is not possible to make it to all meetings at all times, for those reasons my delegation did not have a chance to co-sponsor this proposal from the delegation of Brazil on remote sensing. However, I would like to make it clear here that we would like to do so and in any case, we support the initiative for those reasons given on the benefits of remote sensing for developing countries and also difficulties in having access to information, the cost of such information and the need more than the advisability of updating the principles on this topic, going so far as possibly having a convention. The problem here could just be a matter of the approach in the proposal from Brazil, backed by other countries. The Ambassador of Chile here mentioned the point that we have to discuss what is going on with remote sensing, see whether or not it is working and that is a good starting point to them, going to the very substance of the proposal, the idea of a convention. But I do not think it is a matter of maintaining the status quo here as is the case with other matters in the Subcommittee. I think we have to move forward in questions dealt with by COPUOS and this Subcommittee in particular. So I want to make it clear

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 7

that Ecuador supports the initiative from Brazil, co-sponsored by others. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Ecuador for your contribution to our discussion. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Cuba.

Mr. D. GANDARIAS CRUZ (Cuba) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I can be very brief. I would like to congratulate the delegation of Brazil for the proposal submitted on the regulation of remote sensing by satellite. And I would like to state here that my delegation not only supports that initiative but would like to ask to co-sponsor the initiative. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Cuba for your contribution. The next speaker on our list is the distinguished representative of the United States of America.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my delegation feels compelled at this point to intervene on several points. The first one regards the workings of the informal Working Group that met this morning. I just want to reassure those delegations who were not able to attend this morning’s meeting that, at least the points my delegation made regarding this particular proposal were solid, if not profound, there was nothing deficient in what we had to say in regards to our concerns about this proposal. So I do want to make sure that the record is straight that, at least on the part of my delegation, we believe that the points we made were quite relevant and did not lack in any sort of analysis.

The second point I would like to address is the notion that this Committee is in a position to regulate, particularly regulate private activity. And as the debate has gone along in this session, it is becoming increasingly clear that there is a view that we should be regulating a particular private activity but we are not quite sure why. One delegation had mentioned there are no specifics about whether remote sensing is working or it is not. I am unaware of any argument that says that today remote sensing is not working, that what we intended to happen in 1986, in fact, is not happening today. It may be anecdotal examples of someone who feels as those they have paid too much for an image but there are images sold by private companies as well as by governments. So we are suggesting we are going to regulate government activities as well as private activities. I am not sure we

are in a position to regulate private commerce in the way the proposal in L.244 envisaged.

A third point. I heard in the interventions mentions that States who are sensed should be reimbursed in some way for that imagery. Now this was a debate that we had 20 years ago in the quest for the remote sensing principles. This is impractical. And I would like to hear from some of the other delegations here who have remote sensing systems who might consider themselves to be developed or developing countries. Are they prepared to pay to image the Earth? I do not know how that would be done and I am not sure that is in anyone’s interest. And, in fact, this was an idea raised, say, 20 years. We all realized that it was impractical and it would have a detrimental effect to the development of this important technology.

To sum, Mr. Chairman, we saw some weaknesses in the proposal. We were not entirely convinced and we are becoming even less convinced at this stage because the heart of what is being proposed here is the notion that we are in a position to regulate governmental and non-governmental activities for no real particular reason because we have not seen convincing evidence that in some way something is wrong with the system. And in the Working Group, we were quite clear that since the adoption of the remote sensing principles, a number of countries with remote sensing satellites has increased dramatically. The number of countries that use remote sensing data and information has risen dramatically and a number of countries, developed and developing, who have ground stations that give them direct access to remote sensing data has increased dramatically as well and I do not see any evidence to the contrary. So that is why, in our assessment, the principles have worked and the current structure for international cooperation, as reflected in the remote sensing principles and in the so-called Declaration on the sharing of space benefits, under those provisions, international cooperation has flourished. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of the United States of America for your contribution to the discussion on item 9 and particularly on this issue that is now being dealt with.

The next speaker on my list is the distinguished Ambassador for Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Actually, after hearing the statement from my friend, our distinguished colleague from the

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 8

United States, I feel that my arguments are strengthened and that is the idea that these activities fall outside international law that creates a void, a serious one, for developing countries, unless from the legal point of view, taking into account Article VI in the Treaty on Outer Space that States Parties are internationally liable for national activity. By national activity, we mean governmental and non-governmental. Either this activity is outside and I did not hear him say at any time that the main object of private undertakings is not profit as opposed to benefits from developing countries or they fall within the law, in which case, they fall within the framework of the Article and the principles thereof. As was said by the distinguished representative of Greece, it is not only the treaties, it is also the guiding principles and those behind the Treaty on Outer Space and subsequent treaties. I have just asked for objective data, figures, numbers. I cannot be told that the principles work or do not work unless there is some kind of empirical basis to say that some developing countries have greater capacity for sensing, that is just all part of normal developments in science and technology, that is like saying there are some countries that have Internet, although the computer gap is greater and greater, with very few countries having access to Internet, but telephones, telephony. That technology even, there is a broad percentage of world population that does not have access there either. Apparent technological advances in space are such that developing countries should access to significant information but that has not been shown to me with empirical data.

The other argument put by the distinguished representative of the United States and that is that private undertakings should pay. It is a rather difficult possibility in international relations but if you look at the question of international legitimacy, when you get a profit or a benefit, and that from a third party, there should be some kind of compensation, not necessarily in the form of payment, that is in private law and in international law. And that is at least concession of data considered significant for the countries in question, those observed, processed information, as was well put by the distinguished representative of Brazil. There is practically paparazzi imaging catching you by surprise and then you end up having to pay for that information taking from our territory. That is how it happens. Now, as private undertakings are so generous and all they are looking for is profit, sometimes they do not even take the trouble to get any kind of minimum compensation to developing countries for the tremendous gains they make from the global point of view. Official development aid fostered by ex-members of the Warsaw Pact has gone down suddenly. Standards that were commonly

accepted before, there just is not that will to seek a solution to this problem that to us is of utmost importance.

Within that context, I have to be very practical. I would like to know if the Office for Outer Space Affairs, and the Secretariat in particular, would be able to give us, with privatization and commercialization of outer space today, take a straightforward case on the basis of standard image, what the cost of that image was 20 or 30 years ago and how much it costs now? I think that would be of great help as an illustration here, taking into account that that image is taken by one country of another, not of its own country, that would be meaningless, by a private undertaking. Or I would rather ask for three situations. An image taken by a State, taken by a private sector undertaking and by a multinational undertaking. What is the cost of the information to be paid by a developing country that, most horridly hit through the lessening of official development aid which was a commitment entered into the United Nations in the 1980s. I think that is a real basis, a specific basis for debate, because, I must say, I cannot accept somebody to say principles are working well because there is some station somewhere in Andorra. With all due respect for Andorra, but that just is no example for me to say that such and such continent is receiving so many images and lower prices being paid and something in mathematical terms, explicit, convincing.

This debate has to have meaning and the delegations wanting to promote this study which was presented so lucidly by Brazil, we could even think of withdrawing it because we just had not realized we were living in Disneyland. If there are so many images that we receive and we just do not use because we do not have the necessary guarantees. I think we need data, empirical data. There are questions that have to be analyzed with the political elements at hand, international law elements at hand, scientific and technical elements at hand, objective data. If you tell me that an image costs X, then I might answer, fine, thank you for telling me that, our country can pay so much, we can go so far, since the data are so important that are needed in my country and that we are only getting partial information, not processed, that needs processing by the providing country or the receiving country that does not have the essential technology to do so, who knows, it might be a small amount but it could all add up. There is the margin that has been calculated there. We need to have a debate on this question. It is a sound idea to have a debate on this, taking into account that this is a context of the United Nations, totally democratic, and within the exercise of strengthening multilateral action. The idea of giving

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 9

data that can make it possible to define these crucial aspects for development of international cooperation which is the central issue guiding this type of activity, that is absolutely essential.

And just a small digression that is related. I remember how technical the debates became when we looked at the use of nuclear power sources in outer space and I recall with that there were two particularly active delegations, Canada, Germany and France as well. Their expert, whom I met way back when, they gave extraordinary scientific contributions to the debate, and I would like to thank them publicly for that. It was a scientific debate, technical and we got to agreement where, at the time, the Chairman of the Scientific and Technical Subcommittee, Professor Rex from Germany, conducted the work in an excellent fashion and we had there the principles finally adopted on the use of nuclear power sources on the basis of clear conviction. The principles of remote sensing were the result of an international scenario, very different from what we have now. There was a strategic conflict in the context of the Cold War. Now that does not exist today. Now what we have is all sorts of cooperation possibilities all around and the possibility of seeking joint solutions to acute problems, especially felt by developing countries. And there is something that I have said many times. We have to look for the most appropriate elements and the most appropriate instruments, from the technological point of view, and that so as to do away effectively with the non-traditional threat to security in all countries and that is a fact that half of humanity is struggling to survive on less than $2 a day.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished Ambassador for Chile for your contribution to the discussion. In now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belgium.

Mr. J.-F. MAYENCE (Belgium) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. In this discussion, I am getting the impression that we are not keeping track of the quality of space activities in the real world at the moment. It is not up to me to tell you that we are going through an exceptional crisis in outer space activities. That certainly affects Europe in an unprecedented way. It is a sector that needs everything but a legal instrument that would be abstract, abstractly decided or defined and it would be unimplementable. The matter is simple. To pursue remote sensing, we need satellites that are capable of doing that. If we issue an inappropriate legal instrument that would destroy the commercial market, there will be no more satellites, no more remote sensing, no more remote observation of

the Earth. That is the reality and I am sorry if that sounds negative, but that is where we are. We can talk about principles that are certainly very noble but if these principles are not in line with reality, if they are detached from reality, then they will not help us achieve our objectives, rather the opposite.

I am getting the same impression as the delegation of the United States that, as this discussion proceeds, we are, in fact, backing away from our objectives because we are further and further removed from the economic reality of our time. This is a discussion where the so-called developed countries are being placed on the other side of the scale from the so-called developing countries and we are talking about issues that are thus in an area beyond the looking glass. We should stop this entirely abstract discussion. Our discussion has nothing to do with the reality of outer space activities today. If remote sensing works, it works. We need good ideas, good principles. My delegation certainly favours an approach that would take into account the concerns and the needs of all States with regard to existing instruments. But to pursue this debate in a way, and I will say that word again, is entirely abstract, that is counterproductive. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you distinguished representative of Belgium for your contribution.

(Continued in English) The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of the United States of America.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my appreciation to my good friend, Ambassador of Chile, for his comment complimenting me on reinforcing some of his own arguments. I guess one could say that great minds think alike. However, I think in this case, that was not my intention at all. In fact, as the debate goes, I think we are a little bit further apart than others might think. But I did want to reassure the distinguished Ambassador of Chile and others that we do not consider that private activities to be outside of the treaties. I mean, in fact, Article VI is quite clear and we have taken steps at a national level to ensure that parts of the remote sensing principles are incorporated in our national legislation that regulates private remote sensing activities in space.

Another point that I would like to make is concerning the discussion of prices and what you get charged for for an image. I am not an economist and I

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 10

do not know how many of economists we have in this room. I am not even sure there are economists in OOSA but it strikes me that this kind of analysis would not really reveal much because, obviously the price of data has gone up in real terms but how do you account for it in relative terms? How much does it cost to build a satellite and operate it? What about inflation? You simply cannot sit there and say I paid $300 for a Landsat image, there is the Matic (?) Mapper and today there is another image where I am paying $700. It might increase but for what reasons? In order for remote sensing to be economical, even by governments and by the private sector, you have to have some return on your investment. It has to be economical. This is just kind of the rules of general commerce. So that kind of analysis and examination really will not get us anywhere.

The point about the principles and the point that we keep trying to stress is that the remote sensing principles set a framework within which the technology and the data were shared among countries and were using it for very important environmental and other applications and that is the real value of these. We never had any intention of trying to regulate the pricing policies of governments or of private operators. Everyone knew that would be decisions made at a national level or decisions made by the marketplace. But the contribution we were able to make is to convince current and potential remote sensing operators, whether they are private or government, that there is a benefit in cooperating internationally, there is a benefit of sharing the data, either freely or at reasonable cost terms. That is in the principles. And reasonable cost terms is what is reasonable for the user and what is reasonable for the operator. Because if it is unreasonable for the user, they will not buy it and the operator goes out of business. If it is unreasonable cost terms for the operator, they just will not build the satellites. It really is as simple as that.

So that is why we come back to our basic premise which is the principles have operated as we expected them to and remote sensing is now deeply embedded in the infrastructure of most countries around the world and we use this on a regular basis for a variety of applications. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of the United States. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much. Actually, my friend, the distinguished representative of the United States, has given me a new stimulus to enter

the debate once again. I think it was a good contribution he made. That contribution, from my point of view, debunked what the representative of Belgium said they were talking about abstract matters. What was said by the United States was very specific, he mentioned figures, parameters, references, with which I do not necessarily agree but since we are all democratic here, we even managed to create a friendship out of this. What is reasonable cost? Who defines reasonable costs? Generally that is done by those holding the ball, as my friend from Brazil will understand. Anybody who knows football and sports knows that whoever has got hold of the ball is the one who scores. Those are the ones who determine the reasonable costs. And what was said by the distinguished representative of Belgium saying that the situation is a complicated one. I would say, look around the world, look at the other continents, look at the per capita income with some countries in Africa or Asia and there are just efforts being made to gain a bit more to earn 99 if not 100. There will not be any financial collapse of that, minimum compensation, that is all.

Third, what was said by the distinguished representative of the United States. After years of witnessing their intelligence and administration, it is interesting to see what costs satellite information. Some private undertaking, some multinational when taking a decision of whether or not space activity is done, must have some kind of idea about what it costs. Otherwise, they would get in with McDonald’s or Macy’s or some big company, they know what it costs to produce something. They know what it costs to produce a hamburger, which we all very much appreciate in all our countries. So that is the whole argument. We just do not accept not knowing how much it costs because in some case it might have relative value because of inflation and all those other factors, fine. Use all those parameters, that is fine. And we are even willing to lose in the whole discussion, it is a normal debate. That is what it has to be. We need to stimulate a debate and I am very grateful to the United States for raising all these questions because that just forces me to think further, but he just cannot tell me you cannot determine the cost of remote sensing activity because that would mean that all multinationals in the United States sector are investing without knowing what they are investing into. And it is a very effective area, it is a very efficient area, and I must say we have had very good examples of cooperation with them on the basis of specific data of how much. Of course, you can obtain costs.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 11

To conclude, I would like to ask, can the Secretariat tell me whether or not we can have an approximation of the cost of a remote sensing satellite. I would like that answer. Even if it is trouble for the Secretariat. That is OK. I am not worried about that because, after all, this is a professional forum and we need that information.

And second, to stress that this is an abstract debate. It has been very specific. We have talked about costs. We have talked about remote sensing activity. We want to have a regulatory framework, thanks to which we can see if regulating remote sensing would work, maybe not. We are open-minded. We are happy to hear somebody say this costs so much, this is how much it costs to us. Therefore, it is impossible to regulate this in greater detail, in which case, OK, we will say yes, the principles that we have already, work. What we are asking is for relevant information that allows us to go further in this area. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished Ambassador for Chile for his contribution. Perhaps in order to facilitate the discussion, I will now give the floor to the distinguished Director of the Office in order to react or reply to the question that has been just raised by the distinguished Ambassador for Chile.

Mr. S. CAMACHO (Director, Office for Outer Space Affairs) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just by way of response, an approximation. It is always possible to do something regarding what might be costs here. I assume it is the cost of images rather than the cost of satellites that the distinguished Ambassador was referring to. OK.

It should be possible to have some kind of rough calculation so as to see if the cost trends for images has gone up or down and in some cases, indeed, it did go up and then with changes in technology and commercialization policies, changes went both ways, up and down. So it could be possible to have some kind of idea. Now how long it would take the Secretariat to do that, should the Subcommittee want this information, I do not think by tomorrow but some time in the future we should be able to have some kind of rough idea. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Director of the Office for your answer. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of Japan.

Ms. S. AOKI (Japan): Thank you Mr. Chairman. As a country which expressed reservations towards the Brazilian proposal this morning, Japan

thinks it has an obligation to make a statement. As written in paragraph 9 of L.244, the provisions of the 1986 United Nations resolution have been accepted as customary international law and the data has been disseminated on a non-discriminatory basis and on reasonable cost terms. On the other hand, there are more urgent issues to be addressed. Therefore, based on that reason, the Japanese delegation has to show our hesitance towards the proposal of the discussions of the development of an international convention on remote sensing. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Japan for your brief statement on behalf of your delegation. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Canada.

Mr. B. LEGENDRE (Canada) (interpretation from French): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank our distinguished colleague and friend, His Excellency, the Ambassador of Chile, for the kind words he has addressed to the delegation of Canada in his statement this afternoon.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we have listened very closely to the points made by the distinguished Ambassador of Chile and Canada would like to reiterate its position.

We share the views expressed by the delegation of the United States and also, and particularly the concerns expressed by the distinguished representative of Belgium. The Canadian delegation believes that the last thing at this time, in view of the economic situation in the world, the last thing that the remote sensing industry needs is a discussion on a new convention on principles governing remote sensing. We would like to remind delegations that the proposal submitted today with regard to a new discussion or to the establishment of a new convention on remote sensing is something that, in the opinion of the Canadian delegation, should not be done today, in view of the economic difficulties, in view of the fact that the space industry is hurting.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the study that the Ambassador of Chile has asked the Secretariat to conduct, we would like to point out that if the Subcommittee agrees that such a study is needed, the Canadian delegation is of the opinion that this study should be as complete as possible, should include all parameters, all data that currently govern the industry of remote sensing. Thank you.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 12

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you distinguished representative of Canada for your contribution regarding the issue at hand.

(Continued in English) The next speaker is coming and is present now.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I would like to start by making a very optimistic comment. I think we have started and it was not foreseen on the agenda, but we have started discussing a problem that preoccupies us, that concerns us. It is an important problem and it is a good thing that we are discussing it. In a way, it reinforces and reaffirms the raison d’être, the reason for existence, for this Subcommittee. It is animated dialogue. It is a good dialogue.

Further, I would like to draw the attention of our colleagues to two facts. Two or three days ago, I do not remember exactly when, unfortunately I threw away into the trash can a copy of the International Herald Tribune and the Wall Street Journal. That was maybe three or four days ago. And those newspapers contained a long article, exactly on activities in the area of remote sensing by satellite. Those articles contained some surprising information. I was particularly interested in the economic aspects described and I can get hold of the information that my distinguished colleague from Chile has asked. It is not difficult. It is easy to find out how much a satellite costs, how much images cost and so forth. But, and it is a big but, with a big B, how, and in what particular cases, can this information be used? That is the big question. There are huge administrative obstacles that exist under some domestic legislations, limiting private companies in these type of activities. The commercialization or the commercial use of these products is very limited, very constricted by law. The problem, and our colleagues from the United States and from Belgium have very accurately pinpointed it, is that one needs a liberal free environment in the economic sense of the word, economic environment. It is absolutely necessary also to have a market that is fairly regulated. We can go on discussing these matters for days but not within the framework of this forum. I have to ask myself, if a country, for whatever reason, asks to get images of itself, of its territory, from a foreign entity, it can be limited by its own national domestic legislation in its ability to get hold of these images, obviously, for strategic purposes, not commercial. Then the question is how does one protect the national interests of such States? The States that are being remotely sensed or observed.

Dear colleagues, Mr. Chairman, it is here, I think, that the real problem resides and this is why we need a practical discussion that will produce practical conclusions. My friend and colleague has defined the situation very well, but the problem where do we hold this discussion? How do we go about it? Maybe under item 4 of the agenda. And we should not confine ourselves simply to the existing treaties but also to principles and, in any case, this democratic dialogue needs to continue. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you very much distinguished representative of Greece for your contribution.

(Continued in English) The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of the United States of America.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I apologize for taking the floor once again but, in any case, I feel compelled. First, I would like to associate my delegation with the comments made earlier by the distinguished colleague from Belgium, I think that he was quite lucid in his description of the debate that we are having at this point and the impact it could have on the practical applications of remote sensing. And the distinguished delegate of Canada, I think, touched on the same thing which we fully support. In relationship, however, to the Secretariat embarking on a study concerning pricing and economics of remote sensing, an earlier intervention and perhaps I was not quite clear, I do not see that the Secretariat, nor do I see that the Subcommittee has any competence to get into those matters. And even if we were to get into those matters, what would it demonstrate? Certainly not a legal issue. It would be an economic issue. It would be interesting to know what the trends are in remote sensing data but there are probably many studies out there that have already been done. But I think if we were to ask the Secretariat to do something like this, we would be setting them up for failure because it would be a very difficult task. Anybody can go to the Internet or make a phone call and get a price list of data. Any delegation can do that. That does not need to be done by the Secretariat.

If you want to do a comparison between what it costs to build a satellite and what you are charging for data, that is a completely different thing. And what cost are you going to use for a satellite? A satellite built by a United States company? A satellite built by an Indian company? A satellite built by a French company? How do you make any kind of comparison?

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 13

I am only using this as an example because the idea that we will just ask the Secretariat to do something and then we expect to get something useful back is quite unfair to the Secretariat because this is a complicated analysis that we would be embarking upon. And at the end, what would we do with that? Even if we were to do it, what would the Legal Subcommittee do with an economic analysis of remote sensing trends over the past 20 years? There is nothing that we could add to that. We are not a group of economists. We are not asked to do that. Perhaps we can ask the Economic Commission for Europe or the OECD. They may be qualified. We certainly are not.

So I do not think that this is going to be a very useful avenue to take because I do not think it is going to reveal anything that really would be actionable by the Subcommittee. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of the United States of America for your contribution to the discussion. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of South Africa.

Mr. L. S. MKUMATELA (South Africa): Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, we made a remark this afternoon in the Working Group. Again, we would like to make this contribution. At times, the output is what is most important for our delegation whether it is a principle, whether it is a convention, whether it is a resolution, as long as we are going to see development in the developing countries, we will support any activity that would lead to an improvement of the conditions in the developing countries. We also believe that if you develop developing countries, you have developed humanity. The crisis based in the world is the crisis in the developing countries.

Chairperson, there are issues that we have addressed [inaudible]. We are trying to keep the line and the main focus of this Committee as a Legal Subcommittee. It would seem as if the principles are working and have been working and they worked and it also seemed that the principles need a little bit of revisiting, taking into account [inaudible] most people of saying that there is a ___________ (not clear) outside this conference hall. It would seem as if those principles, they need some revisiting. Whether that revisiting would lead to a convention or again to other principles, but there is something that must be done about the principles. That is the indication that we are getting. Whether to do a convention again or principles or something else, or a resolution.

We have said that we tended to wait and rank legal instruments, whether it is a treaty, whether it is

just a resolution, we are not going to repeat that ranking. We need simply to state again as a fact that in the international treaties, mention is made of the fact that activities must take into account the developing countries. There is nothing in the treaties leading to saying the so-called developing countries. Then if a treaty or any other resolution is a legal instrument, then there should be significance in law to that notion, taking into account developing countries. To what extent have we taken when implementing the treaties and resolutions the interest of the developing countries as embedded in the main instruments that have been adopted by United Nations organizations.

So I guess that this legal argument here, of course, one could say it is an economic argument, we will not reject that. What we are saying, we need to give a meaning to that concept of taking into account the needs of the developing countries whether the activity is conducted by private entities or by a government or by a group of governments but there is an obligation on humanity to assist developing countries.

If we do not move because of the downtrend in the economy, when we are raising one issue, let us say, remote sensing or space debris, maybe we will not move when it comes to the issue of registration, the issue of launching, because the matter that we would be concerned about, what is the launching State. Maybe the matter, will also be concerned about the problems of registration.

To close this submission, Chairperson, let me remind this house of the so-called paper satellites. I say so-called because there are people who decide to label that activity as the so-called a paper satellite. It is an example of a developing State applying for certain positions, realistic or otherwise, hoping that that State would run satellites, that never happened and that activity is called a paper satellite.

I am simply saying then that some of these activity, if you do not regulate, if you do not take into account the needs of the developing countries, maybe if we are scared of the(inaudible) outside who will never move but will never implement the notion of taking into account the interests of the developing countries.

We support any movement towards a convention. Otherwise we support a continued discussion of the relevance and the significance of the remote sensing. If taken further, maybe, we have not said this before, a comprehensive agreement will sort out some of these patches, because there are so many

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 14

patches regarding the use of outer space. At this moment, when discussing remote sensing, we are saying it is either the principles or revised, if we are lucky, will go to a convention but developing countries must be taken into account on the activities. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of South Africa for your contribution. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished Ambassador for Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. As we hear more and more statements, more and more questions keep coming up. I will start off with what was said by the distinguished representative of the United States. He, as a lawyer knows, that international law has a branch related to international economic law. Legal questions are not in a void. They have economic implications. There are treaties with legal standing and there are economic questions that are regulated in an economic fashion. Unless the distinguished Legal Advisor of the United Nations can say that contrary we have tremendous respect for legal expertise of the Legal Office.

The number of treaties that do have economic implications. That is the first point. And that is an objective question, reality. You cannot talk about principles. Even the principles on remote sensing have effects on economic aspects. And also the idea of just turning to the Internet, that is almost like a bad joke. I do not know how many people in some African country, Burkina Faso or Chad, actually have access to the Internet and these are countries with tremendous natural wealth and need this kind of instrument, even my country.

So first of all, I would like to support the interesting points made by the distinguished representative of Greece. And second, I would like to say that if we cannot regulate the aspects of private undertakings here in this Subcommittee, then we have been wasting our time talking about UNIDROIT, because six of one and half a dozen of the other. There is no possibility to examine UNIDROIT questions if we cannot have a similar examination in relation with private activity in another area in space activities. That is clear already. I would almost go so far as to think that the UNIDROIT negotiations could be up against serious problems.

And I would like to support what was said by the distinguished representative of Canada. He said that there could be a study on economic aspects with

all parameters. I suggest that we have a Chile-Canada paper. We have very good relations with that country. We signed a Free Trade Agreement, the Human Security Network. I think it should be fairly easy if we ask the Secretariat, since they did even say that it is possible to get the cost of images, why not say, and here I am thinking of what Canada said exactly, and that is take into account all parameters. As the distinguished representative of Canada said, taking into account, all parameters. So we agree.

And I would like to ask the distinguished representatives of Japan, the United States and others who are against this, why keep manoeuvring with secrecy? I want consistency with positions which have been expressed over and over on the free flow of information and look here and now, what has become evident here? A position against that free flow of information on an empirical basis. And I see that the distinguished representative of Canada is in agreement now and consistent with what he said just earlier.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished Ambassador of Chile for his fifth contribution to this discussion this afternoon. No, I thank you for it. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Canada.

Mr. B. LEGENDRE (Canada) (interpretation from French): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I did not want to extend and prolong this discussion unnecessarily. I am going to be very brief. Once again, I would like to thank our distinguished colleague, His Excellency, the Ambassador of Chile, for having mentioned the excellent relationship that exists between our two countries.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, the point of the comments made by the Canadian delegation earlier was to throw out the question, put the question on the table. With all respect for our Secretariat, the question was, is the Secretariat the appropriate body to undertake such a study? Or maybe, as the United States delegation pointed out, such a study should be conducted outside the framework of COPUOS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you very much distinguished representative of Canada. Would the Director of the Office like to respond?

(Continued in English) Is he ready to answer this question?

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 15

Mr. S. CAMACHO (Director, Office for Outer Space Affairs): Thank you Mr. Chairman. At least in the translation, I did not understand the statement from the distinguished delegate from Canada. He asked a question but more as a statement. Could the distinguished delegate of Canada repeat whether it was a question or a statement?

Mr. B. LEGENDRE (Canada) (interpretation from French): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to thank the Secretariat and the Director of the Office for giving me a chance to clarify and elaborate a little bit the thought expressed by the Canadian delegation.

Yes, it was a question. The question is, should the Secretariat be conducting this kind of study, if the Subcommittee decides that such a study is necessary? Should it be the Secretariat? Again, with all due respect for the Secretariat, does the Secretariat have the resources to conduct such a study? And even more importantly, if ever the Subcommittee agrees that such a study is required, would it perhaps not be more appropriate to undertake this study through an outside body, outside this Committee? Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: You have the floor Sir.

Mr. S. CAMACHO (Director, Office for Outer Space Affairs): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think maybe the key word was, does the Secretariat have the resources? As I mentioned in my previous intervention, it would depend upon the depth of a study. If it is something grosso modo to give an idea, an indication of how the prices of data have changed over a number of years and if it was only with respect to two or three types of data, the costs of data, for instance, meteorological data has no cost, up to now, for public service. The data for remote sensing, it depends on whether it is optical, beta data. The trends are a little bit different. There are policies involved and sometimes the policies have been less commercialized and we could pay costs. And later, they have realized there is no business in this, so let us not commercialize and just recuperate the production costs. I would say it would depend on the depth of the study. If the Subcommittee wanted the Secretariat to do a study and indicated this is what should be done within in that study, it might not be a bad suggestion to consider somebody from outside to do it because of the word that you mentioned in the beginning, the human resources what might be required. It would depend on the scope of the other study. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Director for your answer to the question or perhaps to the

suggestion of the distinguished representative of Canada. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have a major concern regarding the burden that we are placing on the shoulders of the Bureaux of the Office. I am talking in substantive terms, not necessarily in legal terms. This is a problem and in Greece we say a problem has a way of multiplying itself. That would be an approximate translation but this is an ecclesiastic saying in the Greek Orthodox Church, which is rather appropriate here. I think we should try and support the Office in terms of human and financial resources but we cannot abuse the Office and its capabilities, in purely legal terms though. I do not see how the Office could put itself in the position of a statistical service or transform itself into a statistical service that will be doing work that has little to do with the mandate and the competency of the Legal Subcommittee of COPUOS. As our distinguished colleague from the United States has suggested, maybe we should talk to OECD or other institutions, agencies of the United Nations dealing with economic and financial matters. Maybe those would be more appropriate fora for this kind of undertaking. But it really is hard to envisage burdening the Office with this, talking about the cost of such a function and the possibility of turning this into an on-going effort, with regard to remote sensing. I do not think we should or can ask the Office to undertake work that is external to its mandate. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you distinguished representative of Greece.

(Continued) I am sorry to interpret this discussion. However, I feel it as my duty to advise you that it is now 10 minutes after 5.00 p.m. We have only 50 minutes of the afternoon meeting before us. During the 50 minutes, we must listen to the Chairman of the informal consultations about the result of these consultations. Then very probably you will request some time for taking position to this report and I cannot ensure under these conditions, if we proceed like this afternoon, that we will finish tomorrow at 6.00 p.m.

Now I give the floor to the distinguished representative of Belgium.

Mr. J.-F. MAYENCE (Belgium) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Very briefly. My delegation completely

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 16

associates itself with the comments made by the distinguished representative of Greece and the arguments submitted by the distinguished delegate of the United States as to the burden that we would be imposing on the Office and the Secretariat. We are not convinced that this is something that needs to be done. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): I thank the distinguished representative of Belgium.

(Continued in English) The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Peru.

Mr. M. ALVAREZ (Peru) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much. I can be brief. Actually, the point I wanted to make is in connection to your appeal to us. We are a little confused. I do not know how we moved from looking at the feasibility of including an item on the agenda to proposing studies to the Secretariat. There has been quite a bit of a discussion here and I just cannot figure out how we have moved on to asking for this work. It is true, it might be very valuable, if we all agree, we could ask for it, but we have to conclude on the inclusion or not of the question proposed by Brazil.

And on the last point, and the need to be going to the Working Group looking at other questions, I think we have made more progress on this since the discussions in the Working Group. I think the answer should come out of this meeting. If we want the question, we can include it and discuss it as we have discussed it now. There are elements in the debate that should be included, such as, for example, what was proposed by Belgium, Canada and the United States, elements related to prices, capabilities and so on. If we choose to have this, then I think the last two hours of debate are the best example to show us that there is material for a discussion on this and to propose measures in this connection. And should we decide we should not do it for now, we should come across a position that is of satisfaction to the many delegations sponsoring this for future consideration. I think we should be able to conclude and have a response to the proposal from Brazil and I believe, once again, we have gone beyond what was discussed in the Working Group and I think we should be able to find an agreement under your wise guidance on this point. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Peru for your contribution. The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Colombia.

Mr. C. RODRIGUEZ (Colombia) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. As was said by our distinguished colleague from Peru who always puts his finger on the main point, I do not think we should offer more on this question on whether or not the Secretariat should carry the burden including what our distinguished colleague from Chile might agree with me on and that is if necessary we could even look into the possibility of having a private consultant on this. My delegation, along with others, would be interested in this type of contribution but, as I have said, that is not the main point that I wanted to make now.

Mr. Chairman, my delegation would like to warmly thank all the delegations who have taken part in this debate. For my delegation, with this interesting discussion, it just is not clear whether it is necessary to elaborate a convention, whether there should be any changes brought into the principles or, as some delegations have said, what we have is sufficient. What is clear to my delegation, however, Mr. Chairman, is that this Subcommittee has already started up that discussion on remote sensing and that under item 9 of our agenda, what we want is that for the next session, there be a specific item on the agenda to continue our deliberations which irrefutably are of great interest for the international community. As was said by the distinguished representative of Belgium, let us put an end to this debate, which he qualified as abstract. I believe that abstract debate has finished. We are going into the substance and my delegation would like to ask the Secretariat specifically that the results of these deliberations be duly reported. This is a beginning, as I have said, on a question that my delegation, as co-sponsor, would like to see introduced on the agenda of the Subcommittee.

That being said, Mr. Chairman, perhaps we can count on having consultations with the other co-sponsors but this specific proposal from Brazil, supported by us, says deliberations on a convention on remote sensing and perhaps subject to future consultations, we could take the example of item 7, which is review and possible revision of the principles to the use of nuclear power sources in outer space. And, without pre-empting on whether there should be a convention, what we could do is include an agenda item which would be, review and possible revision of the principles relevant to remote sensing by satellite. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Colombia for your contribution.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 17

Ladies and gentlemen, is there any other delegation wishing to speak on this point at this very moment?

I see none. Therefore, I will now give the floor to the distinguished Coordinator of informal consultations, Mr. Niklas Hedman of Sweden, to make a report on the up-to-date result of these consultations. You have the floor Sir.

Mr. N. HEDMAN (Sweden): Thank you Mr. Chairman. To make a report on the up-to-date results of the discussions. I have now followed this two hours discussion on the remote sensing principles but, in my capacity as Moderator for the informal consultations on your agenda items, I can only report on the results of the two rounds of informal consultations that had been held since the last plenary of agenda item 9, New Proposals to the Next Year’s Session of the Legal Subcommittee.

In the informal consultations, there were considered a list with the different proposals for new agenda items and I would just like to mention that in informal consultations, there were two presentations made regarding new items. The first one was a presentation made by Brazil on the regulation of remote sensing by satellite, that is the issue that has now been discussed in the plenary. There was also a presentation made by France with regard to the issue of space debris contained in document L.246.

After a good debate, particularly on the issues on the remote sensing, the Russian proposal of a comprehensive treaty on international space law and the French proposal on space debris, the informal consultations concluded with a general understanding and I would say a consensus in the informal consultations on the following agenda for the next session of the Legal Subcommittee.

I would not mention the regular items since they will, of course, be included, the six regular items. But then with regard to having single issue items for discussions, there was the understanding to retain the issue on review and possible revision of the principles relevant to the use of nuclear power sources in outer space; to retain on the agenda the examination of the preliminary draft Protocol on Matters Specific to Space Assets to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment, hitherto sub-items (a) and (b); and inclusion of a new single issue, the contributions by the Legal Subcommittee to the preparation of the report on UNISPACE III + 5.

With regard to items considered under work plans, there was also an understanding to include in the agenda a new item with work plan, the practice in registering space objects of States and international organizations.

Mr. Chairman, it was also agreed that the Working Group on Agenda Item 8, which means the UNIDROIT item, should be re-established at its next session to consider sub-items (a) and (b) separately.

It was also agreed that, in accordance with the work plan adopted under the item, practice in registering space objects of States and international organizations, that means the new item and the work plan, member States and international organizations would be invited to present reports to the 2004 session of the Subcommittee on their practice in registering space objects and submitting the required information to the Office for Outer Space Affairs for inclusion in the register.

It was also noted that a Working Group would be established to consider this item in accordance with the work plan in the years 2005 and 2006.

Mr. Chairman, I think that I would stop there. This is merely to outline the proposed agenda for next year’s session of the Legal Subcommittee. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Sweden, Coordinator or Moderator of the informal consultations on the agenda of our next session. However, you should perhaps also recall that the regular items of our agenda will, of course, remain on the agenda of the next session. Please could you spell them out?

Mr. N. HEDMAN (Sweden): Thank you Mr. Chairman. By all means. I have started by indicating that, of course, the regular items would be retained on the agenda but, of course, I can do that.

There would be item one, Opening of the Session, Election of the Chairman and Adoption of the Agenda.

Item two, Statement by the Chairman.

Item three, General Exchange of Views.

Item 4, Status and Application of the Five United Nations Treaties on Outer Space.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 18

Item 5, Information on the Activities of International Organizations Relating to Space Law.

Item 6, Matters Relating to (a) the Definition and Delimitation of Outer Space; (b) the Character and Utilization of the Geostationary Orbit, Including Consideration of Ways and Means to Ensure the Rational and Equitable Use of the Geostationary Orbit Without Prejudice to the Role of the International Telecommunications Union.

There is also the final item on the agenda, under the heading New Items, and that is the item, Proposals to the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space for New Items to be Considered by the Legal Subcommittee at its Forty-Fourth Session. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Sweden for your information as is now complete information about the proposed agenda for the next session of the Legal Subcommittee.

Ladies and gentlemen, does any delegation wish to comment? Yes, I recognize the distinguished representative of Argentina.

Mr. S. SAYÚS (Argentina) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. My delegation took part in the Working Group, chaired by our distinguished colleague from Sweden and followed the debate carefully. And, on that occasion, my delegation gave its unreserved support to the proposal made by the distinguished representative of Brazil, not only that in L.245, that is co-sponsored by my delegation but also to that contained in L.244.

After carefully reading that document, we see it as highlighting the merits of the need of elaborating on the principles regulating remote sensing. L.245 says that it is necessary to elaborate a convention to set rules on covering the new situations due to technological innovation and commercial application of remote sensing activity. We believe that is objective and irrefutable. There have been changes and that means significant changes since 1986.

Our country, our delegation, believes that we should support a legal system regulating the use of outer space going beyond scientific and technological capability that some countries might have in acceding to its use and also to back development of research and foster international cooperation in this area. That is why we have always participated actively in the work of the Subcommittee and that because we have an interest and we continue to have an interest in the

codification and progressive development of norms of outer space and we would like to say that we support the proposal from Brazil, as we also co-sponsor it, and we would like to urge this Subcommittee to consider the possibility of including, as a new item, on the agenda that subject proposed by Brazil.

Fourteen years have gone by, there have been significant changes and we believe those changes should be reflected with a new vision of remote sensing. For that reason, we would like to call upon you to consider this, with flexibility, so that we can examine it and consider it. We have seen from the debate so far that there are elements that should be taken into account.

That being said, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to refer to what the distinguished representative of Belgium mentioned earlier, referring to my country, we have developed SAOCOM satellites with significant cooperation from Belgium and other members in the project and the European Space Agency that contributes considerably with valuable contributions to the satellites developed by my country.

But to conclude, I would like to reiterate our interest, and that is the proposal from Brazil should be considered and we would like to urge the Subcommittee to receive it favourably. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Argentina. I only wish to add that he mentioned that 14 years, was it correct, have passed since the adoption of the principles on remote sensing, did I understand correctly? It was 17 years and I can tell him that the discussion on the principles of remote sensing in the Legal Subcommittee was terminated on 6 May 1986. I remember it exactly.

The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would like to express my wholehearted thanks on behalf of myself and all colleagues to our friend, Niklas Hedman of Sweden, for his effort and a repeat performance from last year. Again, very successful.

I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that in terms of our agenda, we should foresee re-establishment this Working Group in the future. That was not mentioned here but it is important to mention it. Working Groups Numbers 4, 5 and 6, unless I am mistaken, need to be re-established.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 19

Also, I would like to associate myself with the suggestion made by our colleague from Argentina in terms of the need to ask colleagues to approve, on an annual basis, a different language for the item that deals with nuclear power sources, the kind of language that would be more acceptable to all delegations present here. Anyway, the idea is to start an in-depth discussion of the problems outlined in the document put forward by Brazil, supported by a number of other countries. We have already spoken about that. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you distinguished representative of Greece.

(Continued in English) The next speaker on my list is the distinguished Ambassador for Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you. I just would like to refer to the following. And that is, just like the delegation of Argentina and the delegation of Greece, my delegation would like to give its firm support, as has been done already, to the proposal we received from the distinguished delegation of Brazil on remote sensing.

Going by the debate this afternoon, we can see there is an extensive majority of countries supporting this and you have to acknowledge that. And the same could be said in the case of other topics that are being discussed. There is a critical mass giving support to the distinguished delegation of Brazil, with the topic they have suggested. We wanted to reiterate that now so that it be accepted for inclusion on the agenda of the next Legal Subcommittee. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative for Chile.

Is there any other delegation wishing to speak?

The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Brazil.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank all the delegations which supported the proposal but only to remind that the proposal is from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Greece, Mexico and Peru. And this proposal was to discuss the convention but we are going to reiterate that these needs will remain. It is out-of-date in 2003 the principles and they will be still

more out-of-date in 2004 and that is why I am sure we are going to continue to have the need to discuss either a convention or at least to discuss the general principles and this afternoon, we had the proof that the discussion is a very pertinent one. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Brazil for your contribution.

I do not have any other delegation on the list of speakers. May I assume that there is general agreement with the initiative of the group of countries as they have been enumerated by the distinguished representative of Brazil and with his, let us say, explanation of the aim to be followed for the inclusion of this item on our agenda?

Belgium has the floor.

Mr. J.-F. MAYENCE (Belgium) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. For reasons that have already been explained, my delegation cannot accept the proposal made by Brazil and supported by others. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Belgium for your statement. I now give the floor to the distinguished representative of the United States of America.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I had not realized that in my interventions I have been so subtle as to have left the impression that we were prepared to agree to this agenda item and I am asking myself why I made four interventions this afternoon and several interventions during the course of the informal consultations. It is as if no-one was listening. I did not sense there was a growing consensus concerning this proposal. In fact, as the debate went on, I think I noted that there was probably more divergent views on what this proposal was about. And I think during the informal consultations, which I questioned the utility of, since we had to have the debate a second time, but during the informal consultations, as I indicated, we did, in fact, make some very substantive suggestions as to why we could not support this proposal. So in all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure we are at the point where we are reaching consensus on this and if it had not been clear in my interventions, and I apologize, but I thought I had been very clear and I thought a number of delegations had been very clear as well. Thank you.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 20

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of the United States for your statement. The next delegation on my list is the distinguished representative of Canada.

Mr. B. LEGENDRE (Canada) (interpretation from French): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Once again, without wishing to unduly prolong the discussion, on behalf of the Canadian delegation, I would like to associate myself with the comments made by the distinguished colleagues from Belgium and the United States.

Without usurping the Chair’s prerogative, the Canadian delegation believes that there is no consensus in this room on the appropriateness of introducing this new item on the agenda. If there are modifications to be made to the proposal that is on the table, and I am not sure that I understood whether or not there are such modifications to be made, but the Canadian delegation is of the opinion that this matter should be raised in the course of informal consultations, led by our distinguished colleague from Sweden. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): Thank you distinguished representative of Canada for your statement.

(Continued in English) Ladies and gentlemen, is there any other delegation wishing to speak under these conditions?

The distinguished representative of South Africa has the floor.

Mr. L. S. MKUMATELA (South Africa): Thank you Chairperson. Chairperson, we hoped that that was our last intervention when we raised the flag the last time. We noted that, Chairperson, when we say consensus, that is not necessarily meaning that parties are agreeing but in a spirit of cooperation, there is that consensus. Had we not understood consensus in that manner, definitely there are issues that were accepted in the working groups simply because of consensus. The nature of remote sensing is a developmental issue. It is close to development operations without undermining other items. Registration of satellites launched by organizations, it is a matter for precision and order. Because of consensus, we accepted registration of satellites or launched objects because of consensus and cooperation. But then we felt, going back to what has been agreed, as a young State, since 1994, we are learning and we want to cooperate. For us, development is not an academic exercise. South Africa

is characterized by two worlds. The first world and the major part is a land of under-development.

With that then, Chairperson, we said when we intervened, for us the issue of a convention, the issue is not a resolution, the issue is an instrument that will lead to the proper interpretation of instruments of space law. That part, taking into account the interests of the developing countries. As such, if there is any modification by the sponsoring States, maybe we will remove the word “convention” and then we leave with the item remote sensing for the meeting next year, but we are simply saying, in a spirit of cooperation, consensus, let us allow the letter to be under our Chairman next year, we remove the word “convention”, if Brazil and the co-sponsoring States so agree, but the letter is very important. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. If I understood you correctly, you proposed in the spirit of cooperation, if the sponsoring governments agree, from the title of the initiative, but you still recommend to include this item, remote sensing, on the agenda for next year?

Mr. L. S. MKUMATELA (South Africa): Thank you Chairperson. That is correct, Chairperson, we respect the rights of States to propose agenda items. We do not want to water down the effort of these States and the proposal’s disagreement. What we would like to propose, first and foremost, is this item to be in next year’s agenda for the Legal Subcommittee. We would then to support Brazil and the other co-sponsoring States in that regard.

Suppose that is failing, we are saying in the spirit of consensus, we would request this house who proposed to this meeting to allow Brazil and the co-sponsoring States to have this as an agenda item next year. It must not be dropped. That is our proposal. Of course, we are not saying that Brazil has lost, we are still supporting Brazil. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of South Africa.

I have just been advised by the Director of the Office that there might have been some problems with the Spanish translation, technical difficulties. Please could you repair it? Is everything alright? Sometimes it comes, sometimes it is a break.

Now it is alright? Right now it is OK. Do you need the distinguished representative of South Africa to repeat his statement? No, not necessary.

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 21

The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Greece.

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece) (interpretation from French): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I would like to repeat what I said earlier when I made a proposal, as a compromised proposal, and that is, instead of insisting on the title in the Brazilian proposal, if we could consider what I said and that is “Review of the Principles Relevant to the Remote Sensing” for one year, and then see afterwards if we can have a plan, say a three or four year plan, as we do. I believe that could be very useful as a way of establishing the dialogue in a formal way and nobody should prevent us from discussing it otherwise whether in the general exchange of views or under the debate on new items. We are free. We have that possibility to address the question under either one of those or both of those two items. But to avoid criticism for using that procedural possibility, I think it would be more honest or sincere to say, OK, let us discuss it. That is why I am asking you if you could be so kind as to put to delegations that alternative that I have just proposed, in other words, one year, as an item on the agenda for one year, Review of the Principles on Remote Sensing. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished representative of Greece. My understanding is that you have proposed to call it now “Review of Remote Sensing Principles”. This was one point and another point that you proposed to include it as a single item for discussing for one year.

Is this suggestion of the distinguished representative of Greece acceptable for all delegations?

(Continued in French) You have the floor Belgium.

Mr. J.-F.-MAYENCE (Belgium) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. As Belgium had made the proposal initially and that is to have an item for review, we would find it easier to take up that proposal than the one before us which was submitted by Brazil and backed by other States.

I find it a pity myself that it is now Thursday evening just before the end of our work that we are facing that possible change. It would have been better if we could have a more comfortable discussion. I get the impression that things are being almost forced here. Here we have this new proposal now. Even if it looks more satisfactory at first sight, it is something that delegations should be able to discuss and my fear is,

with the little time left, we may not have an opportunity to have a full discussion on this to follow it through.

We are more comfortable with the proposal just heard, made officially by the Greek delegation, than with the initial proposal, but I cannot guarantee that we do not need more time to discuss it thoroughly to see what the result of this would be. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): I thank the distinguished representative of Belgium.

(Continued in English) The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of the United States of America.

Mr. K. HODGKINS (United States of America): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have to confess I am rather confused as to what exactly it is we are trying to accomplish between now and 6.00 p.m. With that said, the debate has moved from a new agenda item on regulating remote sensing, an agenda item now on an international convention on remote sensing and now we have moved to another proposal for a one-year review of the remote sensing principles. There is no parallel between the remote sensing principles and the nuclear power sources principles in that regard because the remote sensing principles were adopted and there was no provision to review or revise them. The nuclear power sources principles has a very specific decision made by the General Assembly in its resolution and that is Principle 11 on the Review and Revision. So I do not think we can just casually say, “well, we did it for this set of principles, now we’ll just do it for that set of principles”. And I quite agree with our distinguished delegate from Belgium, this is a very late hour, these are very important questions and we still remain quite concerned, as has been mentioned earlier, about the impact of these sorts of discussions on the remote sensing community generally. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of the United States of America. The distinguished representative of Canada has the floor.

Mr. B. LEGENDRE (Canada) (interpretation from French): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Now that the Canadian delegation has clearly understood the question at hand, in other words, the idea of a change to the proposal for the new item for the agenda, I would like to back what was said by Belgium and the United States, it is a little late, it is Thursday afternoon and my delegation just has not had

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 22

a chance to look at all the ins and outs of the new proposal. With the risk of repeating what we said earlier, this proposal for a change is one which should have been put during the informal consultations, led by our distinguished colleague from Sweden. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN (interpretation from French): I thank the distinguished representative of Canada.

(Continued in English) The next speaker is the distinguished representative of Peru.

Mr. M. ALVAREZ (Peru) (interpretation from Spanish): Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed late and an examination of possible alternatives or options is one that would require time for all of us, so I would like to make a proposal, if I may.

Could we ask the delegation of Brazil to come out with a revised proposal next with this suggestion, following this debate, with the support of Belgium, the United States and Canada, if those delegations could let Brazil know exactly what their problems with the proposal were. If I remember, it is not substantive questions. Belgium qualified this as a good idea. The United States said they have some problems with some elements in the proposal. So perhaps Brazil could come forth next year with another proposal. And in the report of the Subcommittee could state that next year, the Subcommittee will give time and space for Brazil to be able to submit its new proposal. That is our suggestion, considering the time, the late hour, we do have to produce our report and also 17 years have gone by, as you have said, looking at the principles on remote sensing. You referred to May 1986. I think it was July or June 1986. Thanks to remote sensing, we all had a chance, just to give an example, to see one of the main historic events that I can think of which was the Maradonna goal in 1986 in soccer. And 17 years later, now we can see it better and from more angles. Technology has changed and we should be consistent with those changes in technology.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Peru for your contribution and also for your suggestion how to proceed further in this respect.

The next speaker on my list is the distinguished representative of Japan.

Mr. K. TANABE (Japan): Thank you Mr. Chairman. Our delegation is now a bit surprised to hear the new proposal as specified by the distinguished

delegate of Greece. On this point, we support the views expressed by the United States and Belgium and Canada. Thank you very much.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Japan for your statement and I appreciate his brevity.

The next speaker on my list is the distinguished Ambassador for Chile.

Mr. R. GONZÁLEZ ANINAT (Chile) (interpretation from Spanish):

First of all, following this debate, I am starting off now with procedural questions about not having time. That does not hold. We have all day tomorrow. We can continue discussing and even organize night sessions. Let us be honest and frank now. Why not just say straight out, you do not want it. That the great champions of the free market and the free flow of ideas and data that all afternoon have objected, vetoing access to developing countries of international cooperation. And, as was said by the distinguished representative of Argentina, stressed by the distinguished representative of Peru as well, this is an application of space technology that is out-of-date, from 17 years ago. It is clear, there was a veto here from those who say that they want ideas circulating freely, but the time has come now for it to happen. There is a denial or refusal even to discuss the possibility because there is no time left. Please. We have got all the time in the world. We can stay here right through till 5.00 a.m.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much distinguished Ambassador for Chile. This was the last speaker on my list of speakers.

Distinguished delegates, unfortunately, our efforts to extend this session have not been successful and we will have to end our meeting this afternoon.

If I may suggest something, not as a conclusion or as a proposal, but rather as a certain summary of this discussion but a summary not a substantive summary but a summary on the further procedure. I would suggest that, first of all, I have to say that there is no consensus about it. It would be useless to try to re-open the discussion to put this question formally again and again, whether there is consensus or not. I believe that all of you understand that there is not a consensus. On the other hand, it seemed to me that a reasonable suggestion was made during the intervention of the distinguished representative of Peru that Brazil could be asked, or

COPUOS/LEGAL/T.691Page 23

would do it on its proper initiative, to present a revised text of its draft and particularly of the explanatory paper that was attached to this draft for the next session. And you can submit it according to the existing procedure next year as your own initiative, either during the discussion on the general exchange of views or during the consideration on the new items to be included in the agenda 2005. This might be a procedure that could be perhaps acceptable for all of you for the time being, due to the lack of time because we cannot extend this meeting and we cannot extend the duration of our session. It is completely out of the question.

Is this procedure acceptable for all delegations? The distinguished representative of Brazil.

Mr. S. LEITE DA SILVA (Brazil): Thank you Mr. Chairman. I apologize. I know it is late already. I would like to simply express my thanks and inform that we are actually going to prepare next year a new proposal and we would like to have again the co-sponsors as this years and most of all, we would like to have all the member countries of COPUOS thinking about this issue, that so important issue, and we hope we can advance with this proposal. We will try to search the proposal to have a format that can reach consensus. And we hope that this consensus will be possible for the enforcement of the Committee and for to make possible the consideration of such important space activity. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Thank you distinguished representative of Brazil for your kind cooperation in this respect. I appreciate it very much. And I would like also to thank all delegations present here which participated so actively in our discussions on this issue or which simply carefully listened to these discussions for the spirit of compromise and for their adoption of this conclusion.

It is so decided.

Sorry. There will be an announcement from the Secretariat.

Mr. P. LÁLA (Secretary, Office for Outer Space Affairs): Thank you Mr. Chairman. The Secretariat would like to inform distinguished delegates that the first sections of the draft report are now available. This is document A/AC.105/C.2/L.243 and the same document Addendum 1. Also the Working Group Report on Item 4, which is document A/AC.105/C.2/DRE/2003/L.1. These documents are now available in the pigeon holes. Delegations are

kindly requested to pick them up from the holes and spend the evening studying them carefully so that we can proceed tomorrow fast the adoption of the report. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN: Is it relating to this announcement?

Mr. V. CASSAPOGLOU (Greece): No, if we have some indication about when we meet for the discussion of Mr. Lichem’s report of the Bureaux.

The CHAIRMAN: The session that was scheduled for this afternoon, as you may know, because of the illness of Ambassador Lichem. I talked to him during the noon break and indeed his voice was very difficult.

One more point. Tomorrow morning, starting from 10.00 a.m. we will be considering the adoption of the report. Thank you.

The meeting closed at 6.05 p.m.