Flyby News Home - Flyby News Archives - Casinni NoFlyby - Flyby Links

Flyby  News

"News Fit to Transmit in the Post Cassini Flyby Era"

The Preservation of Space Act of 2001 * D. Roche's NMD Speech in Canadian Senate

21 October 2001

Missile Defense plays into the hands of terrorists because it finances the expansion of the arms race, which supports the proliferation and development of weapons of mass destruction. It promises to do more harm than good in protecting the US and the free world, and has already put extra stress on our economy. Flyby News endorses the Institute of Cooperation In Space's campaign to make the "Space Preservation Act of 2001" a bill in Congress in 2002. This legislation was introduced into Congress on October 2, 2001 by Dennis Kucinich (D-Cleveland). "The time has come to ban the further weaponization of space," Congressman Kucinich said. "We must work toward the elimination of all nuclear weapons, and an end to policies which cause this country to move toward the weaponization of space." Its purpose is to is to preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons. You can link to the draft for the World Treaty Banning Space-Based Weapons at

Item 2 is a debate on the commercialization factors of the Act. This came from the Global Network's active list serv. Item 3 is from the Country that may introduce the World Treaty Banning Space-Based Weapons to the international community.

Many thanks to Flyby News' subscribers, which now numbers to about 700. Your support in reading and acting on this information is inspirational, appreciated, and gives peace and hope a chance.

1) H.R. 2977 - The Preservation of Space ACT of 2001
2) Globenet Debate on the Preservation of Space Act of 2001
3) Douglas Roche's Speech in the Canadian Senate on NMD


1) H.R. 2977 - The Preservation of Space ACT of 2001


1st Session

H. R. 2977

To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.


October 2, 2001

Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned


To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


This Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001'.


Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it `is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.'.


The President shall--

(1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and

(2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components.


The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons.


The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, a report on--

(1) the implementation of the permanent ban on space-based weapons required by section 3; and

(2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing the agreement described in section 4.


Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for–

(1) space exploration;

(2) space research and development;

(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or

(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.


In this Act:

(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.

(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.

(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.




2) Globenet Debate on the Preservation of Space Act of 2001

Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2001 11:20 PM
Subject: [globenet] No vote on commercialization of outer space

Dear All,

I must admit that I do not agree with the Space Preservation Act. I am a simple 'leave space alone' advocate. Creating a so-called peaceful commercial situation in outer space is a pipe dream and lacks sensitivity to the struggle that has occurred within the anti-sweatshop, anti-corporatization community here on earth. Space issues WILL come up involving human cloning, robots, labor violations, working conditions, oppression by the haves on the have nots, and eventually weaponization. Hopefully, I may remain on the Keep Space for Peace team as one who stands aside on this incredibly naive concept that will surely hurt and exploit.

Thanks so much,

2) Simultaneous to the ban on space-based weapons, we call for enhancing world cooperative agreements on civil, military and commercial space ventures...

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dear Sheila

I hear your concerns about the Space Preservation Act 2001, agree and understand. I think we are all "leave space alone" advocates with you. That is why the Space PRESERVATION Act of 2001 has been introduced: to preserve space for peaceful purposes.

If you are open to being educated about what IS going on in the space frontier, you will find that space development, militarization, commercialization and exploration has been taking place for decades. But we do have one chance in time when we can actually prevent the weaponization of space from occurring.

What we are trying to prevent is the weaponization and nuclearization of space. If we work to support the legislation and the forthcoming world treaty, now, we can win this issue. But later, once funding and vested interests builds an unstoppable momentum, we could not ever stop it. It would be too late.

There are humanitarian, technological, and environmental issues related to space, just as there are on earth. In fact, this is the time in which decisions are being made regarding "how" the human species will evolve into space. It is not about whether or not we will go into space. It's too late to ask that question. Again, the question is about "how" we will go there. And it happens to be NOW, within the next few short weeks, in which that decision is being made.

Again, the question is no longer whether or not we will evolve into space...that is done. We are there. Nearly a hundred BILLION dollars has been spend on the R&D that is mandated to put weapons into space, to seize that "high ground," to master and control earth from space or space from space. But, we also have three decades or more of world cooperation in space...and that is what we want to continue. The benefits from that continuation are going to be abundant and amazing. The question is, "Will we or won't we take weapons and other dangerous technologies into space?"

This legislation gives us a chance to decide the answer to that question, and to vote for what we want. It is our responsibility to make sure that we keep space weapons-free. And to make sure that this "terrorist situation" does not become yet another excuse to further fund the weaponization of space intentions.

In fact, that is why we are working so hard to make sure that as space gets further developed, as humans explore the universes, that we do it within the context of the new space paradigm that we can all choose. In this paradigm, there is intention of only cooperation in space that can be applied to developing products and services that can be applied directly to solving urgent human and environmental problems. There will be incredible new jobs and training programs applicable to a diversity of cultures. It's a beautiful vision and it's feasible to achieve, not just an impossible dream.

Congressman Kucinich is a rare man in our U.S. Congress. He is spiritually based, intelligent, and courageous. He's an eloquent speaker for the people and our issues. He understands what you are saying and wanting to avoid and eliminate. He's so conscious that he won't even eat animals...he's a vegetarian. He's a moral man of integrity with passion. He works for the same issues you care about. That is why he works day and night, relentlessly. And he needs our help and support.

Please read the below talking points. I hope this will further explain the position.

I just wanted to be sure that you understand that even though we talk of a place that seems to be so "far out" that we want to prevent the nuclearization and weaponization of space while we have this one chance, we are doing this with true sensitivity to the many issues of vital importance and urgency on this planet, and with vision of what can be and what our choices are for our future.

My heart is with you.

In peace with love,
Carol Rosin
President, Institute for Cooperation in Space

ICIS institute for cooperation in space
PO Box 25040 Ventura, CA 93001
Tel: 805-641-1999 Fax: 805-641-9669
[This letter had to be excerpted, due to space restraints.]
= = = = = = = = = = = = =

<< I hear your concerns about the Space Preservation Act 2001, agree and understand. I think we are all "leave space alone" advocates with you. That is why the Space PRESERVATION Act of 2001 has been introduced: to preserve space for peaceful purposes.>>

I respect both Bruce's and Carol's response to Sheila, and split the difference in my own personal opinion. We can indeed change aspects of systems that are already fielded, which is where I want to continue to keep an eye on realms of space that are already militarized, but not weaponized. Similarly, there are realms where peaceful uses of space are naturally exploitive - Bruce has done a good job of tracking the companies that want to perform extractive mining of asteroids, for example, duplicating the problems of resource-extraction industries that exist on earth.

But as Carol pointed out, there will be nations and supra-national groups that do go into space, both near-earth orbit and deep space, and it's important that we provide a moral voice as to HOW this is done at the times it is done. Saying, "Well, I don't believe in any exploration of space" is a justifiable position, but it's like saying, "Well, I want all mining and oil companies globally to go bankrupt." Nice idea, but it ain't a-gonna happen. So it is important that we also point out specific times when Freeport-McMoRan is doing unconscionable things in Indonesia, or when Talisman Energy is supporting the regime in Sudan.

The Fall 2001 issue of Cultural Survival is a fascinating special issue on "Developing a Plan B." Basically, the series of articles say that we can all work on areas where corporations and governments keep away from the lands of indigenous people, but we simultaneously work on "Plan B's", in which indigenous groups figure out ways to effectively steer development projects to maximize the good for the indigenous group, and minimize the bad effects for everyone. That's not a matter of selling out, it's a means of developing a good fallback position. This can be applied to space, as well.


= = = = = = = = = = = = =

This is a good debate, and, of course, each perspective contains truth. However, I believe that the Preservation of Space Act IS our best opportunity to stop the deadly militarization of everything. Surely, it isn't "ideal," but who is an idealist anymore, unless one is able to see the ideal in accomplishing a strategic victory like stopping the expansion of the arms race in space in 2002? The only way this could be possible is by the diverting of funds intended for weapons to still go to the weapon development industry, but now these funds are not wasteful since they will be transforming an industry expanding arms to another focus for benign activities in regard to our politics, economy, and environment. We need to hold a unity and enthusiasm for this to happen. This is the only real peaceful way that stopping the arms race can be accomplished at this opportune time due to the Preservation Act of 2001.

3) Douglas Roche's Speech in the Canadian Senate on NMD

Excerpts of Debates of the Senate (Hansard)
1st Session, 37th Parliament, Volume 139, Issue 58
Tuesday, October 16, 2001


Hon. Douglas Roche rose pursuant to notice of September 20, 2001: That he will call the attention of the Senate to the urgent need to consider the implications of a missile defence system for Canada's policies on keeping space free of all weapons and, in this context, to promote a cooperative and forward- minded approach to international security in the light of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

He said: Honourable senators, during the worst days of World War II, the Allied leaders met to plan ways to lift the world away from the scourge of war. The result was the birth of the United Nations now the recipient, with Kofi Annan, of the Nobel Peace Prize to provide a strengthened base for peace, development, equity and justice.

That was a turning point for the world which saw, for the first time, that the common management of problems was a better route to peace than reliance on militarism. The world is now at another turning point. Aggressors have found a new way to attack humanity, not on the battlefield far away but in our offices and institutions at home. We must find ways to end forever this aggression. Shocked as we are by the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, we must, just as was done in the midst of World War II, lift ourselves up and recognize that something, other than bombing and the methods of warfare, is necessary to build human security.

We must use this terrible period we are passing through to think and act beyond the immediate crisis to find an enduring solution, not just one that momentarily gives us the satisfaction of responding in kind to an attack. It is not good enough for the Government of Canada to send our Armed Forces, ships and planes into military action in the perceived battle zone surrounding Afghanistan. It is not good enough for the government to introduce antiterrorism legislation and spend an extra $250 million in an effort to make Canadians safer from the ravages of terrorists. It is not good enough to rush through a bill that tightens regulations dealing with immigrants and refugees in the hope that this will make our borders secure against the incursion of unwanted people.

What is most needed today, at this moment of trauma for the world, is an all-out attack on the causes of terrorism. It is not just the criminals who perpetrated these heinous acts who must be caught and brought to justice. It is the dehumanizing economic and social deprivation that terrorists exploit that must be stamped out.

Let it not be said that I am insensitive to the victims, their families and friends who suffered the horrors of September 11. I went to New York and saw with my own eyes the tangled wreckage of the twin towers and the grieving of the people who stood silently watching the firemen and policemen trying to find survivors.

Let it not be said that I am falling into what is known as ``moral equivalence'' in which the actions of the terrorists are explained away by the injustices of the world. The September 11 terrorists are criminals, guilty of attacks against humanity, and they do not deserve the comforting of those who seek to understand them.

Let it not be said that I do not understand that it is only the power of militarism that can make us safe. I understand all too well that the instant recourse to warfare in the name of curing aggression has in the past and will in the future only lead to more violence and more suffering.

As the Afghan refugees in countless numbers are now experiencing, war exacts a terrible toll on the most vulnerable. I oppose the bombing of Afghanistan, just as I opposed the bombing of Kosovo, and just as I opposed the bombing of Iraq. In simple practical terms, it does not work. Neither Slobodan Milosevic nor Saddam Hussein were flushed out by bombing. In moral terms, bombing inflicts disproportionate damage on the society you are trying to save. Civilians are being killed, and this fact has been minimized.

While opposing the bombing, I acknowledge that military action mounted with the full force of the United Nations Security Council acting under the precepts of international law can legitimately be a proper response to the challenge posed by the terrorists. My point here is that even properly constituted military action cannot by itself remove the threat of future terrorist aggression. We must go deeper than this, and Canada has the credentials to do so.

Terrorism, the epitome of hate, feeds on the hatreds and resentments that have been built up in the rest of the world against western society. We do not like to hear this. CNN does not broadcast it. The political processes do not want to deal with it. Nonetheless, more conflict is coming because people who are downtrodden are rising up against the West they perceive as rich, arrogant and powerful. Anyone who has travelled widely, as I have, through the villages, teeming cities, refugee camps and slums of Asia, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, knows these words to be true.

It is time for Canada to listen to a high-level panel of experts headed by former President Zedillo of Mexico who issued a UN report on financing for development in June 2001. The panel said that half the world's people are still living in abject poverty with 80 per cent of the global population living on less than 20 per cent of the global income. Too many people in too many countries lack the freedom to take advantage of the new opportunities of modern technology and are consequently left on the sidelines of the globalization process.

People lack freedom when they lack food, education, training, health, basic human and political rights, security and employment opportunities. Increasing polarization between the haves and have-nots has become a feature of our world, the panel said. Then there is this sobering warning which I quote directly from the report:

Reversing this shameful trend is the pre-eminent moral and humanitarian challenge of our age. For people in the rich world, elementary self-interest is also at stake. In the global village, someone else's poverty very soon becomes one's own problem: of lack of markets for one's products, illegal immigration, pollution, contagious disease, insecurity, fanaticism, terrorism.

Honourable senators, we fool ourselves if we rely only on militarism to curb terrorists and do not take a gigantic step to ``reverse this shameful trend.'' The high-level panel issued a list of recommendations, ranging from making the World Trade Organization more equitable to recommitment of donor countries to the international target of 0.7 per cent of GNP for official development assistance, to an international tax organization to benefit the development process.

It is not only individual measures, important as they are, that are called for in the present crisis; it is a whole new strategy for the survival of humanity. This is what UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is calling for. Commenting on the anti-terrorism resolutions already adopted by the Security Council, the Secretary-General said:

To defeat terrorism, we need a sustained effort and a broad strategy to unite all nations, and address all aspects of the scourge we face. The cause must be pursued by all the States of the world, working together and using many different means - including political, legal, diplomatic and financial means. How much better for peace and security in the world it would be for governments to put their full weight behind such an effort.

Honourable senators, if we are worried about developing proper relations with Islam, if we are worried about how to cure the hate and racism that feeds evil acts, if we are worried about our own safety inside the borders of Canada, then let us act today to raise up society and its political discourse to project out into the international community the values that have made Canada a great country. These are the values that the Catholic Bishops of Canada recently called for in promoting interfaith dialogue in a common reach for international peace and justice for all. The essence of the great move forward for humanity that I am espousing is to move beyond militarism as the response to conflict.

There is no more pressing matter on the public agenda than preventing the escalation of present weaponry into even new and more dangerous spheres. That is why Secretary-General Annan urged, in the wake of September 11, what he called a ``redoubling'' of efforts to strengthen key treaties banning weapons of mass destruction to ensure that nuclear materials do not fall into the hands of terrorists. We must now work to head off nuclear terrorism.

A cooperative and forward-minded approach to international security, which the inquiry I am launching calls for, must also immediately address the escalating problem of national missile defence. Though the nature of the attacks of September 11 shows the futility of relying on a missile defence system, the opposite is now happening. The clamour of the military industrial complex in the United States to speed up the funding and testing for a missile defence system has grown. Canada, which has taken a low profile on the issue in the hope that somehow the issue will go away, will be challenged soon on whether we support and will be involved in this U.S. effort.

This presents a considerable dilemma for Canada, honourable senators. The U.S. intends the national missile defence system to be directly linked to the weaponization of space. Of this, there can be no doubt. On July 17, 2001, the U.S. announced that the research and development program for missile defence includes space-based lasers and interceptors required to protect the missile defence systems. U.S. defence policy, which can be seen on the Internet, makes a fundamental assumption that space will be weaponized and that the U.S. intends to be the leader by obtaining what is called ``full-spectrum dominance'' of land, sea, air and space. So determined is the U.S. to pursue the missile defence program that it is willing to jettison or severely modify the anti-ballistic missile treaty, which forbids such a system.

The newly invigorated plan to push ahead with missile defence and the weaponization of space threatens over 30 years of international legal norms designed to prevent such a scenario. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty, ratified by over 90 countries, including Canada and the United States, is one of those norms. For this same 30-year period, it has been one of Canada's stalwart policies to oppose the weaponization of space.

Canada has worked hard in the UN Conference on Disarmament for a convention on the non-weaponization of outer space and has tabled two proposals to negotiate a convention to keep weapons out of space. Foreign Minister John Manley stated that: Canada would be very happy to launch an initiative to see an international convention preventing the weaponization of space.

However, NMD will undermine such efforts. Canada knows this. For Canada, knowing what it does about NMD's effects on the weaponization of space, to participate in NMD will directly counter three decades of work to prevent the weaponization of space. We will be turning our back on our own policy.

It is not unilateral defence by any one country that is the answer to the threats of our time. Rather, a cooperative and forward- minded approach to security for all is the only way to international security.

Honourable senators, it is now commonly said that September11 has changed the world. I would now ask, has it changed our thinking? Can we now finally rise up and make of God's planet the peaceful, just home for humanity that so many long for?

Flyby News is a free electronic news service regarding peace in space, human rights, indigenous, and environmental issues.

Email address: