UNA-USA NATIONAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTION
Educate UNA about the Threat US Strategic Command
Poses to the Peacemaking Goals of the United Nations
WHEREAS, the UN General Assembly annually reaffirms its desire to preserve space for
peaceful purposes by a near-unanimous vote for the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer
Space (PAROS) resolution, and
WHEREAS, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the US has legally obligated
itself to disarm its nuclear weapons stockpiles and to forego developing and producing
new generations of these weapons of mass destruction, and
WHEREAS, except under the most constrained conditions (where the danger must be
imminent and the response not exceed the scale of the threat), the Charter of the United
Nations prohibits preemptive attacks without Security Council authorization, and
WHEREAS, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the executive branch of
United States government commissioned US Strategic Command (StratCom) with
securing the military domination of outer space, and
WHEREAS, under the auspices of StratCom, the US is not only maintaining an arsenal of
thousands of nuclear warheads and seeking to develop more, but has now adopted a
strategic posture for the offensive use of nuclear weapons, and
WHEREAS, StratCom is now charged with preemptively attacking (with either
conventional or nuclear weapons) any place on earth within one hour that the executive
branch unilaterally deems a threat to the US or its interests, and
WHEREAS, UNA-USA chapters and divisions—through their networks—can educate
the world about the newly enhanced military threat StratCom now represents to the
peacemaking goals of the United Nations:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the UNA-USA commit to educating its member
chapters, divisions and international affiliates about how StratCom’s expanded role in the
execution of US military policy constitutes an increased threat to peacemaking goals of
the UN; and
That the UNA-USA Board develop a statement addressing this destabilizing new threat,
submit it to the United Nations, and distribute it to local UNA chapters, divisions and
international affiliates; and
That the UNA-USA urge the incoming US Administration to seek ratification of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and meet all of its obligations as a signatory of the NonProliferation Treaty; and
That the UNA-USA urge the US Administration to abandon the October 2006 National
Space Policy objective of the domination of outer space; and
That the US Administration finally support the annual UN resolution for the Prevention
of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) and promptly undertake negotiations—under
the auspices of the United Nations—to negotiate a new treaty respecting the peaceful
uses of outer space.
Jointly submitted by the UNA-USA Nebraska Division, Montana Chapter, Monterey Bay
CA Chapter, Albuquerque NM Chapter, Pike’s Peak CO Chapter, Northern Colorado
Chapter and Seattle WA Chapter.
RESOLUTION DOCUMENTATION
WHEREAS, the UN General Assembly annually reaffirms its desire to preserve space for
peaceful purposes by a near-unanimous vote for the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer
Space (PAROS) resolution.
Documentation: Intended to complement to the 1967 “Outer Space Treaty”
(banning weapons of mass destruction in space and preserving the Moon and
celestial bodies for peace), the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS)
resolution would prohibit the deployment of conventional space weapons. For over
twenty years, the PAROS resolution has annually garnered the support of virtually
every member state of the United Nations except the US, which has never once voted
for adoption. (The 2008 PAROS vote, in instance, was 177 for, 1 against, with Israel
abstaining.) Without the support of the world’s premier space-faring nation, the
Conference on Disarmament has been crippled in its efforts to craft additional
treaty law around the principle of preserving space for peaceful purposes.
WHEREAS, as a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, the US has legally obligated
itself to disarm its nuclear weapons stockpiles and to forego developing and producing
new generations of these weapons of mass destruction.
Documentation: Not only does Article VI of the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty
legally bind the US to disarm itself of nuclear weapons, the International Court of
Justice ruled in July 1996 that, “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith
and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to disarmament in all aspects under
strict and effective international control.”
WHEREAS, except under the most constrained conditions (where the danger must be
imminent and the response not exceed the scale of the threat), the Charter of the United
Nations prohibits preemptive attacks without Security Council authorization.
Documentation: Article 2, Section 4 of the UN Charter prohibiting “the threat or
use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” is
routinely contrasted with Article 51 governing the right of self-defense. While
‘preemptive attacks’ are not in every instance illegal under international law, to be
justified, the danger must be imminent, allowing no alternative recourse, with the
response not exceeding the level of the threat. The US invasion of Iraq accordingly
was, in the view of former UN Secretary Kofi Annan, “not in conformity with the
UN Charter” and therefore “illegal.” (9/15/04)
WHEREAS, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the executive branch of
United States government commissioned US Strategic Command (StratCom) with
securing the military domination of outer space.
Documentation: In October 2002, the US Space Command was moved under the
direct control of US Strategic Command, headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.
Four years later in October 2006, the White House issued its revised “National
Space Policy,” which openly calls for US military space dominance and asserts that
the US has the unilateral right to “dissuade or deter… and deny, if necessary,
adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to US interests.” The policy further
rejects future arms control agreements that might “impair” the asymmetric
advantage the US now possesses in space.
WHEREAS, under the auspices of StratCom, the US is not only maintaining an arsenal of
thousands of nuclear warheads and seeking to develop more, but has now adopted a
strategic posture for the offensive use of nuclear weapons.
Documentation: According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists (2008), the US has
4,075 active warheads in its nuclear arsenal. This sizable stockpile, however, has
not prevented the Pentagon and StratCom from promoting the research, development and production of new generations of nuclear weapons like the ‘bunker
buster’ mini-nuke and the “Reliable Replacement Warhead.” The Bush/Cheney
Administration, in turn, paired this technological quest for new and better
armaments with an accompanying change in nuclear policy. Upending the US’s
longstanding doctrine of strategic deterrence, the 2002 “Nuclear Posture Review”
for the first time called for the offensive, ‘first strike’ use of nuclear weapons.
WHEREAS, StratCom is now charged with preemptively attacking (with either
conventional or nuclear weapons) any place on earth within one hour that the executive
branch unilaterally deems a threat to the US or its interests.
Documentation: The Bush/Cheney Administration’s “doctrine of preemption” was
first unveiled in the 2002 “National Security Strategy,” one year to the month after
9/11. As outlined in the strategy, the US arrogates to itself the authority to
unilaterally attack another nation on the mere suspicion of a threat to the US’s
national interests. Under CONPLAN (Contingency Plan) 8022-02, StratCom was
directed by the executive branch to develop a ‘global strike division’ that could turn
the administration’s new preemption policy into an operational reality. “In
December 2002, Adm. James O. Ellis Jr., then StratCom’s head, told an Omaha
business group that his command had been charged with developing the capability
to strike anywhere in the world within minutes of detecting a target.” (William
Arkin, Washington Post, 5/14/05)