Corporations Battle Moon Treaty

In the last few months, the moon has been the subject of more attention than any time since Neil Armstrong took his famous small step for man.

Now the question is who should be allowed to take the giant step of commercially exploiting the moon's potentially vast resources, and under what legal guidelines.

Last December, after eight years of negotiation, the United Nations passed the so-called "Moon Treaty" that declared "the moon and its natural resources are the common heritage of mankind." the treaty also bars the use of the moon for military purposes, permits scientific investigation of the surface, and requires countries to protect the moon's environment.

But since December, only four countries-Chile, France, Romania and the Philippines-have signed the document and none have actually ratified it. "As we understand it, the Soviet Union will sign as soon as the United States signs it," says an official of the United Nations Outer Space Affairs Division. "And another 20 or 30 countries will sign it then."

In the United States, though, the treaty is being effectively opposed by an unlikely coalition of space buffs - who hope to eventually colonize the moon - and major corporations which would like to mine it. For both of these groups, the stumbling block is "the common heritage of mankind" notion which has become something of a catch phrase to Western multinational companies during the equally tortuous Law of the Sea negotiations.

Treaty supporters, which include the U.S. State Department, point out that the document does not lay down firm ground rules for developing the' moon, but merely provides for the establishment of an international regime to set the rules when "exploitation is about to become feasible." And they point out that Article 11 of the treaty specifically states that the phrase "common heritage" "finds its expression in the provisions of this Agreement" and nowhere else-particularly the Law of the Sea treaty.

Nonetheless, even if President Carter decides to sign the treaty, rough going appears guaranteed in the Senate. Leading opposition is the Tucson-based L-5 Society, a little known group of would-be space colonists who have hired Washington Lobbyist Leigh Ratiner - who represented Kennecott Copper Corporation during the Law of the Sea negotiations - to lobby Congress against the treaty. They have already picked up some important support.

Last October 30, Senators Frank Church (D-Idaho), and Jacob Javits (R-NY), respectively the chair and ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign

Relations Committee, wrote Secretary of State Cyrus Vance to oppose the treaty. They argued "the draft moon treaty's provisions on resources could disadvantage the United States to the benefit of the Soviet Union .. . [because it] could serve as a practical moratorium on private investment." Similar objections were raised by United Technologies in a recent newspaper ad that concluded the treaty would mean "socializing the moon."

State Department officials dismiss such objections. "In fact, the only reason we didn't have a treaty for the last four years was that the Soviet Union refused to accept the common heritage notion," says one official. "So it really is strange now to see the treaty called by some a Soviet plot,"

- Ronald Brownstein