Lunar Dustup

Moon treaty stirs a storm

No one has set foot on the moon since the last team of Apollo astronauts landed there in the winter of 1972. Nor is there much likelihood of further lunar exploration by either Americans or Soviets any time soon. Yet the moon has suddenly become the object of a heated debate on earth. The issue: Should President Carter sign an international agreement called the moon treaty that could curtail American rights in space?

The critics, led by the space buffs in the 4,000-member L5* Society respond with a rousing no. The society, which hopes to see a space colony built at L-5 out of lunar materials, views the pact as a grave obstacle to its own visionary goals. Skillfully arguing the group's case is Leigh Ratiner, a veteran Washington lobbyist. He says that the treaty, which was approved by the U.N. General Assembly in December and needs to be signed and ratified by only five countries to become international law, amounts to a "wholesale giveaway of access to vital minerals." It would "doom" free enterprise in space, he says, and subjugate American interests to those of the Third World.

The State Department and NASA have tried to brush off these fears, insisting that the pact seeks only to ensure the orderly exploitation of the moon--which contains great stores of aluminum, titanium, magnesium and other valuable metals. Says one annoyed State Department aide: "You'll still be able to make a buck off the moon, if there's a buck to be made there." Though the treaty says no part of the moon can become the exclusive preserve of any single country or organization, it does not forbid mining or exploration there. It stipulates only that such activities come under a still undefined "international regime," presumably to be worked out at some future conference.

The anti-treaty forces see serious booby traps in the treaty's language. They note that it speaks of the moon and its resources as "the common heritage of mankind" and calls for "an equitable sharing" of them by all countries, whether or not they have participated in the lunar enterprise. Warns Houston Lawyer Art Dula, in the L-5 News: "Free enterprise institutions simply cannot make significant investments in space while they are under the threat of suit over treaty terms or ex post facto appropriation of their investments by a nebulous future international regime."

The doubts raised by the L-5 Society have been echoed by leading aerospace companies, which have taken out ads attacking the treaty, and by some members of Congress. Even such liberals as Idaho Democrat Frank Church and New York Republican Jacob Javits, the ranking members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have asked the State Department to reconsider the treaty, which requires Senate ratification. A similar appeal to President Carter has come from Congressman John Breaux of Louisiana. In the face of this growing clamor, Carter has ordered an Administration task force to take a second, hard look at the pact.

* The designation for a kind of gravitational "hollow" that trails the moon in its orbit at a point equidistant from the moon and the earth. Lofted to this point, a spacecraft would remain locked in a fairly stable orbit around L-5.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.