The
First President of the Moon ~ D.M.J. March
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Therefore no one will be declared righteous in God's sight by the works of the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of our sin." ~ Romans 3:20
There
are already a few companies here on Earth that will sell you a slice
of the
big ol' pie in the sky (some have even been talked about on MyMOON
before :P),
however
readers would be keen to note the legal framework of celestial
ownership
seems
to be coming under some review lately with the establishment of the
first
protected
lunar sites on behalf of the USA and its Apollo missions.
 |
| Lunar Deed for land from Lunar Embassy (SAMPLE ONLY) |
While
I certainly respect the sentiment of protecting these sacred sites
for all time, we should be sure to address the fundamental shift in
the spirit of verbiage and the dangerous potential for over-collusion
between military agenda and this decidedly civilian agency that has
been the forefront of American (and most human) ventures beyond Earth
since its inception.
 |
| "Ike" talking with the troops near the end of WW2 |
When
NASA was formed by Eisenhower it wasn't some lovey-dovey pre-60s peacenik
orientation that convinced the old General to appoint civil agents to
the lead positions in his
new
aerospace agency. This agency was about to become the focal point for the
entire US sphere of
human influence above a few dozen feet off the ground. This visonary orientation of the agency towards
peaceful exploration in the interests of all the citizens of the
Earth
was nearly foisted over-top of all existing space and military infrastructure
of the time.
The Army,
Navy and Air Force all had elements of rocketry and advanced flight
development
under-way (to say nothing of the Navy's predisposition for the development of
simulated
and
self contained environments including communications, power and life
support systems
designed
for long voyages in extreme-stress environments).
 |
| The Yomato, a fictional space-navy ship |
It
was a serious and intentional executive mandate to make NASA civil
and it really went against the fledgling grain of the time. After
this slight against the other generals and the prevailing winds of
congress one could even argue that Eisenhower’s hold over the
upper-echelons truly began to wane. Regardless, this decision paved
the way for an open and civilly motivated NASA under Kennedy to
really press the boundaries of human potential in a way that didn't
require those people at the core to be starved or fundamentally deprived of any
bountiful American or human rights. Both Nazi and Russian (the only
comparison at the time) astrospace programs, at least partially,
relied on extreme abuse of workers and secrecy of the works being
performed.
 |
| Prisoners/Workers of the Nazi Rocket program |
It
is unlikely that even a militarized American space program would have
resorted to, say, a militarized convict labour force (though,
thankfully, there is no way to know for sure), but the lesson should
not be forgotten that these starkly contrasting systems of space
management have existed in our brief history of flirtation with these
new technologies and ideas. It is, in fact, the cruelties of these
other systems that seem to inexorably linked to the collapse of not
only their patron nations, but essentially the entire ideology that
supported them.
The American example is the only space program that
really survived the Cold War in-tact. While Russia is now a more than
capable space partner, and was previously a leader in the field, their Buran
shuttle never materialized and they are still mostly utilizing
technology from 50 years ago. Moreover, all of their efforts to make lasting contact with Mars, the Moon or any other celestial body have
largely fizzled out. The brilliant pace of innovation was broken for
the very fact that their program failed to produce workable solutions
for many related problems that space-faring entities must embrace. Social,
economic, moral and military elements must all coalesce in a way that
seems both requisite and unique for groups that wish to sustain an
exo-planetary lifestyle. The Soviets didn't just not do it quickly
enough, even today they have never sent a person to the moon as the
American civil NASA did back in 1969.
 |
| Copy of the plaque placed on the Moon in 1969 "in peace for all mankind" |
Surely
in this day and age it is apparent that the reason cannot be
technological. If the Americans truly went to the moon in '69, how
could the Russians not at least match that feat in the following
four(plus) decades? The reason, I believe, is largely a tendency
towards militarism and a lack of cooperative effort between nations.
A national military is by its definition a Xenophobic sort of entity.
Modern civilized armed forces are primarily concerned with events
abroad and it is an extreme measure in modern society for any
military operations to be deployed against domestic citizens.
Even
where alliances between nations exist, thus far, they are not concrete
and binding above the natural duty a military has to its own people.
I have made this statement in the present tense, but indeed a
transition that is underway around “space laws” seems very
apparent and it is a part of a wider alteration of those sorts of
liberties that were won at great cost and endured after the major
conflicts of the 20th century. With the assertion of US
protected lunar zones, and other individuals selling real estate, the
question beckons; through what (moral) authority are these extraterrestrial enterprises being
undertaken and enforced ?
| A small sampling of Asian military power |
It
seems quite obvious that for there to be any sensibility to the new
laws and proclamations protecting these regions, the threat of
punitive measure is implied. Don't mess with the USA lunar sites, or
else ! But again, this begs the question; or else what ?
There
seem to be two schools of thoughts on the matter. One, fiscal
penalties or trade related measures directly from the USA or perhaps
enacted through the WTO, etc. The second school is militaristic in
orientation; an intrusion into the outlined areas would be the same
as a sanctioned government occupation of, for example, American
sovereign territory. This second school derives all its substance from the
supposition that national boundaries (of many sorts) will continue to
exist into the future and will continue to be a tremendous threat and
barrier to a truly unified and coordinated Earthly space
organization. While either sort of retaliation may seem justified
to some, there is a larger issue here...
 |
| Magazine article about the new lunar protected zones. Illustrates well the juvenile and bigoted attitudes lending themselves to this effort. |
In some cities around the world public gardens
and displays are delicate, intricate and well respected. In other
cities every public edifice is constructed with the same durability
and use requirements as a prison. The difference is one of seemingly inverted societal
norms and respect for government. While it may seem contrary, it is often the case
that more 'free' societies treat their public areas like a prison
yard while less 'democratic' nations enjoy splendid looking public transit,
parks and safety by comparison.
The point here is only this; who exactly is
threatening to disturb those sites ? Who WOULD disturb those sites? Is the threat of intentional harm done against these American achievements more pressing now than during the cold war (therefore these new laws are required in this modern age)? How is there any assumption that if China, for example, sends people to the moon
there is a legitimate concern that their astronauts may maliciously
walk over and start messing about with the USA's 1960's era
space-craft sites? Or India, perhaps ? What nation would be so
disrespectful and so desire the ire of the rest of the planet as to
perpetrate such a horrendous property crime without precedent ? And so we see that
these laws are in no way designed for their assumed purpose of honouring the moon-sites, in fact, those
boundaries were already inscribed in the hearts of anyone who looks
out into the deep of night above... only the most dastardly of
individuals (scaled up to a space-faring entity, mind you) would
either be capable or interested in such a wanton act of desecration.
 |
| Dr. Strangelove would probably vandalize the Apollo areas... ...but then, what nation does he represent ? |
I
propose that these new laws do not validate the sanctity of these sites,
but much rather they taint the very ideology that established those
sites. Laws concieved and applied to space under these new bulla are built solely upon notions of projected national
isolationism and protectionism, of future territorial rivalry in space, and mostly of a failure among nations to form a peaceful and lasting global government tending to
the increased well being of all people.
Moreover as opposed to being
founding in a spirit of peace for all mankind, these laws are an
assertion of disunity, a threat and a warning against our own... It is a complete
change in the framework, ideas and associated institutions affecting
our closest celestial neighbour – and it should not be taken
lightly.
*(LUNAR EMBASSY, BUY MOON
LAND, ETC).
