Australia's plans to construct a space port on Christmas Island, located just a stone's throw, a mere 500 kilometres south of Jakarta, has concerned some in the Indonesian Government. Although diplomatic overtures to express official objections have not yet been made, the government through the National Space and Flight Agency has already warned of the possible risks facing Indonesia. The nation should certainly be concerned about the plans to build a rocket launch pad, work on the infrastructure for which is due to start in 2002, with launches beginning from 2004. The problem is, this large-scale project right in our own backyard could not only potentially cause space debris consisting of bits of rocket, fuel and satellites to fall into Indonesian territory, but will also disrupt flights and shipping. 
	
	
 If a rocket launch fails, debris weighing hundreds of tonnes will be scattered over the densely-populated island of Java or the tourist island of Bali, and on to the east as far as Timor. 
	
	
 The memory Russia's Mir space station which after 15 years fell to earth on 23 March 2001 is still fresh of. Fortunately shrapnel from the former space station, which measured 33 x 30 x 27 metres and weighed 137 tonnes, burned up as it re-entered the earth's atmosphere somewhere over the Pacific Ocean between Chile and Australia. Nevertheless, intact pieces of debris weighing up to 20 to 30 tonnes fell into the Pacific Ocean. 
	
	
 Prior to that, two Soviet satellites struck the earth. Cosmos 1402 in January 1978 fell over the Northern Hemisphere and Cosmos 954, which contained radioactive substances, crashed above the uninhabited tundra of Canada in September 1977. 
	
	
 Even more worrying is the possibility that a space station could be transformed into a military base and pose a threat to Indonesia's national sovereignty. At such close proximity, if bilateral relations with Australia were to take a turn for the worse, firing at Indonesia would be extremely easy. 
	
	
 On the other hand, Christmas Island is certainly an ideal location for rocket launches due to its proximity to the Equator and the geostationary orbit (GSO). [passage omitted on technical details of operation of GSO] 
	
	
 Notwithstanding the above, in reality only three of the 15 launch pad centres worldwide are located near the Equator - Kourou, San Marco and Sriharikota. But the famous US space centre, the Kennedy Space Centre at Cape Canaveral in Florida is located relatively far from the Equator. Therefore, plans to construct a space port should be moved from Christmas Island if Australia is really willing to listen to Indonesia's objections. 
	
	
 International law governing accountability if one nation's space debris falls on another is already in existence. The main convention is the UN Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 28 March 1972, known as the 1972 Liability Convention. 
	
	
 The Convention basically sets out the responsibility of the launching state, either jointly or collectively, for the consequences of a launch failure from the time of launching through to the re-entry of a satellite to the Earth's atmosphere. The Convention also sets out various claims that can be made by states who have suffered damages as a result of other states' space projects. 
	
	
 As the nation most likely to suffer the impact of the Australian Space Port, Indonesia could rely on the simplest article in the Liability Convention, Section 14. This section allows states who have suffered damages to claim compensation through the International Claims Commission, which acts as the representative of the appellant state against the launching state (in this case Australia) or any other international organisation which can be classed as a launching state. 
	
	
 Of course, lodging a claim is not as simple as clapping one's hands. Indonesia at the very least needs to sign the UN Convention on Space as well as ratify several other treaties governing national activities in outer space. 
	
	
 These UN Conventions are the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies 1967 (Space Treaty 1967), the Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects 1972 (Liability Convention 1972), and finally, the Convention on Registration of Objections launched into Outer Space 1974 (Registration Convention 1974). 
	
	
 So far, the Indonesian Government has only ratified the 1972 Liability Convention. This convention only applies to space objects that fall into Indonesian sovereign territory. Indonesia has only adopted one compensation principle, the Absolute Liability principle. This principle means that the burden of proof that the claimant state has suffered damages does not lie on the state submitting its damages claim. It is sufficient at law to demonstrate the fact of the damage caused as a result of the space object identified as belonging to the launching state or a state that has participated in the space object launching. 
	
	
 A National Space and Flight Agency working paper suggest a high degree of difficulty if Indonesia, as a state that has suffered damage, were to lodge a damages claim. In the case of objections to the Christmas Island space station, Indonesia would need to be able to show that damage that has occurred within its territorial area was caused by space objects launched from the Christmas Island station. This would of course require advanced technology and great cost to bring the matter to a claim submission. 
	
	
 But in conversation with Kompas on Sunday (17 Mar), one of Indonesia's few space law experts, Prof Dr Priyatna Abdurrasyid, expressed a different opinion. Indonesia would not need to produce further evidence to substantiate its claim, he said. It would suffice to submit a claim to the UN Claims Commission and state that the space debris in Indonesia had originated from the Australian space centre. 
	
	
 "If Australia then denies the claim, we need only demand that Australia produce proof that the space debris did not originate from its space centre activities. If a deadlock in negotiations occurs, the parties can ask the UN Claims Commission as a neutral party to act as adjudicator. This is no different to arbitration hearings to resolve other cases," Priyatna said. 
	
	
 Unfortunately, historical precedent shows that claiming compensation is no easy matter. In claiming compensation from the Soviet Union over Cosmos 954, Canada was forced to navigate numerous procedural complications. This is a very important lesson for Indonesia. 
	
	
 Unlike other experts, Priyatna believes that Indonesia should not be too concerned [about the Australian planned space station]. "In principle, my personal opinion is that we shouldn't go against the current. Rather we should the use the current to our mutual benefit," he said. 
	
	
 Meaning that rather than challenging and issuing objections to the Australian space project, Indonesia should take advantage of our southern neighbour's space activities. 
	
	
 "The Space Treaty 1967 obliges launching states to open as widely as possible the opportunity of cooperation with other states in all its activities. The treaty also pledges that the launching of space objects be purely for humanitarian purposes and not for military purposes," Priyatna said. 
	
	
 The basic principles of the Space Treaty 1967 oblige Australia as the launching state to open the possibility of humanitarian cooperation in the field of space endeavour. "Australia is not allowed to prevent other states who want to cooperate on its space centre. Indonesia can exploit this principle of the Space Treaty 1967. Rather than issuing a letter of objection to the Australian Government, wouldn't it be better to join them in our own national interest?" he asked. 
	
	
 The kangaroo country should implement risk management procedures before opening the space station on Christmas Island, and open as widely as possible the opportunity of cooperation with other states, and open complete access to cooperation to all states without exception. These principles are upheld in the Space Treaty 1967. 
	
	
 Australia should adhere to the Cardinal Principle of International Law, which states that all nations in the world must first respect and promote the humanitarian interests and progress of all humankind. But the problem is, who can ensure that these guidelines will indeed be adhered to?