Home > Insight

Bush outlines plans to dominate space
By Erik Wiesner
wiesnere@mscd.edu

This month the Bush administration declassified its new national space policy, originally formulated in August.

It hasn’t generated the same sort of controversy that other executive activities have, but it is one of the most audacious policy shifts this administration has initiated. It reneges on almost 40 years of treaty-established international law, not to mention the well-established traditions of space exploration.

In 1967 the Outer Space Treaty was signed into effect by several nations, including the United States.

According to the State Department, the treaty “sought to prevent ‘a new form of colonial competition’ and the possible damage that self-seeking exploitation (of space) might cause.”
Thus it stipulates that the exploration of space be limited to peaceful, scientific endeavors, and that no one may claim territory, test weapons or station weapons of mass destruction in space or on celestial bodies.

Furthermore, the Outer Space Treaty insists that space exploration should be “carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries.”

Bush’s new National Space Policy contradicts the spirit and tradition of space exploration codified in the Outer Space Treaty. More importantly, it declares the United States’ intention to wantonly violate it.

Sure, the policy pays lip service to the principles of internationalism and peace, but it also emphasizes that the United States sees space as a gateway to securing its own interests.
The new space policy takes the dangerous precedent of pre-emptive strikes into space, establishing the government’s intention to “deny… adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.”

It later stipulates that the secretary of defense has a responsibility to deny freedom of action in space to adversaries. Even though by signing the Outer Space Treaty, the United States agreed that space “shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind.”

How can this country claim to support the freedom of other countries to explore space and then, in the same breath, say it will actively deny that freedom? How will the Bush administration define what makes a space program hostile to its interests?

Does this distinction of what is contrary to U.S. interests even matter when the president tells the secretary of defense to deny freedom of action in space to our adversaries without making any qualifications as to what the adversaries can and can’t do? Doesn’t allowing space programs only for allies and/or those in accordance with U.S. interests amount to a claim of U.S. sovereignty in space?

The policy goes on to say that arms control agreements must not impair “activities in space for U.S. national interests.” So in other words, if the president decides it is in our national interest to test weapons in space, that is what will happen – international treaties be damned.

The only weapons that would be cost-effective to have in space are weapons of mass destruction, which we have signed an explicit agreement not to put into space; so what is the President’s intention when he puts forth a policy rejecting arms control in space?

What message does it send to the world when the United States declares its intention to ignore arms control treaties even as it threatens countries that pursue weapons programs? Even worse, this comes as Russia and China are calling for further treaty regulations on weapons in space and the Center for Nonproliferation

Studies says “there is growing concern about the potential for a space arms race.” The CNS further states that “the legitimacy of any space arms control norm depends on the buy-in of the major space-faring nations.”

As more nations gain space capabilities, shouldn’t this country endeavor to set an example instead of laying the groundwork for a celestial arms race? The Outer Space Treaty laid the groundwork for U.S.-Soviet cooperation in space and kept the Cold War arms race from spreading to orbit. I’d say that’s a pretty good endorsement. Maybe we shouldn’t discard international law on the whim of an administration too shortsighted to see that honoring treaty obligations is actually in the country’s best interests.