Frida Berrigan is a senior research associate at the World Policy Institute’s Arms Trade Resource Center.
Lately, the Bush administration has been trying to play nice on the global stage—emphasizing collaboration with other countries on issues like nuclear proliferation and the “war on terror.” But the Bush administration’s obsession with domination and control keeps cropping up—most recently in its new space policy, the first new statement of U.S. objectives in outer space to be issued in 10 years. Released quietly on the Friday before Columbus Day, in a move designed to generate little or no media attention, the Bush administration’s new space policy can be summed up in three words: mine, mine, mine.
The 10-page document lays out a policy focused on establishing, defending and enlarging U.S. control over space resources, arguing for “unhindered” U.S. rights in space that is actively hostile to the concept of collective security enshrined in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967. The opening asserts that “freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power.” Alongside earlier documents like the U.S. Space Command’s Vision for 2020 —which articulated a vision of “full spectrum dominance: and insisted that “space superiority is emerging as an essential element of battlefield success and future warfare”—this new policy can been interpreted as an opening shot in the race to militarize space.
The Bush administration throws in some phrases in to its new policy to appeal to Star Trek fans and internationalists and to pacify those alarmed when an early draft of the report leaked to The New York Times last year sounded stridently bellicose. The United States “will seek to cooperate with other nations in the peaceful use of outer space” and “is committed to the exploration and use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes, and for the benefit of all humanity.” But these Kirk- and Picard-worthy sentiments are immediately contradicted when “peaceful purposes” is clarified to include “U.S. defense and intelligence related activities in pursuit of national interests.” Five of the seven United States policy goals mention “national security” and/or “defending our interests.” Three of the eight areas of space policy are related military uses of space—the national security space guidelines, space nuclear power and space-related security classification. However the guidelines for those three take up as much room as the five areas of civilian and commercial use of space resources.
The space policy is clearest when it is explaining why international laws do not apply. For example the policy states that the administration:
Will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space. Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the right of the U.S. to conduct research, development, testing and operation or other activities in space for U.S. national interest.
Along with Israel, the United States has blocked passage of a United Nations General Assembly resolution calling for the “Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space,” since it was first introduced in 1981. Now, the United States can point to this new policy for justification when it is the lone vote against the resolution.
Soon after the policy was released, Robert Luaces, U.S. Representative to the U.N. General Assembly on National Space Policy tried to reassure the world that the United States isn’t trying to weaponize space. He said :
One, there is no arms race in space. Two; there is no prospect for one. Three; the U.S. will protect its access to and use of space.
This statement is belied by U.S. military funding for space projects. According to the Government Accountability Office, Pentagon funding for military space operations will total $20 billion in 2007. Additionally, a Stimson Center comparison of U.S. and world spending found that the United States spends almost 90 percent of the total global spending on military-related activities in space.
There is an arms race in space, but so far the United States is the only country in the running—devoting millions to systems like the Common Aero Vehicle, which is envisioned as a “hypersonic glide vehicle” to “dispense conventional weapons, sensors and payloads worldwide from and through space within one hour” of being fired. In 2007 the Common Aero was given $33.4 million in funding. The Air Force has requested another $165 million for Multiple Kill Vehicles, seen by some as the preferred interceptor for a space-based missile defense. Countless other systems are also being funded, like the “Space Test Bed,” which will be allocated $48 million in 2008 to “begin to exploit the natural advantages of space systems and integrate them” into the missile defense systems.
Russia, China and India—which already have space interests—will try and catch up if the United States continues on the arc of militarizing space. Other countries that can’t compete in getting their own satellites and systems up in space will perfect methods of bringing ours down. As we militarize space, many of the space-dependent technologies and conveniences we take for granted—from weather reports to air traffic control, from cell phones to global shipping conveniences—will become vulnerable to attack.
In the Center for Defense Information’s analysis of the policy—titled “Contrasts and Contradictions”—they observe that:
by signaling to other nations that space is rapidly becoming a game of ‘every man for himself,’ rather than an environment that requires cooperation of all to ensure access by all, the U.S. undercuts 40 years of tradition that has kept competition in space to a dull roar and dampened drivers to conflict.
Thus, space joins a catalog of other issues—from global warming and pandemics to nuclear proliferation and the arms trade—where the Bush administration has opted for a unilateralist market driven approach backed up by military superiority over an internationalist approach where collective security and mutual benefit are employed.
The only way to win the space arms race is not to run it. And given that problems right here on earth are bedeviling U.S. and world leaders, striking out into the vast and uncharted regions of war in space seems like a very, very bad idea.
