George Washington University
Washington DC
12 November 2007
Click here for a printable version
|
|
Ambassador Robert Grey, Jr. argues for a legal regime in space, on a panel with Michael Cook of Hughes Network Systems and Steven Apfel of Boeing |
|
The United States and the world community are becoming increasingly dependent upon utilizing outer space. Telecommunications, weather forecasting, and navigation have become substantial sectors of our economy. These industries generate around $100 billion a year and have been growing at rate of 16% per year over the last decade. Outer space is crucial to national security as well. It is vital for military communications, navigation, and intelligence purposes. All of this depends upon unimpeded access to outer space and on a regime to insure that these vital activities can continue without hindrance.
The crucial question is how do we do this? Some argue that the weaponization of outer space is necessary to insure the current and future use of outer space. These calls were heightened last January after China successfully tested an anti-satellite system. Others, and I am one of them, are of the view that our long-term national security interests would best be served by negotiating a treaty which effectively, legally, and verifiably bans the weaponization of outer space.
Those on my side of the debate take as a guiding principle a fundament of the Hippocratic Oath—don’t make things worse. During World War II railroad stations were full of posters asking the question, “is this trip necessary?” that’s what we need to ask ourselves as we address the weaponization of outer space.
Space weaponization is purported to be the last step in a layered missile defense. Credible experts claim that even a system designed to defend against an attack from a small number of missiles could cost from 220 billion to a trillion dollars. A more elaborate system would cost trillions more. Each system according to many experts could be overwhelmed by relatively easy and less expensive means—for example by building other more offensive weapons or by spoofing the defensive systems.
I am by no means an expert in the pros and cons of the physics and engineering aspects of space weaponization. I was trained as a lawyer and represented our country in deliberations about the peaceful use of outer space and nuclear arms, but I can tell you one thing with absolute certainty, if we weaponize outer space other states will do the same thing. The result will be that instead of protecting the space assets we already have in place we would place them at risk.
Outer space is directly related to the possible use of nuclear weapons. We, the Russians, and others rely on space. We also use satellites to detect activities related to the deployment of weapons of mass destruction, to monitor compliance with arms limitation treaties like the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons Convention, and our intelligence satellites have given us the confidence to end the worse case mishaps and the close calls that existed during the Cold War.
Weaponization of outer space is a crucial issue in and of itself. Weaponization of space coupled with the indefinite retention of nuclear weapons is a cosmic security risk. Imagine a crisis in which nuclear weapon states on hair-trigger alert were suddenly to lose their intelligence satellites, their navigation systems, and their ability to communicate. Such a scenario, with the commanders effectively blinded from the situation on the ground, is when the fingers on the buttons get itchy. Furthermore, space debris is a problem now. It would be a much larger problem if weaponization were to proceed.
Continued spending on space weapons systems which would destabilize the international system would have a negative impact on our national security in other ways as well. The call for space dominance which is impossible to achieve has been filched from Admiral Mahan. Dominance at sea as Mahan described it is the ability to have enough naval assets available to prevail in an engagement at a specific time in a specific place. His theory has been distorted in discussing weapons in space. It simply doesn’t fit, but it is still valid on the high seas.
Today our 300 ship navy is roughly half the size it was 30 years ago. The fact that a Chinese submarine surfaced within firing range of a carrier group a couple years ago should give us pause. All the space based systems in the world cannot assure our security if we don’t have a navy that assures dominance at sea. In the same vein, given the experience in Iraq, we have a pressing need to rebuild and reequip our ground forces as well.
One of the realities we have to face is that acting alone cannot solve the complex issues we face in today’s world, be it nuclear weapons, global warming, or space security. The tension between unilateralism and engagement with the world at large has been part of our history since the republic was established. During our struggle for independence and during the Civil War we sought alliances with others—France in the first instance and Russia in the second. In both World Wars we were in alliances and in the post-war world we committed ourselves to creating a new international order in which multilateral cooperation and the peaceful resolution was to be the new norm. Yet for the last several years the isolationist instinct, the inclination to act alone, has again come to the fore. The result has been a moral and strategic disaster. In the past the international community has looked to us for solutions. In the last several years in the eyes of many we have become part of the problem. Belligerent unilateralism is not a policy it is an attitude. Until we change that attitude we will be more vulnerable and less secure.
Nothing illustrates the retreat from multilateral engagement more vividly than in the realm of outer space. Beginning in the Eisenhower Administration and concluded in the Kennedy Administration, the international community, with strong and positive American leadership, concluded the Outer Space Treaty, which calls for using space to promote the common interest of all mankind. It is worth noting that at the time NASA was created, President Eisenhower made it clear that it was U.S. policy to keep space weapons free, and while there have been tentative efforts over the years to test whether weaponization of space is feasible, most have been rejected. Today space remains weapons free and we should keep it that way, or risk our ability to further explore and develop space for our nation and the world.
One way to do this would be to reach agreement on rules of the road—informal agreements to ban certain activities. This would be a promising start, but in the end an international treaty supported by all would be the best outcome. The Russians have proposed such a treaty and will soon table it at the United Nations. The Chinese support such a treaty as well. Indeed, if the United States were prepared to agree negotiations on a treaty could begin immediately.
Let’s be clear. Arms control is not an end in and of itself nor are treaties, but they can play an important role in stabilizing the international environment and preventing a new, costly, and unnecessary arms race.
Let’s be realistic as well. These are complex and difficult issues. Technology moves forward, and we are not Luddites. We cannot suppress scientific advancements and we are aware that no treaty can guarantee that someone won’t break out of it or cheat.
A certain amount of R&D on space weaponization is inevitable and countries must always prepare for the worst case scenarios, but our goal should be to move as rapidly as possible toward a regime to prevent the deployment of weapons in space. That having been said, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter makes it clear that within certain limits, each state has an inherent right of individual or collective self-defense. We have the means to act alone or collectively in space if others begin to weaponize space. The Charter is not, as some conservatives maintain, a treaty trap.
I close by quoting a recent speech by Hans Blix, the head of the Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction, “It seems to me that some threats that are invoked to justify more arms have been hyped. The exaggeration of threats may perhaps be good for domestic politics…but it is not good for the world…The window that opened at the end of the Cold War has been allowed to hang flapping in the wind. It is high time that it be fully opened and lead to a cooperative security order.” Blix is right.
We have a choice. A legal regime banning space weaponization which will enhance our national security and protect our growing commercial use of space or a destabilizing arms race which threatens international security and puts our existing and future assets in space at risk. Without international agreements on space weaponization, those contemplating large, fragile, and expensive peaceful uses of outer space will be investing in an arena which could become a war zone.
*The Bipartisan Security Group is a program of the Global Security Institute, a partner on outer space security with the Secure World Foundation. |
