Obama's Space Policy: What Will It Mean For International Cooperation?
Laura Grego and David Wright
June 22, 2010
The Obama administration is expected to release its National Space Policy sometime in the next few weeks. Since the mid-1970s, each administration has issued this public summary of its main principles and goals for using space. Historically they have been very general, with few, if any, specific prescriptions for programs. The Obama document will supersede the Bush administration’s policy, which was issued in 2006.
When the Obama administration releases the 2010 policy, attention is likely to focus on its implications for changes at NASA and the future of the piloted spacecraft program, an issue that has generated some controversy over the past six months. More important at an international level, however, will be indications of how the Obama administration intends to approach space security issues. If the administration’s public statements are any indication, the new policy likely will represent a return to a more international approach to space; a more balanced view of civil, commercial and military uses of space; and a greater openness to arms control and cooperative solutions to international space security issues.
The forerunner of the National Space Policy was the Report of the Space Task Group issued in September 1969 by the Nixon administration. President Nixon convened the Space Task Group to make recommendations for the space program after the Apollo program. The first National Space Policy was issued by President Carter as Presidential Directive NSC-37 in May 1978. It was developed by a National Security Council committee chaired by science advisor Frank Press. President Reagan released his space policy as National Security Decision Directive 42 in July 1982. The process was headed by his science adviser, George Keyworth II.
The George H.W. Bush administration released its National Space Policy as NSPD-1 in November 1989, and followed with the several other directives dealing more specifically with launch policies and remote sensing. That was replaced by the Clinton space policy, Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-49/NSTC-8, in September 1996, and most recently by the George W. Bush space policy, which was released in August 2006.
Below David Wright, co-director of the Global Security Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and Laura Grego, a senior scientist with the program, offer an overview of the key security issues surrounding the National Space Policy.
U.S. VS. INTERNATIONAL RIGHTS IN SPACE
A specific language change to look for in the Obama policy is in the statement regarding the right of countries to use space and to operate without interference. The relevant language in the 2006 Bush policy generated significant controversy.
Beginning with the Carter policy and continuing through the Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and Clinton space policies, the freedom to use space without interference and acquire data from space was stated as a general principle governing all countries. However, the language in the Bush 2006 policy changed. It described these as rights enjoyed by the United States. This shift was particularly controversial since it could be read as implying that the United States does not recognize these as rights enjoyed by other countries (see Table 1).
A return in the 2010 policy to language that acknowledges the rights of all countries to the peaceful use of space and freedom from interference would indicate a more international approach to space.
| Carter 1978 | Regan 1982 | Bush 1989 | Clinton 1996 | Bush 2006 |
|
“Rejection of any claims to sovereignty over outer space or over celestial bodies, or any portion thereof, and rejection of any limitations on the fundamental right to acquire data from space.” |
“The United States rejects any claims to sovereignty by any nation over outer space or celestial bodies, or any portion thereof, and rejects any limitations on the fundamental right to acquire data from space.” | “The United States rejects any claims to sovereignty by any nation over outer space or celestial bodies, or any portion thereof, and rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of sovereign nations to acquire data from space.” |
“The United States rejects any claims to sovereignty by any nation over outer space or celestial bodies, or any portion thereof, and rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of sovereign nations to acquire data from space.” | “The United States rejects any claims to sovereignty by any nation over outer space or celestial bodies, or any portion thereof, and rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from space.” |
| “Purposeful interference with operational space systems shall be viewed as infringement upon sovereign rights.” |
“Purposeful interference with operational space systems shall be viewed as infringement upon sovereign rights.” |
“Purposeful interference with operational space systems shall be viewed as infringement upon sovereign rights.” |
“Purposeful interference with operational space systems shall be viewed as infringement upon sovereign rights.” |
“…the United States will view purposeful interference with its space systems as an infringe-ment on its rights.” |
Table 1. Bolded text indicates significant changes between subsequent national space policies.
The 2006 Bush policy also included new text that suggested a more aggressive U.S. approach to space. It stated that the United States will “preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests.”
Other countries will be watching to see whether and how this language has changed in the new policy.
U.S. ATTITUDES TOWARD ARMS CONTROL IN SPACE
The 2006 Bush policy introduced strong limits on space arms control, implying that the Bush administration did not see the benefit of pursuing negotiated approaches to space security.
It stated: “The United States 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 rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national interests.”
This represented a change from earlier policies. For example, the Reagan administration accepted the role of arms control as long it was not used to attempt to deny all military or intelligence uses of space.
“The United States will continue to study space arms control options,” the 1982 Reagan policy stated. “The United States will consider verifiable and equitable arms control measures that would ban or otherwise limit testing and deployment of specific weapons systems should those measures be compatible with United States national security. The United States will oppose arms control concepts or legal regimes that seek general prohibitions on the military or intelligence use of space.”
The 1989 Bush policy similarly accepted the role of arms control as a part of U.S. foreign policy, noting that the primary forum for such negotiations was the U.S.-Soviet nuclear and space talks that were taking place in Geneva.
The Clinton policy explicitly noted that space security may be “enhanced by diplomatic, legal or military measures to preclude an adversary's hostile use of space systems and services.” It stated: “The United States will consider and, as appropriate, formulate policy positions on arms control and related measures governing activities in space.” While the Clinton policy noted that the United States would “conclude agreements on such measures only if they are equitable, effectively verifiable, and enhance the security of the United States and our allies,” these are criteria that one could expect apply to all negotiations that United States took part in.
The Obama administration has indicated that it is open to arms control and cooperative solutions to security problems. For example, it stated at the U.N. General Assembly that it would undertake “a ‘blank slate’ analysis of the feasibility and desirability of options for effectively verifiable arms control measures that enhance the national security interests of the United States and its allies.”
Opposing international negotiations is counter to U.S. interests, since many of the important space issues require cooperation to solve. Additionally, by forgoing the possibility of new mutually agreed rules or constraints, the United States—rather than “keeping its options open”—actually limits what is possible. Without constraints on antisatellite (ASAT) weapons, for example, threats to satellites will continue to proliferate and mature, and will require the United States to spend more effort securing satellites and lead to less predictability and stability in crises.
While specific initiatives may not be spelled out in its policy, the Obama administration is likely to endorse international engagement and arms control as measures for increasing space security.
BALANCING SCIENTIFIC, COMMERCIAL AND MILITARY USES OF SPACE
The relative priority given by the policy to the scientific, commercial and military uses of space has varied over the years. The Reagan and George H.W. Bush policies listed security uses of space first, before scientific or commercial uses.
The 1996 Clinton policy appeared to change this priority, dropping military uses to second on the list of goals, below scientific uses (“Enhance knowledge of the Earth, the solar system and the universe through human and robotic exploration”), but above commercial uses (“Enhance the economic competitiveness, and scientific and technical capabilities of the United States”). The Clinton policy also explicitly called for a “balanced national space program” that included national security, economic, environmental and scientific uses.
The 2006 Bush policy appears to again prioritize the national security aspects of space over science and commerce. The top two goals listed are national security-related: “Strengthen the nation’s space leadership and ensure that space capabilities are available in time to further U.S. national security, homeland security, and foreign policy objectives” and “[e]nable unhindered U.S. operations in and through space to defend our interests there.”
Failing to maintain a balance among different uses of space could have significant consequences. For example, one counterproductive effect of prioritizing national security considerations has been the imposition of an overly broad and strict set of export controls on satellite technology. These controls were imposed in the late 1990s by a Republican-controlled Congress, and were meant to keep China and other nations from acquiring advanced satellite and missile technology. While restricting some sensitive technology is in the U.S. national interest, the export laws are arguably so broad that they interfere with commerce and collaboration that is not necessarily sensitive. This has had a marked effect on an industry that is highly international in nature. In the decade since the export controls were put in place, the U.S. commercial satellite industry has lost a significant share of the market that it once dominated.
These controls also have hampered the ability of the United States to cooperate with other countries on civil space projects of mutual interest, and have severely restricted governmental, commercial and civil contact on space issues between the United States and China in particular. This runs counter to language calling for “international cooperative activities” in space policies since the Carter and Reagan administrations.
The Obama space policy is expected to contain language indicating an interest in restoring a balance among civil, military and commercial uses of space. The administration already has begun the process of reforming export control, and support for such reforms in the new policy could indicate that the administration will follow through and reduce unnecessary barriers to commercial and civil space cooperation.
Such a change may lead to increased opportunities to cooperate with China on civil projects of mutual interest. In a joint statement issued with President Hu Jintao in November 2009, President Obama stated, “The two countries have common interests in promoting the peaceful use of outer space and agree to take steps to enhance security in outer space.” Specific initiatives mentioned in the statement include discussions on expanding cooperation on science and human spaceflight, and reciprocal visits by representatives of scientific agencies such as NASA to discuss space policy.
WHAT THE OBAMA POLICY SHOULD LOOK LIKE
A forward-looking National Space Policy would provide the foundation for a comprehensive space security strategy. UCS has convened a panel of experts to develop a set of recommendations for U.S. space policy, which we will release in a report later this summer. These recommendations are intended to help put the United States on the path toward a more secure and sustainable space environment. This approach would emphasize international cooperation rather than unilateral action; reaffirm that all countries have the right to the peaceful use of space; take a more balanced view of commercial, civil, and military uses of space; and support and reinforce long-held norms against stationing weapons in space and disabling or destroying satellites.
