Claiming outer space for the military

By Col. Daniel Smith (Ret.)

MinutemanMedia.org

Take this year's update of the U.S. National Space Policy (NSP), four years in the making and 10 years after the Clinton administration's update.

Little wonder if you've drawn a blank. President George W. Bush signed the NSP August 31, the Thursday before Labor Day, when already everyone was focused on the now extra-long last weekend of summer vacation. The unclassified version of the NSP was released at "closing time" -- 5 p.m. October 6, the Friday before the three-day Columbus Day weekend.

So what is the White House trying to hide from the public this time? Surprisingly, nothing more than its normal unmitigated militarized unilateralism -- exactly what one would expect from an administration that has little regard for international agreements and the rights of other nations, whether "with us or against us," to engage in peaceful ventures in and through space.

For example, the phrase "freedom of action in space" appears in the Bush NSP's second "background" paragraph. The NSP equates this idea to "freedom of navigation" on the high seas, a principle for which the United States has gone to war on more than one occasion. When the same phrase reappears under "principles," it clearly threatens armed conflict should U.S. "rights" be crossed: "the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space -- take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities -- and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests." No mention of cooperation or "allies" here, as in the Clinton NSP.

Lest there be any doubt about intent, in the section titled "National Security Space Guidelines," the NSP directs the Secretary of Defense to "develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if, directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries."

What's not specified are the criteria that condemn a country to the "adversary" column or how a country gets redeemed.

Another "principle" of the new NSP states that "proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct -- activities in space for U.S. national security." Again, the exclusiveness of the statement is striking, particularly when compared to the Clinton version that acknowledges the "right of passage" for space systems of "any nation" and deems any interference as an infringement of sovereignty.

What also jumps out from the NSP is the brevity -- three paragraphs, one more than the "background" -- of the section on "International Space Cooperation." The United States is willing to work with other nations -- but only on [begin ital] our [end ital] terms: "consistent with U.S. national security interests." Here the NSP could have acknowledged that the United States is party to accords - e.g., the 1967 Outer Space Treaty banning nuclear weapons in space and the much-amended 1865 International Telecommunications Union agreement allocating radio frequencies -- that restrict its "freedom of action." But no, nary a word.

For all its emphasis on militarizing space, the 2006 NSP still includes a section on minimizing orbital debris. The Defense Department annually spends billions to develop weapons that, operating from the ground into space, from space to the ground, or within space ("killer" satellites), would exponentially increase orbital debris should a "space war" occur. And should non-military satellites hit orbital debris, that's simply "collateral damage" -- not a military problem.

The NSP does stress interagency cooperation, developing professional space experts, controlling acquisition costs, and promoting civilian space capabilities. But the context is strictly unilateral: developing alternatives to U.S. government-funded initiatives or encouraging domestic competition.

Bush's NSP, like Clinton's, ends with "unclassified facts" on the U.S. space program. But super-secrecy is so pervasive that the Bush list of facts is actually half the length of the 1996 list. All the 2006 NSP adds are references to "homeland security" as justification for using photo-reconnaissance and signals collection satellites over U.S. territory.

As this isn't news, it must be a distraction. The question is: from what?

Colonel Daniel Smith (Ret.), a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran, is a senior fellow at the Washington-based Friends (Quaker) Committee on National Legislation. He is at www.fcl.org or "The Quakers' Colonel" blog.