Three months on, still talking about the policy

It’s been a little over three months since the Bush Administration quietly released the new national space policy. While the initial, somewhat delayed reaction to the policy (caused by the nature in which the policy was released) has died down, people are still talking about it, one way or another, even now.

For example, Robert G. Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, gave a speech about the policy Thursday at an event in Colorado Springs. Joseph didn’t cover any new ground in his speech, and much of its content is identical or nearly so to the speech he gave on the topic last month at an event organized by the Marshall Institute in Washington. (See coverage of that speech here and here.) The new speech does go into more details about weaponization and arms control, primarily to back up the administration’s conclusion that there is no “arms race in space”, and therefore no need for treaties to ban space weapons.

Speaking of the Marshall Institute, this conservative think tank released a critique of the policy this week. (The document is dated December 2006 but an email announcing its release was distributed just this week.) While pleased that the administration recognizes the importance of space in national policy, the author(s) (not identified by name in the document) are disappointed with both how the document was released and the strength (or lack thereof) of its language. (This is illustrated with subheadings like “An Inauspicious Launch” and “Weasel Words”.) In several cases the document contrasts the language of the 2006 policy with the much stronger (and, in the institute’s eyes, better) language in Ronald Reagan’s 1982 policy.

The Marshall Institute closes by providing five steps the current administration (and its successor) can redeem itself and build upon the plan, ranging from a proactive outreach plan to promote the policy to making steps towards the formation of a “US Space Corps” that would combine current military space activities with those of the intelligence community. While those are all fine and dandy ideas, I think it’s unrealistic to see the administration put much effort into any of them in its final two years in office. For example, the document argues that “If the current Administration truly considers space to be a national priority, then the President should make public remarks explaining how America will defend its vital interests in space.” Right now, I’m guessing the President is preoccupied on more important matters than space policy.

Those who are opposed to the policy because they think it’s too strong, rather than too weak, haven’t been silent, either. There’s an essay in that noted space journal, the Newtown (Conn.) Bee. The commentary, written by Leonor Tomero of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, claims that “the United States is reversing its longstanding leadership role in working to keep offensive weapons out of space”. It’s pretty standard stuff: if the US develops space weapons, then other countries will do so, and the US has more to lose because it relies more on space assets than other countries. (That argument, of course, assumes that other countries are sincere about opposing space weapons.)

Also, the web site of The American Prospect published an essay late last week about the new space policy, seeing it as another sign of the Bush Administration’s desire to weaponize space. As an example, the essay noted that the US cast the only vote in opposition to a UN General Assembly resolution on preventing an arms race in space. The article mentions that this is “the second year in a row the administration opposed PAROS [Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space] language.” However, the US in the past was routinely expressed its displeasure with similar UN resolutions, either by voting against them or abstaining; one example (of many) is this vote in 1998, when the US and three other nations abstained from a similar resolution.

The American Prospect essay notes that Congressman (and once and perhaps future presidential candidate) Dennis Kucinich plans to reintroduce in the 110th Congress legislation to ban space weapons. Kucinich, of course, has tried several times with such legislation, such as the Space Preservation Act of 2005, Space Preservation Act of 2003, Space Preservation Act of 2002, and Space Preservation Act of 2001. Kucinich hasn’t gotten much traction on his legislation (although the 2005 version did have 35 cosponsors) and, as the Prospect essay notes, “Despite a Democratically controlled legislature, however, Kucinich could face opposition from members of his own party.” One wonders, though, whether Kucinich will be emboldened enough to go back to language of the 2001 version of the bill, which would prohibit, among other things, “chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons” and “radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies” designed for “information war, mood management, or mind control”.