More than 5,000 satellites
have been launched into orbit since the space age began[ii].
Today, eleven countries have space launch capability, with over sixty countries
operating about 1,100 active satellites orbiting the earth providing a constant
stream of data and information relied upon for critical civilian communications
as well as for military operations by some.[iii]
As we grow ever more dependent on the
ability of these satellites to perform their essential functions without
interruption, there are growing concerns that this useful technology is giving
rise to a new battleground in space for the purpose of sabotaging or destroying
the vital services our space-based communications now provide.
The US and Russia have
been testing anti-satellite technology (ASAT) since the space age began, and have
even contemplated using nuclear tipped
ballistic missiles to destroy space assets. In 1967, the US and Russia realized it would be in their interest to
support the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which banned the placement of nuclear
weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in space, although they failed to
ban the use of conventional weapons in space.
And in 1972 they agreed to sign the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM)
to slow down the space race and the ability to harm each other’s assets in
space. Unfortunately, George Bush walked
out of the ABM treaty in 2002, and the race to weaponize space was on once
again in full force. China is getting
into the act too, having launched, in 2007, a device which destroyed one of its
aging weather satellites orbiting in space.
The US followed suit in 2008, destroying a non-functioning satellite, while
both nations denied any military mission for their acts, claiming they were
merely trying to destroy outdated satellites that no longer functioned.
With the proliferation of
military spacecraft such as imaging and communications satellites and ballistic
missile and anti- missiles systems which often pass through outer space, there
have been numerous efforts in the UN Committee on Disarmament (CD) to outlaw
the weaponization of space through a legally binding treaty. But the United States is having none of it. In the CD, which requires consensus to take
action, the US has been the only nation to block every vote to begin
negotiations on such a treaty, with Israel generally abstaining in
support. Russia and China actually prepared a draft
treaty to ban weapons in space in 2008, but the US blocked the proposal, voting
against it each year thereafter when it was reintroduced for consideration,
saying the proposal was “a diplomatic ploy by the two nations to gain a
military advantage”.[iv]
While continuing to block a
legally binding treaty to ban weapons in space, the US has recently begun to
work with a group of nations in a new initiative that began in the European
Union in 2008, proposing a “Code of Conduct
for Outer Space Activities“ which
would lay out a non-binding set of rules of the road for a safer and more
responsible environment in space. Some
of its key objectives are to mitigate damage to satellites that could be caused
by space debris orbiting the earth, to
avoid the potential of destructive collisions, and to manage the crowding of
satellites and the saturation of the radio-frequency spectrum, as well as to address
direct threats of hostility to assets in space. [v] At first, the US rejected any support for
the Code, but has now agreed to participate in drafting a new version based on
the third iteration from the European Union. Obama’s Under Secretary of State
for Arms Control and International Security, Rose Gottemoeller, acknowledged in
2012 the necessity for a Code to deal with orbital debris and “other
irresponsible actions in space”, while
at the same time, noting that,
It is important to clarify several points with
respect to the code. It is still under development, we would not subscribe to
any code unless it protects and enhances our national security, and the code
would not be legally binding. [vi]
In addition, the US is insisting on a provision
in this third version of the Code of Conduct that, while making a voluntary
promise to “refrain from any action which brings about, directly or indirectly,
damage, or destruction, of space objects”, qualifies that directive with the
language “unless such action is justified”. One justification given for
destructive action is “the Charter of the United Nations including the inherent
right of individual or collective self-defense”, thus lending legitimacy and
codifying the possibility for warfare in space as part of the Code’s
established norm. And while the Charter
of the United Nations prohibits aggressive action by any nation without
Security Council approval unless a nation acts in self-defense, we know there
have been numerous occasions where nations have by-passed the Security Council
to take aggressive action, often protesting they were acting in
self-defense. Instead of banning ASAT
development and warfare, this Code justifies such warfare as long as it’s done,
individually and collectively, under the guise of “self-defense”. Thus despite lacking the force of law that
would be established with a legally binding treaty, this new US version of the
Code creates, as the norm it is proposing, a possibility for space warfare. Our world deserves better!
[i]
William Blum, Killing Hope: US Military and CIA
Interventions since World War II (2003) (Common
Courage Press) http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/20869-our-leaders-do-not-mean-well
No comments:
Post a Comment