| Policy | |
US National Space Policy
What others say about the 2006 NSP – a selectionVarious commentators have published their views of the 2006 NSP. In the October issue of the New Scientist Jeff Hecht restates the emphasis with an article entitled “US takes unilateral stance in new space policy”. The opening statements to the Hecht article observe the more aggressive and unilateral stance than the previous Clinton policy. The NSP flatly rejects new agreements that would limit U.S. testing or use of military equipment in space. There is also stronger language to assert that the U.S. can defend its spacecraft which echoes an air force push for “space superiority” that was made in 2004. This may perhaps be a precursor to a new anti-satellite arms race where robotic spacecraft could approach a satellite to check it out, then sabotage it if the U.S. deems it to be a danger to its interests. In October, CBC News provides a commentary under the headlines “New U.S. space policy strong on military activity”. It said that Washington’s new space policy focuses on military capabilities, including rejecting limitations by arms control agreements, entrenching missile defence systems and asserting its right to deny such access to its enemies. While the policy does not specifically mention the weaponization of space, it makes clear that the U.S. will not brook any hindrances in any sphere of its activities there. International law and treaties prohibit the weaponization of space, for example, the provision in UN Resolution 2222 governing the use of space. BBC News has provided similar comments in saying that the U.S. had adopted a tough new space policy that rejects any proposals to ban space weapons. But it also reported that the White House has said the policy does not call for the development or deployment of weapons in space. Leonard David writing in Space. com states that the ‘new Bush Space Policy unveiled, stresses U.S. freedom of action’. The new policy supports not only a Moon, Mars and beyond exploration agenda, but also responds to a post 9/11 world of terrorist actions, such as the need for intelligence-gathering internal and external to the U.S. This is collaborated by a Washington File Staff Writer Cheryl Pellerin who wrote that the U.S. opposes restrictions on use of space and the policy acknowledges new technology, and the importance of space to international commerce. For the interest of the geospatial community the NSP lists several unclassified facts such as the conduct of satellite photoreconnaissance that includes a near real-time capability, as well as overhead signals intelligence collection. Such activity are used to “image the U.S. and its territories and possessions, consistent with applicable laws, for purposes including, but not limited to, homeland security”. Interestingly, at about the same time the Press Trust of India reported that President A P J Abdul Kalam suggested enacting law to govern the use of outer space and regulate the use of data acquired from remote sensing satellites, particularly of sensitive installations. “We have to have a law of space like the United States”, Kalam said addressing the 26th Congress of the Indian National Cartographic Association. While laudable, in practice, the reality is equivocal. For example, one may be unable to get a map of say, Rashtrapati Bhawan, from the Indian Department of Science and Technology even though this might be readily available on Google Earth. Elsewhere there have been fears and critiques aplenty. Moscow News under the headline ‘Russian official says new U.S. space policy will lead to military confrontation’ may send shivers in defence departments. This 2006 U.S. space policy has been sharply criticized by Russian space officials one of which views it as a first step toward a serious deepening of military confrontation in space. However, in truth, closer inspection of the article reveals that the commentators have failed to read the NSP in its entirety and are reacting to secondary media reports of the policy. This observation is further collaborated by James Oberg’s November article in Msnbc.com entitled ‘An outerspace war of words escalates: Russians overreacting on the basis of overwrought reports on U.S. policy’. Oberg’s analysis traces the origins of the misinterpretations to a story in the Washington Post on October 18th by staff writer Marc Kaufman who wrote that the new policy “asserts a right to deny access to space to anyone ‘hostile to U.S. interests'”. Oberg goes on to say “And that’s the way most of the world consequently reported it, usually in quotation marks, without most reporters ever reading the original document.” Those countries that reacted to these statements, including Russia and China, have misread it since the NSP does not deny access but rather that which is to be ‘denied’ is any hostile action by adversaries. Oberg’s plea is that the Russians must be told, and told quickly and credibly, that the press accounts are inaccurate and unworthy of belief – and undeserving of counteraction. “Launch the truth into orbit, and abort the myths – that’s the only safe trajectory.” A critique of what the commentators are writing may also be found in Dwayne A. Day’s observations in The Space Review. The observations are made by pitting left-leaning newspaper editorial boards and what they emphasise as against commentators on the right side of the political spectrum. Such observations do make interesting reading given that the critiques are of a bland policy document. Why the quiet release?The 2006 NSP had been expected for almost two years. It reportedly went through 35 drafts before being finalised (though not unusual for such an important matter). The delay in its release however is unusual because of supposedly internal conflicts between various departments in there roles and responsibilities – Defence, Central Intelligence and the new intelligence bureaucracy. What is interesting is the President Bush signed the unclassified document on August 31st but it was released at the end of the day on Friday October 6th. It has been claimed that this was intended to gather minimal attention. However, as will be noted, the ploy was relatively successful, as the popular media only made comment a week later. But what remains unexplained is why the quiet release and just before a public holiday long weekend. End NotesA copy of the 2006 NSP is available at the following source: |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Pages: 1 2
(60 votes, average: 4.75 out of 5)
Loading...
