Various 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.
|
.gif)
