A sea of peace or a theater of war? Dealing with the inevitable conflict in space - Features

Air & Space Power Journal, Fall, 2002 by John E. Hyten

The international nature of the space commons makes dealing with space conflict difficult. In the absence of a coherent national strategy, the US military, as a minority player in space, has problems developing the means to deal with space issues as they relate to national security. In reality, it is a national problem that the executive branch must address by integrating all the elements of US power into a coherent policy.

As a commons, space demands continued engagement in the international arena. One must continually explore and update laws, treaties, and agreements to allow for effective growth while minimizing conflict. The United Nations (UN) International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is well positioned to negotiate many of these multinational issues. As is the case with the commons of the sea, however, disagreements and conflicts will continue to occur whenever one nation achieves a distinct advantage and other nations want to challenge that advantage. Exploration of the sea gave rise to new international laws, treaties concerning fishing rights and defense, and a new legal framework--all of which served to resolve conflict. When these measures did not work, however, nations defended their rights to the seas with military power.

At sea, however, strategic military advantages and economic advantages are more easily discernable. Usually, ships of war and ships of commerce look quite different, but in space, satellites of war and satellites of commerce may be one and the same. Similarly, the national response to a threat from a ship of war is clear, but such a response to a satellite that has both military and commercial uses ("dual uses") is not so clear. The twenty-first century in space will be driven by dual-use technologies, which will greatly affect future conflict. To maintain an advantage in space, the nation must pursue ways to deal with these technologies effectively. Again, the military cannot do it alone.

The UN offers opportunities to advance US interests in dealing with dual-use technologies. These include such forums as the Conference on Disarmament and other UN committees that look at commerce and outer space. Possibilities exist for exploring negotiated agreements for controlling these kinds of systems and technologies. Perhaps more likely, however, are opportunities for negotiating international "rules of the road" for space that can better define the operating framework. (21) Like other nations of the world, the United States will always have the right to defend itself from attack--which should remain the driving principle behind US operations in space. Engaging other nations within the structure of the UN makes progress possible--at least in terms of defining some of the additional laws and agreements necessary to operate in the commons of space.

One should not view the UN and other arenas for peaceful negotiations as a panacea. The current competitive advantage enjoyed by the United States gives it the opportunity to continue to develop the commons of space commercially and to serve as the leading provider of space services around the world--from telecommunications, to navigation, to remote sensing, to anything produced by space industry in the coming years. It is essential that the US government not take any action or implement regulations that would encourage other nations to develop a particular space market. This requirement raises continuing conflicts with national-security interests, once again stressing the need for an integrated approach from the US government.