China Says No More Satellite-Killer Tests - Essay Example

 Earlier this year, China launched the world’s first successful ground-to-air anti- satellite missile knocking out one of its own obsolete weather satellites in order to test this new technology. Several international treaties have addressed the use of weapons in space, the1967 Outer Space Treaty being the most widely referenced, but none contain rules or guidelines regarding China’s action. However, many countries including the United States, Russia, Britain and Japan condemned the test protesting that it could potentially initiate another space race but not one simply for the sake of pride and exploration as in the 1960’s. An arms race in space many fear, would lead to catastrophic consequences. This discussion provides an overview of the laws regulating space weaponry and briefly describes the international dynamics involving China’s recent missile test. Did this test break any treaties, its implications to the global community and the question of whether it could or should have been prevented by diplomatic means will be addressed. In total, six international treaties have been signed concerning the use of outer-space. The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty banned nuclear testing either in space or in the atmosphere. It “prohibits nuclear tests or any other nuclear explosion underwater, in the atmosphere, or in outer space, so nuclear weapons can neither be stationed, orbited or tested in outer space” (Dean, 2005). In 1968, the Astronauts Rescue Agreement, as the name suggests, requires that astronauts be returned safely to their country. This extends to any property of a country. As a follow-up to this agreement, the international community put in place the formal procedures that would administer liability claims involving damaged property in space at the Liability Convention in 1972. An agreement to register anything put in space was signed at the Registration Convention in 1976. The 1984 Moon Agreement was a conservation measure. “It took the first steps to establish a regime for exploiting the natural resources of space” (“International Legal Agreements”, 2004). The 1967 Outer Space Treaty is the most recognized law concerning weapons deployment in space.  It was constructed during the height of the Cold War between the Soviets and U.S., both fearing the consequences of broadening the nuclear arms build-up to the regions of space. The two countries therefore united with other nations in agreement that space must not be used as a platform in which to launch nuclear arsenals; that the exploration of space must entail only peaceful objectives.  “Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty prohibits the orbiting of weapons of mass destruction in space. It also prohibits the testing or deployment of any kind of weapon on the moon or other celestial bodies” (Dean, 2005). Though this was signed 40 years ago, these same concerns exist today. The treaty, however, only concerns nuclear arsenals in space, not conventional weaponry such as the missile launched by China last January. Since the treaty was signed, many nations of the world have been trying to close this loophole and disallow all types of weapons being used in space. As it stands today, nuclear missiles can lawfully pass into space on the way to its destination and any weapons other than biological, chemical or nuclear can be positioned in orbit and used as a staging ‘ground’ to strike targets on earth or in space. In theory, a nation could legally construct an armed, manned military installation in orbit (Dean, 2005). The loophole that exists in the 1967 Treaty is as large as space itself and many countries since that time have offered treaties that would close it. The proposal offered by Russia and China to the UN Conference on Disarmament in 2002 is the most recent attempt to prohibit nations from deploying any type of weapons in space. Under this proposed agreement, no nation could take forceful action upon any object in space. Had this treaty been ratified, China would not have been allowed to test its anti-satellite missile. However, this agreement has not and, during the Bush administration likely will not, be made law. “At present, there is no prospect that this treaty outline will make progress at the Conference on Disarmament, owing to the conference rule of consensus decisions and the outright opposition of the United States” (“US Defends”, 2006). The U.S. has repeatedly refused invitations by both Russia and China to negotiate this treaty during the past five years. The U.S. defends its position opposing a total weapons ban in space by insisting that it must be allowed to protect its communications and other orbiting systems from perceived future threats by other nations. If the U.S. were to sign an international treaty, its current experiments involving space weaponry could not be properly tested. “The United States has been researching satellite-killers of its own, experimenting with lasers on the ground that could disable, disrupt and destroy spacecraft” (“Concern Over China”, 2007). The current U.S. National Space Policy does not prohibit the use of weapons in space for this reason; however, according to the under secretary of state for arms control and security, Robert Joseph, the U.S. is not currently planning to deploy arms into space. The heightened threat, either perceived or real, from terrorism has strengthened U.S. resolve in not giving up any military options. Perhaps if the treaty has been offered prior to the Bush administration and the attacks of September 11, the U.S. would have signed and China would not have tested it anti-satellite missile. Joseph admitted that the threat of terrorism was instrumental in the shaping of the National Space Policy in 2006 when he said, “Ensuring the freedom of space and protecting our interests in this medium are priorities for U.S. national security and for the U.S. economy but not all countries can be relied upon to pursue exclusively peaceful goals in space. A number of countries are exploring and acquiring capabilities to counter, attack, and defeat U.S. space systems” (“US Defends”, 2006). The U.S. has stated that the proposed treaty is of ‘no value’ to its interests but it intends to abide ‘scrupulously’ to the 1967 Treaty and not deploy nuclear arms into orbit. Chinese officials said after the firing of the anti-satellite missile that was not a hostile action and that there will not be a second test. China was somewhat surprised at the international outcry following the test especially that of the U.S. who had also signed the 1967 Treaty which did not clearly define but intimated that space was to be used for peaceful pursuits. The U.S. tested anti-satellite weapons launched from the air in 1985 and do not rule out future space weapons experiments yet condemn the Chinese for a single test that does not defy international laws. Japan had also spoken out against the January missile test and sent Fukushiro Nukaga, its former chief of defense, to Beijing to discuss the matter with Chinese officials. He concluded that the test was innocuous and should not be a cause of concern within the international community. “China conducted a scientific and technical experiment. It is not targeted at any country and is not a threat to any country” (“China Says”, 2007). The President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, echoed this statement but was not unconcerned regarding the precedence that could be set by the Chinese test. He warned that “We must not let the genie out of the bottle” (Lowe, 2006) and claimed that the U.S. should be held culpable if this leads to an escalation of space-based weaponry because it would not endorse the 2002 Treaty. He stressed that “Moscow continues to oppose weapons in space and criticized Washington, not Beijing, for planning space-based weapons, which he said was the reason behind the Chinese test” (Zhong, 2007). Putin is of the opinion, and he is hardly alone, that China tested the ‘satellite-killer’ as a way to encourage the Bush administration to adopt the treaty banning all types of weapons in space. It fits a natural progression. China first insisted the U.S. come onboard with the rest of the world then essentially begged for its cooperation and now is using the test as a low-level threat so as to secure a U.S. signature on a space weapons ban. Though the Chinese anti-satellite missile test did not violate any current laws or treaties, it did touch a nerve within the entire international community. However, it caused no real harm and was consistent with the U.S. view that all options should be left on the table. Despite this seeming agreement, the U.S. reaction to the test remained negative. America’s position regarding weapons use in space has seemed contradictory. Though the U.S. condemns China for its actions, it will not sign a treaty offered by Russia and China that would have banned this anti-satellite test. The U.S., under the Bush administration, has refused to cooperate insisting that such a treaty would comprise the security interests of the U.S. In addition, the U.S. and Russia have conducted similar tests in the past thus violating their own concept of the peaceful use of space, the hallmark of all space-related international treaties. Evidently the U.S. believes only it should be allowed to protect its interests by employing weapons in space. Paradoxically, China, the most ardent supporter of a non-militarized space, is using this technology to further its agenda for peace in space. References “China Says No More Satellite-Killer Tests.” (February 13, 2007). Spacewar. Tokyo Available July 25, 2007 from “Concern over China satellite-killer test.” (January 19, 2007). Gulfnews.com. Available July 25, 2007 from Dean, Jonathan. (May 19, 2005). “Acting Against the Weaponization of Space.” Union of Concerned Scientists. Available July 25, 2007 from “International Legal Agreements Relevant to Space Weapons.” (February 2004). Union of Concerned Scientists. Available July 25, 2007 from Lowe, Christian. (February 2, 2006). “The Rising Dragon.” DefenseTech.org. Available July 25, 2007 from “US Defends its Opposition to Ban on Weapons in Space.” (December 13, 2006). Spacewar. Washington. Available July 25, 2007 from Zhong, Wu. (January 23, 2007). “Satellite killer really aimed at Taiwan.” Asia Times. Available July 25, 2007 from Read More