home > by publication type > daily analysis > China Ups Ante in Space
Email
| Prepared by: | Joanna Klonsky, Associate Editor Michael Moran |
|---|
Technicians work at Space Control Center in Beijing. (AP/Xinhua, Zhao Jianwei)
News of China’s successful satellite-killing missile test (BBC) on January 11 raises new questions for the United States with regard to its national space policy. A Chinese ground-based ballistic missile shattered an eight-year-old Chinese weather satellite slated to be retired, proving China can play with the big boys in space. It also caused U.S., British and Japanese officials to express concern that China may now be capable of targeting foreign spy satellites and risking a space arms race. Others, however, speculate that China conducted the first space weapons test in two decades to compel the U.S. to negotiate (NYT) a treaty forbidding such weapons. The United States has historically vetoed Russian and Chinese proposals for such a policy on the grounds that it would violate American “freedom of action” (Space.com) in space.
While news of China's test, first broken by an industry magazine, Aviation Week & Space Technology, stunned officials, it hardly represents a bolt from the blue. A report in October alleged China had “dazzled” (Defense News) a U.S. satellite with a ground based laser—that is, painted the satellite with the laser in a test of its ability to blind the U.S. military in times of crisis. The Pentagon avoided specifics about the report, but soon afterward the Bush administration released an unclassified version of its new space policy, which goes far beyond previous policies in asserting America’s right to respond forcefully to such threats. Bill Martel, a space policy expert at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, tells CFR.org in this podcast that the new space policy “sounds like a precursor to the weaponization of space.” Supporters readily concede the point. “Space supremacy is now the official policy of the U.S. government,” writes Michael Goldfarb in the Weekly Standard.
Space policy traditionally applied primarily to the science and economics of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) efforts to send satellites aloft or to mount ambitious exploration programs. Even today, the public associates “space policy” more with things like NASA’s December 4 decision to work toward establishment of a Lunar Base Camp (National Geographic) by 2020 than with military affairs. Yet for years now, national security issues have driven much of American space policy, and claim an ever larger share of funding for space programs than purely scientific pursuits. Beginning with Ronald Reagan’s 1983 proposal for space-based missile defense, the military’s share of U.S. space spending has more than tripled. Related Pentagon-led efforts to create a National Missile Defense system have cost about $100 billion (PDF) since the Missile Defense Agency’s creation in 1985, though deployment of a reliable system remains possible only in theory.
Fearing the U.S. lead in this realm, and the perceived window left open by U.S. policy pronouncements, China and Russia jointly offered to open negotiations to ban space weapons at the UN’s annual Conference on Disarmament in 2002. But some in the United States viewed the initiative as a threat to the country’s freedom of action (Space Review) . Michael Krepon and Michael Katz-Hyman of the Stimson Center argue that foreclosing on negotiations without testing the possibility of banning some kinds of activity in space is shortsighted. University of Miami researcher Nader Elhefnawy notes China’s gross domestic product already is 75 percent that of the United States, and it might be the world’s largest economy as early as the 2020s. “A case can be made that the current U.S. lead in resources and technology would be best employed to slow down any further weaponization of space” (Space Review).
Weigh in on this issue by emailing CFR.org.
Explore international efforts to curb nuclear proliferation with a new interactive from CFR's program on International Institutions and Global Governance.
To order Task Force reports, Council Special Reports, and Critical Policy Choices, please call, fax, or order online from our distributor, the Brookings Institution Press: phone +1.800.537.5487, fax +1.410.516.6998.
For information on other reports that are not for sale, or for general publications information, please call +1.212.434.9516 or email publications@cfr.org.
In War of Necessity, War of Choice, Richard N. Haass contrasts the decisions that shaped the conduct of two wars between the United States and Iraq involving the two presidents Bush and Saddam Hussein, and writes an authoritative, personal account of how U.S. foreign policy is made, what it should seek, and how it should be pursued.
In Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know, Julia E. Sweig presents a remarkably accessible portrait of Cuba’s unique place on the world stage over the past fifty years, including its internal politics, its often fraught relationship with the United States, and its shifting relationship with the global community.
As Ray Takeyh shows in Guardians of the Revolution, behind the famous personalities and extremist slogans of Iran is a nation that is far more pragmatic—and complex—than many in the West have been led to believe.
Complete list of CFR Books
This report finds that nuclear weapons will remain a fundamental element of U.S. national security in the near term, and makes recommendations on how to ensure the safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. deterrent nuclear force, prevent nuclear terrorism, and strengthen the nuclear nonproliferation regime.
About Independent Task Forces at CFR
Complete list of Task Force reports
The Canadian oil sands present an important challenge to policymakers: they promise energy security benefits but present climate change problems. Michael A. Levi assesses the energy security and climate change effects of the oil sands and makes recommendations for U.S. policymakers within the context of broader bilateral relations with Canada.
This report explores an important element of the maritime policy regime: the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Author Scott G. Borgerson examines the international negotiations that led to the convention, the history of debates in the United States over whether to join it, and the strategic importance of the oceans for U.S. foreign policy today.
Complete list of Council Special Reports
To request permission to reprint or reuse CFR material, please fill out this permissions request form (PDF), referring to the instructions on page 1.
Copyright 2009 by the Council on Foreign Relations. All Rights Reserved.