The debate

Ever since the US and the former Soviet Union began to explore space, strategic analysts have examined the possibility of utilising space for military purposes. Meanwhile, the entire world has become more dependent on the use of orbiting satellites for both civilian and military purposes. The US is clearly far ahead in space technology, but China is catching up.

In 1981, a resolution for the ‘Prevention of an Arms Race in Space’ (PAROS) was adopted by the UN General Assembly. It calls for the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva to begin negotiations on a treaty. The resolution has been approved by overwhelming majorities, with the US either voting against or abstaining, but nothing much has come of it.

Current debate was prompted by the Bush administration,, when it decided in 2002 to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty between the US and the Soviet Union. Bush committed the US to deploying a so-called layered missile defence system to include boost phase, mid-course, and terminal phase defences, and made plans for space-based orbiting ‘defensive’ weapons.

In Washington, US analysts described the American missile defence strategy as intended to replace ‘mutual assured destruction’ with a strategy of the assured survival for the US and its allies by means of missile defence against so-called rogue states; however, critics pointed out that this was a design for achieving absolute security for the US, and if successful, absolute insecurity of all other countries.

In June 2002 Russia submitted a Russia-China working paper for a new space treaty to the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva. Their proposed treaty would complement existing space agreements. In short, the proposed treaty would ban any kind of space-based weapons and it would obligate all countries not to threaten or use the ASAT weapons that the US, Russia, and China all currently possess.

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration was not eager to engage with Russia and China about this proposal, which called for a ban on precisely what President Bush wanted to do: Deploy space-based missile defence weapons to orbit the earth in order to dominate outer space.

Actions and Reactions

In January 2007, the PRC launched a missile into space to destroy one of its own defunct weather satellites, demonstrating an ASAT capability that previously only the US and Russia were thought to have. China demonstrated that it, too, could play the game of weapons in space.  In January this year, China carried out a ground-based missile interception test.

At the same time, there is growing evidence of China’s cyber warfare capability, exhibited most prominently this year in the dispute with Google. Google complained about being targeted by cyber attacks from within China. Interestingly, the US government’s National Security Agency (NSA) assisted Google in attempting to identify the source of the cyber attacks.

A global commons in space

A Sino-American agreement might begin with a joint declaration to protect and to sustain what is currently a global commons in space, one to be enjoyed by all the world’s people. The Union of Concerned Scientists reports that, as of April 2010, there were some 928 operating satellites in space, 437 of which were US owned, 58 owned by China, and 95 owned by Russia.[1] At least 115 countries own a satellite or a share in one.  The US is obviously the greatest beneficiary, but virtually all countries benefit from the communication, surveillance, or geo-positioning functions of the existing earth satellites.

A major attack on satellites could have a disastrous impact on global military and commercial communications. So there exists a contradictory situation in which the US, China, and Russia all have the capability to attack and destroy each others’ satellites, but they would also likely destroy their own use of satellites – an attack would be suicidal.

Ban space-based weapons

First and foremost in designing an agreement is the need to ban space-based weapons before any are deployed. It is important to distinguish space-based weapons from land-based weapons capable of attacking space. There are no space-based weapons in place yet, so there is still a possibility to keep them out. However, the US would be unhappy because it leads in this technology, but Zhang Hui at Harvard, for one, has argued that the PRC already has an asymmetrical capacity in its demonstrated ASAT capability. Without an agreement, the US might commit  to an immensely expensive, one-sided arms race in space that  it could not necessarily win.

ASATs

ASATs of all types are the most difficult problem: Missiles, lasers and especially cyber. Verification would be hugely difficult. Here, I think the emphasis should be on banning the testing of ASATs. I think that the 1963 nuclear test ban treaty might be a good model. The US, Russia, and the PRC all have ASAT capabilities, but now they would agree to ban further testing of those capabilities because they could perceive it to be in both their separate national interests, as well as in the global interest. Obviously, many specifics would have to be worked out.

A working group

We should begin at the unofficial level, bringing together specialists on the many dimensions of this problem. I think it should be a joint, primarily US and Chinese, group of experts. It should be a Track II meeting of people who have the skills and experience to work together to design an agreement.. If China and the US can reach agreement for a ban, I think it would be easier to include Russia and other countries in a subsequent treaty or code of conduct.

Finally, Australia and all countries have a stake in helping China and the US find agreement to avoid an arms race in space. Australia could play an important role in encouraging the major powers to reach such an agreement. Australia is particularly fortunate to have good relations with both countries and many opportunities to debate, discuss, and possibly help design agreements of mutual benefit.

Peter Van Ness is Visiting Fellow at the Contemporary China Centre and Department of International Relations in the School of International, Political & Strategic Studies at Australia National University.

This is an edited version of an article which originally appeared in the Autumn 2010 issue of Asian Perspective, pp. 215-225.