UNWRITTEN RULES: One space insider quipped this week that Congress has a serious discussion about space security about once every five or 10 years. And the latest one appears to have taken place on Wednesday, when the House Armed Services' Strategic Forces and International Development, International Organizations Subcommittees held a joint hearing on "Creating a Framework for Rules Based Order in Space." One major takeaway: There is bipartisan support for engaging with allies and adversaries alike to identify norms of behavior, both binding and not, in a domain where national sovereignty doesn't exist and international agreements on how to behave are limited and largely toothless. Rep. Darrell Issa, the California Republican, addressed it as a rhetorical question. "Isn't it fair to say that we must go forward and establish those international rules, draw in as many convention signers — including potential bad actors — as possible, but also form those alliances that would mimic in space if necessary the same sort of alliances that have in fact kept us relatively peaceful for the last 70-plus years? Don't we sort of have to do all of them?" But how to police them? Democratic Rep. Seth Moulton, who called such an approach a "goal worth pursuing," was skeptical. "Without effective enforcement," he said, "rules and norms obviously limit our own activity in space but do nothing to impede malign activity by our adversaries. If we do not intend to enforce the 'voluntary, non-legally binding' rules, or expect our adversaries to abide by norms in space, what happens when they violate them?" A hard sell: Indeed, so far the Russians and even more so the Chinese, are not buying anyway. "We do engage with China on outer space through both bilateral and multilateral channels," Jonathan Moore, principal deputy assistant secretary of State for the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, told the subcommittees. "Our primary goal is to ensure spaceflight safety and responsible behavior in outer space. We've been working to try to improve communications between our respective satellite operators, to avoid potential collisions and prevent radio frequency interference between navigation satellites," and "we're trying to encourage interoperability for several users." "Results," he added, "have certainly not been consistent or satisfactory." 'We are just at the beginning': But what would those norms be, anyway? "We are just at the beginning of this process to start to define what some of these norms of behavior are," Bruce Turner of the State Department's Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance, testified. "We hope to define such things as how much [distance] to leave between bodies out in space and how one might approach them. There would be communications, there would be notifications, a number of things like that. We are just at the beginning of this process right now." 'SPACE IS NOT ONE OF THEM': As for how space security fits in the U.S. government hierarchy? No one is exactly sure. Rep. Ted Lieu, an Air Force reservist, said during the hearing he is working on legislation to try to clear things up by designating space as critical infrastructure, thus elevating it in government planning and presumably freeing up more resources to protect space assets. "The reason there is some confusion is there's approximately 16 critical infrastructure sectors, such as the chemical sector, the communications sector, the energy sector," the California Democrat said. "Space is not one of them. However, if there is for example a space communications satellite, that would arguably be captured within the communications sector. To alleviate this confusion and capture everything in space, I'm working on legislation that would in fact designate space as a critical infrastructure sector." 'If not everything, then what?' Brian Weeden, director of program planning at the Secure World Foundation, cautioned that it might not make sense to include everything. For example, he asks, are communications satellites that broadcast the Super Bowl critical infrastructure? Those used by first responders need to be, or weather satellites, certainly might be. Another thorny issue relates to military systems, even if they are also used by civilians, particularly GPS. "It's a military warfighting capability," he told us. "It raises the question, 'why have we decided to build our society [so] critically dependent on this military warfighting capability that is a legit military target?'" But if it doesn't make sense to pursue a blanket declaration of space as critical infrastructure, what should count? "If not everything, then what?" Weeden said. "That is the key question here." Related: Why space is not part of Biden's infrastructure plan, via Newsweek. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment