Power Without Limits - Ruling Without Rules?
Preserving the Space Environment Against Sustained Wars
While the world is no longer driven by the existential struggle between communism and capitalism, between East and West, the US government under George W. Bush is preparing and already fighting a holy war against the supposed "axis of evil". In this view the future is full of dangers, risks, and threats against which the US must protect, anytime, anywhere and by all means. While Bush does not give consideration to whether and how the underlying problems may be prevented before they emerge and what role US policy plays in creating them in the first place, he has one major response to the perceived threats: destroy them by military force when they occur. As long as threats grow like cancer, the target list for military action also grows. Bush behaves like an amateur doctor who uses his scalpel to crudely cut cancer cells from a healthy web, thus destroying the web and spreading cancer.
In this regard it is worth quoting the journal New Europe:,[1] "The war, however, sooner or later will begin and it is anticipated to be long and vague. The United States will concentrate its efforts to keep NATO countries united under the American command in this war which is likely to be executed in revolving waves and will be characterized by the element of sustainability in the sense that the enemies will be renewable and therefore the targets will be in each new round redefined. In such a long and vague process certainly the `renewable' targets some times will not be chosen only on the grounds of terrorist criminal activities but political and financial expediencies as well as the needs of certain sectors of the arms industry will be taken into consideration. At the same time, this new type of USA led war will aim, through a complexity of moves to restore the globalization which so far failed, at higher levels."
The chosen terminology is provocative, but emphasizes the crucial point. While mankind is trying to prevent the destruction of planet earth by implementing concepts of sustainable development (for instance at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg), those who represent the old system fight for their own marginal interests, including the lobbies of the fossile fuel, nuclear power and defense industries. They don't care much about the waste they produce (on the nuclear disposal problems see Allison MacFarlane) and unite behind Bush who instead of building sustainable peace prepares for a never-ending series of "sustained wars". While earth seems already too small for US power projections, space warriors in the Pentagon and US Space Command aim at space dominance as a tool to control earth and exploit the resources of outer space. At the same time, they deny others the same. To them space is the arena that would allow to continue unpeaceful and unsustainable lifestyles forever, transforming the universe into a galaxy of evil.
One could attempt to ignore such simple-minded global players if they were not powerful enough to undermine the prospects for peace and sustainable development everywhere. After the Cold War, the United States remained as the world's sole super-power, cruising on the ocean of international relations like an invincible aircraft carrier. In many fields of global policy the US hegemon behaves like a "rogue elephant" (Francis Boyle), trying to impose rules on others but ignoring rules for themselves. This is the main message in virtually all policy fields, imposing global disorder in security, economy, and the environment - which finally strikes back against the US itself (see the analyses by Nicole Deller and Carah Ong).
Globalizing the economy rapidly without accepting social or environmental limits provokes (stock) market crashes all over the world, including in the US. Being the leader in greenhouse gas emissions generates climate change that also harms the North American environment and health. Ignoring the interests of other countries could drive them into coalitions unfavourable to US interests. And declaring countries and citizens to be rogue and terroristic provokes cruel attacks. September 11 gave a glimpse of what is possible, but the dangers of nuclear terrorism are even graver (Annette Schaper). Fighting these threats by military means induces other countries to do alike, fuelling regional conflicts such as in Northeast Asia, the Middle East and in South Asia. Nuclearizing the already violent conflict between India and Pakistan creates nightmares with millions of victims, as J. Sri Raman, Matthew McKinzie, Zia Mian, M.V. Ramana, and Abdul Nayyar describe.
The US Nuclear Posture Review puts any country on the nuclear target list that is a supposed threat, whether nuclear or not. While this is a severe blow to the movement for a nuclear-weapons free world (Joseph Rotblat), some experts and NGOs keep up the abolition flag and develop alternatives for complete nuclear disarmament (see the summary of a roundtable meeting in Ottawa by Merav Datan).
Contrary to the widely shared view,there may be limits to US power: physical and technical limits in building a missile defense or providing sufficient energy; economic and environmental limits of sustaining growth; or political limits with regard to the formation of international coalitions. Currently there are two tests for the strength of US power: Will Bush be able to attack Iraq and overthrow the dictatorial regime of Saddam Hussein? And will the US build weapons in space and dominate the high frontier? In both cases there is strong international resistance and attempts to restrain Bush. Concerning Iraq it is difficult to find support for an attack even among US politicians and NATO allies who fear the uncalculable risks (see the statement by Nuclear Age Peace Foundation). German chancellor Gerhard Schröder - under election pressure - expressed clear opposition against an attack.
In the space arena, the US quest for space dominance is in obvious conflict with other states' interest in the peaceful exploration of space and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. Mankind is largely against passing the threshold from the militarization to the weaponization of space. Opening the Pandora's box for space warfare is actually in the interest of no country. It may even undermine US security since it strongly relies on satellites, as some US politicians and military officials critically point out. It may be more secure to define new rules for outer space and create an international space regime that prevents an arms race in space (see the analyses by Lloyd Axworthy and Merav Datan, Jürgen Scheffran, Jonathan Dean, Hui Zhang, Bob White).
Several proposals for such a regime were discussed at a recent INESAP Workshop in Berlin (see report by Regina Hagen). In this Bulletin we document some of the proposals, namely the 1984 Göttingen proposal on the limitation of the military use of space (see comments by Jürgen Scheffran); the recent Joint Working Paper of a Space Weapons Treaty presented by the delegations of China and Russia in the Geneva Conference on Disarmament (see comments by Zhigang Fu and others); the Space Preservation Act of 2002 introduced by US Congressman Dennis Kucinich, and the associated Space Preservation Treaty (see summary by Carol Rosin and Alfred Webre and comments by Ian Kenyon). In promoting such concepts the international community can build strong coalitions which are not only able to withstand US pressure but launch a process to convince the US government that it is preferable to be included rather than excluded. NGOs such as INESAP and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space can support such a process and publicly protest against the space war plans (see the report on activities in the news section).
Jürgen Scheffran, August 16, 2002
New Europe, 10th Year, No.473, June 16-22, 2002, www.new-europe.info/September2001.htm
