U.S. National Space Policy

MODERATOR: Thanks for joining us, everyone. My name is Christopher Teal with the Foreign Press Center. Again I want to remind everyone, although I think it should be obvious that this is a background briefing. It's not on the record and we have with us a Senior Administration Official that is here to background us on the U.S. National Space Policy which was just released the 31st of August this year. We're going to talk a little bit about -- more detail about the new update and have a time for you to ask some questions. So without further ado, I will introduce our senior administration official.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you, Chris, I appreciate that. Thank you for the opportunity to be here.

As I think you all know, on the 31st of August the President signed a new National Space Policy. This was the fifth document that actually has been signed off by the President in the last several years. There was one in 2003 and three in 2004. It's an umbrella document if you will. It's an overarching document that captures and is linked to those other space policies that have been signed out. What it does is try to update from a policy perspective what has changed in the last ten years or so. It replaces the 1996 policy. And since that time there's obviously been a lot of changes in terms of challenges, opportunities and threats and the like and so that needs to be reflected and updated. And what it does is, while it maintains a lot of consistency with past documents and past space policy, it does try to emphasize new and key areas and we can talk about that if you'd like.

So I think with that the introduction.

MR. TEAL: Sure. If I could ask you to introduce yourself, your name and your organization before asking questions.

QUESTION: Donghui Yu, China News Service. When this policy was released last week many analysts were talking about China and they seemed -- China's increasing space capability will threaten to the United States. And I also heard it's reported that American satellite was disturbed by the Chinese laser on the ground, so what's your comments on this?

My second question is several weeks ago when the NASA administrator, Mr. Griffin, raised it at Beijing, he seemed to be very cautious about cooperation with China. I mean, extend your cooperation with China. Do you think -- is it possible for the United States to cooperate with China in the areas of space exploration? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: To your first question, and let me know if I'm getting all the parts right, the policy is not about any one country so it doesn't identify China, Europe at large or Russia or any one particular country in any way, shape or form. What it does is provide strategic guidance to the United States and to those departments and agencies that have space and space-related responsibility. So in this area in terms of dealing with international partners as well as the broader international stage, there's a large section on international cooperation. And what we seek to do is to try and cooperate with as many nations as we can in a variety of areas, whether it be for scientific benefit which we do in the case of NASA, whether it be in the case of foreign -- advancing our foreign policy interest or national security interest. There's a very large spectrum that's encouraged for cooperating.

I don't know on the press articles about the satellites. I don't know anything about that. If it's regarding the NASA trip, from what I understand the NASA administrator had a successful trip to China. I know that that there is a topic of senior level discussion about what exactly was learned from that trip and how it might be that these particular types of civil space cooperation can occur and that's something which still needs to be thought about and discussed.

MODERATOR: Next question. Here in the front.

QUESTION: Christoph von Marschall from the German daily Der Tagesspiegel. In the report in Germany about the new policy or (inaudible) over the old policy, however you put it, there was a lot of concern that militarization of space will go forward. Could you a little bit comment on that? There's a misperception or is it really you claim the right to put more military technical -- new technologies into space.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: A couple of things because we do try to be careful and words actually do mean things. I'd actually say frankly in terms of whether there are military technologies and military applications that space systems and services and capabilities, there are, and there have been for 50 years. I think what you might have been asking about is weapons in space, weaponization. If that's your question, the policy is not about weaponization. It's not about the deployment or development of those types of things.

This policy, like past policies, makes clear that in terms of the peaceful use of outer space we remain completely committed to that, that the peaceful use of outer space include defense related activities. We also believe that other nations have the right to be in space as well and that those nations who have space systems and services and capabilities in space have the right of free passage, that is, their satellite should be able to go wherever they go unimpeded.

As I think with a lot of countries, and the United States certainly does maintain the right of self defense. So in that regard, should there be a need to protect our satellites or systems or services of capabilities, we retain that right.

It's important to realize, though, there's a lot of things that can be done to protect. Protection doesn't necessarily mean anything forceful, doesn't mean anything kinetic, doesn't mean anything like a weapon. There are a range of diplomatic actions and activities which we encourage, frankly, through our State Department to refine those mechanisms.

There are non-military activities that can be taken as well. These could include moving satellites or hardening satellites. Encrypting data might be another way to protect those systems, services and capabilities, even doing things more specifically or technically within radiofrequency spectrum. So there's a lot of different ways for us to protect those capabilities while we're exercising the right of self defense even though we full recognize there is a peaceful use of outer space and all are encouraged to it.

The militarization of space, just again to come back to that point, there are lots of countries and consortia and interest that have military related capabilities in space.

QUESTION: I would like to follow up just in one point. Right of use of space, is there full reciprocity, or do you regard that -- could America claim rights which it would not give to other countries or in your understanding that is a full reciprocity, whatever you claim to have rights in space any other country would also have the same regard?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think actually it's fairly broad. Peaceful uses of outer space, defense related activities, the militarization of space has already occurred with not just the United States having military related capabilities in space, self defense is something which is universal. It's even enshrined in the UN Security Council resolution in Article 51. So those are very broad principles which we adhere to, which we believe in in our document consistent with past policies as well. And I think other countries would agree with that as well.

QUESTION: Ken Choi from Chosun Daily Newspaper from Korea. Can you tell us what this document -- whether these documents have any legal binding or is executive order, directives or what does this document have binding legal status?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: This is policy for the United States Government. So it replaces the previous policy. This now is the new policy in place that guides US space-related programs and activities. It is to be consistent with our budgetary process, with those treaty obligations that we have, and with those laws that are already in force. So this is just -- we have that foundation already within our government if you will. The space piece has just now been replaced with a new space policy. I don’t know if that helps or confuses you.

QUESTION: I guess it's the U.S. policy (inaudible) have any legal binding or, you know, for example, big corporations or industry or companies doing any business in the space-related issues, do they have to follow whatever is specified in this document?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No. Companies or industry will be interested in how -- in what the policy is and what it allows the government to do because that will give them an idea of how they can interact with the government. It will give them a better sense of what it is the government's trying to do. There are constraints and restraints on the government but not those same -- it doesn't have a legal relationship with industry, but industry is going to be really interested in what this policy says because it's going to give them some sense of what the government is willing to do.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up question. Can you just comment a little bit on this -- there is this commerce -- commercial space guidelines. I'm just wondering, you know, if this policy has anything to do with industrialization of space.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, I'm not quite sure what you mean by industrialization of space, but let me talk a little bit and see if I can get to you. The commercial remote sensing portion of the policy or the commercial guidelines is linked to the commercial remote sensing policy, which was one of the first ones that the President signed out in 2003. That document, and it's reflected in some of our goals as well, wants to encourage the government to use commercial remote sensing capabilities, wants to be as encouraging as it can to ensure that there is robust international competition and that the industry can thrive.

One of the big things that that policy does that is very important, and it's contained as well in this national space policy, is that it seeks to encourage to the maximum extent possible commercial remote sensing capabilities. This would be for government missions, for military missions for example, as well as for disaster response. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, as a matter of fact, we had extensive amounts of commercial remote sensing data in products that were made available to the Homeland -- Department of Homeland Security.

So what it seeks to do is try to encourage that competition, it tries to encourage a close relationship with government so that those capabilities can be incorporated, integrated within the government system and architecture and -- so it does those types of things. Does that answer your question?

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Jessica Wang from Hong Kong Sing Tao Daily. My question is in terms of development of technology, which country do you think that is most likely to challenge the U.S. in the air, militarily and commercially in the future? Thank you.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's an interesting question. It's one of the reasons why we actually needed to get a new policy out, because in 1996 the world was a lot different. And in previous years -- it's certainly different from previous years where there are many more players in the space world, in the high technology world, and it spans the globe. In Asia, in Europe, in Latin America, in Africa as well, there are a lot of countries, a lot of companies, a lot of consortia, a lot of entrepreneurs who are able to have access and get access to space.

I think your question reflects perfectly the state where we are in the world with the diffusion of technology, the knowledge management of organizational principles, of technology as well. There is a lot of opportunity for a lot of people, and as a result it's very hard to say who the any one country might be because, frankly, you can have entrepreneurs in this country -- the recent Space Ex competition out west is a classic example. Entrepreneurs who want to get into space, individuals who with enough money can also ride into space as well those companies. So it's very hard to answer your question.

If I could, let me add something. It also ties into the gentleman from Chosun. You asked about the industrial base and about technology development. One of the things that this policy does that we think is a little bit different is that it emphasizes a couple of key areas that we think are really important for the United States, making sure that we have the right professionals, what we call space professionals, developed and that are our science and technology and our industrial base also stay healthy and on firm ground.

In this country at least, and I think in other places too, there are a lot of people who are getting ready to leave that industry, lots of older folks who are getting ready to retire, and one of the challenges that we look at is how do you find those younger professionals with the right tactical backgrounds who are going to be able to come in behind them. And this has great implications for civil space activities as well as national security space activities and gets directly to making sure that our industrial base can stay as healthy, dynamic and competitive as possible because, to bring it back to your question, there is so much technology being diffused, there is so much opportunity, there is so much -- so many opportunities just via the internet, for example, to do so much that can get you into space or space-related capabilities or technologies.

QUESTION: Marco Bardazzi, Italian News Agency, ANSA. Some of the critics, the people that are discussing the new policy, are saying that the Clinton Administration policy has an emphasis on exploration of space and instead, this one, the Bush Administration policy, has an emphasis on defense and security. Would you agree with this kind of characterization?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I completely disagree. As a matter of fact, it's hard to find anything further from the truth. This policy has a very significant and robust section on civil space, on exploration specifically. NASA is not only mentioned but highlighted. The President's vision for space exploration was a key document in January 2004, and this document has a direct link to it. So by extension, not only is NASA and the vision for space exploration referenced in this document, they're also referenced in one of the key goals for the U.S. space policy and it, without question, ties back to the previously announced vision by the President. So I think that's very wrong that it de-emphasizes civil space, NASA and exploration. It's a key goal. It's something that we call out in principles as things that can be -- that can and should be done in terms of the peaceful use of outer space. The President has strongly backed NASA's exploration budget in the budget process. So the President has spoken out I think very clearly and directly about the importance of exploration.

I don't think it's any surprise, however, going back to your question for example, there's obviously defense-related activities in space and certainly there is a section on national security guidelines as there should be. There was in the Clinton Administration, there was going all the way back to the Eisenhower Administration. So the fact that there is national security guidelines called out, the fact that they are specific defense-related activities called out is, again, an extension of what past Presidents and administrations have been doing. They've been updated for the times.

QUESTION: May I follow up? Until this moment we have talked a little bit abstractly. I know the current policies have to set general rules. But could you give us a practical example of what does it mean, '96 was not up to date? Could you give us a program where it was necessary to give new guidelines given that there are new players or can you -- something which I could touch on concrete? Of course, I can try to fill in the holes with my own imaginations that there will be, for example, in Europe there's concerns there will be Galileo not only American GPS, which we use up to today, but that changes of course the patterns. But I don't know if this is really what we are talking about. Just give me one practical example.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, there's several I could give you. For example, the Department of Homeland Security is a brand new entity as of five years ago, and so this policy reflects that. It reflects the need for space-related systems and services and capabilities, provides support for Homeland Security. That would be one example.

To go back to the commercial remote sensing example of how for disaster response, whether it be the tsunami in Indonesia or Hurricane Katrina and Rita here, emphasizing that more robust commercial space system and services capability application. I'd go back to the space professional issue, is a brand new one, that was not emphasized at all in the past policy nor was the space industrial base emphasized. It was mentioned a little bit, but this year we actually have a guideline to guide our activities in the government.

Inter-agency collaboration is another area. Again, it was mentioned, it's true, in the past policy, but here it's really emphasized. And this is a product of the changes of the last ten years, particularly in the last five where obviously the need to share information, the need to cooperate, the need to have a common set of objectives in what we're trying to do within the space world is necessary. So that was another key area of emphasis that is different from the '96 policy. So those are maybe five examples to try to illustrate your point.

QUESTION: Alexander Pakhomov ITAR-TASS News Agency, Russian News Agency. According to Washington Post the White House notified Moscow in advance about changes in the space policy. Did it get any response? Or do you expect any response? Was it necessary to notify Moscow especially about these changes?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: What was the last comment, I'm sorry, or the last question?

QUESTION: Was it necessary to notify Moscow especially about these changes?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: There was -- when we finished the document there were a range of people and organizations that we needed to talk to in this country, and we wanted to talk to international partners and allies as well.

Is it necessary? I don't know if it's necessary, but the U.S. and Russia have obviously a close relationship. In the world of strategic affairs and in space, too, we have a close relationship. We have a very close civil space relationship as you know. There are senior government officials from both of our countries, I know, who are in the midst of discussing several things that touch upon this area. So from a diplomatic perspective I would say, and other perspectives, too, I would say it was necessary. And no, I don't know what the response is back yet.