ANALYSIS/OPINION:
Wonder why the United States is such a staunch defender of an international right to freedom of the seas?
After all, we have the biggest navy in the world. If we wanted to, we could control vast stretches of the ocean, much as Britain once did.
The answer is simple. For centuries, freedom of the seas has allowed nations to trade and defend themselves. Today, even a great naval power like the United States thinks it is in its interest for everyone to have free access to the open seas.
The same should be true for space. This “final frontier” has been opening up for decades, but there is little understanding and agreement on what rules of the road should apply for nations operating there.
In fact, much confusion and even hypocrisy surrounds the whole idea of space. Russia and China bemoan the “weaponization of space,” even though Russia has a missile arsenal that can reach its targets only through - you guessed it - space.
China recently tested an anti-satellite weapon in space to prove its military mettle there. Yet both countries proposed and are pushing a “prevention of an arms race in outer space” treaty at the U.N. Conference on Disarmament.
Others think that space should be seen as a pristine Garden of Eden where only explorers or scientists should tread. It may be natural to sympathize with those who want space preserved as a sanctuary from human evil and vice, but it is too late for that.
You don´t have to be a believer in the tales of “Star Wars” or “Star Trek” to know that once people get into space, they will pretty much behave the way they do on Earth. Space provides no divine dispensation from human nature, so don´t expect a U.N. convention or treaty to transform it into a no-evil zone.
Space is already a very real place with a heavy human footprint. Satellite communications are an integral part of our economies and our militaries. Like the open seas, it is a transit way filled with people and devices intent on advancing active exploration, commerce and, yes, even self-defense. And it will only get busier.
That´s why we must start thinking more seriously about the principles that should govern how nations operate in space. Just as, over time, maritime commerce and naval vessels adapted to principles and rules that gave all nations equal access to the seas, we need a set of principles and rules to do the same for space.
The first principle should be that space should have “open lines of communication” - as open as those on the seas. No nation, group of nations or even international organization “owns” space; thus none has any particular right or claim to it.
Countries can compete in space, both commercially and even militarily, but no authority has the right to exclude nations from exercising the same kinds of activities, rights and responsibilities they would enjoy on the high seas.
The second principle should be to extend the idea of free commerce and trade into space. We may be a long way from conducting a World Trade Organization round of talks on space trade, but we should acknowledge that we should extend free-trade principles throughout space.
The third principle is that no international authority or nation should deny the right of a nation to self-defense. The U.S. has a right to deploy defense systems in space as much as Russia and China have a right to deploy ground-based missiles that traverse space.
We should not fall for the myth that arms control in space will make Americans safe. A space arms control treaty that purports to “de-weaponize space” would only end up denying us the capability to defend ourselves with space-based radars and interceptors. It would do nothing to stop Russia, China and other nations from firing missiles at us through space in the first place.
As Americans, we should be as committed to defending the freedom of space as we are to defend the freedom of the seas. No one should even try to dominate or control access to space. Like the open seas, it is a frontier where human aspirations, for good or ill, will be played out in the continuing drama of human history.
It would not be only foolish to try to stop it. It would be profoundly wrong.
• Kim Holmes, a former assistant secretary of state, is a vice president at the Heritage Foundation and author of “Liberty´s Best Hope: American Leadership for the 21st Century.”
Please read our comment policy before commenting.