Here Come the Black Helicopters!

Even as the UN tries to take over control of the seas, the globalists are also pushing for international control of outer space. In January 2012, Hillary Clinton announced we would enter into negotiations with the European Union and other “space-faring” nations to develop a Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities.

On its surface, the code seems to be aimed at keeping outer space tidy by curbing the growing amount of debris in outer space. It is, literally, an anti-littering agreement.

Rose Gottemoeller, acting undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, explains that “orbital debris and irresponsible actions in space have increased the chance of collisions that could have damaging consequences for the United States and others. As more nations and organizations use space, the United States must work with our allies and partners to minimize these problems. The United States is joining with the European Union and others to develop an International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities to reduce the potential threat to American space assets by endorsing nonbinding best practices and transparency and confidence-building measures.”¹

A BACKDOOR BAN ON DEFENSIVE SPACE WEAPONS

But Taylor Dinerman, of the Gatestone Institute, explains the code’s real purpose: “What this Code would, in fact, ban is what the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese see as American ‘space weapons.’ The code is designed to prevent the United States and other liberal democracies from deploying systems actively to defend their own satellites, while it would allow Russia, China, and just about anyone else to continue their space weapons program, probably with only minimal cosmetic changes.”²

To curb debris in outer space, the code would prohibit the launch of any missile or satellite that might contribute to litter in outer space. This would ban defensive space-based anti-missile satellites and weapons systems designed to defend against nuclear attack. (The theory is that such systems would contribute to debris by destroying missiles as they fly through space en route to targets in other nations.)

The potential for the development of effective defenses against missile attack has been a hot-button issue ever since the signing of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 1972. Back in the Cold War, both sides worried overtime about the possibility that the other would develop a “first strike capability,” which would allow it to attack first and get away with it. As intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) became more accurate, arms control advocates worried that they had become a first-strike weapon. So precise was the ability to target these weapons that they could literally travel five thousand miles and actually enter the silos of enemy missiles poised to retaliate, and destroy them before they could be launched.

Compounding this worry was the chance that one side or the other (most likely the US) would develop an effective defense against incoming missiles, which would give it the ability to attack with impunity and without worrying about being wiped out in a retaliatory strike.

These fears led the US and the Soviet Union to sign the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in 1972, sharply limiting the development, testing, and deployment of defensive weapons systems.

Reagan danced to the edge of the limits of the ABM Treaty as he developed his Strategic Defense Initiative, dubbed Star Wars by his opponents. Exploiting America’s vast lead in computer technology, he sought to develop a shield to protect us from incoming missiles.

The left throughout the world was outraged by Star Wars and, although it was never really developed, fighting against defensive weapons became a cause célèbre on the left.

George W. Bush opted out of the ABM Treaty (the document allowed this) in 2002 and announced that we would not be bound by its provisions any longer. The Bush administration noted that the real threat was no longer a massive Soviet missile strike, but terrorist or rogue states like Iran or North Korea launching missiles to hit the US or Israel. While Star Wars was never able to stop twelve thousand Soviet ICBMs from hitting American targets, it has developed to the point where it can be relied upon to shoot down smaller numbers of missiles.

American plans to base defensive missiles in postcommunist Eastern Europe raised Russian hackles and rallied the European left to oppose the deployment. But, to be truly effective, anti-missile systems need to be based in outer space, where they can hit enemy missiles during their slow-moving launch phase. This strategy has the added advantage that the radioactive debris would fall on the aggressor nation.

Now the European left has devised a backdoor way to stop defense deployments of outer space weapons—the Code of Conduct.

But, as John Bolton points out, we have vital security interests in space that the proposed code may hobble. Bolton writes, “Outer space has become the next frontier for American national security and business. From space, we follow terrorists and intercept their communications, detect foreign military deployments, and monitor a proliferation of unconventional weapons. Our Global Positioning System gives us targeting and tactical advantages, spacecraft create image-rich maps, and satellites beam data around the world.”³

And, we hope, we can deploy satellites and anti-missile missiles to shoot down whatever Tehran and Pyongyang are prepared to launch against us.

The Europeans have been at work on a Code of Conduct for four years. In January 2012, Hillary announced that the US would not join the EU code as a signatory, but would promise to abide by its provisions even as we proceeded to negotiate an international code of conduct for space. Bolton calls this maneuver “a transparent end run around the constitutional requirement that the Senate ratify all treaties.”⁴

Bolton explains that “Obama is eroding American sovereignty on the sly. He knows that an arms-control treaty for space is unlikely. He barely managed to push the new strategic arms reduction treaty with Russia—a bad deal—through the Senate.”⁵ So, Bolton argues, he and Hillary are cooking up a “code of conduct” to limit US activities without requiring Senate approval.

The administration argues that the code exempts security activities that are for self-defense, but Bolton points out that this “term [is] often defined narrowly to include only cross-border attacks. We should not take the unnecessary risk that our rivals will exploit such ambiguity to prevent legitimate American actions. Taken literally, the European Union code would interfere with our ability to develop antiballistic missile systems in space, test antisatellite weapons and gather intelligence.”⁶

ADVANTAGE: CHINA

And, of course, our adversaries won’t give the code a second thought. In 2007, China created about half of the outer space debris currently encircling the earth when it shot down a weather satellite. The code would do little to stop Iran, North Korea, Russia, or China from using outer space to counter US technological advantages.

Bolton says that “in a war, China could potentially destroy our satellites and still retain its own GPS capabilities.”⁷ An analysis prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and submitted to the House Armed Services Committee says that “if the United States were to make a good-faith effort at implementing the requirements of the draft Code, it would most likely have an adverse impact on military operations.”⁸

Because it could not hope to get the Code of Conduct through the Senate, the Obama administration maintains that it is not a binding treaty, but only a voluntary guideline for conduct. Michael Listner, of Space Safety Magazine, explains that “the administration asserts that since both the European Code of Conduct and the proposed International Code of Conduct are not intended to be legally binding treaties, the administration is not required to seek the advice and consent Congress, nor does it require Congressional intervention while negotiating it.”⁹

But, while technically the code is not legally binding, congressmen have been quick to note that it would guide the writing and implementation of regulations that would govern NASA, the Defense Department, and commercial firms operating in space.

Congressmen Michael Turner (R-OH) and Joe Heck (R-NV) and Senators John Kyl (R-AZ) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL) argue that while the code would be nonbinding, it would nonetheless “require the Department of Defense and the intelligence community to implement regulations, which would be binding and could influence both the national and economic security of the United States.”¹⁰ The letter also warns that the regulations could impede the “growing commercial space market and the jobs that are created from it.”¹¹

Dr. Robert Zubrin, president of Pioneer Astronautics and the author of Energy Victory, gives a fuller explanation of why the code would be de facto binding on the US:

Zubrin cites as an example of how such a code can become binding in fact, the “planetary protection” agreements reached by the international nongovernmental Committee of Space Research (COSPAR), which have “crippled NASA efforts to mount a mission to Mars to retrieve samples of its soil.” He explains that

The fact is that the Obama administration is using the Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities to shift momentum away from a robust development of space defense, even at a time when it has had little success in curbing the missile programs of Iran and North Korea. Space-based interceptors and satellites are our best protection against these threats and Obama seems intent on giving it away.

But the broader point of the Code of Conduct is that it takes yet another sphere of activity now dominated by the United States and attempts to subject it to global regulation and governance. With the complicity and outright assistance of the Obama administration, we are giving the global community control of the seas and now of space.