Dealing With China in Space
A space pact with China could be the new ‘SALT’, opinion, Washington Post
“China’s SALT moment with the United States will not involve nuclear arms control and reduction treaties. U.S. and Chinese nuclear arsenals are too dissimilar in size for negotiations, and Beijing is too sensitive about transparency to negotiate verifiable nuclear restraints, let alone arms reductions. Instead, it will focus on space, where the competition is heating up and the stakes are high. What happens in space will heavily influence whether relations between China and the United States become more dangerous or more cooperative.”
I think some in China hold a grudge against the west for how the country was treated in the past. It would be good to engage with with them while maintaining competition. We seem to need an challenge in this country to get anything done.
James,
I think it’s important make sure we’re clear in our definitions when discussing a topic like this. In the case of competition, the implications can easily be misinterpreted unless spelled out. For instance, competition between Cold War enemies, business rivals, and two friends engaged in hobby sports have very different characteristics and very different goals. What is the case when we talk about “competition” with China? Only when you specify this can we consider the consequences. Competition “heating up” can be exciting and beneficial, or it can be a sign of impending danger, depending on the nature of the competition. Personally, I think it’s important to hope for the former and prevent the latter, which clearly is unfortunately not the unanimous opinion.
Steve
There’s plenty of competition already. This might be a good time to add some engagement.
The Past column appears to assume that space is an arena for conflict. There is no mention of collaboration or trust. Why should China sign a treaty on space when they are the only major country we exclude from the ISS program? Moreover, NASA is forbidden to even speak to China by Congress, particularly Congressman Wolf.
Exactly, Daniel.
And once again in history, the phobia(s) of one man, or a few, can adversly affect the lives of millions for many years to come. Can somebody please explain Democracy to me again?
Steve
China was invited to participate and turned the invitation down citing security concerns. They wanted full transparency (every design drawing, detail, and document) from everyone else, but refused to share any details of their own design.
Is there a reliable source of confirmation for this?
There are reports either way, confirming then denying that it ever happened. IMO what happened is that the Russians did ask Chinese if they wanted to join but when they heard the Chinese demands they back paddled and tried to cover it up as rumors.
Given China’s foreign trade practices/history over the last 20 years who would want to get into any kind of space cooperation agreement with them? IMHO China would do everything in its power to make the agreement totally favorable to China instead of mutually beneficient. China is still in a anti-colonial frame of mind. Best to wait them out and proceed with some sort of plan of our own (if we ever get around to doing that).
Ralphy,
China making agreements favorable to themselves is exactly what everybody else attempts to do as well. China has simply been more hardball about it, and thereby more successful. In earlier decades, Japan was exactly the same, and more successful for it. That situation changed only when the other countries learned to be more like Japan. Not to the point of being adversarial, but rather in terms of “it’s this contract arrangement, or no contract.” Once both sides find a middle ground, the hardball tactics fade away and regular increased business ensues. And this is exactly what’s been happening with industry and finance contracts between China and other countries in recent years. And the terms must be sufficiently acceptable to both sides or it wouldn’t be happening. I would say that now is not the time to derail that.
Steve
If the negotiation in question results in international cooperation to minimize orbital debris, it’s a very good thing.
Excellent point.
I wouldn’t hold your breath for China to sign a “SALT” type treaty or any treaty for that matter.An attempt was made in the late 60’s early 70’s to get them to sign a space treaty for peaceful purposes by the U.N. China refused then, they’ll refuse now.
Bobby,
A great many things have changed on both sides of the fence since then and I don’t see the relevance of a decision made half a century ago by a very different type of Chinese government to today’s world. The decision you point to was also made right in the middle of the Cold War, when China was surrounded by countries not its allies, and there were no precedents for productive cooperation between countries like we have today. No comparison.
Steve
“late 60’s early 70’s”?
How exactly do you propose that Communist China (aka China) sign onto such a UN treaty in the late 1960s? The China seat in the United Nations was held by Nationalist China (aka Taiwan) until 1971. (Since you have an American flag as your avatar, I presume you know who kept them out of the UN before 1971.)
And which treaty are you talking about anyway? Late 1960s? That would be the Outer Space Treaty. The record shows that China signed onto the treaty in 1983.
That’s a 12-year delay, but by no means does it suggest that if they “refused then, they’ll refuse now.” Rather, it suggests that they’re flexible and willing to reconsider previous decisions. As I recall, they were angling for some satellite launch business at the time, so it was to their benefit to sign on.
Or perhaps you meant some other international treaty related to space. There are five in all, so let’s check China’s status on the other four. In 1988, China acceded to the Rescue Agreement, the Liability Convention, and the Registration Convention. China is not a signatory of the Moon Agreement, but neither is the United States or Russia.
MIke,
Your last paragraph is, I think, probbaly the most valuable suggestion I’ve encountered on this topic; I wish the diplomats would take it to heart.
On the other issue, I think we could debate quite a bit. Just because different people have different life styles and perhaps differing national goals, I don’t think that necessarily means that their proposed cooperating on technical programs can’t be mutually beneficial and without conflict.
Steve
A very high bar should be met before the United States enters into an agreement to voluntarily limit its options in any arena. The arguments put forward in the WaPo piece did not come close to meeting that threshold. It’s arms control for the sake of arms control. That’s to be expected from the Stimson Center, which has never seen an arms control agreement it didn’t like.
Why not start by simply working together on the “International” Space Station? As every other spacefaring nation is already doing? The ISS could use a new partner with deep pockets and big rockets. The US could use a way to diffuse tensions in Asia, not just US-China, but also China-Japan and China-India.
No treaty required, and the Administration and Mr. Bolden would be happy to proceed, as would the Chinese. But the House appropriations subcommittee under Mr. Wolf (R-VA) has stated that no NASA funds may be used for any activity, even the most minor, involving China.