Viewpoint: Bureaucratic Politics and the Case of Satellite Export Controls

The export control regime applied to commercial satellites in the United States (U.S.) is not rational suggesting that the desired policy outcome of this regime is not met. The regime under review is the International Traffic in Arms Regulations. Commercially available technologies were placed within this regime to make sure that such technologies do not harm U.S. national security interests. It is argued in this viewpoint that not only does this regime weaken national security, but it also affects commercial space. The commercial space sector is affected through a cost of compliance with the regime. Discussed herein is the political process of export control and commercial satellites with particular attention to how that process is influenced by bureaucratic politics.     

Viewpoint: International Traffic in Arms Regulations—Controversy and Reform

The International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR) have, for decades, played a crucial role in shaping the movement of sensitive technology from the United States to the world. Originally intended to ensure military dominance, the ITAR regime is seen by some as stifling the competitiveness of American industry. A list known as the United States Munitions List (USML) contains the items subject to the ITAR export controls. This list includes clearly dangerous military technology such as missile navigation systems and fighter jet avionics but also includes seemingly benign items, such as coolant hoses or tape recorders for spacecraft. Among the items considered controversial are a number related to the space industry. An incident in the early 1990s began a jurisdictional tug of war. The United States strengthened its grip on the export of space technology. In the last two decades, some have observed a decline in the competitiveness of American industry. The content of the USML should be reviewed based not on the historical “catchall” approach, but rather based on a “military intent-based” or “military capability-based” approach. This will improve the competitiveness of the U.S. space industry without sacrificing national security.     

Satellite Industry Perspectives on Export Control Regulations

In 2013, the Satellite Industry Association (SIA) submitted public comments recommending changes to and requesting clarifications on U.S. government proposals to modify the export-control regulations governing satellite technology. The comments represented a final stage of the decade-long effort to reform the restrictive export-control policy put in place in the late 1990s. To assist in constructing a transparent and effective regime that protects national security and U.S. competitiveness, SIA’s comments contained detailed recommendations to the State Department and Commerce Department that addressed highly technical concerns, attempted to harmonize confusing definitions, and requested additional clarity on jurisdictional questions. Taken in context, the filing represents a perspective on export control policy shared by the bulk of the U.S. satellite industry.     

A European “Equivalent” to United States Export Controls: European Law on the Control of International Trade in Dual-Use Space Technologies

This article analyzes the system developed within Europe, more precisely within the European Union through European Community law, to address the security-sensitive issues involved in the export of hardware, software, and knowledge for the purpose of space activities and major space applications. The subject is introduced with reference to the far better known export control developments within the United States, such as those concerning International Traffic in Arms Regulations, and the international understandings under the Missile Technology Control Regime and Wassenaar Arrangement. European Community Regulations for export controls provide for a complex system of balances between national sovereignty and Europe-wide harmonization. This European Community regime, though ultimately still dependent upon individual state's sovereign controls, establishes an interesting measure of international harmonization in security-sensitive export controls. Although the European Community regime is fraught with many complexities, it manages to avoid some of the pitfalls evident in the United States and international regimes, notably the confusing discussions on discerning weaponry proper from other space items with dual-use potential. This is the result mainly of an approach characterized by a primary intention to harmonize, rather than to apply strict controls per se, resulting in a transparency and consistency that are not only valuable to commercial entrepreneurs, but also to those concerned primarily with the security risks posed by the international space industry. As for the space industry in particular, it is helpful that the European Community regime specifically carves out civil space activities, for example if conducted within the context of the European Space Agency or national space agency activities.     

Viewpoint: It is Time to Create a United States Air Force Space Corps

The United States (U.S.) has deepening dependence on space systems for economic prosperity, civil government administration, priority science and exploration programs, and national security while at the same time there is dramatic growth in competitive space capabilities and demonstrated threats to space systems globally. Despite this, the U.S. has not invested sufficient resources to meet National policy direction for capabilities to insure freedom of action in space, especially space situational awareness capabilities—the cornerstone of deterrence from space attacks. A principle reason for this shortfall is the historical absence of an organization accountable for securing the space domain like those of land, sea, and air. Using the analogy of the Army Air Corps, the author recommends creation of an autonomous Space Corps realized out of existing organizations within the USAF. The AF Space Corps would manage a separate space budget and all space professionals in organizing, training, and equipping national security space capabilities including those necessary to secure the space domain for peaceful use.     

Viewpoint: Space System Negation in the Context of Space Policy and Law

For 21st century warfare, space is the unquestioned new high ground for military operations. The United States (U.S.) has relied on satellites for significant support to military operations and activities since Desert Storm in 1991. Indeed, the U.S. enjoys an asymmetric advantage in modern warfare utilizing our space capabilities. States with interests hostile to the U.S. believe that the significant dependence on space assets by the U.S. military could become its “Achilles heel” in future combat operations. What are the legal and policy bases for the U.S. to respond to threats to space systems that provide support to our military forces? Should the U.S. rely on space arms control initiatives to ensure security in space? This Viewpoint analyzes the international space law regime and U.S. National Space Policy framework applicable to the conduct of military space operations and activities, including the use of force in space to protect and defend our satellite networks as well as our military forces.     

Learning from the Philippine occupation: nation‐building and institutional development in Iraq and other high security risk nations

Outcomes of armed conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq indicate that the U.S. has been unprepared to fully address problems related to establishing social and economic stability, security and governance in the aftermath of war. This is unfortunate, given that U.S. policy makers' nation‐building efforts to achieve stability, security and good governance in these nations do not reflect what they should already have learnt about organisational and institutional development from past experiences providing significant development assistance to highly unstable nations. Based on the analysis rendered in this article, ‘smart practice’ development administration in such nations comprises the following key points that link nation building to institutional/organisational development:

• Nation building (creating new national sovereignty) is different from, and harder than, building government capacity (creating or strengthening institutions and organisations).
• Given that building government capacity typically requires years of patient assistance and financing, it is better to build on existing indigenous institutions like the civil service and military.
• The time and expense of development assistance to high security risk nations means that it is advisable to establish a multi‐lateral development assistance plan and a multi‐national, multi‐institutional framework for financing development to pay for all that is necessary over a long period of time (i.e. 20–50 years).
• Policy makers should emphasise social stability and stable economic growth under self‐governance to prevent actual or perceived economic exploitation.
• Policy makers' diplomatic efforts should secure accommodation of various stakeholders sufficient to permit compromise leading to formation of an independent government.
• Where occupation appears necessary to achieve security and stability, policy makers should allocate enough troops and money to do the job, and accurately assess and report all costs of military occupation and nation building.
• Once occupation has occurred, policy makers should not withdraw military support in a way that would increase the likelihood of civil war.
• Premature withdrawal of security, economic and political support prior to the point where high security risk nations are capable of governing themselves will cause a power vacuum, and may result in fragmented regional leadership by warlords. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

     

The behavior of congressional tenure over time: 1953–1991

This paper studies the behavior of average length of tenure for cohorts of U.S. representatives who entered office from 1953–1989. Using a new methodology, it addresses the following questions. How much longer do representatives stay in office now compared to, say, twenty years ago? If an increase in tenure has occurred, when did it begin? Are reelection outcomes or voluntary departures the primary determinants of changes in congressional tenure over time? The results of this study are then applied to a number of hypotheses concerning possible causes of longer congressional stays.     

U.S.-China Space Cooperation: Balancing Act between the U.S. Congress and President

There are a growing number of U.S. space scientists and managers calling for reinitiating cooperation with China in space. It is well-known that investigations of the U.S. Congress into various allegations involving China have resulted in a series of laws curtailing space cooperation between these two countries. By surveying the concurrent political developments within the United States in the 1980s and 1990s, this article attempts to reveal the domestic compulsions that propelled changes in the U.S. space policy towards China. The fundamental impetus is the power struggle and differences between the U.S. president and Congress in their perception of U.S. economic interests and national security in the context of space technology that strained these relations. Recent U.S. presidents who inherited this situation added to the discourse based on their own perceptions about outer space and China. These perceptions either found congruence with the policy of the U.S. Congress or led to finding ways to circumvent its legal restrictions. Based on these developments, it is concluded that the view of the U.S. president has alternated between necessary, desirable, and objectionable on the issue of U.S.-China space cooperation, and the U.S. Congress has thus shifted from supporting to restricting and then legally banning cooperation.     

Law of Space Resources and Operations on Celestial Bodies: Implications for Legislation in the United States

The U.S. assertion of a right to own resources harvested from space is consistent with the distinction in international law governing analogous res communis areas between resources harvested from a common area and the common area itself. Under the Outer Space Treaty regime, private entities do not have any more right to appropriate celestial bodies than governments do. However, U.S. law does not give private entities such a right. The U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act’s chapter on Space Resource Commercial Exploration and Utilization generally avoids taking a position on exactly how to deal with disputes in the event the activities of entities from the United States and other states interfere with each other. The U.S. law does not assert a right to declare safety zones or otherwise exercise jurisdiction outside space objects, but doing so can, under some circumstances, be consistent with international law. Many of the specifics of what rules will govern the gathering of space resources remain undetermined, yet the act’s basic premise is correct: international law and the treaty obligations of the United States allow for the U.S. government to authorize its citizens to own resources obtained from space.     

Space and Diplomacy: A New Tool for Leverage

This essay investigates how United States space systems can be used to directly achieve diplomatic objectives. While space systems are widely acknowledged as vital enablers of terrestrial-based forces, they are often overlooked as a critical component of national power capable of directly pursuing national objectives. The essay presents the Space-Diplomacy model that posits seven facets to the diplomatic power of space assets and shows when they can be effective over the spectrum of conflict: prestige, technology partnerships, access to space services, legal precedent, objective information, presence, and threat of punishment. Therefore, it is in the U.S. national interest to…use the nation's potential in space to support its domestic, economic, diplomatic and national security objectives. Report of the Space Commission During the three decades after World War II ended, on the average, U.S. armed forces were used as a political instrument once every other month. Barry M. Blechman and Stephen S. Kaplan     

Reorganizing for National Security and Homeland Security

This article considers the post–September 11 challenges faced by the U.S. national security machinery and analyzes the relationship between the new threat environment, the United States's role in the world, and decision–making structure. Homeland security is defined as a subset of national security. The threat of foreign terrorist organizations acting on U.S. soil should be seen in the political context of the pursuit of U.S. national interests in an often anarchic world. Two models for homeland security organizational structures are considered: a departmental model and an interagency model. The interagency model, embodied in the Homeland Security Council, is a better fit given the nature of the threat, the crucial need for coordination, and the realities of governmental decision making. The organizational challenges that may complicate the government's preparations, decisions, and implementation of a major homeland defense mission stem from three rivalries: executive–legislative, cabinet–staff, and Homeland Security Council–National Security Council.     

Human rights and the distribution of U.S. foreign aid

In contrast to the findings of other studies, we conclude that human rights play a significant and substantive role in determining the distribution of U.S. foreign aid. We find that the foreign aid program relates aid to the need of recipient nations, rewards nations for furthering human rights, does not discriminate on the basis of race or religion, and responds to national security interests of the U.S. The finding that the program does what most people assert it should do provides a new explanation for the rigidity of distributions over time.     

Ideology in Policy Debates: Congress and the S&Ls in the 1980s

Is a national value such as free enterprise relevant to congressional debates of important economic policy bills? This question was examined using debates of three reform bills that dealt with savings and loan industry problems in the 1980s. To employ free enterprise concepts in justifying policy stands challenged legislators because industry problems contrasted sharply in the early 1980s (overregulation) and later (excesses under deregulation). Research demonstrated, however, that free enterprise concepts dominated the earlier discussions and, intriguingly, were at the center of the 1989 debate about bailing out the industry and reforming it. The conclusion elaborates free enterprise's role and speculates about the influence of another national value on the S & L discussions. Enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery Enforcement Act of 1989¹ capped a decade of congressional struggle with the question of how to treat the problems of federal savings and loan institutions. Popularly known as “thrifts” or “S & Ls,” their status became a matter of increasing concern to Congress as the 1980s unfolded and public indignation over a prospective government bailout of unprecedented proportions mounted. This article focuses on an aspect of this struggle that has a larger significance, namely, the place of national values2 in the genesis of important economic policy statutes. Given the predilections of American society, the value that tends to loom largest in major economic policy debates is popularly know as “free enterprise” or “the market economy.” One may reasonably object that U.S. capitalism operates under a “mixed economy” whose features include enterprises owned or sponsored by the federal government as well as government subsidies and regulation of private businesses. The short answer to this objection is that the term free enterprise is used here in a mythic sense and “myths are an essential starting place for insights into how values shape policy…” (de Neufville and Barton, 1987). In essence, this article examines the following questions: (1) Did congressional debates on proposed statutes relate provisions of the 1980, 1982, and 1989 bills to free enterprise concepts? (2) If so, what adjustments were made in these concepts for the sharply contrasting circumstances encountered by S & Ls in the course of the decade? and (3) How was the peculiar relationship of government deposit insurance of S & L accounts to free enterprise treated in the bills? Two background sections introduce the discussion.     

Protectionist policies as the regulation of international industry

The political feasibility of protectionist policies that regulate international industry derives from the absence of overt collusion among domestic import-competing producers. The regulation of international industry cannot be explicit since governments would thereby be perceived to be approving (or instigating) international collusion. Hence, voluntary export restraints have been popularly presented with a focus on the difficulties confronted by domestic import-competing producers and a de-emphasis on the mutual gains to domestic and foreign producers from monitoring by a foreign government of a restrictive export cartel arrangement. Similarly, trigger-price mechanisms have popularly been explained in terms of the need for anti-dumping measures to preserve fair competition. Likewise, the involuntary export tax derived in the first instance from an administratively validated (but, as demonstrated by Kalt's econometric analysis, contentious) complaint of unfair foreign competition. Voluntary export restraints, trigger-price mechanisms, and involuntary export taxes are however protectionist devices, the beneficiaries of which can transcend national jurisdictions, and which have in common the characteristic that the gains to domestic industry interests derive from the regulation of foreign competitors.A previous version of this paper was presented at a conference on Economics and Power organized by the FWS Institute of Zug and held at Interlaken, Switzerland in July 1988.     

Government support of technical progress: Lessons from history

In the past, the U.S. government has been involved in various programs to support technical progress. The record of such programs in seven industries offers important guidelines. The economist's usual presumption that government support for such activities should be concentrated on those cases in which there is palpable market failure proves much too simple. Programs that stand the best chance of success are those in which the government itself is a dominant customer for the product concerned, those that do not require the government to determine what the commercial market wants, and those that do not directly threaten the relative position of competing firms in the industry. Some of the most successful programs have been positioned between basic research on the one hand and commercial application on the other.     

International organized crime

He has served as a consultant to the president’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the National Security Council, and related agencies of the U.S. government. He has written, coauthored, or edited over sixteen books on intelligence and national security.     

U.S.-India Space Partnership: The Jewel in the Crown

The new strategic partnership between the United States and India is creating opportunities for security cooperation. A key element in this partnership—U.S.-India space cooperation—will most likely become the defining relationship for international space cooperation around which other space-faring nations will posture. The Indian space program is rapidly developing world-class capabilities and presents itself as a worthy partner. The U.S. space program should be able to provide innovative ideas for fruitful collaboration. Despite these propitious circumstances, there are potential obstacles of cost, security, and risk. The biggest obstacle, however, might simply be bureaucratic intransigence and inertia. The opportunity is here, now, for the United States and India each to add an important new jewel to their crown of international space cooperation activities. Most importantly, this new space partnership should enhance the security and prosperity of the United States, India, and the world.     

U.S. Initiative to Place Weapons in Space: The Catalyst for a Space-Based Arms Race with China and Russia

The United States must ensure sustainability and stability in space by protecting its satellites to safeguard national security and economic vitality. Concerns for obtaining this security are mounting, as U.S. satellites are increasingly vulnerable to developing threats from adversaries. This article proposes that the United States will eventually initiate the weaponization of space to defend its space systems and supporting infrastructure. The consequence for such an initiative will manifest a pronounced counteraction from China and Russia, the key spacefaring adversaries of the United States. Such a counteraction will consist of a space-based arms race, as each nation will jockey to position itself as the dominant power in space.     

Tories’ victory— a “signal from England”

The British government did little to help Jews in Nazi‐ruled territory during the Holocaust. This inaction was motivated not so much by muddled bureaucracy as by anti‐Jewish feeling among government representatives. Louise London analyses evidence from government records to show the extent of fears of the threat to national security which refugee Jews were seen to present.