KANGAROO GROUP
INTERVENTION ON "CONTRIBUTION OF SPACE ASSETS TO ESDP"

• I would like to start by thanking the Kangaroo Group for their kind invitation to speak;

• One thing I share with Mr von Wogau is the hope that the EU will develop all the attributes of an autonomous strategic actor on the international stage;

• There is an important political dimension to that hope, which has to do with the need to deepen the process of European political integration - especially in the fields of security and defence;

• But as we know, there are also some technological, economic, industrial and military aspects to that autonomy, which are very dear to many of us: we need certain military capabilities, industrial strategies and yes, space assets, as important tools for the development of a credible and effective European foreign policy;

• We aspire to promote human security and effective multilateralism and to protect our interests, and at the end of the day, our success will have to be measured by our ability, as EU, to deliver in these areas: both ESDP and the space assets to be put at its service, are mere means to attain those overarching ends;

• Unfortunately, space is in danger; any discussion of the use of space assets for ESDP has to take into account the emerging threats - of a political, technological and strategic nature - that are encroaching on a status quo that has served humanity well for about 40 years: this status quo defended space as "the province of all mankind", as the 1967 Outer Space Treaty put it, and as an essentially peaceful medium;

• In other words, if we want space assets to be put at the service of ESDP in any sustainable way, we need to address the dilemmas of how to separate dangerous weaponization from legitimate military uses, and of how to define ’weapons in space’; we need to discuss the virtues and flaws of the Outer Space Treaty and embrace the proposal of Hans Blix’s WMD Commission calling for a review conference of the Outer Space Treaty, to strengthen it, extend its scope, and push for its universalization; we need to openly debate the difficulties of verification of any legal instrument in space; and, of course, we need to reflect on the particular role of the US in this debate and how to move on with arms control in space;

• We in the EU - in stark contrast to our allies and partners around the world - like to ignore the political dimension of strategic debates - we seem to forget that space and security are not merely technical issues, led exclusively by industrial needs and military imperatives;

• A good example of this is the European Space Policy, jointly drafted by the European Space Agency and the European Commission and approved by the Council in May 2007;

• There is nothing - I repeat, nothing - in this document on the vital issues being discussed in the UN concerning space and security: the concepts of ’debris’ and ’weaponization’, for example, are never mentioned and while the idea of the "peaceful exploitation of Outer Space" is mentioned once, it is merely referred to as the legal status quo and never as the cornerstone of a political and diplomatic strategy for the future;

• In this context, our relations with our US partners is very important;

• The US were the driving force behind the development of the present legal and political framework for peaceful space exploration: they will continue to be fundamental for its survival and improvement;

• As soon as sanity find its way back into the White House in 2009 we should spare no efforts in calling on the US to revisit its present dangerous attitude towards space;


• Bush’s new National Space Policy, which came out in October 2006, asserts in its introduction that (and I quote) "freedom of action in space is as important to the US as air power and sea power", thus clearly presenting space as a sub-heading in this administration’s overarching approach to international  relations, which sees US military dominance as the best guarantee for global stability; one of the major goals of the new US Space Policy is to (and I quote) "enable unhindered US operations in and through space to defend our interests there"; of course, the logical conclusion of this unilateral claim to total security through total dominance is that (and I quote again) "the US will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit US access to or use of space";

• Space is certainly invaluable for ESDP and its potential needs to be harnessed in Europe's interests; but nothing endangers Europe's interests more than an international strategic context that aims to turn space into the next dimension of warfare, after land, sea and air;

• China's January 2007 ASAT test and the massive amount of debris it left behind were literally a warning shot about what the future could look like if we don't improve the international legal framework for the use of space and stop any attempts at weaponization;

• To conclude, there is no contradiction between putting European space assets at the service of ESDP on one hand, and the peaceful use of space on the other; but we need to make sure that our institutional, financial and technological efforts to have "more Europe in space" don't blind us to the fact that without a parallel strong European push for legal clarity and predictability in this field, it is transport, trade and economic growth as such, and not just space assets at the service of ESDP, that will be in danger.