Gastcollege T.U. Delft  - 21 Februari 2006

Edy Korthals Altes

Space technology – blessing or curse for humanity?

Let me begin with a word of thanks. I feel greatly privileged that you have invited me to address such an outstanding group of committed scientists. Quite a sensation for a non-scientist! But I would not be surprised, if some of you are asking what a former diplomat, who - in a certain sense is coming from outer space - can convey to you as specialists.  I hope that at the end of the day you will have discovered that I am one of you, living on the same planet.

The second reason why I feel privileged is to be among the young generation, which I hope will do better than we did. Yes, - if you cherish life  - you will have to!!!

We are dealing this afternoon with a vast and complex problem under a rather provocative title. So let me reassure you. I will not try to cover the familiar ground of civil use of space technology. I intend instead to focus on the military applications. The emphasis will not be on technical features but on the political and ethical aspects.  For good reasons as attention mostly goes out to the civilian use of space technology. Military applications are often seen as something additional, of marginal interest. This is, in my opinion, a grave error because it is precisely the military use of space, which will determine our future. Those engaged in the development of space technology should be aware that many components – such as satellites and sensors - could be used both for civilian and military purposes.

It is this possibility of dual use that makes it necessary to give special attention to military doctrines. I will therefore discuss our theme within the context of the national security strategy of the US. A logical choice in view of the preponderant position of the USA and its technological developments in this domain. Also a necessary choice as there is unfortunately little awareness of what is going on. Even some governments seem to ignore the ominous consequences of the ongoing preparations for the weaponization of Space!

There are four parts in my talk:

·        From Star Wars to BMD

·        Space technology: blessing or curse for humanity?

·        The urgent revision of the prevailing security concept

·        The importance of ethical responsibility

From Star Wars to BMD

I share with you the fascination of space. Discoveries in Space are opening possibilities far beyond our wildest dreams. The cooperative and peaceful use of space for well over four decades has yielded great benefits to mankind. It is no longer a hobby for some, but has become in a relative short time the key element in a globalizing world. It is no exaggeration to say that space technology is exercising a revolutionary impact not only on our way of life but also in the military field. Space technology does not only comprise a variety of satellites and sensors - serving both civilian and military goals- but also anti- satellite weapons (ASATS), ballistic missiles, killer vehicles, laser weapons (air based or on satellites).

Few people seem to realize that the dynamic pursuit of military applications of space technology has opened a fourth theatre in warfare next to the already existing ones on land, sea and air.

President Reagan launched in 1983 his Strategic Defence Initiative (Star Wars). This ambitious Programme, aimed creating a protective shield against incoming missiles with nuclear warheads.  It immediately raised worldwide objections, not only from members of the communist block but also from allies. Considerable technical and financial problems soon led to increasing scepticism about the feasibility to put up an impenetrable shield.[1] After several years of slackening the programme received a new impetus from President Bush.  Spending was stepped up. The budget increased from $7.6 billion in FY 2002 to  $9.17 billion in 2005.  Ultimate financial commitments however will be substantially higher in view of the so-called ‘spiral development’ by which systems are deployed before they are fully tested! This reflects the determination of the military establishment to speed up the development of a greater capability in view of increasing concern about the proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction. Another factor was the growing awareness that the costly vulnerable assets in space had to be defended against an attack of enemy missiles and satellites.

In the opinion of the policy makers this required an effective National Missile Defense, which would evolve into a mix of ground and space weapons. This was strongly supported by the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who called for  “ the deployment weapons in space to deter threats to us and if necessary defend against attacks on US interests.”

An important clue about the ultimate goal of US Space policy is to be found in the document ‘Vision 2020’, which was released in the year 2000.[2] 

This Report of the United States Space Command, asserts candidly that “Full Spectrum Dominance” is essential for the protection of American interests and investments.

Gradually, without much noise, is the world sliding into a new epoch in which the dominance of Space will be the crucial factor in future wars. Official documents leave no doubt that the next major war will be fought in space, from space and into space![3] What was originally proclaimed as an umbrella for the population is rapidly changing into an instrument for absolute dominance!

It is hard to believe but most people seem to ignore that the dynamic pursuit of the weaponization of Space constitutes a major threat to the future of mankind!  

Space technology - blessing or curse?

a) The context

Space technology is of great importance for mankind. It is holding many promises for a better life, but it cannot be denied that it could also become a nightmare, creating hell on earth. Whether that will happen or not depends on the development of new thinking about peace and security. As many applications of Space technology are open for dual use – both for civilian and military purposes –it should be placed within a wider context. Of particular relevance is here the National Security Strategy of the United States.  A Document, which is causing worldwide anxiety - even among traditional allies. This text, which reflects in words and spirit an attitude of unilateralism, constitutes a radical break with post-war efforts to build a world order based on the Charter of the United Nations. From it emerges a strong awareness of unprecedented military power. It places exclusive trust in American military power and envisages even pre-emptive military strikes.[4]  What should be seen is that this approach fits in with the mood of influential circles in the US.

Already at an earlier phase, influential conservatives had launched the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Their prime concern was to maintain the American way of life in a turbulent world in which the gap between rich and poor is widening. A global ‘Pax Americana’ was considered to be essential for safeguarding national security and economic interests (oil!).

The PNAC Report makes a strong case for an aggressive grand strategy, based on a military posture, which would be impossible to challenge.

b) A blessing? 

As most of you are familiar with the positive features of space technology I will be very brief on this subject. Countless are the peaceful applications in communication, traffic, business, innovation, weather forecast and early warning systems. In short in a globalizing world plays space technology a very important role. And even in the military field there are positive features, think of the verification of compliance with disarmament agreements, timely warning…even a partial protection against missiles. Space-technologies however could not only be used for defensive but also for offensive purposes.  Hence my preoccupation!

c) A curse?

I have no hesitation to call the military applications of space technology a curse. This is strong language for a former diplomat but necessary in view of the widespread indifference among the public and the slackness of many governments to envisage the ominous consequences of the weaponization in space. Let me just mention some reasons for my concern:

·        Before long every site on earth will be exposed to unexpected attack, vast regions open for large-scale destruction. Military systems could be used to attack targets in space. And from space to Earth!

·        Space dominance includes also the possibility to deny access to space. Any 'unfriendly ' satellite could be made inoperable if considered necessary. For the EU something to ponder upon since it launched a satellite in which China participates.

·        It will stimulate a new arms race on earth and in space.

·        Space based weapons will be a highly destabilizing factor, increasing distrust.[5] China has already expressed strong misgivings about a limited BMD, which would undermine the Chinese nuclear capability, while the US is maintaining its dominant military position. The inevitable consequence will be: more Chinese missiles and space weapons! This in turn will have its impact on India, Pakistan and Japan!

·        The shattering effect on the framework of international disarmaments agreements (Outer Space Treaty 1967, based on common interests all mankind; withdrawal from the ABM Treaty; NPT). Negative impact on nuclear arms discussions.

·        Nuclear powered battle stations in space and the development of highly powerful air based laser beams are not without risks, even in peacetime! Accidents cannot be excluded. Acts of terror, which are until now relegated to science fiction, could become reality!

·        Misallocation of scarce resources. Since 1983 more than $130 billion has been spent on the military applications of space technology.

Finally, it should be a sobering thought that even a highly developed missile shield could never guarantee the safety of civilians against a deliberate attack of terrorists or ‘states of concern’ with other means of mass-destruction. The terrible events on 11/9 hold a warning for all those who still cherish the illusion of ‘absolute security’ in a highly vulnerable modern society.

Unfortunately, relatively few people seem to be aware of the inherent dangers of the weaponization in space. But in future wars people on our planet wherever they may live will be exposed to much greater risks of annihilation than during all classic bombardments together! There is a certain irony that this costly BMD venture instead of leading to a greater security will increase insecurity. Not only for Americans but also for the whole world!

This brings us to the question why this disastrous development is taking place.  Could it be that it originates in a concept about security, which is completely outdated? Could it be that thinking about security is lagging behind the spectacular scientific/technological progress in an interdependent world?

Revision of an outdated security concept

One of the first personalities to draw attention to the need to adapt our thinking on security to the scientific/ technological breakthrough was Einstein. This eminent scientist was keenly aware of the fateful consequences for humanity of the entry into the nuclear age.  He warned - already in 1946 - in a broadcast: ”just as we have changed our thinking in the world of pure science to embrace newer and more useful concepts, so we must now change our thinking in the world of politics and law.” Major powers however still continue to cling to nuclear arms notwithstanding unacceptable risks.[6] Few governments have apparently grasped the portent of Albert Einstein’s pertinent warning: “the unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe”!  They persist in acting according to the classic maxim: If you want peace, prepare for war. In the name of this concept – dating from the time of the Romans – a huge military apparatus is built up. This obsolete security concept is used to justify bloated defence budgets and the Research and Development of ever more destructive effective weapons and sophisticated defence systems. It is in this competition between sword and shield that Space technology finds it place!

This persistence in old thinking is seriously flawed as it ignores the basic linkage between four basic facts: 

·        Extreme vulnerability of modern society, also for the most powerful nation in the world.  The idea of invulnerability has become obsolete.

·        Apocalyptic destructive potential of modern arms. The danger of deliberate or inadvertent use.

·        Modern terrorism with its wide-ranging potential to cause chaos,

·        Greatly increased interdependence in a global world.

These four elements are closely interlinked. There is simply no other way out, in our highly vulnerable modern world we are compelled to look for non-military means for solving conflicts.

The first two elements make it imperative to look for other non-military ways to deal with conflicts. Warfare can no longer be seen as an effective way of dealing with conflicts. Only when all options are exhausted there should be a resort to military means within an international context. A major war between leading powers is however no longer a realistic option as it would risk the extinction of a great part of the world population! Even limited conflicts should be handled with much prudence in view of the risk of escalation and other harmful consequences.

The heinous terrorists attacks on 11/9 opened the eyes of many people for the extreme vulnerability of modern society. However there is still not enough awareness of the full significance of interdependence in our world. People living in the ‘North’ can no longer ignore hunger, misery and despair. The security situation in the prosperous nations will be affected by poor conditions for human security in developing countries. There is therefore - apart from moral reasons - a real need to develop a global perspective and mechanism for resource allocation.[7] The close connection between all four factors makes it imperative to apply political/economic justice together with solidarity, to all parts of the world!

In spite of the radically changed circumstances most politicians persist on military solutions whenever a security threat is perceived. They fail to recognize that an effective security policy requires a radical reversal in priorities in the spending of scarce resources. The emphasis on military expenditures should be shifted towards a substantial increase in funds for meeting urgent world problems.

The present lack of foresight confronts us with an odd paradox: an unprecedented level of military expenditures not leading to more security but… a higher insecurity! The blindness for what is going on is - to put it mildly - surprising for a modern society, which claims to be ‘enlightened’. Modern man is slumbering on a volcano, ignoring its rumbling!

The greatest danger to our security lies therefore not at the crossroads of radicalism and technology but in ignoring the urgency of a well integrated common approach to tackle the major world problems![8] It would be a grave error to narrow down the security issue to threats, which can only be met by the use of military force.  The idea to deal first with the so-called ‘hard issues’ and later with the ‘softer issues’ is seriously flawed.[9] For political and moral reasons! It fails to perceive the urgency to meet those ‘soft’ threats to human security!

Our modern world stands under the imperative to overcome war. This requires a new comprehensive security concept.

Towards a new comprehensive security concept

History has seen innumerable wars. Many people are therefore inclined to think that wars are inherent to human nature. A line of thinking, which has to change since the development of weapons of mass destruction! Humanity is from now on forced to develop new ways for conflict resolution.[10] This can be achieved, as war is a human institution. It could therefore be abolished just like slavery. Disaster looms if we continue along the present way of trying to solve conflicts primarily with the use of military means.

The only practicable way in this high-tech epoch is along the common elaboration of a different, comprehensive approach towards security aiming at the creation of the conditions for peace. The basic concept should be: If you want peace prepare actively for peace. Exactly the opposite of the old concept!

If we do not succeed in this ‘mutation’ we risk extinction. Not as result of a natural disaster but by our own scientific and technological achievements and incapacity to adjust our behaviour in time!

For centuries attention was focussed on threats to state-security and the military means needed for defending it. During the Cold War we became familiar with the concept of collective security, which meant a system in which States pledge that aggression against one is aggression against all, obliging to react collectively. In recent years it became clear that the classic borderline between internal and external security was rapidly fading. New threats to security, transcending national borders emerged. Threats, which cannot be met with military means.

It was this development, which prompted the Secretary General of the United Nations to appoint a High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change. The authoritative Report mentions three major reasons for a new approach to collective security: today’s threats recognize no national boundaries, are connected and must be addressed at the global, regional and national level. No state, no matter how powerful, can by its own efforts alone make itself invulnerable to today’s threats.[11]

The Panel defines six clusters of threats we will be facing in the decades ahead:

·        Economic and social threats, including poverty, infectious diseases and environmental degradation

·        Inter-state conflict

·        Internal conflict, including civil war, genocide and other large scale atrocities

·        Nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons

·        Terrorism

·        Trans-national organized crime

All these threats are interconnected, requiring a comprehensive approach and a framework for preventive action. Hence, the importance of development. The Panel rightly sees this as the indispensable foundation for a system of collective security. It could significantly contribute to combat the actual threat to human security for many millions of people. Another, noteworthy feature of the new look at collective security is that the primary role is no longer assigned to military power but to political, economic, cultural, religious and other non-military means. Military force should be relegated to a subordinate role within a truly international context and only be employed in last resort within the context of the UN or regional security organizations. The new comprehensive approach towards peace and security entails therefore a radical revision of priorities in dealing with major global threats.

To bring about peace in our interdependent world we must completely revise our priorities from ‘defence’ towards establishing a just and sustainable world order.

It should be clear that this new approach to security and peace should be translated into policy decisions. This means for Space Technologies:

·        Appropriate international agreements; revitalizing the Outer Space Treaty: banning Space weapons, making clear that Space should be strictly reserved for peaceful use!

·        Elaboration of a common position of the 25 members of the EU. If necessary, striving to adopt a common standpoint with a hard core of member States. European countries would be well advised to heed the warning of former US Ambassador Holbrooke and protest before it is too late!

Ethical responsibility

Finally, I would like to make a few observations about Ethical responsibility. This is a crucial factor, which until recently is seldom mentioned in scientific literature. There is some need to go into this subject as science and technology are since the Enlightenment increasingly cut loose from religion and moral values. The sense of responsibility towards an ‘Ultimate Reality’, infinitely surpassing our ego has for many disappeared beyond the horizon. Ethical values like love and respect for life are consequently put under great pressure.

Space technology just like many other sectors is mostly carrying on without asking basic ethical questions. Progress of science should of course not be stopped but we can no longer abstain from asking critical questions such as:

What effect does a particular project have on mankind? Does it serve humanity or endanger its existence? Before asking how we can achieve something we should ask ourselves the ethical question whether we should do it?

Not everything that can be done should be pursued!

There are many definitions of Ethics. One definition says: ‘Ethics is the systematic reflection on the question of how to act in a responsible way.’ The emphasis is here not on good intentions, however laudable these may be, but on responsible action. In other words the consequences of a proposed action must be taken into account. In contrast with this approach stands the Gesinnungsethik, based on the ‘inner disposition’ of man. I personally feel more at home with an intermediary position, in which ‘consequences’ as well as ‘intentions’, are engaged in a constant dialogue. The first definition could easily degenerate into an Erfolgsethik in which only the result counts and where the ethical imperative is more or less pushed aside. On the other hand those who want to listen to the ‘ethical voice’ should always take into account the consequences of their actions and avoid a situation that would place humanity in a worse situation than before. History warns us of the terrible price to be paid if the end justifies the means.

Why are ethics of such a crucial importance?

First of all because of the absolute need to control the gargantuan forces which Science/technology has put in our hands. The technologies we have developed and are developing are not neutral and innocent. They hold both the possibility for an improvement of the fate of mankind as well as for annihilation. They could be a blessing or a curse!

The ethical dimension in Research and Development has considerably gained in importance since the spectacular developments in science and technology over the past decades. The enormous power now unleashed is putting humanity at risk. Absolute control has become a matter of survival. This requires institutions, international agreements and a well-developed sense of ethical responsibility among politicians, diplomats, managers and scientists.

Yes! Also for scientists! Time is over that scientists could claim their innocence being content with doing their job while leaving the ethical responsibility to politicians or their company superiors.  In the world we live in we are responsible to and for each other. And scientists who are working in the field of space technology even for life on our planet.

As the well-known Swiss theologian Hans Kung said: we have to move from personal to global ethics!

A well-developed sense of ethical responsibility is now of crucial importance.  Certainly, policies and institutions will be of great importance. However ultimately it are human beings who will decide whether certain weapon-systems are designed.

We do need a strong ethical impulse. But where to look for inspiration in the spiritual desert we are trekking through? Fortunately there are still a number of oases. There is even a great diversity in sources of spirituality:  both religious and non-religious. Ethical values have been developed over many centuries. Even people in the earliest age have discovered that certain rules had to be respected in order to make life possible.

In these days there is much talk about values and norms. Although I fully agree that these are indeed essential I doubt whether proclamations alone will be effective. The problem is that the lofty precepts have to be emotionally internalized in individual conscience. Here, religion can be of great value if it remains true to its origin, promoting ‘humaneness’ and resisting all temptations to an abuse of institutional power.

Ethical choices are not only complex but also difficult to take as they often involve a personal sacrifice. Our mind is equipped with an intellectual faculty enabling us to invent all sorts of reasons to avoid painful choices. 

This was my personal experience during a conflict of conscience in my last years as Ambassador in Madrid. I had to overcome three major rationalizations before coming into action: 

·         Is your analysis correct?

·         Why not postpone action until retirement? And lastly:

·         What do you think, you as an individual could ever hope  to achieve  against such overwhelming powers?

Although – rationally speaking – I ‘knew’ that I had to take a public stand I must confess that I would never have gone all out against the arms race - in particular Star-Wars  - without faith. Decisive was the confrontation with the existential question of Christ: “and you, what have you done with your possibilities at this moment of history?”

Is this in essence not the same question we find in the book of Genesis:  “Adam where are you? “ Is this not the crucial question for each one  today?

In conversations with politicians, managers and scientists you sometimes meet a benign smile whenever you start talking about the importance of ethics. For some this is still a ‘soft sector’.  They fail to recognize the crucial importance of ethics.  Survival depends on it. It is therefore not a soft issue, some kind of an idealistic hobby but a hard one.  Space technology should therefore not only be seen against the background of the US security strategy but foremost in the ethical context.

Therefore I would like to propose to:

- Include a compulsory course in ethics in the curriculum for scientists. ( just as for medicine and law students)

- Work on a Hippocratic Oath for scientists

- Inform a wider public about developments in Space. Scientists have a special responsibility to increase public awareness about developments endangering humanity.

In conclusion

The greatest challenge today is not the conquest of space but the responsible control of the powers science and technology developed. Whether space technology will be a blessing or a curse ultimately depends on living up to our individual responsibility! Here religious and non-religious people should work together under the motto of the Einstein and Bertrand Russell:

“Think of your humanity and forget the rest”

-------

=