Kislyakov (Novosti): Bleak outlook for Russian-U.S. space cooperation

Kislyakov (Novosti): Bleak outlook for Russian-U.S. space cooperation

Jim O: Kislyakov is one of the best-informed Russian commentators on space
policy. If even he is still repeating these scary distortions, a lot of
diplomatic repair work is even more critical than ever.

"... U.S. national space policy, signed by President George W. Bush in late
2006, ...aims to prevent "undesirable" elements from operating in space."

Recall, this is the fear-mongering misrepresentation that first (as far as I
can tell) appeared in the Washington Post's careless (or politically biased)
garble of the space policy paper -- and has been repeated by the same
author in the same paper, since then.
See my own essays on this theme -- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15656337/
Earlier discussions: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4732874/ and
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7671805/
and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8089747/
Trouble with Treaties -- http://www.thespacereview.com/article/744/1

misinformation in such matters is quite dangerous in this world.
http://www.usatoday.com/printedition...lede14.art.htm


Bleak outlook for Russian-U.S. space cooperation
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070115/59090940.html
17:02 | 15/ 01/ 2007



MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Kislyakov) - The directors
of the various national space agencies involved in the International Space
Station (ISS) program will meet to negotiate in France on April 23.

On December 26, Russian Federal Space Agency director Anatoly Perminov said
Moscow does not as of yet plan to take part in the U.S. lunar program.

These events do not seem to have much in common: the first one is quite
positive, whereas the second seems a bit negative. Unfortunately, grammar is
not the main aspect here. In both cases, one can say that current
Russian-U.S. cooperation does not inspire the same joyful optimism typical
of the late 1990s. Moreover, both space powers may soon go their separate
ways if this trend persists, with mutual rivalry inevitably setting in.

Is this going to happen? Barring the possible deployment of weapons in
near-Earth space, is this situation as bad as it can get?

With all due respect for the United States, it is Washington that has
initiated this kind of separatism. This is demonstrated by the U.S. national
space policy, signed by President George W. Bush in late 2006.

This document considers outer space to be the main aspect of U.S. national
security and aims to prevent "undesirable" elements from operating in space
and the deployment of orbital weapons.

In effect, Russia's main space partner is determined to lead the global
space program. No matter how terrible the deployment of space weapons may
seem, the military aspect is not the main one. For instance, we have been
living with nuclear weapons for over 60 years.

In real life, the United States wants to head the so-called "active systems"
now playing an important economic role and influencing the allocation of
funding.

It has been said that the United States will assume the role of a global
leader in coordinating projects aimed at establishing a joint worldwide
surveillance system, and this is not the only fact confirming Washington's
global aspirations, Perminov said in late 2006.

He said the "global access" demand applies to radio frequency access and
export policy methods. The principles of this policy aim to ensure U.S.
technological supremacy over other nations. Washington advocates a tougher
regime for exporting sensitive and advanced technologies, and stricter
guidelines on classifying information on the development of space systems.
It is hard to contest these principles; and attempts are now being made to
impose discriminatory technological cooperation terms on other nations,
Perminov said.

The fact that Washington has stopped mentioning the ISS conforms with the
logic and nature of U.S. statements. Perminov said the United States is no
longer setting forth any specific manned-mission directives.

Russia would be unable to operate the ISS on its own, even with active EU
assistance. The United States plans to scrap its shuttle fleet in 2010 and
forget all about the ISS program.

The Russian Federal Space Agency and NASA were expected to sign a contract
on the sale of Russia's Soyuz and Progress spacecraft in the near future.
This would have guaranteed subsequent U.S. involvement in the ISS program.
It turns out, however, that this contract will not be inked anytime soon.

Russia and NASA are conducting initial talks on the purchase of manned Soyuz
spacecraft and Progress freighters, the Federal Space Agency said in
mid-January. Considering the rather complicated bilateral trade and economic
relations, one can only guess about the outcome of such "initial talks." But
the fact is that the ISS provides jobs to tens of thousands of people at
Russian space industry companies on which the livelihood of entire cities
depends.

The Soviet space program received huge politically motivated appropriations,
but the situation has now changed, and it is impossible to make up for
financial shortages without close international cooperation.

Any space program, primarily navigation and telecommunications satellite
clusters, is now assessed in the context of its economic benefits. Moreover,
Russia, which has a unique rocket industry, launches more space rockets than
any other country and widely advertises its services on the international
satellite-launch market.

At the same time, due to a lack of funding, the potentially unlimited
Russian market is so far reacting sluggishly to opportunities for using
satellite technologies.

But most west Asian clients are quite vulnerable to possible U.S. pressure.
Moreover, historical experience shows that Washington will hardly keep
silent if anyone steps out of line.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not
necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.