Our correspondent Mehdi Geramifard has interviewed Jonathon Granoff, president of the "Global Security Institute" based in Pennsylvania on the U.S. National Space Policy announced recently by President Bush.  

Question: The Bush administration has quietly updated the national space policy for the first time in more than a decade. What is the objective behind this policy?

Answer: The objective behind the policy is to encourage the development of technology in space and to set forth the goals that they have for space development.

Question: Some of the American critics believe that the ten-page declassified version of the directive is to replace with ominous declarations of unlimited American power. Do you agree with them?

Answer: I think that the Bush administration has evidence to believe that US military dominance is the best way to bring security to the world. That really has not been fully debated within the United States or clearly within the international community. I think one of the reasons that has not effectively been debated is that there is to some extent a motive behind that says with the end of the cold war, there has to be some stable force ensuring stability in the world. There are people within the US military and this is what military planners think, who believe that the most stable force and the most peace abiding force is the US military. I personally believe that we should be promoting a much more cooperative security system. I don’t think that military approaches to security work any more. They may never work but they certainly do not work now.

Question: Some of the American officials believe that the United States is committed to the exploration and the use of outer space by all nations for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of all humanity, but some of the critics believe that the Untied States reject any claims to sovereignty by any nation over outer space or celestial bodies or any portion thereof and rejects any limitations on the fundamental right of the United States to operate in and acquire data from the space. What is your take on this? Which group is telling truth in your opinion?

Answer: My reading of the documents says none of them including the United States can claim sovereignty over space and that all nations have the right to peaceful use of the space not just the United States. There is nothing in the document that says that the United States seeks to prohibit or curtail any body else’s peaceful use of space. Moreover the conduct of even the United States and even Russia in terms of space station and in looking at space area in which cooperation can be advanced has been very cooperative. I mean everybody gets to use the global positioning system; every body gets to use the satellites for communication purposes and tremendous benefits for every body in Iran and America everywhere. So the actual practice for the most part has been governed by very positive forces leading to a much more integrated world, the world that we can communicate with each other just like we are doing now, so that the ominous aspects of it seem to be more along the lines of ideas rather than the line of practice.

Question: Is it difficult or easy for those of American people who believe that their administration disregard law and reason to criticize the policies of the administration when it comes to boosting the military industrial complex?

Answer: The problem is one of the facts that the military contractors have substantial resources and are more able to get their message out for the most part, plus militaries all over the world, always take the position that militaries bring security and that way of looking at things is very difficult to overcome. On the other hand it was the United States who created the universal declarations of human rights and it is the United States that instituted promoting international orders through rule of law. So there is different point of view and different narratives. I think that the strength of the United States is found in debate that no body only God knows all and it is always right. Nobody knows God’s mind and intentions fully. God’s mind and intentions might be fully embodied and articulated in whole scripture but no man is wise enough to fully understand those scriptures. Thus even in the area of God’s world and certainly in the area of how he governs the world, we need to have multiple points of view and discussion. That multiplicity of points of view has been the strength of the United States. We call within the government a system of checks and balances where the judiciary checks the legislative branch and the executive branch and the legislative branch similarly has checks and balances and this efficiency of people arguing with one another taking different points of view. We’ve found over time that it’s been very effective in coming up with better solutions to problems than if only one group has all of the power and all of point of view. So right now there are people like myself who believe that debate and different point of view is what makes us strong and then there are others who want to advance their point of view to the exclusion of others. That attitude has not proven effective any where.