Debate Grows on Sale of U.S. Spy Satellites

The U.S. intelligence community has begun grappling with one of the most contentious and far-reaching issues it is likely to face in the next few years--whether to let other countries buy American-made reconnaissance satellites, which could be used for spying against U.S. forces or allies.

Several countries are eager to buy high-resolution satellites from American companies. The firms, which have supporters in Congress and the U.S. Commerce Department, point out that the sales could mean hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for U.S. industries trying to survive the recession and defense-industry downsizing.

But U.S. intelligence officials are leery of allowing the export of advanced spy technology that could wind up in the hands of America’s enemies. “If we had been in a position to sell one (a reconnaissance satellite) 15 years ago, the shah (of Iran) would certainly have gotten one,” said one U.S. intelligence source. “And look whose hands it would be in now.”

When CIA Director R. James Woolsey took office this year, he was given a list by his predecessor Robert M. Gates of some of the most important intelligence issues requiring decisions over the next few years--and the question of exporting U.S. reconnaissance satellites was high on it. According to intelligence sources, Gates had been one of the strongest opponents of such exports.

The growing debate over exporting spy satellites has been conducted primarily in private--both at interagency meetings involving the CIA and other intelligence agencies and in closed-door meetings involving the congressional intelligence committees and their staffs.

But the controversy surfaced publicly late last year, when trade publications disclosed that the United Arab Emirates is exploring the possibility of buying what amounts to a reconnaissance satellite from Litton’s Itek Optical Systems.

Israeli officials quickly voiced alarm. “They (the United States) are going to supply the Arab countries with binoculars that will enable them to see every military movement here,” one Israeli defense official told the Jerusalem Post.

Last month, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Dan Glickman (D-Kan.) alluded briefly to the controversy when he told Woolsey at a public hearing that the committee has been “investigating the feasibility of selling older reconnaissance technology to our allies.”

Glickman said he wanted to talk with the CIA director about “how we perhaps help in the export” of the satellites or technology, thus suggesting that he supports the idea.

In response, Woolsey avoided taking any public position, saying only that the issue is “a hot potato.” Last year, Woolsey served as head of a special task force that studied U.S. satellite programs and policies. The panel studied whether other countries should be allowed to buy American satellites but reached no conclusions.

In addition to the United Arab Emirates, a number of European and Asian countries, including Spain and South Korea, also are said to be in the market for American-made reconnaissance satellites--which would be of much lower quality than the U.S. intelligence community operates but better than anything that can now be sold.

“What most of these guys are talking about is selling another country less capability than what we currently have,” explained one U.S. intelligence source. “But it’s a fairly contentious issue, in terms of what we sell, to whom and under what conditions.”

Satellites now available on the commercial market have a resolution of as little as five meters, meaning that they can relay pictures from space of objects as small as 16 feet. That is enough to show rivers, canals, buildings and other features on the surface of the earth.

The U.S. intelligence community has the world’s most technically advanced spy satellites. These satellites, operated by the Air Force’s National Reconnaissance Office, have the ability to send images from space of objects of well below three feet--and, in some cases, reportedly of one foot or smaller, detailed enough to be able to count troops or identify small objects.

Richard Wollensak, Itek Optical Systems vice president for program development, said the system the United Arab Emirates was examining is a “medium-quality imaging satellite.”

He suggested that it might be competitive with a new Helios satellite being offered by a French firm that has a resolution of about three to six feet. Such a satellite would be able to send pictures of such military equipment as planes, tanks or missile installations.

Wollensak said the idea for the sale to the Emirates originated about 18 months ago during discussions between the Lexington, Mass., company and officials of the Persian Gulf state.

“They said, ‘Can you do satellites?’ ” Wollensak recalled. “We told them, ‘Yeah, but it requires an export license.’ ” He said the Emirates applied to the State Department for a license that would allow it to talk with Itek officials about the details of its requirements.

The application is pending at the State Department. Export of a reconnaissance satellite would require the Emirates and Itek to obtain a second license from the Commerce Department. The intelligence community is not directly involved in the licensing process, but can make its opposition known in interagency meetings and effectively prevent a sale.

U.S. industry officials said the main argument for selling the American technology is that if countries such as the Emirates do not buy it from the United States, they will be able to get it elsewhere. “The French, the Russians and the Chinese come immediately to mind as competitors,” Wollensak said.

“The Russians are selling some pretty good imagery right now,” said Glickman. “I’ve seen some pictures of the U.S. Capitol they are offering around town. I couldn’t find myself in (the picture), but it wasn’t bad.”

Another argument made by those who favor the U.S. exports is that they would give the United States a greater degree of knowledge and control over other countries’ capabilities. If countries buy satellites elsewhere, the United States would have no role in or influence over the reconnaissance.

However, opponents said that the satellite exports would upgrade the levels of technology available overseas and that, eventually, more sophisticated spying technology would fall into the hands of U.S. adversaries.

The dispute over the spy satellites is merely the latest in a growing number of cases in which the desire of private American companies to export has come in conflict with the U.S. intelligence community’s effort to limit the spread of advanced technology overseas.

For several years, the National Security Agency, which is responsible for intercepting communications overseas, tried to block the sale of fiber-optic telecommunications systems to the Soviet Union, on grounds that the improved technology would make it harder for the NSA to eavesdrop on Soviet military communications.

Last year, after the break-up of the Soviet Union, the United States relented and cleared the way for the former Soviet republics to buy the equipment.

“This goes beyond satellites. What is needed is a comprehensive national policy,” said one U.S. intelligence source involved in the satellite dispute, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “This has major implications for trade, for diplomacy and for U.S. defense.”

Glickman said that as chairman of the House intelligence committee, he had become interested in the commercial possibilities for the satellite exports.

“I want to make sure we can stay in the forefront of this technology,” he explained. “In this post-Cold War world, a lot of companies are looking at these (exports) as a means of keeping people employed.”