U.S. Senate Moves to Limit Commercial Satellite Imagery of Israel

by Shawn L. Twing

On June 26, three members of the U.S. Senate added an amendment to the fiscal year 1997 Defense Authorization Act on behalf of Israel that has the potential to devastate a nascent U.S. industry. Amendment 4321 (see sidebar at bottom), proposed by Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), is intended to prevent the collection and sale of high-resolution satellite photographs of Israel by U.S. companies on the grounds that it could adversely affect Israel’s national security interests. Industry officials and analysts describe this legislation as misguided, and a potential deathblow to a lucrative and rapidly expanding industry in which the United States is a world leader.

The introduction of Amendment 4321 followed more than a year of activity by Israel’s Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and more recently by the Israeli government. Both have campaigned to prevent the collection and dissemination of satellite imagery of Israel with resolutions greater than 3 meters. (Three-meter imagery makes objects with dimensions of 3 meters or larger discernible. Current commercially available technology in the United States, Western Europe and Russia allows for satellite imagery in the 1.5 to 2 meter range, with improvements on the technological horizon.)

Israel’s primary argument for preventing the sale of this high-resolution satellite imagery by U.S. companies is that it could jeopardize Israel’s physical security. Analysts disagree. Although there is a perceptual connection between satellites and “spying,” the overwhelming majority of commercial remote sensing customers use U.S. imagery for peaceful purposes. Among the myriad uses for this imagery are land-use and public works planning, urban transportation planning, mapping emergency routes to, from and within cities, cartography, environmental monitoring, irrigation management, natural resource supply projections, city maps for future computerized automobile navigation and optimal placement for cellular phone signal towers. Industry officials argue that military applications represent a marginal percentage of their current and potential business.

Dr. Richard N. Herring, chief executive officer of EarthWatch, Inc., Longmont, CO, told the Washington Report that satellite imagery in the 2 to 3 meter range is “marginally significant” for military purposes. Other analysts explained that higher quality imagery is available from the more than 2.5 million Arabs who live in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, any of whom can collect far better photographs with a hand-held camera.

Herring also described it as “highly unlikely” that Israel’s Arab neighbors do not have the ability to use aircraft to image Israel in resolutions that exceed the 1 to 2 meter range. Finally, preventing American companies from collecting high-resolution images of Israel does not prevent other countries from doing the same thing. It only removes U.S. companies from international competition in which Russian companies currently sell 2-meter resolution imagery on the international market. Philip Currier, program director for commercial remote sensing at GDE Systems in San Diego, told the Washington Report, “The imagery is going to be available: the question is, whose currency are you going to buy it in?”

The new legislation also fails to take into consideration Presidential Directive 23 which allows the U.S. government to suspend the sale of commercial imagery of the United States, its forces overseas, and U.S. allies if it is deemed a matter of national security. In a worst-case scenario, therefore, if one of Israel’s neighbors hypothetically were preparing to attack Israel, a U.S. legislative mechanism already is in place to make sure that U.S. companies do not jeopardize Israel’s security.

Losing Control

Ironically, if Congress and the president support the new legislation, Israel’s national security interests might suffer, because the Israeli government will lose a measure of control over who images Israel and to whom that imagery is made available. Without the amendment, it is likely that international customers will turn to the United States for their imaging needs, but with the amendment these same customers likely will look to other imagery suppliers who do not maintain the same national security safeguards for Israel as does the United States under Presidential Directive 23.

Perhaps the most important aspect of this amendment to the United States commercial remote sensing industry is the unfortunate precedent it sets. Israeli officials and lobbyists have argued that Israel needs to prevent the collection and dissemination of this imagery because it is surrounded by potentially hostile neighbors, some of whom are committed to the destruction of the state of Israel.

This is by no means a unique situation. If this rationale is allowed for Israel, it opens the door to other countries which also can claim threats to their national security. Such countries are India and Pakistan, North and South Korea, China and Taiwan, the contending republics of the former Yugoslavia, Peru and Ecuador, Argentina and Chile—and the list continues.

Industry officials are concerned that the inclusion of Amendment 4321 in the 1997 Defense Authorization Act eventually to be signed by President Clinton will lead to intense lobbying for other “blackout” zones where U.S. commercial satellites cannot photograph. Enough of these zones will erode the customer base for U.S. companies in the commercial remote sensing business, not to mention undermining investor confidence in this developing market.

There also is striking irony in Israel’s position, given the relationship between an Israeli government-owned company, defense giant Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), and the U.S. company Core Software Technologies, who have teamed up to develop satellite imagery to be made available commercially on the Internet. Using satellites created in Israel’s Ofek satellite program, IAI and Core Software Technologies hope to make high-resolution imagery (industry analysts believe it will be in the 2.5 to 3 meter range) available on the Internet, which is a new and unexplored venue. Therefore, if Amendment 4321 is included in the final version of the 1997 Defense Authorization Act signed by the president, U.S. companies will not be permitted to take high-resolution imagery of Israel, but Israeli companies will be allowed to photograph whatever they want, including the United States and possibly Israel. When asked for his reaction to this U.S. restriction on American but not Israeli companies, Richard Herring summarized the feelings of an entire industry by saying, “It certainly seems unfair to me.”

In fact, Israel Aircraft Industry’s increasing capabilities in satellite imagery technology suggest an alternate explanation for the Israeli government’s recent attempt to prevent U.S. companies from imaging Israel. By eliminating U.S. companies from the competition, IAI has a greater chance to corner Israel’s commercial remote imagery market, especially for customers within Israel itself.

It is important to remember that IAI is a state-owned conglomerate and it clearly is in the Israeli government’s interests to protect whatever markets IAI can carve out for itself internationally and domestically. It also is important to consider that Israel’s Ofek-3 satellite program proved that IAI has the ability to build, launch and orbit a commercial satellite, and the Ofek-3 was only one of several satellites built for the project. Given that national security concerns really are not a plausible rationale for denying U.S. commercial remote imagery of Israel, perhaps economical concerns are.

The bottom line in this issue is clear. In an ostensible attempt to protect Israel’s security, AIPAC lobbyists and the Israeli government have pushed for U.S. legislation that will undermine the current U.S. lead in a developing industry. When U.S. officials were considering “blackout” zones for U.S. troops deployed overseas, they decided that more harm than good would be done by placing such restrictions on U.S. companies involved in commercial remote sensing.

Now three U.S. senators again are proposing such restrictions on U.S. companies. The question that arises is, why are they more protective of Israeli security than they were of the safety of American military personnel abroad? The answer, apparently, lies in the commercial advantage such restrictions will confer on an Israeli-government-owned company and the electoral advantage that AIPAC cooperation will confer on these three senators for placing the interests of Israel ahead of the interests of the United States.

SIDEBAR

“Section 1043. PROHIBITION ON COLLECTION AND RELEASE OF DETAILED SATELLITE IMAGERY RELATING TO ISRAEL AND OTHER COUNTRIES AND AREAS.

(a) Collection and Dissemination. No department or agency of the federal government may license the collection or dissemination by any non-federal entity of satellite imagery with respect to Israel, or to any other country or geographic area designated by the president for this purpose, unless such imagery is no more detailed or precise than satellite imagery of the country or geographic area concerned that is routinely available from commercial sources.

(b) Declassification and Release. No department or agency of the federal government may declassify or otherwise release satellite imagery with respect to Israel, or to any other country or geographic area designated by the president for this purpose, unless such imagery is no more detailed or precise than satellite imagery of the country or geographic area concerned that is routinely available from commercial sources.”