Nearly 15 years after its inclusion in a 2011 annual Appropriations Bill, the Wolf Amendment remains a hotly debated topic, reflecting many of the core geopolitical and philosophical issues at the heart of the debate over the U.S.-China relationship on matters of space and more. Well, should it be repealed? And that is the question that the Aerospace Corporation is inviting us to examine. [Music] I'm Maria Varmazis, and this is T-Minus Deep Space. The Aerospace Corporation has hosted a series of debates arguing for and against retaining the Wolf Amendment. And I spoke to Brian Whedon from the Aerospace Corporation's Center for Space Policy and Strategy discussing the takeaways from the debate series. My name is Brian Whedon. I work at the Aerospace Corporation in our Center for Space Policy and Strategy. We're on the director for civil commercial policy and lead the team that handles all things related to civil, commercial policy and regulatory issues. So what brings us together today is this wonderful thing that many of our listeners have no doubt heard about called the Wolf Amendment. And before we get into sort of the crux of why we're talking about it today, Brian, could you start with just telling me a bit about what it is, what it isn't, maybe more importantly, give me the lay of the land on the Wolf Amendment? It's seriously said that, right? Because it's been around so long, it's talked about so much that many people have heard it for, oh, of course, the Wolf Amendment. I think it is good to go back and recap what exactly it is. In 2011, there was a relatively minor addition made to the annual appropriations bill from the U.S. House of Representatives, and this is under the Appropriations Subcommittee for Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies. And the language added to the appropriations bill prohibited NASA and the White House Office of Science Technology policy from spending any money on bilateral, I'll put it quote, "policy programs, order or contract of any kind," or to participate, collaborate or coordinate bilaterally in any way with China, including Chinese government agencies as well as private entities. But also state bilaterally no government funds could be used to host Chinese visitors or facilitate visits of Chinese nationals to NASA facilities. And it's really important here, it says, you can't do this unless you have prior coordination and permission from Congress. So I think this is where we get sort of one of the first misconceptions is it doesn't necessarily outright stay. NASA and OSDP cannot do this ever. It says you have to get some sort of prior coordination permission from Congress. High bar to clear to be fair, but yeah. It is, it is. More recently there have been some additions to this. I should say this language has persisted in NASA appropriations since 2011 and still exists today. And most recently has been updated to include the National Space Council as one of the covered entities. And also most recently they've added a provision that the FBI needs to review any certification made by the covered agencies to see if there's any concerns about counterintelligence or technology transfer. So yeah, it's a significant, I'll describe it as a bureaucratic process that NASA, OSDP, NASA would need to go through before there's any bilateral engagement with China. Okay. And then for, because you and I were talking about this, we've heard a lot of misconceptions about what it isn't and what it doesn't cover. I know there's a lot of confusion, especially within the United States space industry about private industry. Like what does this matter to me? Well, how does this apply? And yeah, I'm sure you've heard some wild things, Brian. Yeah. Well, first of all, it only applies to those three agencies that I mentioned, right? NASA, OSDP, and the National Space Council. In part, that's because they're the ones that are covered by the appropriations bill this language is in. So there's other agencies, the Department of Defense, Department of Commerce that are not covered by this and don't have these restrictions. It also does not apply to industry. It only applies to these government agencies. But I think in general, it has had the effect of chilling or putting up maybe some doubt amongst all the US government entities, public and private, on whether they should engage with China if there's this sort of congressional concern. Fair enough. Fair enough. Okay. So now that we've got a bit of an understanding of what we're talking about, first of all, for that minute, what it is, what it isn't. It's been around for almost 15 years now, and you all put together a very interesting debate paper on should it or should it not be repealed? And you're going to, I suppose, play the voice of God right now and walk me through the pros and cons of these arguments, not advocating for one position or another, just walking me through. How do you want to do this? Which one do you want to start with, Brian? So let me just, I'll start by just by saying why we think it's important to have this discussion. As you said, it's been around for almost 15 years. It's sort of part of the landscape at the moment. But we felt this was important to go back and sort of bring up as, hey, is this still worth keeping at the moment? In part because of the changing nature and importance of the US-China relationship in space. When the Wolfman was really put in place, it was really at the United States and Russia as the main space powers, especially for civil space. You have the International Space Station as the primary multilateral civil space engagement. And China didn't really have a significant human spaceflight program at the time. Of course, it started and they were working on developing things. But today, I think there's a strong case to have made that it's no longer US and Russia, but rather US and China that are the main civil space actors. And China has its own space station, has its own way to get to space, and is planning its own crew missions to the moon and perhaps beyond independent from what the US is doing. So this question of what should the US overall approach be to China and how they engage with China as competitors, as adversaries, as cooperation, whatever that may be is really important. And the Wolf Amendment is a big part of that. So that's why we decided it was time to really refocus on this. That makes a lot of sense. And certainly a lot of things geopolitically have changed and within just the realm of all things space certainly as well in 15 years, my goodness, a lot has changed. So all right, why don't we get into some of the arguments then and lay them out for me, if you wouldn't mind. So we had two well-respected veterans in the community, Dan Hart, who has played a role running some of the most influential old and new space companies. And we asked him to write an argument that favored repealing the Wolf Amendment. And he does so on a couple of big reasons. First of all, he says that it really hasn't accomplished the goal it was created to achieve. And that was to create an incentive for China to alter its record on human rights, which was a huge priority for Congressman Wolf who originally put this in place. And it also has hindered China's own technological development of space capabilities, which some thought it was supposed to do. Dan argues also that the Wolf Amendment could have even been counterproductive in that by saying there's no way for China to work with the US, that therefore it had to go out and develop all its own indigenous capabilities, which now it can do everything by itself. Dan adds that in an era when we're talking about bureaucracy and waste and burdensome regulations, there's a lot of bureaucratic steps that are required to even have a basic conversation with China. And many of those are redundant to other restrictions that are already in all things space regarding technology transfer, export controls, and lots of other things. And he points to the fact that we were able to work with the Soviets and do things like the Apollo Soyuz mission even at the height of the Cold War when there's an argument that tensions were even worse between the US and the Soviet Union than they are today with the US and China. And that keeping this broad restriction on everything in space hinders both scientific advancement and commercial innovation. We'll be right back. And so I know there is an argument against, so please tell me about the person who's posing those points and what their points were. We asked Dean Cheng, who's a well-known and well-respected analyst on Chinese political military and security affairs, to take the opposite case, which is to argue that we should retain the Wolf Amendment. And Dean goes back to this question of, does cooperation really lead to a positive change in the behavior? And one of Dean's key points is that if you look back in history, a more positive relationship is the result of political changes. It's not the driver. So for example, Dean argues that US-Soviet cooperation in space came about as a result of the broader detente between the US and Soviet Union. We did not do the space cooperation that then made the relationship more positive. The relationship was trending positive, which then enabled it. So there's really a causality question that Dean brings up. And he thinks that keeping the sort of, I'll say, hurdle to overcome is important because it sort of rains in excessive optimism that sometimes comes into play when political leaders are thinking about space and sort of the wonderful things that space and cooperation can do. Dean also reiterates that this stems from Congress's distrust of the White House to be able to go off and do kind of sound, or should have sound strategy for why they're doing international cooperation. And they're not just doing it for the sake of doing it. And he mentioned some of the challenges that Congress had with previous presidential administrations that led to that distrust. And then Dean raises a very significant point with, ooh, would the US and would NASA cooperate with in China or engage with? And points out that unlike here in the US, where we have a separate civil and military space program, virtually the entire Chinese space program involves the military. And the People's Liberation Army plays a really big role, even in their crude human space flight exploration programs. And wonders, you know, is that really the anedity that is equal to NASA or that NASA should be engaging with? And then finally, he raises a lot of concerns about the ongoing theft of intellectual property rights, technology transfer that many entities in the US are seeing coming from China and saying, hey, is working with them more closely, really going to be good at giving what's going on there. That's a very interesting rebuttal. And I also can't help but wonder, is China even interested? Say if the Wolf Amendment was repealed, maybe China would go, you know, spite was a pretty powerful motivator for us to go out and do it on our own. No thanks, US. I could absolutely see that. And that's another really good question, right? Now, as I say, it takes two to tango and it takes two countries that want to do this kind of cooperation. I think, well, there certainly was an interest by China back in the 1990s in working with the US. There's good reason to think that may have changed, in part because they now have their own capabilities. Their, you know, their space station, they are flying other countries' astronauts and using it as the same kind of soft power diplomatic tool that the US used to shuttle program and the interstate space station before it. And China's partnering with Russia and others to have their own crew program to return to the moon, sort of running in parallel to the American led Artemis effort. And again, similarly, they're recruiting people to go join their effort. So, yes, and fundamental to this is the point that comes up a lot is, you know, why does the US do cooperation and what is it looking to do? I think there are some people in the US community that still hold this vision that, oh, well, we could help another country or we can help the Chinese do this. That perspective is not appreciated in China. They're very proud of their space program. They see themselves as increasingly as equals to the United States. So, you know, I think there's also that, why are we doing this? Is it really the question? Yeah, no, very valid questions. And I'm going to use the very cliche journalistic phrase of there are no clear answers here. I've always wanted to say that. Although I know there are a lot of strong opinions and I invite our listeners to, first of all, we'll make sure to link to the paper because the argument's getting to much more depth and Brian, I don't want you to have to rehash literally every line because it's a very good reading and I really encourage people to give it a read. I had an opinion going into it and my opinion has wavered significantly having read the paper, which I don't know if that was the idea, but it was very effective in that way. I went, oh, well, appreciate that. It was our idea to surface or the arguments on both side because it is a complicated issue. There is no easy answer. It really comes down to what are the priorities? What is the goal? What are we trying to do? And I think that frankly gets to some of the points that Dean was making is we shouldn't be cooperating engagement time just because we should have a plan. And I think a lot of the concern here is what is that plan? On the flip side, there are issues that come up that say maybe we should find a way to work through this. For example, we have had several incidents where US satellites or even NASA vehicles have had close approaches with Chinese satellites or Chinese vehicles. Yes. And how we exchange information just to make sure we're not going to run into each other is made more complicated because of these concerns. Absolutely. I think for me, the other thing to highlight for the audience is, what is it exactly we're going to be doing? A lot of people jump straight to, "Oh, we're just going to cooperate and we're going to have kind of working together on some big human space like thing." I think it's important to keep in mind that there's a broader range of options. I would say on the far end, particularly on the political difficulty, is direct working together on a crude program like the ISS or even Apollo Soyuz. But there's a broader spectrum that goes back to how do we, if we don't, if we may not operate, maybe we coordinate with them on some things. We're operating satellites in the same areas of Earth orbit. We're operating alongside the Chinese and similar areas in the moon. How do we coordinate with them so we're not stepping on each other's toes? How do we share information on what's going on to resolve those operational things? What should be easier to do? And that's something we do even with adversaries and competitors, let alone friendly nations that we're engaging with. So I think that's the other thing I would just point out is, we need to be thinking about that whole spectrum of interactions and engagement with China and how we're going to be doing that going forward and maybe where there's room to do that and maybe what are some things that are still really difficult. These are all fantastic points, Brian. Is there anything else you want to add or anything to leave with the audience before we close out? Well, I think I would just reiterate that this is challenging. It may seem obvious, but once you start digging into it, there's really difficult choices to be made. Ultimately, I think it comes down to we do need to have the executive branch work with the legislative branch to figure out what is the strategy, what is the plan for how the US is going to interact with and engage with China going forward, because it's inevitable that we will have to. The US is doing things in space, China is doing things in space. We need to know how that's going to happen to avoid some of the really bad things that might happen if we don't. Absolutely. Brian, thank you so much for walking me through this really fascinating debate. Listeners, definitely give the paper a read and form your own opinions. I appreciate it very much, Brian. Thanks for your time. Bye, Glader. Thank you. That's T-Mind as Deep Space, brought to you by N2K Cyberwire. We'd love to know what you think of our podcast. Your feedback ensures we deliver the insights that keep you a step ahead in the rapidly changing space industry. If you like our show, please share a rating and review in your podcast app. Or you can send an email to space@n2k.com. We are proud that N2K Cyberwire is part of the daily routine of the most influential leaders and operators in the public and private sector. From the Fortune 500 to many of the world's preeminent intelligence and law enforcement agencies. N2K helps space and cybersecurity professionals grow, learn, and stay informed. As the nexus for discovery and connection, we bring you the people, the technology, and the ideas shaping the future of secure innovation. Learn how at N2K.com. N2K's senior producer is Alice Carruth. Our producer is Liz Stokes. We are mixed by Elliott Peltzman and Tre Hester, with original music by Elliott Peltzman. Our executive producer is Jennifer Eiben. Peter Kilpe is our publisher and I am T-minus host, Maria Varmazis. Thank you for listening. We'll see you next time. [Music] [Music] [MUSIC]
