Celestial Rivalries: Navigating the New Space Race Among Global Powers (Part II)

In an increasingly multipolar world, the dimensions of competition and warfare are going to become more space-centric - what does it mean for Earth?

With the advent of technological advancement, geopolitics will now extend deeper into space with profound consequences for Earth. The final frontier is the next iteration in the evolution of our global political paradigm. This report was inspired by Tim Marshall’s book, The Future of Geography. Direct citations will be in quotes.

This is part II of III of a special report. The first focused on the unique nature and dynamics of the Moon and satellites. This installment will focus on the regulations and accords shaping future space relations. The next and final one will be on military developments in the final frontier and what it means for Earth’s security.

According to the Accords…

The Artemis Accords have played a pivotal role in shaping the future of international space exploration and governance, aiming to establish a peaceful, transparent, and cooperative future in space for all of humanity. Initiated by the United States in 2020 as part of the Artemis Program, the Accords are designed to provide a framework for civil exploration and use of the Moon, Mars, and beyond. It draws upon principles from the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.

Countries like Belgium, Greece, and Uruguay have joined the Accords in 2024, reflecting the Accords' expanding global influence and the shared interest in safe and responsible space exploration. The provisions of the Artemis Accords emphasize peaceful purposes, transparency, interoperability standards, assistance in distress, responsibility for space object registration, and the open sharing of scientific data.,

India's signing of the Artemis Accords in June 2023 marked a significant step in enhancing the strategic partnership between India and the US in space exploration. This move is seen as a counter to China's expanding civil and military space activities, demonstrating the soft power dynamics and the strategic alliances forming in the space domain.

There are some overlaps with the Moon Agreement of 1979. A central tenet is the declaration of celestial bodies as the "common heritage of mankind," intended to ensure that the benefits of space exploration are shared equitably among all countries. Key provisions include the freedom of scientific research, the requirement for environmental protection, and the stipulation that any exploitation of resources should benefit humanity as a whole.

However, a new geopolitical climate has led to key differences between old and new frameworks for space exploration. As Tim Marshall writes: “[the] Moon [Agreement] was a global legal multilateral framework.

The Artemis Accords are a series of bilateral agreements mostly authored by the US. Other countries are basically adopting the US legal approach to lunar law and space laws. China and Russia were specifically excluded. Congress banned NASA from cooperating with China, and Russia was frozen out after it was accused of tracking US spy satellites in a dangerous manner”.

The Artemis Accords also lean towards supporting space resource extraction by individual countries and their private sectors, under national jurisdiction. As mentioned in Part I, the US-led Accords are looking to develop so-called safety zones in areas being used for strategic commercial-military development.

Section 11 of the accords prioritizes the deconfliction of “Space Activities”. As Tim Marshall correctly points out “Its not a huge leap to go from safety zone to sphere of influence”.

In a multipolar environment characterized by multi-dimensional competition, ideals yield to strategy.

The Artemis program also includes the Gateway — “a small station orbiting the Moon acting as a hub to allow spaceships, crews, landing modules, and rovers to resupply during frequent trips”. Part I expands on the physics of the Moon and why its strategic value for deeper space travel is literally astronomically high.

Regulations

Similar to how the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) is invoked in maritime conflicts, future disputes on the Moon might see Artemis Accords signatories using the agreement against Russia or China. However, this application might face challenges.

Just as Turkey contests UNCLOS definitions in its Mediterranean oil disputes with Greece, China and Russia might not readily accept interpretations stemming from the Artemis Accords. This highlights the ongoing debate: where do the boundaries of sovereignty lie in space?

A significant development emerged from NATO's 2022 summit. A previously unnoticed statement broadens the scope of Article 5's mutual defense clause to encompass space.

The statement acknowledges that "attacks to, from, or within space" could pose a threat comparable to conventional attacks, potentially triggering Article 5. However, it emphasizes a case-by-case decision-making process.

This cautious approach reflects the nascent nature of space governance – there are no established norms yet. This strategic ambiguity allows NATO flexibility in its response, avoiding an automatic escalation. In the context of the Russia-Ukraine war, strategic ambiguity could be the difference between a contained conflict and a continental war. Satellites play an instrumental role in modern warfare.

The Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967, a cornerstone of space law, prohibits the weaponization of space. However, there's ongoing debate about its interpretation. The growth of anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons testing by countries like China and the US, while not technically weapons in space, creates debris hazards for all actors.

This raises concerns about the potential for a "tragedy of the commons" scenario, where competition for strategic advantage leads to a cluttered and dangerous space environment. The expanding number of ASAT tests, while not technically placing weapons in space, creates a cascading effect.

These tests destroy operational satellites, fragmenting them into countless pieces of high-speed debris. Even a tiny piece of debris traveling at orbital velocities can cripple or destroy a functional satellite in a chain reaction collision. This "Kessler Syndrome" scenario could render entire orbital zones unusable, hindering vital communication, navigation, and Earth observation services relied upon by all nations.

Where the rubber will hit the road is when policies from space-faring nations with diverging geopolitical goals intersect with nation-based military programs. More on that in next week’s final installment: the militarization of space.