How space exploration is tied to power struggles on Earth – Fast Company

Asmore countriesdeveloped their own space agencies, several international collaborative groups emerged. These include theUnited Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, theUnited Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space,and theConsultative Committee for Space Data Systems.

In 1975, 10 European nations founded theEuropean Space Agency. In 1998, the U.S. and Russia joined efforts to build the International Space Station, which is now supported by 15 countries.

These multinational ventures were primarily focused on scientific collaboration and data exchange.

The European Space Agency, which now includes 22 nations, could be considered among the first space blocs. But a more pronounced shift toward this type of power structure can be seen also after the end of the Cold War. Countries that shared interests on the ground began coming together to pursue specific mission objectives in space, forming space blocs.

In the past five years, several new space blocs have emerged with various levels of space capabilities. These include the African Space Agency, with 55 member states; theLatin American and Caribbean Space Agency, with seven member states; and theArab Space Coordination Group, with 12 Middle Eastern member states.

These groups allow for nations to collaborate closely with others in their blocs, but the blocs also compete with one another. Two recent space blocsthe Artemis Accordsand theSino-Russian lunar agreementare an example of such competition.

TheArtemis Accords were launched in October 2020. They are led by the U.S. and currently include 18 country members. The groups goal is to return people to the Moon by 2025 and establish a governing framework for exploring and mining on the Moon, Mars, and beyond. The mission aims to build a research station on the south pole of the Moon with a supporting lunar space station calledthe Gateway.

Similarly, in 2019, Russia and China agreed to collaborate on amission to send peopleto the south pole of the Moon by 2026. This joint Sino-Russian mission also aims to eventually build aMoon base, and place a space stationin lunar orbit.

That these blocs do not collaborate to accomplish similar missions on the Moon indicates that strategic interests and rivalries on the ground have been transposed to space.

Any nation can join the Artemis Accords. But Russia and Chinaalong with a number of their allies on Earthhave not done so because some perceive the accords as an effort to expand the U.S.-dominated international orderto outer space.

Similarly, Russia and China plan to open their future lunar research stationto all interested parties, but no Artemis country has expressed interest. The European Space Agency has evendiscontinued several joint projectsit had planned with Russia and is instead expanding its partnerships with the U.S. and Japan.

In addition to seeking power in space, countries are also using space blocs to strengthen their spheres of influence on the ground.

One example is theAsia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization, which was formed in 2005. Led by China, itincludes Bangladesh, Iran, Mongolia, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand, and Turkey.

While its broad goal is the development and launch of satellites, the organizationsmajor aim is to expand and normalize the use of the Chinese BeiDou navigation systemthe Chinese version of GPS. Countries that use the system could become dependent on China, as is the case of Iran.

There has been tremendousgrowth of commercial activities in spacein the past decade. As a result, some scholars see a future of space cooperation defined byshared commercial interests. In this scenario, commercial entities act as intermediaries between states, uniting them behind specific commercial projects in space.

However, commercial enterprises areunlikely to dictate future international cooperation in space. According to current international space law, any company that operates in space does soas an extension ofand under the jurisdiction ofits home nations government.

The dominance of states over companies in space affairs has been starkly exemplified through the Ukraine crisis. As a result of state-imposed sanctions, many commercial space companies havestopped collaboratingwith Russia.

Given the current legal framework, it seems most likely that statesnot commercial entitieswill continue to dictate the rules in space.

I believe that going forward, state formations, such as space blocs, will serve as the major means through which states further their national interests in space and on the ground. There are many benefits when nations come together and form space blocs. Space is hard, so pooling resources, manpower, and know-how makes sense. However, such a system also comes with inherent dangers.

History offers many examples showing that the more rigid alliances become,the more likely conflict is to ensue. The growing rigidity of two alliancesthe Triple Entente and the Triple Allianceat the end of the 19th century is often cited as the key triggerof World War I.

A major lesson therein, is that as long as existing space blocs remain flexible and open to all, cooperation will flourish and the world may yet avoid an open conflict in space. Maintaining the focus on scientific goals and exchanges between and within space blocswhile keeping political rivalries at baywill help to ensure the future of international cooperation in space.

Svetla Ben-Itzhak is an assistant professor of space and international relations at Air University.

This article is republished fromThe Conversationunder a Creative Commons license. Read theoriginal article.

Originally posted here:

How space exploration is tied to power struggles on Earth - Fast Company