US-China rivalry should not mean giving up on a global space framework

With the US and China each forging their own space agreements with friendly states, perhaps common ground could be found in, for example, clearing up hazardous space debris
While separate agreements obviate the need for international norms, they also establish principles and structures that could form the basis of a new global treaty

James David Spellman

Published: 9:15am, 17 Jun 2023

Why you can trust SCMP

Conflict between the West and China is spilling over into attempts to overhaul the Outer Space Treaty, which began governing the use of space in the 1960s when the United States and Soviet Union raced to be first on the moon.

Those tensions and broader geopolitical conflicts are dimming the prospects of a new global framework any time soon to address the surge in the use of space for national security, commercial ventures and communications by the more than 80 countries that own satellites.

The recent plenary of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space revealed West-China divisions on issues that include ownership of resources mined from celestial bodies, accessing the troposphere (the atmosphere’s lowest layer) and beyond for national security purposes, cleaning up space debris, and managing safety in the launch, orbit and decommissioning of spacecraft. North-South frictions cut across these issues too.

There have been sharp words elsewhere. Last month, a top US military official said Washington had “no choice” but to prepare for conflict in space given Russia’s attack on Ukraine and China’s plans to dominate space by mid-century. Weeks before, the head of Nasa warned the US and China were in a “space race” and backed the existing restrictions on cooperation. He had cautioned in January that “we better watch out”.

The European Space Agency said in January it was no longer planning to send astronauts to China’s Tiangong space station, citing budgetary and political reasons. In March, the European Commission said the European Union must expand efforts “to defend the EU’s strategic interests and to deter hostile activities in and from space”, singling out China’s development of “extensive space programmes and counterspace capabilities” as a concern. Nato recently declared space an “operational domain”.

Meanwhile, there have been developments from China. In January, a Hong Kong-based firm, which also has operations in mainland China, signed a US$1 billion deal with Djibouti to build a launch facility in cooperation with a company owned by an Africa-focused Chinese investor. Some see this as China escaping its treaty obligations since the African country is not a signatory to the Outer Space Treaty. Others counter that the agreement is customary international law.

China has also deployed a satellite with a robotic arm capable of grabbing other satellites and has developed a way to plant explosives in the thruster nozzles of adversaries’ satellites. The West sees these as ominous threats.

With the dividing lines deepening and the final frontier becoming more congested and contested, is there a way forward?

One answer may be in the bilateral and multilateral arrangements signed among countries and the best practices adopted by the private industry.

The US’ Artemis Accords are one example. These bilateral, non-binding private agreements between Nasa and 24 foreign space agencies establish principles to govern the exploration and use of the moon. Their US-centric approach, though, limits their appeal worldwide.

40:36

China’s space plans: lunar GPS, a 3D-printed moon base and soil samples from Mars

Last year, China said it had 149 space cooperation agreements and memorandums of understanding with 46 national space agencies and four international organisations.

These arrangements are double-edged swords.

On one hand, they splinter space law by being project-specific, limited to signatories and narrow in scope for highly contentious areas, such as property rights. They obviate the need for international norms.

On the other hand, they establish principles and structures that could form the basis of a new global treaty.

22:01

Are aliens among us? Michio Kaku on UFOs and China-US space race | Talking Post with Yonden Lhatoo

The situation mirrors the 17th century when merchant empires, such as the Dutch East Indies Company, shaped the law of the sea and commercial legal terms. These helped form the tenets of international law today by giving all countries the right to freedom of the seas and by expanding the idea of a just war. But the doctrines also fuelled enmity.

Finding common ground to address operations in space also offers potential, especially in two areas: cleaning up space debris and managing launches, orbits and the decommissioning of space vehicles.

Functional integration has had limited success before as nations agreed on nuts-and-bolts matters. Through collaboration, norms are established and trust is built into stronger ties that may constrain states’ sovereignty. Habits could evolve into broader international accords.

The European Union’s emergence from a common market formed in the early 1950s for Europe’s coal and steel industries shows the peril and promise of such an approach.

A space-debris mitigation treaty could arise from the existing guidelines of space agencies and other arrangements among states, companies and intergovernmental organisations. An estimated 100 trillion untracked pieces of space junk are at low Earth orbit, where most satellites are. Debris in orbit travels so fast that a flake of paint could seriously damage a satellite.

The urgency, as an open letter from scientists underscores, is a strong driver towards a global framework. But the US has made clear it has no interest in this approach now.

Other areas offering potential deals are situational awareness and traffic management. Spacefaring nations and companies need to improve both reporting requirements and data-collection programmes for tracking space objects, their purposes and estimated lifespans.

Security considerations may prevent full and timely disclosures. But knowing when and where launches will occur can avoid mishaps. Information-sharing can also jump-start opportunities to leverage uses of new spacecraft.

That the UN High Seas Treaty was finalised in March offers hope for a framework of similar magnitude for the last frontier. The treaty affirms the equitable sharing of the seas’ resources and sets out other landmark provisions. Granted, states must adopt the terms, and treaties inevitably show weaknesses in surveillance and enforcement. But the near-20-year effort to ensure environmental protection for marine life shows that state ambitions can be set aside for the common good.

James David Spellman, a graduate of Oxford University, is principal of Strategic Communications LLC, a consulting firm based in Washington, DC