(Image Source)
Amid the fog of war created by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, a series of developments in the opening days of May 2020 have highlighted the evolving geopolitical outlines for the coming decades of human exploration and settlement of the Solar System. A multi-polar and fractured space ecosystem now seems increasingly likely, even if it is not the preferable outcome.

To date, outer space has been governed largely by the Outer Space Treaty, effective since October 1967, and signed by 100+ nations (including all with any active space presence) (2, 3). Relatively without controversy, the OST provides for a conflict free, collaborative space exploration environment, prohibiting ownership and most explicit economic use of space. Yet in recent years pressure has grown as the space economy matured, the private space sector expanded, and interest in mining and other more exploitative economic activities grew. In 2015 the US Congress passed the Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act to legally safeguard American companies in space, and for years calls have been made to revise and update the OST to reflect the realities of the increasingly mature space economy (4).

A template for the next generation of legal agreements in space came into existence in 1998 with the signing of the Intergovernmental Agreement that led to the construction of the International Space Station. The framework established was cooperative and substantive, and it is considered incredibly successful by the standards of international law. Not only did it facilitate the construction of the largest and most complicated (and most expensive) scientific outpost in human history, it also successfully integrated former arch-rivals Russia & the US in a multilateral framework that at the time included every space-faring nation on Earth (5, 6).

Another relevant multilateral success story comes from environmental law. The Montreal Protocol was negotiated in the late 1980’s once it became clear human activity had ripped a huge and potentially devastating hole in the ozone layer (20). It is the only universally adopted UN treaty (it has more signatories than the UN itself!), is credited with successfully shrinking the hole in the ozone layer, and deployed unique economic incentives that actually benefited industry (21). The Montreal Protocol is proof positive that broad, inclusive multilateralism is not only possible, but can produce win-win dynamics that generate significant goods for society.

Since early in his first term, President Trump has placed NASA and its’ manned spaceflight program high on his priority list, calling for additional NASA funding and setting ambitious exploration targets (22). NASA has moved forward with an aggressive plan to return to the Moon, recently awarding $1 billion to 3 private companies to develop the next generation of lunar landers (1). NASA has included a diverse collection of international partners so far in its’ Artemis lunar return program, with the notable exception of the Russians (10). On May 5th, 2020, the Trump Administration unveiled the Artemis Accords, a series of legal agreements detailing safe zones and other necessary legal protections for the projected expanding American presence on the lunar surface. These negotiations would be undertaken with ‘like-minded’ nations who have similar Lunar interests, which does not presently include either Russia or China (13). It’s important to stress that the Trump Administration does not see the Artemis Accords as a refutation or dismissal of the Outer Space Treaty; indeed the Accords utilize OST language for legal justification and underpinning.

The Trump Administration’s hostility to broad, inclusive global multilateralism is well documented (and is generally accepted as a core philosophical belief of the President). With his early withdrawals from the Paris Climate Accords and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, President Trump has made clear global negotiation and collaboration is not his preferred modus operandi (7, 8). NASA does not plan to include Russia in negotiating the Artemis Accords due to hostile Russian satellite activity (among numerous other examples of a deteriorating geopolitical relationship), and Congress has legally forbidden NASA from working with the Chinese government since 2011 (9). It appears the Artemis Accords will be limited largely to existing American alliance networks (Canada, Europe, and Japan), with prominent regional actors (the United Arab Emirates, Brazil, India) potentially included.

In the same time frame the Trump Administration was unveiling the Artemis Accords, China was basking in the glow of a successful test of their new Long March 5B heavy lift rocket (11, 12). This rocket is a significant and highly visible step forward for the Chinese Lunar and space station development programs. China has adopted a methodical, decades-long program of space expansion, becoming the 3rd nation to launch astronauts independently to orbit and the 1st to land a rover on the far side of the Moon (14, 15). Like the US, China has also demonstrated an irreverence towards established international norms and multilateralism, most notably with its conduct in the South China Sea (16). The Chinese program has developed along largely military (and non-multilateral) lines until recently, when Russia and China announced their intentions to explore the Moon together (18).

Recent years have seen increasing discussion and concern regarding the return to Great Power competition in the world, with the major early antagonists the US, China, and Russia (17). This dynamic has become evident in space, with militarization of the Great Power programs becoming increasingly visible. China, Russia, and the US are all enhancing their anti-satellite capabilities, which has in turn spurred a new wave of military development in space among 2nd tier powers such as India (in opposition to China) (23, 24). Despite ridicule in the US media, the US Space Force is an acknowledgement of the new geopolitical reality of a militarized space domain and a need to scale up American military capabilities appropriately (25). This increasing militarization is occurring despite clear evidence that broad, inclusive multilateralism can reap significant benefits for society and at a time there is the potential for significant economic growth in space on the horizon.

After a decade of explosive and diversified growth, and despite a short term slump due to the COVID Recession, the space industry is projected to grow to a $1 trillion behemoth within the next 2 decades (26, 27). Serious investments are being made in space mining, an industry where potential estimates begin around $700 billion in extractable mineral worth alone (28). Untold environmental benefits are possible if much of our civilizations heavy metals mining and power production can be moved off planet. Space related economic activity on Earth generates significant returns for host regions in the form of university investments and high paying job growth(29). Fostering this new era, accelerating growth and increasing economic activity, would seem to be a logical and beneficial course of action.

Yet the governing system that appears to be taking hold threatens this bright future. Geopolitical divisions and increasing militarization would curtail the space for economic development, limit the role of private companies and capital, and threaten research and exploration throughout the Solar System. If the current international frameworks that have succeeded so well in recent decades fall apart, the gains we achieved under them will be under incredible risk and this fragile future could very well collapse. It would be a travesty of unspeakable proportions if our fractured geopolitics destroyed this opportunity to significantly advance our civilization throughout the Solar System and open a new era of prosperity for humanity.

The future is not yet written, and there are many reasons to believe that free enterprise, civic collaboration, and inclusive multilateralism could still assert themselves as the dominant governance themes in space in the decades ahead. It is imperative that political leaders in every nation on the globe be called on and pressured to reduce the militarization of space and advance exclusively peaceful, collaborative development frameworks. People of every stripe in every corner of the globe must speak loudly and without end about the peaceful, prosperous future they wish to see. We are all now global citizens in a chaotic new age, and a prosperous, peaceful, and multilateral future in space is ours to demand.