Space, the Commons, and Geopolitical Struggle
The commons are defined by economists as a portion of our economy that cannot or should not be reduced to private property. We couldn’t run our economy without clear air and water to keep us alive and any number of businesses couldn’t operate without roads or a postal service. What if we tried to charge an unreasonable amount for postage or made every road a toll road? We would add unnecessary business costs to private entities. Polluters often argue that the environment that sustains life is their private property to destroy or rearrange. However, do polluters have a copyright or a patent on the air, water, soil or the ecosystems as a whole?
Space should be considered a part of the commons. This is the opinion of arms control expert Michael Krepon. The commercial space sector adds $314 billion to the world economy. A question could be asked about space that is similar to the ecosystems, who holds the patent or copyright to space? Like the issue of pollution, specifically greenhouse gas pollution, the geo-political conflicts of the second Cold War are threatening to rob us of the valuable use of the commons.
A few years ago the United Nations discussed a European Union drafted plan establishing laws for spacefaring nations so each nation could explore the final frontier in a law-driven way, but the efforts failed. Vladimir Putin’s Russia and the People’s Republic of China objected. Although many would simply blame Russia and China, one must look below the surface to understand Russia and China’s behavior. The second Cold War threatens to make space a private arena where owners do what they please.
Satellites, essential in space exploration, are a delicate piece of machinery. They cost billions to construct but can be destroyed by something as small as a pebble. With a growing number of space powers, each satellite is at risk because each country plays by its own rules due to a lack of rules. The current conflicts between the centers of power mean the future of space travel, and all of the job-creating industries that are connected to it, are in danger. Space travel and exploration are a very capital intensive endeavor and a war in space with space weapons would be very destructive to say the least.
Another issue that must be considered, the militarization of space would also lead to problems with space debris. More than 500,000 pieces of debris, or “space junk,” can be tracked as they orbit the Earth. They travel at speeds up to 17,500 miles per hour, fast enough for a relatively small piece of orbital debris to damage a satellite or a spacecraft. The rising population of space debris increases the potential danger to all space vehicles, but especially to the International Space Station, space shuttles and other spacecraft with humans aboard. A war in space would create even more debris and in space and inhibit exploration.
The actions of a succession of post-Cold War Presidential administrations have helped to fuel the conflict that we are experiencing today. In the final days of Soviet Russia, President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker were in a discussion with Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev about N.A.T.O. policy They ensured him that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization wouldn’t be extended to Eastern Europe. When the Soviet Union fell, the team of Bush and Baker continued negotiations with Russian Leader Boris Yeltsin. President Bill Clinton revered course and expanded N.A.T.O. into the territory of the old Warsaw Pact in 1998. Former State Department Official George Kennan, who framed the Cold War containment strategy, said at the time of the expansion “I think this is the beginning of a new Cold War. I think the Russians will react adversely and I think it will affect their policies.”
Kennan’s pessimistic attitude in the late 1990’s has been confirmed. In 2001, President George W. Bush withdrew from the 1972 Nixon-era Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The treaty limited the number of anti-ballistic missile systems the U.S. and Russia could own. In March of this year, Putin announced the development of new technologically developed missile systems and said that this was a reaction to the U.S. withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty
We’ve followed a similar path with China. The United States built military bases in Japan after World War II to secure the country from the Soviet Union and China, who went Communist in 1949. The United States left bases in South Korea after the Korean’s War to secure the country from the Soviet Union and China. The People’s Republic of China left Soviet Russia’s orbit during the Sino-Soviet split of the 1970’s and joined the American orbit. The liberalization of China’s economy soon followed.
However, the United States left bases in Japan and South Korea and also maintained somewhat of an alliance with Taiwan after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In addition, the United States has also taken part in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue along with Japan, India and Australia. The Quad is widely viewed as a de facto anti-Chinese alliance, part of what President Barack Obama called the U.S. “pivot to Asia.” In our actions toward the People’s Republic of China, we engaged in a policy of containment, similar to the pre-Soviet-Sino split in the first Cold War, and the results were similar to that of Russia.
Russia and China are geo-political allies again. Both countries belong to Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The organization was founded in 2001 and includes Iran and India and excludes our military allies, with the exceptions of Pakistan and Turkey. The United States filed an application with SCO in 2005, but the application was rejected.
All sides in this new Cold War are spending more than they have to on security. At the same time our county is spending loads and loads on defense, teachers have staged strikes in four states over poor salaries and low education funding, many Americans can’t afford a 900 dollar emergency, homelessness is gripping our cities, and many citizens are coping with high housing costs that freeze them out of the American dream of owning a house.
In looking at our problems, we could simmer the geopolitical tensions by engaging Russia, China, the UK, and the European Union on establishing laws for spacefaring nations. International relations theorist Hedley Bull thought nation-states could establish international law if it was in the interest of the nation-states making the law in question. Space travel is too expensive and too important for any country to take a risk on the militarization of space. If we can corporate on demilitarized space travel, then maybe we can end the second Cold War.
