Common Interests vs. National Interests: Fractured Cooperation in Space
Humans, as a species, have explored several aspects of space research for centuries. Yet now in the 21st century, we observe one glaring issue: the widening gap between nations that’s preventing scientific collaboration on several issues on Earth and in space.
The impact of terrestrial geopolitical events on the space industry has been observed for years, but it is only in this decade that the world is again observing two groups of different nations accelerating their position toward the Moon independently of one another. During the space race of the 1960s, it was only the Soviet Union (now Russia) and the United States that were in competition with each other. But now, the American ARTEMIS and Chinese/Russian International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) programs have created two different groups of nations: one supporting the United States and the other aligning with China and Russia.
Though both programs have their respective advantages in their own ways, conflicts between their leading nations have fractured chances for global cooperation in the next decade of space programs. Russia and the United States had several conflicts, but still successfully managed to cooperate on the International Space Station (ISS) in the past. This scenario is almost impossible to experience today, as both the United States and China have locked horns against each other on several terrestrial issues, and due to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine that resulted in many other nations around the world — especially Artemis signatories — distancing themselves from Russia.
In the next part of the article, we will take a deep dive into both the common and national interests of each group to understand their impact on the space industry.
Understanding common and national interests
To understand why nations or governments behave in a certain way, it is important to understand their past, current, and future national interests. These interests have certainly started affecting the space industry in several ways, both on economic and scientific research levels, albeit gradually.
Common interests, on the other hand, represent a group of nations having similar interests or agendas, that again serve most of their shared national interests.
In the space industry, countries like India and Australia, among others, have been at the crossroads between China and the US, as these countries have maintained some relations with Russia and China. While the current scenario suggests that India’s space development sphere is somewhat aligning with the United States, Australia on the other is also boldly rising beyond its national interests to counter China and strengthen its position through the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (QUAD), a strategic agreement among Australia, India, Japan, and the US.
It is to be noted that in 2008. Australia departed from QUAD over fears of increasing tensions with China, which had been the country’s partner for several years. But in 2017, Australia rejoined QUAD, therefore signaling that the country is gradually focusing on common interests, such as countering Chinese interference in the region, that just so happen to align with national interests such as strengthening its position in the Indo-Pacific and reducing its trade dependence on any single nation.
Though not a formal alliance, QUAD has influenced the United States, India, Japan, and Australia in the decision-making process regarding space technology developments. One of the latest examples is India signing the Artemis Accords.
Space resources: peaceful usage versus high-throttle geopolitical gambles
All these movements for the sake of common and national interests primarily serve geopolitical motivations beyond the realm of space exploration, but they also affect the space industry in several ways.
As a result, it’s unclear whether space resources can still be used for peaceful purposes. Because several million kilometers away in space, where terrestrial conflicts are defining the structure and segmentation of nations, international cooperation might be hampered, and therefore consistent diplomatic talks and dialogues between the nations are important.
Countering geopolitical gambles is not easy, therefore multilateral institutions in the space industry that are geared toward maintaining peace and cooperation between nations with little or no common interests are increasingly important.
Over the years, the United Nations has put in significant efforts but still failed to prevent terrestrial conflicts or ensure peaceful cooperation. In the space sector, it is very important for multilateral institutions or organizations to consistently work towards developing cooperation between non-aligned nations, rather than just fully aligning with their geopolitical goals. For example, the role of independent think tanks in developing policies for the space industry could be expanded, as their motivations and aims are separate from those of a given nation. Some of the well-known think tanks such as RAND Corporation and Observer Research Foundation (ORF) publish occasional opinions or reports on the space sector, but a dedicated focus is required to increase the participation of think tanks in this domain.
The use of diplomatic instruments such as dialogues and negotiation is also important. Though multilateralism supports such initiatives, it is up to a nation’s independent diplomatic initiatives to determine the future of a particular conflict. For example, India’s participation in conducting experiments on the Chinese Space Station could have possibly initiated more cooperation. But because Pakistan has recently moved toward the ILRS and has consistently cooperated with China, the odds of successful cooperation between India and China will likely decrease, because the current Indian government has rejected every single dialogue or talk with Pakistan. Therefore, a similar thread will be likely follow in the space industry. This is also one of the reasons India chose to align with the United States by signing the Artemis Accords. Though historically both nations had little to no similar interests, currently the Indo-Pacific presents a significant opportunity for both India and the United States to join hands and strengthen their cooperation in the space and defense sectors.
Conclusion
In these turbulent times, as the human race has two different groups of nations shooting for their own Moon research and exploration programs, it’s questionable whether space can truly be shared and explored for the benefit of all humanity.
Northrop Grumman’s Antares rocket, making its last flight to the ISS recently, consisting of Russian and Ukraine components, was also a classic example of two nations (Russia and the United States) with no similar interests still cooperating on a scientific level in the space industry. While terrestrial conflicts and geopolitical movements are not in full control of the space industry, multilateralism still presents a significant opportunity for the industry to create a sustainable pathway for mutual cooperation between nations.
The fractured cooperation in space is evident and the future might even widen this gap, giving rise to more conflicts, and ultimately carrying this thread of conflicts to space. The examples of India, China, the United States, and Russia signify that more consistent dialogues are necessary, as well as uplift the Track 2 diplomacy engagements where Think Tanks can play a major role in increasing cooperation between the nations. Therefore, it is important to embrace the value of international cooperation by utilizing multilateralism and ensuring the peaceful use of space resources.
