The Politics of Space

The Politics of Space

            Throughout history, we have seen that international politics often become extremely complicated when it comes to regulating borders. Many wars have been declared because of international border disputes. There are many different instances throughout history where a single empire becomes the dominant force, and these empires—such as the Roman or Mongolian empires—feel it is their destiny to continuously conquer more lands and to expand their influence. Modern international politics have arguably not diverged too far from what they used to look like. Presently, the United States can be seen as a global force of dominance, so much so that it remains the sole superpower of the world. Ever since the United States reached its stride of power, it has been actively stretching its influence—both in policy and culture—to nations from all across the globe. Some people argue that the role the United States has inherited in the global community is one of an “international police,” and that it rightfully assumes this responsibility due to both its strong military and capable economic performance that helps maintain its standing army. The opposing view is that the United States has overstepped its role in the international community by attempting to topple governments that it disagrees with and then help institutionalize (in one way or another) a new government, often modeled after the democratic republic that the United States has adopted. Unfortunately for the United States, many of the critical political actors in the global community currently stand with the latter argument. This has now thrust the United States into an awkward position where each move it makes is closely watched by the international community.

            Now, having briefly analyzed the complexity and fragility of modern international politics under a single hegemon, imagine those same political actors jousting for unexplored territories and unknown worlds…in space.

            Since the beginning of space exploration programs, the international community has attempted to reach beyond Earth as a collective body, formally drafting an agreement known as the Outer Space Treaty. This treaty was created so that disputes over border claims on the moon and on other celestial bodies would not lead to the catastrophes that have become a common element of human history. One of the most significant components of the treaty is that it makes all parts of outer space a “common resource”, meaning that no single nation can claim it for their own.

            Until recently, this treaty has not been often disputed, as most efforts in constructing space stations and collecting samples from the moon and asteroids have been international efforts funded and supported by several different governments. Currently, however, the United States government has been criticized for potentially voting this month on passing a controversial bill that would give companies exclusive property rights over specific resources in space. The bill, which is set to be heard by the Senate before the end of September this year, has already been passed by the House of Representatives. The global community has not only been criticizing the United States government for considering passing this bill, but has also raised the question of whether or not the United States holds the authority to give companies legal claim over resources in outer space. According to critics, if the United States votes to pass this bill it would technically be violating the Outer Space Treaty, which has been signed and respected by over one-hundred countries. Whether or not the United States is the sole global hegemon does not justify its neglect for an international treaty…does it?

            A topic long-debated has been whether or not the amount of power that the United States maintains is a good enough reason for constituting behavior that is either frowned upon or has been disapproved by other members of the international community. A recent incident that comes to mind is the United States’ invasion of Iraq for belief that the country was holding weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). When presenting its case to the United Nations, the collective body of member states rejected the United States’ decision to go to war, and urged that it abstain from doing so. Even still, the United States engaged in a military conflict in Iraq, resulting in a loss of hundreds of thousands of lives and a significant loss of international reputation.

            Now, the United States is faced with making yet another decision that could result in not only international disapproval, but potentially devastating backlash from other powerful nations who have still maintained the integrity and legitimacy of an international treaty.

By: Sergio A. Lopez