Mercantilism In Space

LVM-3 launch Emerging space powers in the Global South, like India, need to look after their own interests as more advanced powers take on bigger roles in space. (credit: ISRO) Mercantilism in outer space: discussing a political-economic approach for the Global South by Aritra Ghosh Monday, September 16, 2024 Bookmark and Share This essay focusses on the political-economic impact of the utilization of outer space on economically capable Global South states. A frontier that was predominantly accessed by the Global North has since seen the rise of developing countries, such as India, who are taking an active interest in the economic and security concerns on the use of space as they themselves have become spacefaring nations. States, specifically actors from the global south, benefit from taking a mercantilist approach to outer space. While there does exist regulation of activities in space, such as the Outer Space Treaty (OST) of 1967, it can be considered outdated for the advancements made in the economic and military potential of outer space in 21st century and it should be noted that the bodies that govern peaceful cooperation of outer space are part of the United Nations and hence this means that the ultimate decision-making body on matters regarding space are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council who hold veto power. All five are spacefaring nations, and four out of the five (excluding China) are a part of the Global North. So why must economically capable Global South countries take a mercantilist approach to outer space? The answer is to prevent further domination over them by the Global North. Therefore, this essay claims that countries of the Global South such as India and others that have an active interest in utilizing outer space for economic interests must follow a mercantilist approach or they will not be able to succeed in a frontier that is slowly being hegemonized by the Global North. What exactly is a mercantilist approach? Mercantilists take the approach “that economic activity is and should be subordinated to the primary goal of building a strong state. In other words, economics is a tool of politics, a basis for political power. That is a defining feature of mercantilist thinking. Mercantilists see the international economy as an arena of conflict between opposing national interests, rather than an area of cooperation and mutual gain.” (Jackson and Sørensen, 2015, pg. 4) The utilization of outer space has become essential for the functioning of the global economy on Earth. An example of this is satellites providing GPS and connectivity that have become crucial for telecommunications, e-commerce, trade, and hence the international economic order (IMF, 2021). There are also military usages of satellites in space for the purpose of communication, navigation, and intelligence gathering. (Space.Com, 2014) Recently, private companies have pushed for a move towards greater privatization in space, like SpaceX’s Starlink or Virgin Galactic’s suborbital space tourism services. These companies have also been closely working with government institutions such as SpaceX’s collaboration with NASA (Costa, 2022). For these private companies, having access to outer space earlier than others helps in creating a potential monopoly over private business in space for themselves (Foust, 2023). As technology has developed, mining in space of asteroids and the moon has become a real possibility. Asteroid or lunar mining can potentially solve resource scarcity issues on Earth as well as be a highly lucrative endeavour for states and private businesses involved: “Despite the high price tag, the development of asteroid mining technology may very well be a worthwhile endeavor due to the extremely valuable resources that asteroids have to offer. For example, Asterank, which measures the potential value of over 6,000 asteroids that NASA currently tracks, has determined that mining just the top 10 most cost-effective asteroids–that is, those that are both closest to Earth and greatest in value–would produce a profit of around US$1.5 trillion.” (Yarlagadda, 2022) However, the Outer Space Treaty is largely ambiguous on the matter and states have proceeded to make their own legislation regarding mining in space, an example of this bring the US Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 (Oduntan, 2015). The Artemis Accords (2020), drafted by the US, are a series of non-binding bilateral agreements between the US and other countries for a “common set of principles to govern the civil exploration and use of outer space”(NASA, n.d.). The Artemis Accords reinforces principles of cooperation in space while including issues of concern in the 21st century such as the “extraction and utilization of space resources, including any recovery from the surface or subsurface of the Moon, Mars, comets, or asteroids” (Artemis Accords, pg. 4). Emphasis should be given to the fact that the Artemis Accords are a non-binding agreement and hence there are no legal consequences to breaking the principles of the accord, especially to the USA. Even if the UN decides to impose sanctions on those that have breached the Artemis Accords, if the US themselves are a breacher they would simply veto any decision against them. Therefore, the international political system is grossly tilted in favour of the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, benefitting them greatly in the utilization—and potential exploitation—of resources in outer space without significant consequences. So why must economically capable Global South countries take a mercantilist approach to outer space? The answer is to prevent further domination over them by the Global North. There are various resources in space that are scarce on Earth, and accessing resources in space such as helium-3 would transform the nuclear energy sector on the planet. (Kilment, 2006) Any state that manages to successfully extract these resources first would immediately gain the upper hand in international trade of the said resource as well as using the new resources to further push economic development and production. Strengthening of a state’s economy would lead the periphery/semi-periphery states to be less reliable on the exploitative “core” countries of the world system. (Hopkins and Wallerstein, 1982) and allow them to have a greater say in economics and geopolitics Economically capable Global South states with an interest in outer space must pursue a defensive mercantilist policy and use outer space to the best of their abilities to strengthen their position economically and militarily on Earth so they too can have an equal presence in global power politics. Another feature of mercantilism of space would be the militarization or weaponization of this frontier. Hence, from an offensive realist lens, this essay argues that states from the Global South, such as India, that have the economic capability to weaponize/militarize space should do so, and it is only after building such weapons the state should show restraint. The purpose of such weapons should not be aggressive in nature, but rather to protect their own economic interest in space while also ensuring they do not fall back to the Global North in military capability. While states should invest in protective measures in space by the production of weapons that can be used in outer space, all states should avoid military conflict in space. Such a conflict could spill over to the terrestrial plane leading to large-scale destruction and the use of weapons of mass destruction. The aim of the Global South should be to strengthen their economic and political position to such an extent that they do not let outer space be another frontier where the current terrestrial status-quo applies, but rather use the resources present in outer space and utilize them to strengthen their terrestrial political power. In conclusion it should be noted that this essay does not advocate aggressive mercantilism in outer space, but rather defensive mercantilism, one where “states look after their national economic interests because that is an important ingredient of their national security; such policies need not have overly negative effects on other states.” (Jackson and Sørensen, 2015, pg. 4) It also does not dispute key principles of the OST, (United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, 1966) but rather encourages it; fair and peaceful cooperation in outer space has the potential to bring about profound net-positive economic change here on Earth. However, this essay recognizes the existing deficiencies in international space law and the repeated lack of accountability by the P5 who use the United Nations as a tool to their means of power politics (Glennon, 2003, pg. 18) rather than benefitting the international community as a whole. The reasonable solution to this is either major reforms in the UN Security Council or creating a new international governing body specifically related to activities in outer space that is more neutral in nature than the current United Nations. Pessimistic about the former, the latter scenario is more likely as the politics and economics of outer space further complexes. When such a scenario does arise, the Global South should be in a position to play a more active role in the making of such an institution and the creation of stronger space legislation. Thus, economically capable Global South states with an interest in outer space must pursue a defensive mercantilist policy and use outer space to the best of their abilities to strengthen their position economically and militarily on Earth so they too can have an equal presence in global power politics, refusing to be subordinates to the Global North’s interests. Bibliography Costa, J. (2022). SpaceX – All the news about NASA’s missions using SpaceX. [online] blogs.nasa.gov. Foust, J. (2023). SpaceX launches a debate on monopolies. [online] www.thespacereview.com. Glennon, M.J. (2003). Why the Security Council Failed. Foreign Affairs, 82(3), p.16. Hopkins, T.K. and Immanuel Maurice Wallerstein (1982). World-Systems Analysis. SAGE Publications, Incorporated. IMF. (2021). Brave New World: Tracking Trade from Space. [online]. Kliment, A. (2006). The Battle for Celestial Property Rights. The SAIS Review of International Affairs, [online] 26(1), pp.189–191. [Accessed 12 Apr. 2024]. NASA. (n.d.). Artemis Accords - NASA. [online]. Oduntan, G. (2015). Who Owns Space? US Asteroid-Mining Act Is Dangerous And Potentially Illegal. [online] IFLScience. [Accessed 11 Apr. 2024]. Space.com. (2014). Military Space - Spacecraft, Weapons and Tech | Space. [online] [Accessed 12 Apr. 2024]. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (1966). The Outer Space Treaty. [online] UNOOSA. Yarlagadda, S. (2022). Economics of the Stars: The Future of Asteroid Mining and the Global Economy. [online] Harvard International Review. Jackson, R. and Sørensen, G. (2015). 6. International Political Economy: Classical Theories. Introduction to International Relations. Aritra Ghosh is a Master's student at the South Asian University, New Delhi, pursuing a degree in International Relations with a keen interest in environmental and astropolitics, particularly from a Global South lens. Aritra is also an intern at the Observer Research Foundation, Kolkata.