Outer Space: The final frontier of Geopolitcs and the Global Commons
It is in the immensity and silence of the Universe, beyond Earth’s atmosphere, that a new wave of geopolitical competition is silently and relentlessly advancing. This competition has profound implications for humanity, global governance, and the survival of our planet. On recalling Carl Sagan’s Pale Blue Dot, we should be reminded that planet Earth is a fragile mote of dust in a vast cosmos, and it is through cooperation, not conquest, not domination, that we will prevent the nightmare of having to escape a broken Earth. Rightly so, and just as in the popular TV series Space: 1999, where a bleak future is depicted after the explosion of nuclear waste on the Moon, triggering Earth’s satellite out of orbit, and condemning the lunar base to travel adrift through a hostile cosmos: the crew, unable to return home, encounters the challenges of survival in the unknown of celestial discoveries and in contact with other civilizations. It is the fragility of man in the cosmos, depicted by Carl Sagan, and the lunar fate in the TV series, that dystopia reflects itself through the current events in geopolitics and outer space today. Both the TV series and Sagan have warned us of the danger of degrading Earth through our own hubris in superpower competition, prompting a serious analysis of the militarization of the Moon and of bringing terrestrial conflict into the cosmos.
According to the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST), outer space is the “province of all mankind,” therefore, it is meant to be used for peaceful ends and for the benefit of all nation-states. In that sense, space is classified as a Global Commons, like the High Seas and Antarctica. The treaty, however, requires updating and an enforcement mechanism; the Treaty lacks a global regulation, or “hard law” on the militarization of space, or even the commercial exploitation of space. Nowadays, with the entrance of new "private" actors into the celestial scene, such as SpaceX or Blue Origin, there is a need to regulate these private actors engaged in a grey zone, while at the same time, state actors seem to be headed into a space race to claim zones of influence. On the other hand, major spacefaring superpowers that have ratified the Moon Agreement of 1979 will need to regulate celestial resource extraction amidst intense competition for obtaining those resources. Robust governance is in great need at a time when space is becoming the last frontier of international affairs, where space nationalism, space neo-imperialism, and space resource exploitation might propel Earthly rivalry into Celestial Disputes.
Planetary Responsibility: Space exploration and space militarization are risks to planetary responsibility. There is a moral imperative, if you wish, to avoid hubris from advancing its way into space as if it were a battlefield; planetary responsibility, as Carl Sagan highlighted, reminds us that celestial boundaries are necessary to keep celestial bodies as a shared heritage for mankind. Sagan advocated stewardship, not confrontation, in dealing with outer space.
Legal Void and the Global Commons: Outer space is becoming a contested domain of strategic rivalry, amidst global power competition between space exploration superpowers. America’s vision of space, or the White House’s own strategy, has seen some shifts in its approach to the space race and space exploration, from Kennedy to Trump. Kennedy’s 1962 speech at Rice University was a turning point. Kennedy expressed that America would reach the Moon, not because it was easy, but because it was difficult. Kennedy had an approach of scientific leadership, national pride, and exploration. Kennedy’s stance was geopolitical, too. It was a show of force and innovation amidst the Cold War contest with the former Soviet Union. Reagan introduced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), popularly known as "Star Wars." It was an approach of weaponizing space in 1983, amidst Reagan’s fears that the doctrine of mutual assured destruction (MAD) would not be enough to deter nuclear proliferation. The initiative responds to Reagan’s needs for a missile defense system to counteract ballistic nuclear missiles. In 2019, Trump resurrected some parts of this vision by signing the National Defense Authorization Act, managed by the Space Development Agency. And in 2025, Trump’s rhetoric includes space defense through the Golden Dome. This has raised alarms in diplomatic circles, where space is becoming a new theater of strategic confrontation.
A call for Chile’s diplomacy: Chile must not remain passive, nor should the broader community. Chile has a world-class reputation for astronomical research and state-of-the-art facilities in the north. Chile can play a diplomatic role in multilateral forums, advocating for outer space as a demilitarized, protected, and cooperative domain. Through scientific diplomacy, by October 2024, Chile became the 47th country to sign the Artemis Accords. These seek to establish a common framework of principles regarding space exploration of the Moon, Mars, asteroids, and comets. The agreement reaffirms the commitment to the release of scientific data. By joining the initiative, Chile has reaffirmed its role as a responsible actor in the international sphere. China and Russia have criticized the accords for holding the view of the United States about outer space. Chile’s challenge is to uphold its commitment while at the same time promoting outer space as a global commons, for the benefit of mankind.
Sustainability Country Risk Chile is an independent analysis platform funded by Ma. Soledad Soza R., specializing in global governance, environmental security, and geopolitics. Soledad’s role is to connect Chilean perspectives with emerging challenges across the globe.
