U.S. refuses to accept resolution banning weapons in space

Editor's note: William Jones, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is the former Washington Bureau Chief for Executive Intelligence Review (EIR) News Service and a non-resident fellow of the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

In a vote on May 20, a resolution in the UN Security Council proposed by Russia and supported by China, calling for banning weapons in space, was rejected by the Western permanent members, the U.S., France, and Great Britain, as well as Japan, Slovenia, South Korea and Malta.

Seven countries, Russia, China, Algeria, Guyana, Ecuador, Mozambique, and Sierra Leone, voted for it. This issue has been put forward by Russia and China, two of the major space powers, for a long time but has been consistently rejected by the United States, and now, by its "allies," raising the question of what the actual intentions of the U.S. are in space.

Since the beginning of the Space Age with the launch of Sputnik in 1957, there has been a general consensus among nations, and particularly within the space community, that space would not become an arena of geopolitical rivalry. While getting to space was initially a question of technological "rivalry" during the Cold War, it was quickly understood that space could become an area of cooperation, in spite of the disputes here on Earth.

As early as 1961, then-U.S. President John F. Kennedy had proposed to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev that they proceed with a joint mission to Moon, a proposal which was not followed up by Khrushchev. Then in 1975 there was the joint Apollo-Soyuz mission where the then two sole space powers joined their efforts.

The Outer Space Treaty signed by the Soviet Union and the United States in 1967 was the first attempt to create a legislative basis for space exploration. While it remains in force, the spirit that imbued it has long since subsided with the newly found technological "rivalry" with China and Russia declared by the United States. In those days, people generally saw the exploration of space as one of the major "common interests of mankind," and felt that it should be taken out of the arena of geopolitical rivalry.

The present "exclusivist" policy of the U.S. in its refusal to cooperate with China, now one of the major space powers, and the attempt to limit its collaborative Moon exploration program Artemis to its "allies" and potential converts to their self-styled "alliance of democracies" has created an entirely different mood in the space community.

Most unsettling is the creation of the U.S. Space Force under the U.S. Air Force by Donald Trump during his presidency. Both U.S. President Dwight David Eisenhower, always critical of  "the military-industrial complex," and President Kennedy were unalterably opposed to having space exploration placed under military control, and the creation of NASA, as a civilian entity working directly under the president of the United States, prevented the Air Force from getting their way in this matter.

With the U.S. Space Force, they have come in by the back door. While NASA is still "in charge," it is now subordinate to the geopolitical wishes of that military-industrial complex. We have seen this in the near hysterical paranoid comments made by NASA Administrator Bill Nelson about the successful Chinese space program.

The irony of the U.S. position on banning weapons in space is underlined by the continued accusations by the U.S. administration that Russia is on the verge of deploying nuclear weapons in space. The only program on the table at Roscosmos, Russia's state entity for space activities, is the development of a nuclear-powered "tug" that can transport equipment and supplies in space. Nuclear propulsion has been a long-standing effort by all space powers as the most efficient means of long-term space exploration.

Wouldn't a treaty simply banning weapons in space assuage those somewhat misplaced fears? There seems to be an entirely different agenda at work here, which is not clear. But efforts are already being made in the U.S. to "weaponize" space. The Artemis program itself seems to be an attempt to "monitor" activities on Moon.

Space News, an authoritative source for the U.S. space community, recently ran an article about a private space company, Inversion Space, which has put forward a proposal to place weapons warehouses in near-Earth space. They are now working on a reusable capsule designed to store ammunition in space capable that can be delivered anywhere on Earth at the request of the Pentagon. According to Inversion Space's CEO, Justin Fiaschetti, these capsules can be used to store medicines, military equipment and small reconnaissance drones. Experiments are to be conducted in October.

This rather belligerent view of space is not prevalent within the space community as a whole and has been raised in a much different culture. But the shift is very unsettling.

Moving forward, legislation that would clearly outline the procedures for governments and companies operating in space is sorely needed if we are to avoid space exploration from devolving into a devastating "Star Wars" scenario.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)