Can the US be trusted with the moon? A law scholar raises concerns after Artemis II’s success.
Success Artemis II The trip around the Moon was a historic feat: the first crewed lunar flyby in more than 50 years and the greatest distance ever traveled by humans since our “pale blue dot“.
The mission was brand by the technical, scientific and technical prowess, by the astronauts and the NASA team and beyondwhich got the crew there and back safely.
Artemis II deserves to be celebrated. But celebration should not oust political control.
Power and resources on the moon
Artemis II is a mission in a broader American context program start establishing a permanent position lunar base by 2030.
It’s not just about exploration. As US President Donald Trump said, it is affirming “US space superiority”, establish a “sustained US presence” and develop a lunar economy. The American colonial thought of a “manifest destiny to the stars” comes back.
The big picture is that the United States sees itself engaged in a “space race” with what NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman has called its “space race.”geopolitical adversary“, China.
One point of conflict is access to limited and valuable resources at the lunar south pole, where water ice could support life and provide rocket fuel for missions to Mars. More speculative and profit-driven views also play a role, from the mining sector helium-3 to extract resources from asteroids and bring them to Earth.
Global rules — beyond the globe
International space treaties, forged largely during the 20th century Cold War, have little to say about the appropriation of off-Earth resources.
The United States wants to shape the rules, and Chords of Artemis are part of this effort. These are non-binding, but consistent, principles.
Anchored in the Outer Space Treaty from 1967, they proposed a “plan” on how resource activities and other unresolved matters may be governed.
Many observers view the Artemis Accords as more transparent and open than its Chinese counterpart, the International Lunar Research Station. However, critics argue that the Artemis Accords undermine multilateral and consensual processes.
Sixty-one countries have signed the Artemis Accords. Only nine new signatories have joined the group since Trump’s return to the presidency of the United States, up from 19 the previous year. It remains to be seen whether the trend continues.
Why America’s leadership in space demands scrutiny
American leadership in space is often discussed only unlike China. This binary view can help the United States evade scrutiny, particularly in allied countries.
Consider America’s recent actions here on Earth. As Artemis II raised our gaze to the sky, the US-Israeli war against Iran intensified.
In a filled swear post to Truth SocialAsset hints at a nuclear attack with the threat that “an entire civilization will die tonight” unless Tehran reopens the Strait of Hormuz.
The United States has also threatened to target civil infrastructureafter a strike hits a schoolwhich is believed to have killed more than 150 people.
All this happened in the middle of ongoing crisis And civilian casualties in Gaza, where Trump’s “Peace Council” was confronted critical to seek to function as an “alternative UN”.
Trump also RELAUNCH territorial ambitions towards Greenland, saying: “We need it”. He floated annex Canada, fifty-first American state. He radius of “the honor of taking Cuba”. He declared he would “run” Venezuela.
All of these places have natural resources that would give the United States strategic advantages, including critical minerals and oil.
This conduct has raised concerns on the part of international lawyers And international organizations. Even America’s allies have spoken out, Who Asset critical for not having participated in the war in Iran.
Tough questions about a US-led space future
Disregard for international law on Earth leaves us wondering how the United States will ultimately act in space.
Academics from the South, notably law professors Antoine Anghiehave long argued that the United States uses international law selectively and in accordance with its own interests. This is nothing new with Trump, although this trend has now become more visible and intense. What might change is that more of the world realizes this, including states that once benefited from this status quo.
At the World Economic Forum in Davos this year, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney describe the “rules-based order” as “partly false,” in which “international law applied with varying rigor depending on the identity of the accused or victim.” He wasn’t talking about space – but his point applies here too.
It calls into question American leadership in space — and whether the United States will follow agreed-upon rules when control of lunar resources is no longer just a hypothetical question. Even the American principles of the Artemis Accords could prove optional if they cease to suit American interests.
This question is worth investigating, given that Trump has already justified withdraw from many international instruments and organizations for this reason. Even NATO maybe next.
No superpower should be immune from scrutiny, on Earth or beyond.
This edited article is republished from The conversation under Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
