China extends terrestrial rivalries into orbit with new space race - The Nikkei Asian Review, 23 August 2019

On this Friday, I published a short essay on the emerging Asian space race in The Nikkei Asian Review. I believe that the emerging space dynamics especially in Asia will spur new competition as well as cooperation. For example, India and Japan unite over Beijing's moon landings and anti-satellite weapons and find new avenues to collaborate including in joint lunar missions in the future.

On September 7, India will attempt to land an unmanned mission on the moon. If it is successful, it will join China as the second Asian power that has landed on the lunar surface -- its efforts driven by China's achievements.

While such peaceful rivalry can spur countries to greater feats, unfortunately competition between Asian nations is now having more hostile effects: earlier in the year, India tested an antisatellite weapon, or ASAT, in space, trying to match a capability that China had demonstrated earlier.

These are two facets of the space race in Asia and it now looks like both will be determined by terrestrial power tussles more than anything else.

For the full essay, click here.



Asian powers have made significant advances in developing their capacities in outer space in the past couple of decades. China landed a rover on the far side of the moon earlier this year, an impressive feat that no other country has achieved, three years after landing on the near side.

While China has not officially commented on plans for a manned mission to the moon yet, many believe that will be the next step. In fact, Beijing has disclosed that its future lunar missions will set the foundation for a potential research base there.

Further, China's plans to construct and operate its own space station in low-earth orbit sometime around 2022 are impressive, but also add to space competition. By the time China's space station is established, it will probably be the only one operating. The current International Space Station is likely to wind up by 2024.

Similarly, India became the first Asian country to send an orbiter around Mars, called the Mangalyaan. ISRO, India's space agency, has an ambitious agenda, including a mission to study the sun in 2019-20, a second mission to Mars around 2022-23 and a Venus mission around 2023. Like China, India also plans manned space missions.

Japan, the other Asian power, has focused more on commercially viable projects but it has impressive achievements including a lunar orbiter mission in 2007 as well as the Hayabusa mission, the first time that a spacecraft landed on an asteroid and brought back samples.

While these achievements are commendable, there is a darker side; tense international relations in Asia are being felt in outer space.

In 2007, when China tested its ASAT weapon, it was the first such test since the 1980s. China's decision to demonstrate that capability meant that every power which had a reasonable level of dependence on outer space, not just military but also civilian, through such uses as GPS and telecommunication satellites, was now suddenly vulnerable.

Not surprisingly, the U.S. immediately followed with its own ASAT test the next year, and India began its own program. Now it appears that Japan may be on its way to developing an ASAT capability.

ASATs are only the visible element of this competition. There is also a less well known race to develop other capabilities that can damage the outer-space assets of potential adversaries. These include everything from cyber attacks to electronic warfare and spectrum interference, deliberate attempts to jam or otherwise impede radio signals.

The problem is of course a global one. But it is also specifically Asian because most of the key players are the rising powers in this region. Growing national wealth and technological capabilities have made these countries more dependent on space -- and hence more vulnerable.

The difficulty is exacerbated by the lack of international rules or norms. Existing treaties such as the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 have proved to be outdated and inadequate to meet these challenges. The problem is well recognized and there have been recent international efforts to address it, though these have gone nowhere.

The consequence is that deterrence appears to be the only real safeguard to protecting national assets in space. Simply put, the absence of strong rules and norms means countries must implicitly threaten retaliation by developing their aggressive capabilities.

This competition is spurring cooperation of a sort, however. China's enormous capacity means that no other Asian power can counter it alone. Just as this is encouraging new terrestrial alignments between India, Japan, Australia and others, it is also leading to cooperation in outer space by a number of countries, all whom have common concerns about China's capabilities and behavior in space.

Thus India and Japan, despite having highly nationalistic space programs, are cooperating more. In 2017, the two countries formally recognized the importance of deeper cooperation, and the space agencies of the two countries plan to conduct a joint lunar mission. More significantly, the two countries have just started a space security dialogue.

The first space race between the U.S. and the Soviet Union petered out without too much damage. With only two players in the game and a far simpler outer-space environment, management of that competition was relatively easy.

Asia may not be so lucky unless wiser counsel prevails. Asian powers have made significant advances and accomplished much they can be proud of, but unless they can either manage their terrestrial power politics or at least isolate outer space from those politics, it is likely that all of Asia could suffer.

India's strategy in space is changing. Here's why - The World Economic Forum, 14 August 2019

After a gap of more than a year, I wrote a short essay for The World Economic Forum. In this essay, I focused on India's geopolitical strategy in space.

Half a century after humans first walked on the Moon, space is still as much about scientific discovery as it is about strategic competition.

As was the case during the Cold War, outer space is an arena of terrestrial geopolitics. We can see this in the increased impetus for competition in various achievements in outer space, such as Moon landings, Mars exploration and, more directly, in the creation of space forces in various countries – France being the latest to announce it intends to establish a space command to improve defence capabilities.

For the full essay, click here.



Yet, despite outer space being once again a field of power competition, there are also some differences from the Cold War years. First, and most significantly, there are many more countries and actors involved: in Asia itself, China, Japan and India are major spacefaring nations, and smaller players such as South Korea, Australia and Singapore are developing their own space programmes.

Added to the increase in countries is the entry of the private sector into space. A key difference in the new geopolitics of space is that both terrestrial competition – and its reflection in outer space – is now along multiple axes, rather than just the single U.S.-Soviet one.

Today, there is increasing power competition in Asia, particularly between China and its neighbours - India, Japan and Australia. Some of this is also reflected in outer space. As a corollary, we are also beginning to see greater cooperation between some countries in outer space, including India and Japan, both of which are concerned about the rise of China.

India also cooperates in space with the US, Russia and France. Much of the competition India has on land, on the other hand, is with China. Therefore, India has negligible cooperation with China in space, and equally, little competition with the other space actors.

A competitive chain reaction that (sometimes) reaches space

What occurs in space can be the result of a geopolitical chain reaction. For instance, consider the US-China-India relationship: China often takes action because of its strategic competition with the United States.

This has an impact on India, forcing India to respond. But India’s response to China has an effect on Pakistan, which then responds to India. This cascade can be seen on land, and at times, in space. For example, China’s first successful anti-satellite (ASAT) test in January 2007 was to demonstrate a catch-up effort with the United States. But once China tested its ASAT in 2007, India had little choice but to develop its own ASAT because of the need of deterrence.

But in the space arena, the competitive cascade does not travel all the way to Pakistan because Pakistan’s space programme is underdeveloped. While Pakistan has expended considerable national wealth in keeping pace with India in its nuclear and missile capabilities, it has not done so with regard to outer space.

On the other hand, there might be a security incentive for Pakistan to demonstrate that it also has an ASAT capability.

Pakistan could also develop other counterspace capabilities, including cyber and electronic means to target India’s space assets. While this remains speculative so far, the history of India-Pakistan competition suggests that this remains a possibility.

Evolution of strategy

India had long maintained a rather doctrinaire approach toward space security, emphasising the peaceful uses of outer space and opposing the weaponization and militarization of space. Thus, India had opposed the US Strategic Defense Initiative programme and other efforts to build ballistic missile defences, let alone deploying ASAT systems. The reasons for such an approach was fairly clear: India did not house these capabilities.

But by the early 2000s, India’s position had begun to change as Pakistan began acquiring long-range missiles. India felt the need to build ballistic missile defences, leading New Delhi to take a sympathetic view of the George W. Bush administration’s decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty in late 2001. By the end of the decade, as India’s own capabilities increased, it was clear that India was becoming more discriminating in its attitude towards space security.

China’s ASAT test in 2007 helped advance India’s process of revaluating its space strategy. India realised that its growing investments in outer space - until then largely civilian in nature - were now under threat from China’s new security capabilities. India also started thinking more about how to manage outer space for security purposes. As a result, India established a space cell under its Integrated Defence Headquarters shortly after China’s ASAT test.

In April 2019, India established the Defence Space Agency (DSA) as an interim measure to command the military’s space capabilities. All of this meant that India had to have a much more nuanced position than a blanket approach that opposed any militarization or weaponization of outer space.

However, the consequences of unbridled militarization and the weaponization of outer space has negative implications for India. Therefore, while India is pursuing a strategy that satisfies its own security interests, it still wants some international control on the militarization and weaponization of outer space.

How India is catching up with China with the launch of Chandrayaan-2 - Daily'O, 22 July 2019

On the day of India's Chandrayaan 2 mission, I published a short essay on the mission and what it means for India's own space aspirations as well as the larger strategic dynamics in the region and beyond.

India is launching Chandrayaan-2 on July 22. This represents a major milestone for India’s space programme. India has previously sent orbiters around the moon (Chandrayaan-1) and around mars (Mangalyaan) but this will be the first time that the country will be touching down on any non-terrestrial surface.

Landing on any such surface brings with it difficulties of a magnitude larger than the missions that India has conducted so far. This mission requires India to not only send an orbiter around the moon but also carry a separate vehicle that will touch down on the moon’s surface while the orbiter stays circling above. Adding to further complexities is the fact that India will be landing on an unmapped section of the lunar surface.

Indeed, the exact spot where the probe will land will be decided just before the landing actually takes place, which makes this an extremely difficult mission. It says something about the complexity of the mission that even China, whose space programme is somewhat more advanced than India’s, did it first lunar landing three years back and their first mission was a lot less complicated because it was on the near side of the moon. China, however, did land a second mission on the far side of the moon earlier this year. Other than China, only Soviet Union/Russia and the United States have done it.

For the full essay, click here.



This will be a major achievement for India; this is also a necessary step in the evolution of India’s space programme. After the initial space race between the United States and the Soviet Union, the pursuit of such accomplishments was considered unnecessary because outside of the bragging rights, these kinds of missions were not seen to have much scientific or any other value.

Even the bragging rights lost some of its value once the US landed Neil Armstrong on the moon, the 50th of that happy coincidence is also this weekend. But these pursuits have become important for a few reasons.

One is that the practical value of these missions has grown. There is increasing interest in space mining, with many countries now seeing that as potentially viable, and putting a lot of investments into exploring this possibility.

A tiny city state like Luxembourg has made significant investment into this. Advances in space technology as well as the growing need to explore the space has pushed these new ventures. While space mining has not commenced yet, India cannot afford to be left behind if this turns out to be something actually viable.

The other reason is the renewed space race. Though the US-Soviet space race petered out well before the end of the Cold War, there is a new space race that is accompanying China’s rise. China is keen on matching American and Russian accomplishments in space but some of its activities in space have also caused security concerns.

That is, much like, its behaviour in its neighbourhood. Its behaviour in outer space is also forcing others into greater competition. For example, when China conducted an anti-satellite (ASAT) test in 2007, that was the first such test in more than two decades. Thus, other states feel that they need to match or keep pace with China’s space activities.

China’s undeniable accomplishments in space also add to its status. This represents another incentive for the Indian space programme because India as a rising power also needs to keep pace with China. Indeed, the competition between China and others in Asia, particularly India, has been growing for the last decade. China is, of course, well ahead but India has scored some achievements including being the first Asian power to carry out a successful mars mission.

China had earlier partnered with Russia to send a mars-orbiting satellite called Yinghuo-1 but the Russian mission, Fobos-Grunt, in 2011 became a failure. On the other hand, China has a much better, well-rounded space programme. So, India will have to play catch-up for a while. Chandrayaan-2, if it is successfully accomplished, would represent a significant step in this regard. But the race will continue.

Here's some exclusive, behind-the-scenes footage of the mission's various components coming together - https://t.co/baOMowvWHaTell us what you think about it in the comments below. #Chandrayaan2 #GSLVMkIII #ISRO pic.twitter.com/Kguy33p2C1

— ISRO (@isro) July 14, 2019

Neither India nor China are presently thinking of replicating the American achievement in sending humans to the moon but that would appear to be the logical next step and the race will go on.

Managing New Actors in the Space Domain - The Diplomat, June 29, 2019

In this week's column for The Diplomat, I looked at the new actors in outer space and what it means for the global governance and space sustainability issues. I argue new entrants in the Indo-Pacific offer both opportunities and challenges for the outer space realm.

New actors in space is a tricky idea to define. Is it determined by the number of years a player has been in the space business, or something more nuanced? If one is talking about industry and the commercial sector, it is relatively easy to categorize and identify who is a new actor in space. But when it comes to states, what determines who is a new space actor is slightly more problematic.

Surely, those emerging states that are pursuing space programs can be called new actors in space. Nevertheless, one must push the envelope further to look at who the traditional players are, and these are the United States, Russia, and Europe. Therefore, even countries like India and China and others who have pursued space programs for a few decades now can be called new actors in space. This is the case because one is beginning to see new facets of their space programs which are affecting space security and sustainability dynamics.

For the full post, click here.



But the space domain is changing. It is not just the presence of new start-up companies that are altering the space landscape, but there are any number of new state actors that are pursuing space programs for a number of different functions and utilities. This has been possible because there has been certain amount of democratization of space with access to space becoming a lot more affordable. Costs are coming down, technological hurdles are lower, and new space collaboration and partnerships driven by geopolitical goals are introducing new players in space. These make it possible for a growing number of actors to pursue space programs. Many states in Africa, Latin America, and particularly Asia are pursuing space programs for a variety of different utilities including for national security applications.

Entry of new actors in space bring both opportunities and challenges. On the opportunity side, space has become more accessible to a large number of states due to innovation in technology and dilution of certain global export control regulations. The development benefits alone of this are huge. There is a great opportunity here, for both private sector and for others, to collaborate with these new actors because they are looking for efficient, cheap, flexible solutions (such as in communications, or in weather forecasting or in remote-sensing applications for land use etc) rather than simply prestige projects.

New private actors bring new energy, new ideas, possibly a more efficient way of doing things. Of course, when private corporations get involved, some part of the social needs that governments focus on can be lost, obviously, since private actors are less likely to focus on development issues or on non-profit ventures. Even here, though, we need to acknowledge the general contribution made by these new entities in terms of the technologies they develop, which will have a broader impact, and make space more accessible.

Also, it is important to see what kind of partnerships can be fostered to make space accessible to all. Partnerships between private sector and national programs will be a good burden-sharing arrangement. This kind of public-private sector partnership has worked in the Western context with a lot more ease, but in the Asian context, it has not been easy. We see a bit of it, but established government space agencies tend to be suspicious of new private actors, such as in India. Another problem might be the kind of areas that private sector is involved, whether there are only areas servicing expensive, well-heeled customers (such as space tourism) or whether they are also looking at things that benefit smaller, poorer countries.

The entry of new actors in space has brought certain risks as well. One major risk is related to the impact on norms of behavior. With more actors in space, there has been a dilution of some of the existing norms and the new players appear to be less willing to play by rules developed by others. For instance, the norm of not testing anti-satellite (ASAT) missiles that prevailed for decades appear to be weakening. More importantly, the norm of not interfering in each other’s space assets appear to be getting diluted even further with the growth in cyber and electronic warfare in outer space.

The established players who have shaped these norms appear less likely to break those norms as compared to new players who are less bound by them. Newer players possibly assume that these norms are a way of restricting their growth and therefore they are less likely to play by them. Additionally, the spread of technology and geopolitical competition have aided this dilution of norms.

Therefore, as new players emerge in space, one of the critical areas to focus on is to strengthen the rules of the road, in a number of different ways. These could include establishing or reinforcing norms of responsible behavior, developing TCBMs and codes of conduct. These are the required first steps before establishing legal mechanisms because of the political difficulties that have come in the way of making new legal frameworks for outer space.

Rule-making was an easier exercise when there were fewer actors, obviously. Today, with close to 80 actors including non-state and new actors in space, finding an agreement and developing consensus has become a significant challenge. Finding an avenue to bring in the commercial voice is also important but traditional venues such as the Conference on Disarmament (CD), where space security and arms control issues are debated, are opposed to the introduction of commercial players as a stakeholder in their debates. This is not to suggest that commercial perspectives cannot be brought in through governments. But involving commercial players as independent actors in CD-like venues is not likely to happen in the near future.

Clearly, politics in outer space is getting complicated. It needs far more concerted attention than it has received. It may not be too late yet, but time is running out.

Significance of the changing space security landscape for India - The Financial Express, June 18, 2019

In yesterday's Financial Express, I have a piece looking at the significance of the changing space security landscape for India.

Asian space landscape is changing. China’s recent launch of a rocket from a ship, India’s anti-satellite (ASAT) test and the establishment of a tri-service Defence Space Agency (DSA) are quite significant. But even accounting for this, India’s plans appears to be quite dramatic. Last week, India announced that it will be conducting a table-top war game called the “IndSpaceEx” with all the stakeholders including its scientific establishment and the military.



The war game, according to reports, is meant to give a better understanding of the new and emerging space security challenges in outer space which will aid India in developing appropriate capabilities to protect its interests. India has been concerned about the worsening space security scenario for a while now. The first successful Chinese ASAT test in January 2007, an inherently destabilising act, and with the growing sophistication of the Chinese military space capabilities are serious concerns.

India’s framing of its policy since 2007, whether by the scientific, military and even the political establishment, has been ambiguous. Even as there are concerns around space militarisation and the increasing trends towards weaponisation of space, India has come to appreciate the need for a more nuanced approach to space security in recent years. This recognition pushed India to conduct the ASAT test in March. Subsequently, India has taken the final steps to establish the DSA.

This new approach has not been easy for India. India has always maintained that outer space should be used for peaceful purposes alone. But the changing nature of warfare, with the increasing integration of outer space into conventional military operations, has proved to be a critical impetus for India to change its tack. Traditionally, the use of space assets for passive military applications such as surveillance and intelligence has been considered acceptable but given the networked nature of warfare, there is an increasing reliance on space for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (C4ISR). Given this growing dependence on space for such functions, there are similarly growing vulnerabilities, with some states developing assets to interfere with, disrupt or damage space assets. In this context, while ASATs are destabilising, the development of counter-space capabilities including cyber and electronic warfare means to target space assets are worrisome. Also, terrestrial geopolitics is beginning to have an important bearing on how outer space affairs are conducted. A domain that remained relatively peaceful for decades is seeing greater competition and there are signs of a budding arms race in outer space, which India cannot afford to ignore.

After sitting on the margins for long, India has now begun to respond to these new realities in space security. India’s ASAT test, for instance, was an effort to establish credible space deterrence. But states have still not adopted deterrence within the space domain and there is time to prevent it from happening. The three other states that have demonstrated ASAT capabilities have not operationalised them yet. This offers states an opportunity to change course before it’s too late.

Nevertheless, as Ashley Tellis has argued, it was evident that the Indian ASAT test was aimed at China, which also means that it is likely to accelerate the pace of competition between the two and India needs to prepare for the long haul. India will need to improve its institutional architecture in order to have better coordination among the Department of Space, Ministry of Defence and the military. The first step in this regard was the creation of the Integrated Space Cell within the Integrated Defence Headquarters a decade ago but the establishment of the DSA is more welcome. Additionally, the government will be putting in place a Defence Space Research Organisation (DSRO), akin to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). The DSRO is meant to be doing the research and development in terms of the capability requirement on the space security side, whereas the DSA will be responsible for the policy and strategy affecting the space security dynamics. Another important step for the government to do is to declare a space policy in the open domain. This cannot be a sector-specific, like the SATCOM policy, but it has to be an all-encompassing one, issued possibly by the Prime Minister’s Office.

While these internal steps are much needed, India should play an active role and grab the opportunity to shape the global rules of the road for two reasons. One, this will strengthen India’s global governance credentials in the outer space domain. As a spacefaring state with growing reliance on outer space for a number of different functions, it makes both economic and strategic sense. Two, with India taking the lead, it can ensure that the rules that get formulated are comprehensive and inclusive to include the interests of India and other developing states. India championing the case of other developing states’ interests will also have multitude indirect benefits.

A First: India to Launch First Simulated Space Warfare Exercise - The Diplomat, 12 June 2019

In this week's column for The Diplomat, I write on the Indian government's plans to conduct the first simulated space warfare exercise called the IndSpaceEx in July. Reports of a tabletop wargame speak to India’s ongoing efforts to develop its space policy.

The Indian government appears to be getting ready to conduct a table-top war game called “IndSpaceEx” involving all stakeholders including the military and the scientific establishment. The reports of such a development, which come against the backdrop of other key developments pertaining to outer space including the demonstration of India’s anti-satellite (ASAT) capability and the establishment of the new tri-service Defence Space Agency (DSA), bear careful watching within the broader perspective of India’s space policy.



For India, space is a domain that has remained relatively peaceful for close to three decades, but is now changing because the nature of politics and competition in outer space is much more contested today. Terrestrial politics is casting a long and heavy shadow on outer space, and India could not have ignored these developments, of which China is just a part.

Along with the growing relevance of space to national security and conventional military operations, counter-space capabilities are also being developed in an effort to deny an adversary advantages by the use of space assets. The growth of counter-space capabilities including kinetic physical, non-kinetic physical, electronic, and cyber means has sparked a fresh competition in outer space.

The increasingly contested nature of space has been an impetus to India’s changing approach to outer space, moving from a purely civilian and peaceful approach to one where certain military characteristics are evident, conditioned by changing security realities. Militaries around the world have been emphasizing network centricity which in turn brings out the salience of space for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance” (C4ISR), and as they have become more networked, they are also opening themselves up to more and more vulnerabilities, while anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons have also added to the prospects for destabilizing scenarios in outer space.

India’s ASAT demonstration earlier this year was important in validating its deterrence capability. Meanwhile, the establishment of the new tri-service Defence Space Agency (DSA), based in Bangalore, is an important institutional initiative that combines two key functions performed by the Defence Imagery Processing and Analysis Centre (DIPAC) in Delhi and the Defence Satellite Control Centre in Bhopal, representing the growing integration of India’s space capabilities.

Reports of the new wargame IndSpaceEx should be read as part of these wider developments. One of the reported goals of the IndSpaceEx, to be held towards the end of July under the Integrated Defence Staff of the Ministry of Defence, is to gain a better understanding of the current and emerging challenges in the space security domain.

Another reason the wargame is also being undertaken to have a better appreciation of the capabilities that India must develop in order to protect its assets and secure its national interests. India has been growing mindful of the growing number of threats in outer space, both natural and man-made ones. While the global space competition between the key spacefaring powers is a well-known reality, New Delhi has worries about the counter-space capabilities in China’s inventory.

Such wargames are not uncommon. Indeed, think-tanks and governments in all the major spacefaring countries have conducted table-top and simulation exercises to understand space security crisis dynamics, major vulnerabilities and capability gaps during conflict. These could then feed into policy making. For instance, among the think-tank community in the outer space domain, the Secure World Foundation and the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (both based in the United States) as well as the Observer Research Foundation have engaged in several such exercises.

These exercises were done to understand crisis dynamics including decision-making processes, the attainment of national objectives, the changing nature of warfare, and the influence and impact of emerging technologies. Even when these exercises were played with a space security focus, the results have been revealing. For instance, the ORF simulation exercise (SIMEX) conducted over three years has seen remarkable conclusions. Still, states have resisted carrying out attacks on outer space assets due to the fear of escalation.

The Indian government’s proposed war gaming exercise appears to have a slightly narrower agenda in terms of understanding the vulnerabilities and the gaps in India’s space security and identifying areas for India to develop and strengthen in terms of technological capabilities in order to establish effective deterrence capabilities. China has been the single most important factor shaping India’s approach to space. The growing sophistication of its military space program, including the recent launch of a rocket from a ship, is significant.

Clearly, efforts like the IndSpaceEx are important to determine the degree of the space security challenges India faces and to develop appropriate measures for effective deterrence. But India must step up its efforts to develop global rules and norms about such challenges and threats. While India must continue working towards all-encompassing legally-binding instruments such as the Prevention of Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS), the rising specter of threats means that more pragmatic and feasible measures should also be attempted because these could see more broad-based support among states. Having demonstrated its ASAT capability, India is in an ideal place to demonstrate its global governance credentials.

Keep Our Eyes on the Sky - The Economic Times, 27 March 2019

I wrote an OpEd, "Keep Our Eyes on the Sky," for The Economic Times on the Indian anti-satellite (ASAT) test conducted on March 27. Now that India has a demonstrated ASAT capability, New Delhi's focus must be ever more in strengthening the global space regime.

India became the fourth country to demonstrate an anti-satellite (ASAT) capability by conducting its first test on March 27. This has ensured that New Delhi does not meet the same fate as it did in the nuclear domain, should there be a global initiative that bans ASAT tests in the future.

There was a fear that India might miss the bus again and the three countries that had conducted such tests in the past — the US, Russia and China — could formalise an instrument that would place an effective ban on India from conducting an ASAT in the future. Indian policymakers from across the civilian, scientific and military bureaucracies were mindful of such an eventuality.

Make Space for Me
But now that it has demonstrated such a capability and ensured a seat at the ‘high table’, India should take a leading role to channelise its efforts to avoid weaponisation of outer space. This is to be undertaken both for the internal and external aspects of India’s space security policy.



Reports such as Prime Minister Narendra Modi asking National Security Adviser Ajit Doval to prepare draft space doctrine could send misleading misperceptions about India’s objectives. This government appears to be taking the same approach as the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government did after the Pokharan-2 nuclear tests in 1998, when it immediately began preparing a draft nuclear doctrine.

While clarity is required in terms of the future steps, GoI must also appreciate that there are important differences with the 1998 nuclear tests and what followed from that. ASAT capability is not a war-fighting capability and, therefore, plans to operationalise such capability need to be treaded carefully.

In this sense, it is different from the circumstances of 1998. Though nuclear weapons tests were not for war-fighting purposes either, there was a need then to come out with a doctrine to outline India’s deterrent posture and its limited nature. But such operationalisation is not required with the ASAT capability — unless it turns out that others are operationalising their ASAT capabilities too, of which there is no sign yet.

It is reported that India plans to create institutional authority along the lines of the Nuclear Command Authority (NCA), which will deal with issues of actual operationalisation of this capability within India’s military with clear counter-response options appropriated.

One senior official is reported to have said, “We have to lay down the defensive/offensive steps required in case Indian satellites are destroyed or degraded or there is access denial by an adversary through electro-magnetic radiation.”

While this clarity is appreciated, such actions should not lead to more alarm bells ringing. So far, none of the other countries who have acquired such ASAT capability have operationalised such a capability. The fact that space has not become part of overt deterrence calculations for any of the spacefaring powers is an encouraging sign that must be maintained.

Some of the immediate steps that India needs to articulate are, first, what kind of activities in space need to be restricted. This can be done by first producing a backgrounder or policy paper highlighting the importance of outer space for meeting India’s developmental and strategic functions.

This should detail the kind of space environment that must be maintained to ensure that deterrence does not become a reality in outer space and, thereafter, to suggest means and ways to strengthen norms of responsible behaviour. India may be accused of being hypocritical, but India was more of a reluctant ASAT power and has been compelled to act because of the worsening security competition within the space domain.

Not a LEO Toy
But having decided to do an ASAT, it must be recognised that India conducted the test in a responsible and transparent manner. The fact that India decided to do it an altitude of 300 km in low earth orbit (LEO) ensured that its action did not lead to the creation of long-lasting space debris.

Despite a much-reported complaint from Nasa about the Indian test leaving debris that could “pose a risk to the International Space Station” and adding that it was a “terrible, terrible thing”, so far, according to the US Strategic Command’s Joint Force Space Component Command (JFSCC), there are about 250-270 debris pieces that have been generated from the Indian ASAT test — which is more along the lines of the debris created during the US ASAT test in 2008, which was also at a similar altitude.

A second aspect that India needs to emphasise is outlining rules for what is permissible. India has interests in ensuring that outer space is kept clean, safe and secure for future generations to use as well.

It also has interests in strengthening its credentials in global space governance. Until now, New Delhi could not play an active role in this because it did not have that capability that gives it a voice in this arena.

Now that India has successfully demonstrated its ASAT capability, it should play an important role in mitigating problems such as space debris, space traffic management, orbital frequency issues and other issues that are important for ensuring safe and secure access to outer space. India should partner with like-minded countries in initiating these conversations and take them to meaningful international platforms such as Conference on Disarmament, UN First Committee and UN Disarmament Commission.

Asia in space: cooperation or conflict? - 10 October 2018

In this week as we celebrate the World Space Week from 4-10 October 2018, I published a short essay examining where Asia is in the outer space domain, what the prospects and challenges are in the coming years. In this essay, Asia in space: cooperation or conflict?, published by APPS Policy Forum, an initiative of the Crawford School of Public Policy, I argue that national security casts a dark shadow on Asia’s spacefaring ambitions. As in other domains, space will likely be no exception to Asia's great power rivalries.



The outer space environment has undergone significant changes in the last decade. Countries in Asia, Latin America and Africa are driving many of these changes. Nevertheless, there are differences in the storylines of these regions as far as their space programs are concerned.

Asia presents a mixed story. While many countries approach space activities in the context of climate change and natural calamities, there are also countries looking at space with an excessive focus on national security. This is not the case in Africa and Latin America, where space programs almost have a total focus on social and development aspects.

For the full essay, click here.



Space programs in the Asian and Indo-Pacific region are dominated by three established spacefaring powers – China, India and Japan – and several emerging players, including Australia, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Malaysia, North Korea, Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam.

Six of the ten countries that have demonstrated independent launch capabilities are in Asia – China, India, Iran, Israel, Japan and North Korea – a fact that demonstrates the increasing proficiency of the space programs in the region. The key question is whether this increasing Asian proficiency in outer space will lead to more cooperation or competition. Also of interest will be how the established and emerging spacefaring nations in Asia will contribute to the global governance of outer space.

There are currently two regional space cooperation organisations – the Asia-Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum (APRSAF) promoted by Japan, and the Asia-Pacific Space Cooperation Organization (APSCO) under China’s leadership. The very existence of two regional space organisations indicates the sharp divisions at play in the Asian context. At the same time, there is no institutional mechanism to coordinate between these two regional initiatives.

APRSAF, APSCO, and the major players in the region must find a way to cooperate in a couple of different areas. One area is climate change and related environmental issues – here countries could find ways to cut costs on key technologies as a parameter for collaboration.

A second, pertinent area for Asian countries to come together would be in writing the rules of the road for space, whether through legally binding rules or through normative instruments. Given the contentious nature of major power relationships in Asia, it appears unlikely that space will emerge as a platform for cooperation among all the major Asian spacefaring powers. Instead, it is possible that the divide will only get deeper, with one set of countries led by China and a second one led by Japan and India.

Unfortunately, this is likely to be the case because the underlying disagreements are quite deep-rooted. While all the major Asian powers acknowledge that space should be used only for peaceful purposes, the growing gap between the rhetoric and reality on the ground is stunning.

China’s anti-satellite test in 2007 is a case in point. The 2007 test, as well as the ones that were conducted subsequently under the garb of missile defence tests, have created new debates in countries such as India and Japan as to how they must respond in order to protect their own interests in space and create an effective deterrence. Clearly, the geopolitical tensions in the terrestrial world have managed to infect the sanctity of one of the global commons.

China’s longer-term plans for outer space have also raised concerns. China’s human space activities have remained an integral part of its goal to construct and operate a space station in low earth orbit by 2024, by which time it could be the only operating space station. Unless the partners in the International Space Station (ISS) are able to find a financially sustainable option, the ISS could be winding down by this time.

After dismissing the utility of inter-planetary or human spaceflight missions for decades, India has decided to join in too. For years, India had remained hesitant about human spaceflight programs, arguing that there are no major spin-offs in technological terms. The decision by the Indian government in August to have a manned mission by 2022 is a partial reflection of the competition in Asia.

Inter-planetary missions were similarly not a big priority for India, but again New Delhi is mindful of the need to undertake such missions to demonstrate its own advancing space prowess. Such demonstrations have implications for both security and the global commercial space market. A similar trajectory can also be seen in Japan, where a purely civilian space program is shifting gears towards a more military orientation.

The 20th century saw outer space competition play out between the two superpowers of the day, the US and the USSR. Today, space technology and programs are more spread out, with over 60 players including non-state, private commercial players.

While the participation of the private sector in space is still largely a Western phenomenon, there are many private space firms beginning to develop in China, India and Japan as well. The entry of commercial actors has driven innovation, making access to space a lot cheaper and more competitive.

These are important developments, yet what has had the most significant impact in driving space-related competition is the shift in the global balance of power. The international power struggle has had a deleterious impact on the governance of this particular global commons.

The trend towards developing counter-space capabilities is particularly worrying, and it’s a trend that is quite evident in Asia. The fact that Asia has some of the fastest growing economies also means higher military spending, including for military outer-space programs. On top of this, the seemingly unending sovereignty and territorial disputes make it difficult to generate better collaboration on even unrelated issues, such as writing the rules of the road in outer space.

Ultimately, while all powers would possibly benefit from greater cooperation in outer space, the prospects appear dim.

A new space race in Asia, my article in East Asian Forum

The East Asian Forum of the Australian National University published an article of mine, titled, A new space race in Asia, which examines the new and evolving geopolitical context that has pushed India to become more active in strengthening space cooperative engagements with countries such as Japan, France and the US. Indeed, rise of China and the strategic consequences of its rise have been important contextualising factors for these countries to coordinate their space programmes and policies.

Asia houses three established space powers — Japan, China and India — with space exploration goals ranging from social and economic development to improving telecommunications and national security. But it is the national security drivers of Asian space exploration that are becoming more prominent, partly driven by the changing balance of power equations both within Asia and beyond.

China’s growing space capabilities are driving much of the space competition in Asia. For one, it has led to greater cooperation in space exploration between India and Japan. In September 2017, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe vowed to put outer space at the centre of their bilateral relationship. They welcomed the ‘deepening of cooperation between the space agencies of the two countries in the field of Earth observation, satellite-based navigation, space sciences and lunar exploration’. Later in November 2017, the president of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Regional Space Agency Forum announced that ‘India and Japan will lead the space sector in the Asia Pacific region’.

The Indian space program is more than six decades old, and until recently, New Delhi’s primary focus was in using space technology to improve social and economic conditions for its population. Before China’s first anti-satellite (ASAT) test in January 2007, India appeared to think that security competition in outer space was confined to the big powers. The Chinese ASAT test awakened India to the kind of challenges it needs to confront in its own backyard and demonstrated that even areas of the global commons such as outer space are not spared from terrestrial geopolitical competition. The ASAT test gave way to new debates in India on the kind of counter-space capabilities that it must develop to protect its own space assets.

India says that it has the technological blocks for a successful demonstration of an ASAT capability, should the need arise. An Indian ASAT test would go against the grain of India’s decades-long stance that space must be used for peaceful purposes alone and must not be weaponised. This shift in rhetoric reflects India’s recognition that if it does not keep up with emerging trends in space, it stands to lose in a critical area of technology.

Similar deliberations are taking place in Japan and the new Japanese space policy highlights space security as a key focus area.

Yet space competition in Asia began well before the Chinese ASAT test. China’s first manned space mission in October 2003 — making China the third country after the United States and the Soviet Union to achieve this feat — provided the initial spark. This achievement is part of China’s larger plan to carry out a human exploration program, which has as its final goal the development and operation of a Chinese space station in low earth orbit. At a time when the International Space Station will be winding down its operation, China plans to get its own station up and running by 2024.

China’s growing counter-space capabilities, including developing technologies such as the robotic arm, and the increasing number of close rendezvous operations of Chinese satellites are also raising concerns about the possible security implications of China’s military space program.

In response to China’s accomplishments in space, India and Japan initially looked at pursuing their own independent lunar missions. But so far they have not been able to successfully compete with China’s robotic exploration program. For instance, China’s Chang’e robotic lunar exploration program is considered technologically far superior to anything India or Japan could develop. The Chang’e 4 mission plans to land and explore the surface on the far side of the Moon, which no other country has done so far. Neither India’s ad hoc lunar and Mars robotic missions nor Japan’s exploration of the Moon and near-Earth objects come close to challenging China in this regard. India and Japan have instead decided to combine their efforts, outlined in the Modi–Abe statement.

India is also undertaking meaningful conversations with other space players, such as France and the United States. With China’s aggressive posturing in the South China and East China seas and its growing profile in the Indian Ocean, the use of space assets to achieve maritime domain awareness (an understanding of issues related to the maritime domain that could impact the security, safety, economy or environment of a country) has the potential to emerge as a shared area of cooperation among India, the United States, Japan and France.

All of this suggests that a new space race is heating up in Asia that is compounded by the region’s changing balance of power alignments. Space is becoming yet another domain of competition among Asia’s great powers. It can no longer be seen as an innocent and cooperative arena of policymaking, and one cannot remain sanguine about outer space stability.

It is unlikely that the balance of power equation in Asia will stabilise anytime soon, which would suggest that the budding space race is only going to continue to intensify into the future.