It Is Time for Space Governance Talks - The Diplomat, 21 May 2020

In my column for The Diplomat last week, I looked at the urgent need for space governance talks. I argue that the window of opportunity for such talks is shrinking, and delay could see space emerge as an active domain for conflict.

Recent developments in outer space activities point to the urgent need to get global space governance talks back on track. Japan’s launch of a new defense space unit within the Air Self-Defense Force, Russia’s ASAT test last month, and the announcement by France of its new defense space strategy are indicators of rapidly change space security dynamics. The absence of successful multilateral discussions could accentuate security concerns and force states to rely on deterrence in space as a state policy, with negative consequences for all. While this is yet to happen, there are signs of states beginning to act as if they are not left with any choice but to develop deterrence strategies for space. It is also to be noted that the window of opportunity for states to engage in talks is already quite small and any delay holds out the possibility that outer space could emerge as an active domain for conflict.

For the full essay, click here.



This week, Japan launched a new defense space unit, the Space Operations Squadron, to track space debris and suspicious satellites in an effort to prevent satellite collisions. The squadron will be part of the Air Self-Defense Force (ASDF), and will be based in the ASDF’s Fuchu base in Tokyo. It is initially planned to be a small unit with 20 personnel, to be gradually increased to around 100. Despite the small size, experts suggest that the establishment of the new unit is a recognition of Japan’s greater reliance on space As noted in the December 2018 National Defense Program Guidelines, the newly-formed division is meant “To ensure superiority in use of space at all stages from peacetime to armed contingencies.” But given the contested and competitive nature of space including deployment and use of counter-space capabilities, the guidelines also seek to “to strengthen capabilities including mission assurance capability and capability to disrupt opponent’s command, control, communications and information.” Reports suggest that the new unit will also be engaged in Japan’s satellite-based navigation and communication for the troops in the field. Japanese Defense Minister Taro Kono said that the new squadron will collaborate with the United States, especially the U.S. Space Command that was set up last year. On the domestic front, the squadron will cooperate with the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) with the goal of establishing a space monitoring system by 2023. Japan plans to launch its own space surveillance satellite by 2026. Meanwhile, in August 2019, Japan announced plans to develop a satellite interceptor by the mid-2020s in order to have the option to counter attack satellites if Japanese assets in space are targeted. There will be a formal decision on it by the end of March 2021. This development rises again from Japan’s concerns about how certain countries could use counter-space capabilities to disrupt, disable or destroy satellite networks.

Japan’s move comes against the backdrop of increasing space security competition among the major space powers. There are also growing concerns in Japan about security threats from China and Russia, which have been developing counter-space capabilities to interfere, deny, disable or even destroy satellites. China’s development of a robotic arm and ASAT missile capabilities has been referred to in this context in Japanese writings. Similarly, Russia’s multiple anti-satellite tests remain a concern. Even though Japan has maintained a peaceful space program, there are compelling security factors that are beginning to impact Tokyo’s future space orientation. This is also in line with the National Defense Program Guidelines of December 2018, which seek to augment Japan’s military capabilities as far as outer space, cyberspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum are concerned. The guidelines for FY19 and beyond noted that “rapid expansion in the use of new domains, which are space, cyberspace and electromagnetic spectrum is poised to fundamentally change the existing paradigm of national security.”

Similarly, France undertook some significant changes to its space policy, driven by what it sees as developments “threatening our freedom of access and action in space.” Accordingly, France in July 2019 introduced certain institutional changes, with national space governance being reviewed and placed within a Space Command, which remains under the Air Force. India, too, has been making gradual changes to its approach toward space. Even as it continues reiterating that it is for peaceful use of space, there are significant changes on the ground including its anti-satellite (ASAT) test in March 2019. India’s main concern in the space domain, as in many other areas, comes from China. China’s ASAT test in January 2007 led to new domestic debates on how India must protect its own assets. The debate included whether India should have a demonstrated capability or not. Certainly, India wanted to avoid what happened in the nuclear domain, where non-testing left it outside the emerging nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Meanwhile, Russia conducted an ASAT test just last month, which received prompt attention from the strategic and national security communities in major capitals. While the test of the Russian Nudol interceptor did not create any cloud of orbital debris, it did raise concerns since it can destroy satellites in low earth orbit. Gen. John W. “Jay” Raymond, USSPACECOM commander and U.S. Space Force Chief of Space Operations said on Twitter: “Russia’s DA-ASAT test, capable of destroying #sats in Low Earth Orbit, is an example of growing threats to U.S. & Allied #Space systems. U.S. is ready, committed to #deter aggression & #defend the Nation & our Allies from hostile acts in space.”

The renewed Russian interest in developing and testing ASAT and co-orbital ASATs will continue to create more tensions and frictions among the major space players. The range of Russia’s counter-space capabilities is impressive and alarming. As far as its low Earth orbit (LEO) direct ascent capabilities are concerned, they have already crossed the R&D phase and moved to the testing phase whereas direct ascent in MEO/GEO (medium Earth orbit/geostationary Earth orbit) are believed to be in the R&D stage. Similarly, LEO co-orbital capabilities have crossed R&D and is in the testing stages. They have some significant capability on the electronic warfare means and space situational awareness.

There is clearly a spurt in activities as far as space and national security dynamics are concerned. The return to ASAT testing to the establishment of specialized military space units such as China’s PLA Strategic Support Force and the U.S. Space Force are a demonstration of the deteriorating space security environment. Development of counter-space capabilities is not new but states are showing greater willingness to develop and test such capabilities. In the absence of effective multilateral discussions, it is difficult to halt these disruptive and destabilizing trends. All of this indicates that there is a new normal emerging with regard to outer space activities. Prof. Chris Newman of Northumbria University in a presentation recently argued that a “normative behaviour is emerging and ASAT tests are a part of that normative framework.”

Unfortunately, a new treaty-like mechanism is hard to come by for a number of different reasons. The most significant challenge is the lack of political will and the inability to develop consensus among major space powers. Equally challenging are definitional issues and the dual-use nature of outer space which makes it difficult to frame appropriate rules. Finding a middle ground between legally-binding and voluntary measures is the only possible pathway in the immediate future.

What Does the Rise of Asia’s Space Forces Mean? - The Diplomat, June 4, 2019

A few days ago, I published a piece in The Diplomat understanding the implications of new space commands being established by key space powers.

While U.S. President Donald Trump’s release of Space Policy Directive-4 in February that enables the establishment of the U.S. Space Force received much focus in the way of headlines, this was hardly the first time that a military has set up a special branch for space operations. Indeed, there is a need to focus much more on what the significance of these moves means for Asian security and the implications of efforts to create space commands and forces.

For the full essay, click here.



First, the place to start is to acknowledge that several countries are establishing such special units. The U.S. space force is only the latest and so others are doing it as well. China established the Strategic Support Force (PLASSF) in 2015, integrating the PLA space, cyber and electronic warfare capabilities, a key institutional innovation. Russia made similar institutional innovations with the Russian Space Forces in 2011 as part of the Russian Aerospace Defense Forces meant for military space-related activities. India, similarly, appears also to be on the way to creating such a special space command.

Second, it is important to keep in mind that even though it sounds like a fighting force, the space force is mostly aimed to bring about greater integration of functions and the better coordination among different agencies involved. There is a need to pay greater attention to the details of these bureaucratic changes and innovations.

Third, it is necessary to be clear about what the details are in public policy discourse because alarmism can be negative too. The creation of space forces and commands does not necessarily mean we are on the cusp of states engaging in combat in outer space. We should be realistic about the limited nature of these efforts to date, even though we should not ignore development possibilities that may be more oriented toward actual combat in the future. The point is that we still have time to head off such dangerous developments.

Fourth, it is important to understand the varying rationales behind decisions to create these forces. For instance, the U.S. Space Force can be seen as a result of the increasingly worsening security situation and a consequence of the great power politics. Outer space was largely unaffected by terrestrial geopolitics for the first several decades of the space age, but in the last decade, this has changed. There are greater insecurities today and this has an impact on outer space too. We cannot ignore the political realities that are driving these developments, because they partly influence what we can do about it.

Fifth, we need to be clear about the dangers that stem from these developments. One danger is that more and more countries will follow this path and establish specialized space commands. As space begins to assume a more active role in the security and military operations including conventional ones, countries would seek greater coordination of their efforts and will end up establishing these specialized commands. The need for greater synergy in space activities is understandable, especially as outer space exploitation gets more important to welfare on the ground. But such coordination can also be possibly done by civilian agencies rather than military ones. We need to develop alternate models that do not ignore the need for greater coordination and synergy within governments, but without suggesting it can only be done under military commands.

A real danger is if this were to lead to a security dilemma between countries in outer space that spurs further development of space commands and forces. This is a danger especially because these new efforts are being led by military forces. The demonstration effect of some powers doing it, and the uncertainty of why they are doing it, will force others to imitate them. Even if no side wants it, we could end up having an arms race in outer space because of this. We should examine how this outcome can be prevented.

Sixth, we then need to look at a range of measures that can help us address these dangers. Greater dialogue and transparency can help, especially since these efforts are being driven by the need for greater coordination rather than the need to engage in military combat. Greater transparency and openness are the only possible solutions given the overall international security scenario and the nature of great power politics. Especially given that there might be an actual, understandable reason for setting up specialized coordination agencies, greater transparency might help avoid misunderstanding between the great powers.

Also, early effort is necessary to prevent more states from creating such space forces. It may still be possible to get some basic understanding between powers about what are the do’s and don’ts in creating such forces and commands. For example, to the extent that these are being driven by the need for greater national coordination, states could agree to put these efforts under civilian rather than military agencies. This could ensure that this effort at greater coordination does not get militarized.

All this is not to minimize the challenges posed by the growing security attention to outer space. But it is to suggest that for all the alarmism we have seen, there might still be time to head off a new security problem related to outer space. That requires greater attention to this problem, avoiding alarmism about space forces, and understanding and accepting the need for greater coordination within state agencies while at the same time creating some rules and norms to ensure that these efforts do not become militarized. Such a balanced approach can help us maximize the opportunities and minimize the challenges in this area in the coming years.