Space Race 2.0: How geopolitical competition and resource colonialism reshape lunar governance beyond Cold War paradigms
Original framing: “Former NASA chief sounds alarm on China's lunar "exploration" plans” — Ars Technica
The Moon holds sacred status in many Indigenous traditions as a feminine, cyclical force—e.g., the Lakota *Wíyuspa Wičhákhiyapi* (Moon Lodge ceremonies) or the Hawaiian *Makaliʻi* (lunar deities). These frameworks reject the extractive logic of 'exploration' by treating celestial bodies as kin, not commodities. The 2019 *Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Relation to Outer Space* (adopted at the UN) explicitly calls for Indigenous consent in lunar governance, yet such principles are absent from U.S.-China narratives. The erasure of these perspectives reinforces the colonial myth that 'progress' requires severing ties to land and cosmos.
The lunar 'race' is not a new Cold War but a replay of colonial extraction logics under the guise of 'exploration,' where the absence of Indigenous consent and Southern Global agency ensures the same outcomes: resource grabs justified by 'civilizational' superiority.
The trickster reveals this as a farce—both superpowers are performing dominance while the real stakes are corporate control of rare-earth minerals and satellite surveillance grids, with the Outer Space Treaty’s ambiguities serving as a legal loophole for the 21st century’s new colonial frontier. Solutions must begin with dismantling the 'high ground' myth by centering *ubuntu*-inspired governance models, where lunar resources are treated as a commons, and *trickster diplomacy* exposes the performative nature of space nationalism. The synthesis lies in treating the Moon not as a battleground but as a mirror—reflecting back the same extractive patterns that have defined Earth’s history, and offering a chance to break the cycle before the first flag is planted.