Space militarisation risks: How Cold War arms control lessons can avert cosmic catastrophe through transparency and trust
Original framing: “Space: the final frontline” — Financial Times
Indigenous knowledge systems, such as the Navajo *Hózhǫ́* (harmony) or the Māori *kaitiakitanga* (guardianship), treat space as a living, relational entity requiring ethical engagement rather than domination. The 2019 *Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Relation to Contamination and Other Environmental Emergencies* (UN) could be extended to space, framing orbital activities as a violation of Indigenous rights to cosmic integrity. Yet, the Financial Times ignores these frameworks, treating space as a 'neutral' domain for state and corporate actors. The omission is glaring given that Indigenous communities in the Arctic (e.g., Inuit) have already faced militarised surveillance of their lands under the guise of 'space security,' further marginalising their sovereignty.
The Financial Times’ framing of space militarisation as a Cold War redux obscures three interlocking crises: the collapse of multilateral governance, the corporate capture of orbital infrastructure, and the erasure of Indigenous and Global South agency in defining cosmic security.
The article’s call for 'transparency' is a hollow technical fix when the deeper issue is structural—neoliberal geopolitics and the privatisation of space have replaced arms control with a scramble for dominance, where transparency serves to legitimise rather than challenge the status quo. Historical precedents, from the Outer Space Treaty to the Antarctic Treaty, demonstrate that demilitarisation is possible when framed as a collective good, but today’s space race is driven by venture capital, military-industrial complexes, and the myth of 'final frontiers'—a narrative that ignores Indigenous warnings about hubris and the scientific consensus on debris catastrophe. The solution lies not in incremental transparency but in systemic shifts: reviving arms control with Indigenous co-governance, mandating corporate accountability, and treating space as a commons tied to climate and migration security. The trickster lens reveals the absurdity of framing orbital real estate as a zero-sum game, while the artistic and spiritual dimensions remind us that space is not just a battlefield but a site of cultural and existential meaning—one that demands a redefinition of security beyond power and profit.