Recent developments hint at a potential shift in U.S.-China space relations..
“Bill Nelson, head of U.S. space agency NASA, has revealed that in order to join world scientists in analyzing rocks retrieved by China from the moon, he has engaged with American lawmakers to dismiss ‘national security’ concerns and believes that talks on the issue with China will end ‘positively’."
However, the bad news is that China’s influential Global Times has taken Nelson’s bid for cooperation as a cue for another round of America-bashing.
GT’sreaction to Nelson’s modest, but non-trivial, bid for better space relations with China is very much in keeping with the newspaper's strident editorial style. It adopts a finger-wagging, hectoring tone:
“Nelson’s gesture epitomizes the U.S.’ ‘divided’ mind-set in engaging with China – it remains entrenched in Cold War thinking, seeking various restrictions on China.”
In a Global Times story headlined, “U.S. wants cooperation but needs to correct divided mind-set,” it said:
“It is essential for Washington to face up to its current state of lunar exploration technology,” Chinese observers said, “and correct the U.S. government's understanding of its policy toward China.”
“Chinese observers said…” is the Global Times rather unconvincing way of prefacing what it wants to say, though the practice of cherry-picking quotes to suit a predetermined agenda is also rife in the Western press.
GT attributes Nelson’s sudden desperation with America’s “setbacks in lunar exploration.”
It’s true that NASA has had some setbacks, most notably in the Artemis Moon program, and more in store, too, especially if it doesn’t return to its original mission of science instead of playing politics.
GT goes on to interpret Nelson’s quiet bid to improve U.S.-China space relations as an act of desperation due to technological lag that somehow proves the correctness of the Chinese position on all positions.
Global Times approvingly quotes Li Haidong, a professor from the China Foreign Affairs University:
"A notable characteristic of U.S. behavior in engaging with other countries is that when it feels it is in need of others, it seeks dialogue, otherwise it pursues suppression of others."
The strident editorial voice, typical of the Global Times, has a role to play in China’s relatively sedate state-run news ecosystem, of course, sometimes to engage, sometimes to enrage, sometimes to float ideas, sometimes as a foil.
At times it departs from official thinking, though not by much. Rather it occupies a vanguard position in the context of a rather orthodox and staid state press. It serves as a kind of political weathervane, where innovations, new news items and propaganda shifts are tried on for size.
The English version of Global Times in particular, has established itself as a go-to, oft-quoted branch of China’s external propaganda.
But often the over-the-top commentary is merely a source of merriment.
Here we can see the same rigid political template being applied to China’s relations with Serbia as to China’s relations with the cosmos:
“The interaction between China and Serbia is phenomenal and should be a subject of research in international relations. The ironclad friendship between China and Serbia will continue to flourish, benefiting the peoples of both nations, promoting world peace and development, and jointly advancing the building of a community with a shared future for mankind.”
“China will continue to promote international space exchanges and cooperation in various forms with an open mind, share development achievements with other countries…so that the wisdom of mankind with a shared future will be ventured into the vast expanse of space.”
When GT deigns to speak for “international mainstream media,” the tone it adopts, as seen below, is as self-serving as it is unconvincing:
“Besides marveling at China's technological innovations, there is less emphasis on the "China space threat" narrative, with such voices now considerably quieter. This is an inevitable result of China's space achievements benefiting the world more and more.”
As such, readers can expect from GT an intoxicating and infuriating mix of journalism and propaganda, jingoism and outrage.
What, then, is one to make of the fact that the Global Times has written much in recent weeks on U.S.-China space relations, much of it gnarly and negative?
- “If the U.S. has impure intentions in landing on the moon, it would be a form of pollution to the moon.”
- “China has no intention of participating in the ‘space race’ imagined by the Americans.”
- “The U.S. has become so narrow-minded that it not only undermines confidence in its ability to achieve greater success in space exploration…”
- The U.S. raises concerns that it may hinder the progress of other aspiring space explorers.”
- NASA scientists “are a group who are supposed to look up at the starry sky. If even they become infected with Washington's pathological and vulgar atmosphere, it would be extremely disappointing.”
On the plus side, Global Times’ current obsession with chiding the U.S. and “correcting” myopic U.S. space cadets may serve as a harbinger for real debate and discussion within and without China, including the possibility that the U.S. and China will in fact take concrete steps to cooperate in space.
And despite the general decline in U.S.-China relations on the ground, there is no practical reason why there can’t be some cooperation up there.
After all, it’s hard to imagine two capitals at more of a nadir in relations than Washington and Moscow, and yet the two continue to cooperate in space. Earlier this year, a Russian cosmonaut hitched a ride on the SpaceX vehicle, lifting off from Florida to join his compatriots on the joint U.S.-Russian ISS space station. U.S. astronauts have similarly benefitted from hitching a lift into space on Russia’s old but reliable Soyuz class space capsules.
Aerospace engineering Professor Kang Guohua told the GT that “Nelson's optimism in asking for samples from China may be an attempt to create a positive atmosphere and persuade the Congress to advance negotiations with China.”
This is a fair estimation of Nelson’s position, but unfortunately the sentence doesn’t end there.
“…U.S. should also abandon the ‘Cold War’ mentality, seek common ground and opportunities for collaboration, and promote mutually beneficial cooperation…”
In the same manner, GT runs on at the mouth, yet it isn’t always tone-deaf. Here it rightly portrays the U.S. as being guilty of dragging politics into space:
“Bill Nelson, administrator of NASA, warned that the moon's south pole may become ‘another South China Sea’ in August of last year. As early as 2011, the U.S. Congress passed the Wolf Amendment, which prohibits NASA from cooperating with Chinese government agencies.”
But it can’t resist portraying China as a model and mentor to all mankind, especially some sectors of mankind, as its October 30 editorial plainly states:
“China continues to promote its space achievements to benefit the world, especially developing countries.”
“China has strengthened cooperation with developing countries in regions like Africa and Latin America, and supported the space capacity building of developing countries through various means.”
This is oddly reminiscent of the awkward, identity politics-inflectedArtemis mission statement that declares the goal of the program is to “put the first woman and first person of color” on the Moon.
The sometimes arrogant, sometimes well-meaning and oftentimes unintentionally humorous mission statements, missteps and miscalculations of the politically-minded on both sides suggests that the real focus of space exploration is best left to the scientists.
Ultimately, the future of U.S.-China space cooperation rests on the ability for Beijing and Washington to navigate the thickets of terrestrial politics as well as they navigate the daunting, wide-open vistas of the cosmic vacuum surrounding the home planet.
