Spacepower Strategy for Medium Powers: Applying Observations from the Maritime Domain

LT COL Jason Lau

Source Link

Introduction

Medium powers are much like forgotten middle children. While the eldest child is usually given the responsibility of caring for his or her younger siblings, and the youngest child needs the most assistance, the middle child has an indifferent existence, neither important enough nor helpless enough to merit much attention. 

Medium powers face the same conceptual neglect in academic expositions on seapower and spacepower. In a critique of Julian Corbett’s seminal publication,Principles of Maritime Strategy, John Klein argues that Corbett “addresses the dynamic interaction of those states with the most power and capability with those states with less . . . but . . . fails to fully elucidate the proper strategy [for] medium powers.”1 How medium powers should develop and apply seapower and spacepower is a “missing link” in strategic analyses; this paper gives this category of states the attention they deserve.2 

Spacepower for Medium Powers, Not Medium Space Powers 

This paper does not address whether and how a medium space power should increase its spacepower, even though that is an important topic. Instead, it explains the significance of spacepower for medium powers, and it offers various ideas for medium powers to consider as they look to craft a spacepower strategy that serves their national interests. 

Overall power stature is predominant in a state’s actions to acquire domain-specific capabilities. The order is essential: A state does not set out to be a great space power and then decide to be a global superpower thereafter; a state identifies itself as a superpower first and then realizes a need to develop spacepower to support its national interests. Similarly, a state identifies as a medium power first and then decides to develop a corresponding amount of spacepower that would best support its national interests. 

Furthermore, a state’s capability in a given domain is only a constituent component of its overall power. While a superpower is generally highly capable in most domains, the same is not true for a medium power. A medium power need not necessarily be a medium maritime or space power; it could have more or less power in any given domain relative to its overall stature. For example, Estonia has an outsized influence on European cyber defense policy, as it hosts the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence.3 Similarly, Vatican City has ideological and moral influence over Roman Catholics worldwide, even though it may not be very influential in other areas. Based on this logic, medium powers can have varying degrees of spacepower: one medium power could be a great space power, whereas another could be an emerging space power. 

Studying a medium power’s domain-specific actions from the perspective of its overall power status broadens the conceptual approach by incorporating an understanding of its inclinations and priorities. From a realist angle, this approach locates medium power states within the world of international politics. From a constructivist angle, self-identification as a medium power state with limited aims and means strongly influences strategic culture and national interests. Appreciating the pressures that a medium power is subject to and comprehending how it thinks about itself fosters a richer discussion and analysis of how medium powers should interface with their strategic environment.