Feminist Astropolitics with Ruvimbo Samanga

As told to Kirthi Jayakumar

Ruvimbo Samanga is a Space Policy Analyst and sits on the Board of the Space Arbitration Assocciation. Ruvimbo has supported a number of international initiatives in policy, business, outreach, and education geared towards the advancement of space and satellite applications for sustainable development.

Ruvimbo is pictured before a backdrop presenting an artistic rendition of the Milky Way. (Photo credits: Ruvimbo Samanga - Profile picture | Kirthi Jayakumar - Astronomical Art)

What moved you to work in the field of space law and policy?

I have a background in Law. I have a Bachelor of Arts degree in Law, with a complement of social sciences. I then went on to do my Masters’ in law, with Business and Trade and Investment Law as core modules. I then gained specializations in space law and policy in my undergraduate career, during the mood court competition cycle that I think all those students go through at some point. At the time, I was fortunate enough to take part in the Manfred Lachs Space Law moot court competition, which I think is an immense launch pad for future aspiring space legal practitioners. What I got to discover during that time was that the moot court and space law and policy in general were creative avenues. There's room for lots of impact. It is relatively new, and you feel that you're a part of something with a lot of potential. That got me interested, and the rest is really history!

There is an understanding that I'll just this is considered a common heritage of human kind but we also see that it not always easily or equally accessible. Do you think this is because of the lack of diversity in the field itself?

I can draw on a couple of points which emphasize how important diversity is in terms of maximizing the benefit of space activity. I'll start with gender disparity. I think official figures might suffice, but if we are excluding nearly half or more than half of the population, you can never truly attain the full socioeconomic potential of space. At the current moment, we see a huge disparity between men and women in space. This not only undermines the ability to maximize, but also the ability to inspire future generations. We perpetuate this cycle of exclusion by not meeting true representation that I think we need to model in space, by having demographic models in space that mirror what we see on Earth.

Moving on, I would say, access is important, especially for us from the Global South. The experiences of women in the developed and developing worlds are very different. One has to apply some form of intersectional feminism to recognize that the challenges faced by one community of women may differ from those faced by another. For instance, in Africa or maybe in other developing countries where the patriarchy is well steeped into society, you will find that there is exclusion based on skills and on the status of women. There is exclusion on the basis of the lack of access to, for instance, resources or education in the space science and technology fields. I will give you one example of digital connectivity in Africa, which is still a grave challenge. It has almost been solved in other regions. This lack of access to digital connectivity can play a role in excluding women from the global south. This has to be addressed when we discuss global issues.

One challenge I used to have when I started was explaining to people that we had power cuts and internet disruptions and as a result, that I wasn't always able to participate as often and frequently online because of the cost of data. These things may not be considered elsewhere, but certainly are a grave challenge here. And then also just. Ethnic and racial diversity. I think when we consider that outer space is for peaceful purposes, we also need to consider what are the influencing factors of peace and security on earth. We've seen with the Black Lives Matter movement that we haven't always had a smooth track record of maintaining socio-economic peace on different lines, but mostly on addressing the inherent bias against certain communities that are marginalized and vulnerable. This goes back to the question of whether we really are making use of the full potential of people who can contribute to this industry. There are a number of very successful black and indigenous women who have contributed to space. I think of Mae Jemison, who is really a forerunner. I imagine what would society be like if people like her had not had an opportunity to contribute.

To reinforce the question, I would say, these are some of the facts that will continue to impede on outer space being the common heritage of humankind until we address representation, diversity, and access.

We see outer space engagements are characterized by colonialism, militarism, and capitalism. How can we decolonize our approach to engaging with outer space?

I think there are three immediate and achievable things we can do in the short term. And then I'll address maybe longer term ideals. First, we must have more inclusive policies and practices. I think this is important because the law and policy are foundations of all human activity, I think, since the beginning of humankind. Even if you look at various religious precepts or systems in the world, they are all based on rules that govern their terms of engagement, which bring some sense of order, stability, and certainty. We rely on policy in this case to reinforce the concept of equitable opportunities – so in a sense, the idea is to level the playing field but to also ensure that everyone is competent enough to participate and to reduce the negative stereotypes or bias that come with diversity and inclusion programs. I'm sure you've heard the common discourse when people say, you know, “You are a diversity hire,” effectively mentioning that you might not necessarily be as equipped for the role but because there needs to be some sort of a quota you’re filling. We need to make sure that everyone who flows through this system is given the tools they need to thrive.

The second one that I think is already starting to take shape is global collaboration. And it's important to note that if you're looking at the common heritage of all humankind, we need to come together. We need to share responsibility and avoid the mindsets that we've had in previous moments in history. So for instance, the conquering mentality that has been prevalent during earlier forms of exploration is something we need to be able to do away with together and collectively in order for it to mean something.

Lastly, education. Rather than a buzzword, I'll say that it is a very important concept that keeps coming up in many areas I work, especially in the form of workforce development. There is a need to inspire the youth and build them up, not only as contributors to future development, but also as those who will stand to benefit there, too. Intergenerational dialogue will be enhanced if the youth are in a position to play their part as well.

These are some short term, immediately achievable goals. In the longer term, there are some more abstract ones that really need reframing by shifting the narrative from what we've seen in the past. Equitable access should really mean what it is – space development touches the lines of the most vulnerable in society. How many people get to benefit from technologies derived from research on the ISS? There have been over 2,000 NASA spin offs, but you would be hard pressed to find that actual technology playing out, for instance in a remote village in Africa. How do we shorten that gap in the transfer of technology and knowledge?

There's also the concept of environmental responsibility. Here, we're looking at what's happening on Earth, and what's happening in space. Whose responsibility is it to clean up space? We haven't actually really said or designated that responsibility. This will cause challenges in the future.

The role of indigenous perspectives also play a role – their ancient technologies, as it's called, is traditional ecological knowledge. What can people who have a much closer relationship with nature be able to tell us about regulating this very precious resource? The list can go on and on and on. But the prevailing themes of ethics and considerations for other stakeholders’ needs, I think, is one that resounds through all of these examples.

Do you think the current approaches to space setting would allow for decolonialization of outer space?

At the current moment, it will not. There are a few flaws in the current governance mechanisms. The first of these is the lack of a clear governance model when it comes to international relations and space. I'll start with the most obvious, which is that it doesn't seem that there is a central authority or enforcing mechanism for the precepts that we have put for space. For instance, all the treaty laws, although they binding in nature, haven't quite been applied in full yet, even though there've been many cases that would have come up to test them. Yes, we have the International Court of Justice to adjudicate matters between states, and the Permanent Court of Arbitration to arbitrate matters for commercial entities. But to what extent will these corporations actually be held liable in the face of great danger? That is something that is yet to be tested. This may have been tested with the Chinese rocket segment, which fell back to Earth without a definitive re-entry plan. This can be tested with the number of commercial companies space debris segments that are popping up in random areas of the world. For instance, one popped up in Australia a couple of years ago in 2006. Another popped up in Zimbabwe. All of these indicate the lack of clear governance processes.

Having different types of governance models  affects the status of uniformity. We need to be able to decide if we have a collaborative governance model where everyone participates or an adaptive governance model where we accept that governance models can change over time, or a combination of both. We rely on the governance model that has always been regardless of the changes and the times, which is what I think is currently happening. A lot of stakeholders do not get to really meet their full potential as a result of holding on to the great progress of the past governance models but Not allowing for the emergence of new models in that respect.

 So going back to what I mentioned about reframing. What might it take then to shift this approach? In addition to the ones that I've already mentioned, I think I'd like to touch on two aspects here: One that I've already sort of alluded to, which is a structural revision – that is, how we can look at ensuring that there is leadership and autonomy in space institutions. I think there's a fear of creating a strong institutional mechanism for space because of the inherent power that different entities stakeholders countries might be able to enforce on it. One has to look to current regional institutions to see the power dynamics that often come into play in that regard. How would this be structured? Who would have more say and why? Who would benefit for more? We need to be able to anticipate what this might look like. The second thing is perhaps more transparency. You can only be transparent when you involve diverse stakeholders in decision making. This way, you truly understand that these are the needs and you have the political will to enforce them. In a way, this also challenges hierarchies because the more united the voice, the harder it is to silence it. In effect, it will challenge hierarchies and give more stakeholders the opportunity to bring their concerns forward and be heard.

What might a decolonial model of spacefaring look like? 

A decolonial approach to outer space might start with benefits sharing, which is articulated in one of the principles of the many UN resolutions. It has evaded a lot of discourse at the international level because of the failure to define what exactly is a benefit and how we share it. As I alluded to earlier, the concept of sharing benefits for the global south would mean tangible access to the knowledge, profits, technology, and opportunities that flow directly from the space industry. A decolonial model will emphasize and prioritize participation from countries in the Global South and address those historical disparities by providing equal opportunities for space research and missions.

I'd like to highlight one entity that I am a part of, which is working on a similar mission, namely the Milo Space Science Institute, which is essentially hoping to democratize access to space by providing knowledge, networks, and opportunities for teams around the world to take part in space missions. All of this is about recognizing that we are stronger as a whole, and that we are likely to receive full endorsement of this industry when everyone gets to participate and have a say. Our collective endeavours will be much more fruitful when we can do them together. I think, thus, benefit sharing at the core. This would really reinforce the concept of common heritage of all humankind.

Another way of framing a decolonial model for spacefaring really emphasizes environmental responsibility. For this, I think it's important to look at sustainable practices and being able to develop and share those technologies in ways that will minimize space debris and pollution, and resource exploitation.

I use this example because this brings up the history of colonial past, especially for Africa where resource exploitation does not have any positive connotation. Owing to prevailing practices even today. If we're to do away with the mindset of “conquest and conquering” and “winner takes all” and “first come first serve,” which are all you know, prevalent in these unsustainable practices, we can have a more equitable or collaborative governance model for the future.

Finally, I won't negate diversity, representation, education, and outreach, which I've already mentioned, but I'll touch on maybe one that I haven't, which is the sovereignty of nations in space. Sovereignty is a very enigmatic concept to discuss when it comes to space because while we do celebrate and want to acknowledge those countries that have been pioneers, we do not want to ascribe so much leeway that countries can begin to make territorial claims to outer space. We can see these discussions in many conversations on safety zones and cultural heritage in space, where there's a fine line between celebrating human endeavour and having some sort of a proportionate claim to space. We must temper the rights of states by balancing them with obligations with the rest of humankind, which we can find in the preparatory works that form the background documents for the outer space treaties. In these preparatory works, they emphasize that when we think of benefit sharing, we're specifically thinking of developing countries. This links back to the concept of how we share resources.

The best way to share resources is not to make or claim inexhaustible rights. A balanced regime will recognize that the outer space treaty allows us to use and explore space for scientific and commercial purposes. But it does not allow us to take complete ownership to the exclusion of others. States are the main stakeholders and subjects of these treaties. But we also have the responsibility of managing national stakeholders, including companies who will have a bigger role to play in this, very soon. A decolonial model in relation to this last example will really consider ethical exploration and prioritize research and benefits that address global instead of national challenges alone.