Outer space exploration has evolved beyond Cold War-era superpower competition. Today, it is a multi-billion-dollar industry with profound opportunities for economic advancement. It may also determine the long-term survival of the human species. Yet, Africa remains on the periphery of this booming outer space economy.
This needs to change for two major reasons, as this piece will argue. First, space exploration led by a few actors may not benefit all humanity, contrary to popular preaching. This will exacerbate the marginalisation of Africa in global developments. Second, International Law may not prevent this marginalisation.
Thereafter, this piece will propose three strategies to safeguard Africa’s influence in outer space exploration. First, is ensuring that the African Space Agency is funded indigenously to ensure sustainability. Second, any external partnerships should be non-aligned to protect Africa’s autonomy. Finally, advocating for an equitable international tax and funding framework, to curb marginalisation.
- Space exploration by a few is not for the benefit of all
Space exploration is presented as an activity that benefits all humanity, despite being spearheaded by few nations. This may be true insofar as the technologies resulting from space exploration benefit the entire world. These include the Global Positioning System (GPS) and scratch-resistant lenses, which are used globally.
Yet, this does not guarantee that the powerful space-faring nations do so with the interests of all countries in mind, especially considering the words of US President J.F. Kennedy, who said;
“…no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.”
These words proved true during the First Space Race, which was a supremacy battle between the Soviet Union and the USA, during the Cold War. The USA “won” the race by being the first to send a human to the Moon.
Reportedly, the ‘Second Space race’ is a supremacy battle between the USA and the People’s Republic of China (China). Time will tell if any of the two will “win”, considering countries like India, Japan, and South Korea are ambitiously expanding their space capabilities.
As these Countries battle it out, it is easy to notice that African Countries do not feature. This is not ideal because Africa will be marginalised in the commercialisation of space exploration, the exploitation of strategic moon resources, and in making humanity a multiplanetary species, as explained below.
1.1. The commercialisation of space exploration
Tightly linked to the supremacy race is the race to commercialise space exploration, which has attracted wealthy private companies. For instance, Jeff Bezo’s Blue Origin, Elon Musk’s SpaceX and Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic have started space tourism, with tickets prices ranging from hundreds of thousands to millions of US Dollars. China is also working with private companies to introduce space tourism. Other companies are investing in space mining.
It’s against this backdrop that the World Economic Forum estimates that the global space economy will be a trillion-dollar industry by 2035. In 2024 alone, the economy set a record of $613 billion, and this is set to go even higher in 2025. The commercial sector is responsible for 78% of this economic growth.
Clearly, space exploration offers a huge economic cake and Africa should get a generous slice, if not more!
1.2. The race to establish Moonbases and exploit strategic resources
The race to set up the first Moon base is crucial because the first base may be established in a strategic location around the Moon’s South Pole. This location contains shadowed craters with ice that could be used to make drinking water, breathable oxygen and rocket fuel. The bases may also be used for the mining of helium-3 to serve as a fuel on Earth.
The benefits are definitely more nuanced than I can discuss here, but the ultimate goal of colonising the moon, as astronomers Harlan J. Smith, et al, wrote back in 1991, lies in “developing lunar (moon) resources for eventual commercial application.”
Unfortunately, African Countries do not feature in this race to colonise the Moon, meaning Africa may not benefit from the commercialisation of the Moon’s resources. As a result, the rich countries may keep getting richer, while the poor keep struggling to catch up.
1.3. Beyond the Moon: The risk of extinction of life on Earth
The ‘racing’ countries are also keen on exploring Mars. The exploration is, among others, aimed at making human life multiplanetary. The incentive behind this can be summed up by the words of Scientist Carl Sagan, that;
“Since, in the long run, every planetary civilization will be endangered by impacts from space, every surviving civilization is obliged to become spacefaring…for the most practical reason imaginable: staying alive...”
In line with this, proponents of making human life multiplanetary say it will save humans from nature-based risks like asteroids, large-scale volcanic eruptions and stellar explosions. These threaten human survival on Earth, unless technologies are developed to avert them. Though this may not happen in our lifetime, the exploration of Mars may be an insurance policy against the risks.
If that is the case, who will ensure the safety of the people in the Countries that do not rank highly in the space race?ill our descendants be left at the mercy of the developed Nations?
Such an outcome is not ideal. We have seen that depending on aid from developed nations is a gamble because it is heavily influenced by geopolitics and the beliefs of those in power. For example, in 2025, USA’s President D.J. Trump stopped the US Agency for International Development (USAID), an aid programme that supported humanitarian responses and development globally. This was part of Trump’s “America First” belief and is projected to result in over 14 million deaths by 2030.
With such risky outcomes, it is dangerous for Africa to not be an active participant in the race to make human life multiplanetary.
- The inadequacy of international law in preventing the marginalisation of Africa
The Outer Space treaty of 1966 was the first Space Treaty. It provides a framework for the exploration and use of the outer space. Under Article I, exploration shall be for the benefit and interests of all countries, “irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development.” This Article codifies the “Common Benefits” Principle and it is very ideal.
However, it lacks an implementation mechanism. There is also debate on whether it applies to private actors, and if so, to what extent. It is also argued that the Treaty was not made with third-world countries in mind. It was made in the context of the US-Soviet space race and was largely meant to prevent states from transferring their rivalry into space, thus ensuring space remained available for exploration by all.
This “Common benefits” principle is also contained in Article 11 of the Moon Agreement. Unfortunately, the states that are actively commercialising space exploration, including the USA, Russia, and China, are not parties to the Agreement. With the exception of Morocco, African countries are also not parties. This means that the Agreement is not applicable to them.
The upshot is that international law lacks sufficient mechanisms to ensure Africa equitably benefits from space exploration.
- How Africa can secure its influence the burgeoning space sector
3.1. Ensuring funding for the African Space Agency is indigenous
The Africa Space Agency (AfSA) was created by the African Union (AU) and inaugurated in April 2025. It is meant to coordinate and implement Africa’s space ambitions.
As part of laying the groundwork for the AfSA, the AU developed the African Space Policy and Strategy. These propose ambitious plans for the development of an “indigenous” African space industry, an objective that is also codified in Article 4 (c) of the Statute of the AfSA.
This “indigenousness” is to be achieved through various ways, including by ensuring that funding is locally sourced. This should enable Africa take charge of its space programme.
Though the AfSA is included in AU’s budget, it relies on partnerships including with the European Union, France, among others. This is against the AfSA’s objective of being indigenous. Further, as discussed above in detail, donor-funding is not sustainable.
While it may be unrealistic to do away with external funding, deliberate steps should be taken to increase indigenous funding, as proposed in the Strategy. This can be through increasing funding from the AU, African companies and philanthropists.
3.2. Forming non-aligned partnerships
As noted above, the 21st century space race is part of the China-American battle for supremacy. As a result, there is a discernible pressure on developing states to affiliate with either the USA through the Artemis Accords, or China’s International Lunar Research Station. While some African Countries have already picked a side, the AfSA must remain neutral to maintain a sense of continental sovereignty.
Where partnerships are inevitable, they should be apolitical and result in direct substantial benefits for Africans. Historically, African resources have been used to advance exploration by developed nations, but there’s little to show in terms of benefits for Africans. Even now, Africa is of interest to space-faring nations due to its strategic location for testing and potential launching sites.
Going forward, the AfSA must negotiate and ensure that partnerships will result in Africans being part of space missions, space research or that Africa will benefit economically directly, rather than through the “benefits-for-all” approach.
3.3 Pushing for the implementation of the common-benefits principle
The ‘common-benefits’ principle can be implemented through empowering an international institution to redistribute space benefits. This can be a new institution, or the United Nations Office on Outer Space Affairs, whose mandate already includes helping developing nations benefit from space exploration.
The institution can enforce a Universal Tax Regime that will ensure both states and companies pay taxes for benefiting from space exploration. This tax regime should be based on a progressive taxation model, to ensure the burden is distributed equitably, rather than equally. The taxes can be used to run “a space fund” through which benefits are redistributed equitably.
As actors of international law making- those who can represent the interests of people affected by international law– African Countries and the AU should be at the forefront of pushing for the adoption of such an implementation mechanism. Hard as it may be, it is worth a try.
Conclusion
Despite its potential commercial and survival benefits for all humanity, space exploration continues to be dominated by few states and wealthy companies. As a result, Africa remains marginalised in the multi-billion-dollar space economy and in the quest to make humankind a multi-planetary species.
Reversing this reality demands deliberate and ambitious action through the AfSA. The AfSA must implement the AU’s Space Policy and Strategy with urgency. Critically, it must ensure its funding is sourced locally because, dependence on external partnerships has proven unsustainable.
Where external partnerships are necessary, they should be apolitical and result in direct, tangible benefits for Africans, as opposed to the proverbial “benefit-for-all” approach. Lastly, Africa must champion the implementation of the common-benefits principle of International Space Law.
After all, if Africa fails to make deliberate and ambitious steps to move towards the centre of space exploration, it will fall further behind wealthier nations and companies, and the fate of its future generations will be decided by others.