The moon, long a silent sentinel in our night sky, is rapidly transforming into the next great frontier for geopolitical competition and scientific endeavor. In this evolving landscape, China's chief designer of its lunar exploration program, Wu Weiren, recently voiced accusations that the United States is actively obstructing lunar diplomacy. He specifically pointed to the Artemis Accords and the Wolf Amendment as barriers to China's International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) partnerships, particularly with European nations. This narrative, however, overlooks the foundational principles guiding American space policy and the independent choices nations make in aligning their lunar ambitions with a vision for transparent, peaceful, and sustainable exploration. The unfolding lunar competition is not merely a race to plant flags, but a critical juncture for shaping the very rules and norms that will govern humanity's expansion into the cosmos.
The Wolf Amendment: A Necessary Precaution
The United States' approach to space cooperation with China is rooted in a complex history marked by both attempts at collaboration and profound concerns over national security and intellectual property. The Wolf Amendment, a law passed by the United States Congress in 2011 and named after then-Representative Frank Wolf, stands as a testament to these enduring concerns. It explicitly prohibits the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) from using government funds to engage in direct, bilateral cooperation with the Chinese government or Chinese-owned companies, unless such activities are specifically authorized by Congress or certified to pose no risk of technology transfer with national or economic security implications, and do not involve officials implicated in human rights violations.
This legislative measure was not an arbitrary act but a direct response to a pattern of alleged intelligence operations. These included the theft of design information regarding advanced thermonuclear weapons and the potential use of American commercial satellite technology to improve Chinese intercontinental ballistic missile capabilities. Concerns about China's military ambitions in space, including its designation of space as a military domain and development of counterspace capabilities, further underscored the need for caution. Prior to the amendment, a period of cooperation in the 1980s, where US-manufactured satellites were launched by China, abruptly ceased after a 1996 launch failure and a controversial investigation, leading to a halt in US export licenses for such technology. China's long-standing interest in joining the US-led International Space Station (ISS) was also denied, contributing to a climate of distrust.
The Wolf Amendment represents a defensive measure, enacted to safeguard American technological advancements and prevent their potential misuse. Its primary function is to protect sensitive US technology and prevent its diversion for military purposes. While the amendment has undoubtedly limited bilateral civil space projects and even prevented US scientists from analyzing valuable lunar samples returned by China without specific FBI certification, its intent remains clear. Despite some instances of misinterpretation, such as the initial barring of Chinese researchers from a multilateral Kepler conference, the amendment primarily targets bilateral cooperation deemed high-risk, not all engagement.
This policy, while born from specific security concerns, has also had a significant effect on the broader space landscape. Critics within the US have argued that the amendment has not achieved its stated goals of altering Chinese behavior or promoting human rights. Instead, it may inadvertently hinder US understanding of China's rapidly advancing space program and even challenge NASA's leadership by incentivizing China to develop parallel capabilities. Indeed, China's development of its own Tiangong Space Station, open to international partners, is a direct consequence of its exclusion from the ISS due to the Wolf Amendment, creating a parallel infrastructure in space. This situation highlights a policy challenge: how to balance necessary security precautions with the potential costs of lost opportunities for engagement and understanding. The framing of US restrictions as "interference" by China's lunar chief, Wu Weiren, stands in contrast to the US rationale, which views these policies as necessary safeguards against national security threats. This divergence in perspective reflects distinct national interests and strategic priorities.
| Feature | Description |
|---|---|
| Year Enacted | 2011 |
| Key Prohibitions | Prohibits NASA from direct, bilateral cooperation with the Chinese government or Chinese-owned companies; bans hosting official Chinese visitors at NASA facilities |
| Exceptions/Certifications | Permissible if no risk of technology, data, or information transfer with national security or economic security implications (certified by FBI); no involvement with officials linked to human rights violations |
| Stated Rationale | Response to alleged intelligence operations, theft of thermonuclear weapon designs, and potential misuse of satellite technology for ballistic missiles; concerns over Chinese military space ambitions |
| Perceived Impacts | Hindered bilateral civil space projects; prevented US scientists from analyzing Chinese lunar samples without specific certification; led to China developing parallel capabilities (e.g., Tiangong Space Station) due to ISS exclusion |
| Criticisms | Argued as ineffective in changing Chinese behavior or promoting human rights; may inadvertently challenge NASA's leadership by incentivizing China's independent development; limits US understanding of Chinese space programs |
The Artemis Accords: Forging a Path of Transparency and Cooperation
In stark contrast to China's characterization of US "interference," the Artemis Accords represent a fundamentally different vision for humanity's return to the moon and beyond. Led by NASA, these multilateral agreements are grounded in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, a foundational document of international space law, and aim to establish a safe, transparent, and sustainable environment for exploration, science, and commercial activities for the benefit of all humanity.
The Accords are not a restrictive club but an open invitation, currently boasting over 50 signatories from all six continents with governments, and growing rapidly. Their core principles emphasize: peaceful purposes, transparency in policies and plans, interoperability of systems for safety, emergency assistance for astronauts, proper registration of space objects, open sharing of scientific data for global benefit, preservation of outer space heritage, responsible utilization of space resources in compliance with the Outer Space Treaty, deconfliction of space activities through mechanisms like "safety zones," and mitigation of orbital debris. These principles are designed to foster cooperation, reduce risks, and ensure that lunar activities proceed in a responsible and predictable manner.
A key strength of the Artemis Accords, often highlighted by US officials, is their non-binding nature. This approach lowers the barrier to entry, allowing nations with diverse levels of spacefaring experience to commit to a shared set of values and best practices without the complexities of a formal treaty. This commitment to responsible behavior is seen as a "true global consensus" on vital issues, transforming the values of the Accords into a powerful framework for lunar and Martian activities. The Accords explicitly state that cooperative activities should be exclusively for peaceful purposes, consistent with the Outer Space Treaty, reinforcing the US commitment to a non-militarized lunar environment.
The Artemis Accords function as a norm-setting instrument rather than a blocking mechanism. While China frames US actions as interference, the Accords' stated principles focus on fostering transparency, safety, and interoperability, aligning with existing international space law. The non-binding nature and broad, growing signatory list underscore an inclusive, norm-setting approach rather than an exclusive, prohibitive one. The US is actively establishing a preferred international framework for lunar governance, emphasizing shared values and responsible behavior. This implicitly contrasts with China's less transparent, state-controlled approach. The accusation of "interference" can be understood as China's discomfort with a US-led effort to define the rules of the road in a way that prioritizes transparency and adherence to international norms, which may not align with China's own strategic calculus. By prioritizing shared values and flexibility over strict legal obligations, the US effectively creates a de facto international standard for lunar exploration that is highly attractive to a wide range of countries. This strategy allows the US to build a larger, more diverse coalition, giving it significant influence in shaping the future of space governance, even as China pursues its own, more centralized, parallel initiatives.
China's Lunar Ambitions and the Reality of International Choices
While China's lunar chief, Wu Weiren, attributes the smaller number of ILRS partners compared to Artemis Accords signatories to US interference, the reality of international space cooperation is far more nuanced. The International Lunar Research Station (ILRS), a joint initiative led by Russia and the China National Space Administration (CNSA), aims to establish a permanent lunar base by 2035. It has indeed attracted 17 countries and international organizations, including nations like Pakistan, Thailand, Italy, France (for payloads on past missions), UAE, Venezuela, South Africa, and Belarus. China has actively pursued an "open space diplomacy," inviting international scientists to participate and even offering access to its recently retrieved moon samples, a move that subtly highlights the US's self-imposed restrictions under the Wolf Amendment. China's "5-5-5" campaign aims to significantly expand its lunar science engagement with 50 nations, 500 institutions, and 5,000 researchers by the early 2030s, showcasing an ambitious outreach strategy.
However, the decision of nations, particularly European partners, to engage or disengage with the ILRS is often driven by independent geopolitical considerations rather than direct US pressure. While the European Space Agency (ESA) did send a payload aboard China's Chang'e-6 mission, it has since stated there are no plans for its participation in the upcoming Chang'e-7 and Chang'e-8 missions. More significantly, in 2023, ESA announced it would no longer consider sending European astronauts to China's Tiangong space station. This decision, according to analysis, was influenced by China's increasingly assertive behavior, human rights abuses, and its implicit support for Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The "no limits" friendship declared between Russia and China in 2022, followed by Russia's illegal war, has significantly soured European attitudes towards China, regardless of US policy. This demonstrates that European nations are making sovereign choices based on their own foreign policy values and strategic assessments of China's global conduct, particularly its alignment with Russia. The US position is strengthened by highlighting that its values align with those of many European partners, making the Artemis Accords a natural fit for them.
Beyond specific policy decisions, a significant "soft power" competition is underway. China's "open space diplomacy" and offer to share moon samples, despite the Wolf Amendment, combined with its "5-5-5" campaign, are clear attempts to project a benign, inclusive image and attract partners. This is a direct counter to the US-led Artemis Accords. China aims to position itself as a more inclusive alternative, especially to countries in the Global South, by offering participation in ILRS and Tiangong. The US, in turn, emphasizes its principles of transparency and peaceful use. The success of each initiative will depend not just on technological prowess but on which vision for space governance resonates more broadly with the international community.
Furthermore, the philosophical differences between the ILRS and Artemis Accords play a role. Beijing's centrally planned path for the ILRS promises long-term stability but offers less transparency, while Washington's Artemis program, built around a decentralized, commercially led coalition, emphasizes openness and broad participation. While officials acknowledge that nothing prevents a country from participating in both initiatives, no nation has yet done so, suggesting a de facto choice of alignment in the burgeoning lunar landscape. This indicates that the two initiatives, despite some shared goals, represent distinct geopolitical alignments and governance philosophies. Nations are implicitly choosing sides, or at least prioritizing one framework over the other, based on their strategic interests, values, and relationships with the leading powers. This reinforces the idea of a bifurcated future in lunar exploration. The competition for lunar resources, particularly water ice at the moon's south pole, is a critical strategic objective for both blocs, with NASA Administrator Bill Nelson expressing concern that China could reach this resource-rich region first, potentially leading to a geopolitical standoff reminiscent of the Cold War.
Beyond the Race: Shaping the Future of Space Governance
The unfolding competition in lunar exploration extends far beyond a simple race to plant flags or extract resources; it is fundamentally about shaping the rules of the game for humanity's future in space. China's accelerated push towards the moon is guided by a strategic calculus that includes accessing resources, gaining technological leverage, and establishing long-term political control. Its centralized, state-controlled approach offers stability and the ability to sustain multi-decade programs without the political fluctuations common in democratic systems. This has allowed China to achieve significant milestones, such as the successful return of samples from the far side of the moon, while the US-led Artemis program has faced delays.
The United States, by contrast, leans on a decentralized, commercial-led coalition, hoping to gain speed and reduce costs through private sector innovation. While this approach fosters openness and broad participation, it can also lead to slower timelines and political volatility. The US vision, embodied in the Artemis Accords, champions a framework of peaceful purposes, transparency, and interoperability, rooted in established international law. This approach seeks to ensure that as humanity expands its presence beyond Earth, it does so in a manner that benefits all, avoids harmful interference, and mitigates risks like orbital debris.
The lunar competition is fundamentally a battle for norm-setting and governance in space. The discussions are not merely about scientific endeavors or planting flags, but about shaping technological standards, legal norms, and commercial protocols that will define future space activities. The US is actively trying to establish a global consensus around its preferred norms through the Artemis Accords, which prioritize transparency, safety, and sustainability. China, through ILRS and its "open" approach, is offering an alternative model. The outcome of this competition will determine the fundamental character of space governance for decades to come: a more open, multilateral, and rules-based system, or a more centralized, state-controlled, and potentially bifurcated one.
The geopolitical stakes are undeniably high. The prospect of rival, partially overlapping communication and navigation networks in cislunar space raises concerns among defense planners, and proposals for lunar "gas stations" prompt uncomfortable legal questions about territorial control in a domain still governed by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, drafted long before modern space capabilities existed. The moon's south pole, believed to contain water ice, is a particularly coveted region, with the potential to provide critical resources for sustained lunar presence and interplanetary travel. Whichever bloc secures early access to these resources could gain a commanding position in the emerging cislunar economy. Both approaches have inherent strengths and weaknesses. The US model, while potentially slower and more susceptible to political shifts, fosters innovation and broad international buy-in through shared values. China's model, while efficient and stable, may face skepticism regarding transparency and human rights. This highlights a fundamental ideological contest playing out in the space domain, with real-world implications for who leads and how space is governed.
Conclusion
The accusations leveled by China's lunar chief, Wu Weiren, regarding US interference in lunar diplomacy, while framed as a barrier to cooperation, ultimately underscore the profound divergence in strategic philosophies governing humanity's expansion into space. The Wolf Amendment, far from being an arbitrary block, is a carefully calibrated measure born from legitimate national security concerns and a history of alleged technology transfer. It represents a necessary precaution to safeguard sensitive US advancements, even as it presents challenges for bilateral engagement.
Conversely, the Artemis Accords stand as a beacon of the American vision for responsible space exploration: a multilateral framework built on transparency, interoperability, and the peaceful utilization of outer space, consistent with established international law. Its growing list of signatories, spanning diverse nations across the globe, demonstrates a widespread global consensus for a principled approach to lunar activities. The choices made by European nations and others to engage or not engage with China's ILRS are often independent decisions, reflecting their own geopolitical calculations, values, and concerns about China's broader conduct, rather than direct US coercion.
As humanity ventures further into the cosmos, the competition for lunar resources and influence will intensify. This is not merely a technological race, but a fundamental contest over the norms and principles that will define the future of space governance. The United States, through the Artemis Accords, offers a path towards an open, rules-based, and collaborative future in space, ensuring that the benefits of lunar exploration are shared widely and responsibly, for the enduring peace and prosperity of all humankind.
References
Cheng, Dean. 2014. "More Interaction with the Chinese is Possible in the Area of Sharing Already Collected Data." The Heritage Foundation.
"China Leads the New Moon Race as U.S. Falls Behind in Deep Space Exploration." SFL Media. Accessed October 26, 2024. https://sfl.media/china-is-all-over-the-moon-united-states-is-falling-behind/.
"China Lunar Chief Accuses US of Interfering in Joint Space Programmes with Other Nations." AsiaOne. April 23, 2025. https://www.asiaone.com/asia/china-lunar-chief-accuses-us-interfering-joint-space-programmes-other-nations.
"China's Space Program: A 2021 Perspective." Air University. Accessed October 26, 2024. https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/Translations/2022-02-16%20ITOW%20China's%20Space%20Program-%20A%202021%20Perspective.pdf.
"Fact Sheet: Artemis Accords United for Peaceful Exploration of Deep Space." U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Brazil. Accessed October 26, 2024. https://br.usembassy.gov/fact-sheet-artemis-accords-united-for-peaceful-exploration-of-deep-space/.
Gold, Mike. 2024. "With 52 Members, Artemis Accords Now Represent Global Consensus." SpacePolicyOnline.com. Accessed October 26, 2024. https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/gold-with-52-members-artemis-accords-now-represent-global-consensus/.
"International Cooperation." China.org.cn. Accessed October 26, 2024. http://www.china.org.cn/e-white/8/20-5.htm.
"International Lunar Research Station." Wikipedia. Accessed October 26, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lunar_Research_Station.
"Joint Statement of the China National Space Administration and the State Space Corporation 'Roscosmos' Regarding Cooperation for the Construction of the International Lunar Research Stations." Presented by Ms. Hui Jiang. UNOOSA. Accessed October 26, 2024. https://www.unoosa.org/documents/pdf/copuos/2021/AM_3._China_ILRS_Guide_for_Partnership_V1.0Presented_by_Ms.Hui_JIANG.pdf.
"NASA Artemis Accords." NASA. Accessed October 26, 2024. https://www.nasa.gov/artemis-accords/.
"Roadmap for EU-China S&T Cooperation." European Commission. Accessed October 26, 2024. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2021-12/cn_roadmap_2018.pdf.
"The US-China Relationship in the Space Sector." Soffen Memorial Fund. Accessed October 26, 2024. https://soffenfund.org/presentations/Nasr_IAC%20Presentation.pdf.
"Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies." UNOOSA. Accessed October 26, 2024. https://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html.
"Two Alphas Howling at the Moon: The History, Meaning, and Implications of the 2011 Wolf Amendment on US-Sino Space Cooperation." Jason Institute. Accessed October 26, 2024. https://jasoninstitute.com/two-alphas-howling-at-the-moon-the-history-meaning-and-implications-of-the-2011-wolf-amendment-on-us-sino-space-cooperation/.
"US-China Relations." Council on Foreign Relations. Accessed October 26, 2024. https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-china-relations.
"Wolf Amendment." Wikipedia. Accessed October 26, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Amendment.
"Wolf Amendment: Limiting Collaboration with China in Space." Defense360, CSIS. Accessed October 26, 2024. https://defense360.csis.org/bad-idea-the-wolf-amendment-limiting-collaboration-with-china-in-space/.
Zubrzycki, John. 2024. "Europe–China Space Collaboration Fails to Launch." East Asia Forum. March 23, 2023. https://eastasiaforum.org/2023/03/23/europe-china-space-collaboration-fails-to-launch/.
Zubrzycki, John. 2024. "The Increasingly Rapid Growth the Artemis Accords Demonstrates a Global Belief in a Better Future for Humanity in Space." The Space Review. June 17, 2024. https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4812/1.
Zubrzycki, John. 2025. "China's Steady Ascent to the Moon: How Beijing is Rewriting Lunar Geopolitics." The Diplomat. July 12, 2025. https://thediplomat.com/2025/07/chinas-steady-ascent-to-the-moon-how-beijing-is-rewriting-lunar-geopolitics/.
Add comment
Comments