The same satellite can have military and civilian functions. This creates a dilemma for NZ

As last week’s Aerospace Summit in Christchurch made clear, New Zealand is rapidly developing capabilities and partnerships in a sector estimated to be worth NZ$2.5 billion to the national economy.

The summit’s defence session also highlighted the increasingly close links between civilian and military aerospace activities, raising important questions about the implications.

Just last month, New Zealand agreed to spend nearly $24 million to fund a military satellite led by the United Sstates Department of War for the Wideband Global SATCOM constellation.

The government also renewed participation in Operation Olympic Defender, a US-led military partnership aimed at making space safe and secure.

But becoming increasingly involved in international efforts to protect satellite services critical to infrastructure – including navigation, banking and communications – creates a dilemma.

As countries expand military capabilities to make space more secure, their actions can make others feel threatened, increasing the very tensions they are trying to prevent.

It also highlights how dual-use approaches to satellite technology could threaten the many benefits of the satellite services the country relies on.

Because it doesn’t own any of the satellites providing essential infrastructure services, if an operator decided to restrict access or withdraw coverage altogether, New Zealand would have no say.

The United Kingdom’s recently released space strategy estimates satellite services contribute 18% of its GDP. This is just one example of how dependent modern economies have become on infrastructure in orbit.

The vulnerability this creates at a time of geopolitical instability deserves greater scrutiny.

Strategic stability in space

Earlier this year, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney described a “rupture” in the world order: a shift towards intensifying great power rivalry, where countries increasingly feel they must protect themselves as the rules and institutions they once relied on come under strain.

Space is not immune to this shift. There is a marked rise in global military spending on development of space capabilities that can cause harm.

Not long after the US government announced it had deployed weapons in space, the UK announced the Space Effects Squadron, a unit dedicated to disrupt, degrade and deny hostile threats in space.

Countries are doing what they have always done: signalling their military strength to deter potential threats and protect their national interests. But in an increasingly fractured geopolitical order, these signals are a double-edged sword.

They can act as a stabiliser for one country, but also make other countries feel threatened. This is the challenge of strategic stability – balancing national security interests without escalating tensions between countries.

The dual-use nature of satellite technology complicates this further. Satellites can serve both civilian and military purposes, each with potential benefits and harms.

For example, civilian use of satellite data can support environmental monitoring. But unequal access to that data can also reinforce power imbalances in environmental governance and decision making.

Military use of satellite data can mean better preparedness for disaster management and rescue. But it can also cause harm when used for surveillance, compromising privacy and trust.

This overlap creates vulnerabilities that can be exploited. It also challenges the assumption that civilian uses of space are inherently beneficial and military uses are harmful.

As those uses become increasingly entangled, growing tensions can erode trust between countries. Even activities intended to improve safety and sustainability in space may be viewed with suspicion, making cooperation more difficult.

For instance, a spacecraft attempting to capture a defunct satellite so that it doesn’t create debris could be mistaken for hostile action.

What New Zealand can do

For New Zealand, these risks are particularly significant. While the country depends heavily on satellite infrastructure controlled overseas, its growing participation in military space partnerships also means decisions can contribute to wider tensions.

Misunderstandings in space could have consequences far beyond the orbits, including disruptions to services people depend on every day.

New Zealand has an opportunity to draw on its technical, scientific and international law expertise to support best practice, particularly through regional cooperation. This includes recognising how activities in space can contribute to, or undermine, global strategic stability.

Greater transparency and clearer communication can reduce the risks of misunderstanding and escalation, while building trust between countries. New Zealand could help advance international discussions on:

• what constitutes a use of force in space, specifically as counterspace capabilities evolve

• best practices for sharing information, including what can be shared and with whom

• how countries communicate their intentions to avoid misinterpretation of activities in space

• and how New Zealand can ensure its participation in military space partnerships also supports its commitments to the safe and sustainable use of space.

Ultimately, protecting New Zealand’s interests in space means recognising that our security is closely tied to that of others, and that building trust is just as important as building capability.