U.S. Robotics in the Outer-Space and International Law: Revisiting Nigeria’s Outer-Space Programme?

Bola A. Akinterinwa

The U.S. Airforce Secretary, Troy Meink, told the Air, Space and Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, on September 14, 2026 that the United States had deployed space control weapons in Earth’s orbit. No information was given on the nature of the space control weapons. No information was given on when and how the weapons were deployed. However, the U.S. Airforce admitted that the deployed weapons use kinetic (physical) and non-Kinetic (electronic or signal disruption) methods to stop any threats. Put interrogatively, has the U.S. not put in the orbit nuclear weapons? If not, is the U.S. not preparing to do so? Since space control weapons are what the U.S. Airforce is talking about, could it be that the U.S. has put robotics in the outer-space contrarily to the prohibitions of international law?

What is put in the orbit is not known, but the purpose of deploying such weapons in the outer space is made known. First, it is to protect American military forces from enemy attacks. Second, it is to avoid being taken unawares by China and Russia both of which the U.S. strongly believe are already building technology to disable American satellites. And thirdly, it is to deter enemies from attacking U.S. space networks by already showing readiness for any eventuality. It is against this background that Professor Akinwande Bolaji Akinyemi’s 288th Session of the ThruMYeyes, held on Thursday, September 17, 2026 took the issue with much concern (vide https://syncterface.zoom.us/j/81728930611).

Reacting to the development, Professor Akinyemi said, ‘I am afraid.’ Afraid of death as an octogenarian? Certainly not. Afraid apparently, because of the deleterious consequences for humanity if the weapons are nuclear-driven, if robotic engines, or weapons of mass destruction are put in the space and if such weapons, though targeted at the Chinese and Russians, inadvertently miss the arch enemies? What if nuclear weapons are dropped in Africa, Professor Akinyemi asked? There were no certain answers to this probability. This is one reason for investigating the launching of space control weapons in the outer space in the face of international law and why there is also the need to ask fresh questions about Nigeria’s outer-space programme.

MAGA and International Law

MAGA is the acronym for ‘Make America Great Again.’ MAGA is the nickname for U.S. foreign policy under President Donald Trump. It is the nickname for disrespect of rule of law and international law. MAGA is a redefinition of ‘America First’ policy of President Trump. ‘America First,’ as a foreign policy, implies non-concession to the whims and caprices, other national interests, etc., of any other sovereign states in international relations. Consequently, it is a foreign policy implemented by manu militari. Making America Great Again does not allow for consultation or negotiation. It is generally implemented by imposition and sanctions in the event of rejection. It is by hook and crook. And most unfortunately, it is largely predicated on rejection of international law and world order and replacing them with American-defined by whatever is American and in the national interest.

President Trump came up with the idea of a Board of Peace under his chairmanship to supervise the day-to-day management of affairs in Gaza. He is ridiculously trying to replace the U.N. as if it is possible. He tried to replace trade rules with export controls. He put in place a coalition that polices the sea lanes. And true enough, Donald Trump also wants Saudi Arabia to assist in providing security escorts for shipping lines passing through the Strait of Hormuz expectedly in order to protect the ships against Iranian threats and attacks. Most unfortunately, President Trump did not carry Saudi Arabia along by first having the courtesy of informing Saudi Arabia and securing the consent of the country. This neglect pushed Saudi Arabia to take the bad end of the stick and to adopt a non-cooperative attitude. Instead of discussing gentlemanly with the Saudi authorities, Donald Trump threatened to delay supply military assistance. This is one of the manifestations of MAGA in Saudi Arabia.

Donald Trump wants to maintain international peace and security in his own mania, but he avoids discussing with partners that are needed to help. MAGA cannot succeed by simply issuing orders to other sovereign states, even to a banana republic so to say. This policy attitude cannot but create major obstacles to international peacemaking. How can he want the deployment of African troops to join Albania, Kosovo, Morocco and Kazakhstan and others in keeping the peace in Gaza but not carry Africa along in the preparative discussions? With this style of international administration, every United States foreign policy decision or announcement has always hardened the conduct and management of international relations, thereby frustrating efforts being made to maintain international peace and security.

Placing dangerous weapons in the outer-space cannot but begin to generate great concerns about the future of Africa, and particularly raising questions on global peace and security. For instance, will there be peace in the world tomorrow? Can the world survive with the increasing U.S. disregard for rule of law or for international law? Not likely. China has warned the U.S. against paving the way for an arms race in the space. The Chinese have urged the United States ‘to stop expanding its military capabilities and preparing for war in the outer space’ (AFP quoted a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson as saying).

The explanation of the U.S. Space Force spokesperson is that ‘space control encapsulates the mission areas required to contest and control the space domain – employing kinetic and non-kinetic means to affect adversary capabilities through disruption, degradation and even destruction, if necessary.’ Additionally, and more importantly too, the spokesperson said ‘these capabilities can be employed for offensive and defensive purposes at the direction of combatant.’

In this regard, what the Americans are saying is that U.S. military superiority cannot be challenged. As reported by aljazeera.com, Victoria Samson, the Chief Director of Space Security and Stability for Secure World Foundation, has it that “Space Force doctrine describes ‘space control’ as having the outcome of space superiority, which they define as the ability to operate at the time and place of their choosing, while denying the same to an adversary.”

And as further reported by the BBC, ‘an expert on military uses of outer space noted that “precious little” was publicly known about the technology, and told the BBC there could be a ‘whole range of different weapons systems.’’ This is precisely what the outer space, internationally considered as terra nullius, appears to be playing host to. Is the orbit not being prepared for electronic warfare? Is the orbit the next theatre for radio jamming battle? Whatever is the case, the outer space is a common patrimony that should neither be nationalized nor used for any manner of weaponisation to the detriment of international peace and security.

Without doubt, many are the agreements and declarations on how to use the outer space for peaceful and developmental purposes. There is, for example, the Declaration on International Cooperation in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for the Benefit and in the Interest of All States, Taking into Particular Account the Needs of Developing Countries (Vide Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-first Session, Supplement No. 20 (A/51/20). There is also the Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space (See unoosa.org).

In the same vein, the Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies desires in its Preamble ‘to prevent the Moon from becoming an area of international conflict.’ It provides for peaceful uses of the Moon and prohibits ‘any threat or use of force or any other hostile act or threat of hostile act on the Moon’. More important, ‘the establishment of military bases, installation and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on the Moon shall be forbidden’ (See Article 3, paragraphs (1), (2), and (4).

Again, as provided in UNGA Resolution 1962 (XVIII), entitled “Declaration of Legal Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space,” which was unanimously adopted on 13 December, 1963, the ‘exploration and use of outer space should be carried on for the benefit of all peoples irrespective of the degree of their economic or scientific development’ (see the Preamble and Article 1). While Article II prohibits national appropriation by claim of sovereignty or by means of use or occupation, or by any other means, Article IV clearly outlaws the use of the outer space for war purposes.

As provided, ‘States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.’ And more prohibitively, Article IV stipulates further that ‘the Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military manoeuvres on celestial bodies shall be forbidden.’ Additionally, UN Resolution 1884(XVIII) has also asked all ‘States to refrain from placing in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction or from installing such weapons on celestial bodies.’

From the foregoing, legal prohibitions on the use of the outer space for belligerent purposes abound. The use of the outer space for scientific, developmental, and peaceful purposes is not forbidden, it is what is generally provided for. What is prohibited is any exploration and use of the outer space for belligerent intentions. Most unexpectedly, however, it is the United States, the presumed and expected leading guarantor of global peace and security that is now leading in the violation of international law. The deployment into the outer space of U.S. Control Weapons is a flagrant violation of the Treaty on the Outer Space.

Revisiting Nigeria’s Outer Space Programme?

It is against the foregoing background that there is the need to investigate the need to revisit Nigeria’s Outer Space Programme. Explained differently, if we admit that the U.S. has flagrantly violated international law, but has ensured the protection of the national interest by so doing, what lesson should Nigeria learn from this example? This question is necessary because it is clearly stated in Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution that respect for international law and treaty obligation is one of Nigeria’s foreign policy objectives. Why should Nigeria respect a treaty obligation in the spirit of pacta sunt servanda when other countries are not respecting it?

The implication of U.S. disregard for international law is that its international responsibility can be called to question and this will be in consonance with the provision of Article VI of the Treaty, which stipulates that ‘States Parties to the treaty shall bear international responsibility for national activities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, whether such activities are carried on by government agencies or by non-governmental entities, and for assuring that national activities are carried out in conformity with the provisions set forth in the present Treaty…’

And by further inquiry and implication, should other sovereign states follow the example of the United States? What future is there for international law if joint violations of the rule of law are encouraged? Should the respect of international law be for one set of states?

As much as we admit that weaponising of the outer space by the U.S. appears to be consistent with President Trump’s dream of a ‘Golden Dome’ defence system, why should any country, like Nigeria, accept to sacrifice her own national interests at the altar of respect for international law while other states care less for the rule of law?

And true enough again, the U.S. has hundreds of satellites used for surveillance and communication in the space. It was against the background of the need to protect its assets that the U.S. Space Force was established in 2019 with the mandate to protect the U.S. assets. If the national interest takes priority in the U.S. why is it wrong for any other country to also insist on the protection of its own national interest? What makes Iran and North Korea wrong in seeking to acquire nuclear capability by all means? And perhaps more disturbingly, if the acquisition of nuclear capability is already considered too risky for the maintenance of international security, why is the U.S. developing more sophisticated weapons? Why carry nuclear politics to the outer-space? It is at this juncture that investigating the place of Africa in all these strategic calculations and revisiting Nigeria’s outer space programme have become a desideratum.

The hypothetical take-off is that America, or more precisely, the United States, is gradually travelling on a boulevard of irreversible decline, regardless of its claim to the deployment of on orbit space control weapons. President Trump is making efforts tooth and nail to make Americans believe that they are still second to none. He never told them that MAGA is actually attracting more enemies for the good people of America. If truth be told, American declining status is directly and indirectly impacting on Africa in different ways, especially at the level of indecision. In fact, African scholars, particularly in Nigeria, are showing great concerns about the likely implications of President Donald Trump’s policy of ‘Make America Great Again’ by coercion.

Professor Jean-Baptiste Duroselle, of the University of Paris-Sorbonne, argued more than two decade ago that ‘Tout Empire Périra,’ meaning that ‘Every empire shall Perish.’ Tout Empire Périra’ is actually the title of one of his major publications after his Histoire Diplomatique from 1919. The book has posited that every hegemony that has a beginning cannot but also have an end. American power has a beginning and cannot but also have an end. Bsut Americans find it difficult to accept it with decency. Americans easily forget that the world order of balance of power has been thrown into the dustbin of history.

Even the world order of bipolarity that later replaced it at the end of World War II has also similarly been thrown into the garbage of history thanks to the self-effacement of Soviet policies of glasnost and perestroika. As a result of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, bringing the Cold War to an end in 1989, the United States remains the only superpower in international relations (unipolar world). While World War II brought an end to great power politics and ushered in superpower politics, so has the end of the Cold War in 1989 ended bipolarity and ushered in unipolarity. As of today, unipolarity is again under threats as there are new centres of competing power, requiring Nigeria and Africa to adapt.

In Nigeria, no seriousness of purpose has been shown in the development of space technology in spite of the professional competencies that abound. It is on record that Dr. Adigun Ade Abiodun is a Nigerian by ius sanguinis. He was the founder of the African Space Foundation and a registered Professional Engineer with the State of Washington in the U.S. He was a Senior Special Assistant to President Olusegun Okikiola Obasanjo on Space Science and Technology from February 2000 to May 2003. And perhaps more significantly, he was not only a Member of the College of Commissioners for the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), but was also the Chairman of the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOUS) from June 2004 to June 2006.

When Dr. Abiodun was alive, to what extent was he listened to? Internationally, he was respected and listened to. How do we explain Nigeria’s inability to make progress in terms of space technology development when he was in the Public Service of Nigeria? Dr. Abiodun wrote his Chapter 2 on “Space Enterprise and Nigeria’s National Interest,” in Bola A. Akinterinwa, ed., Nigeria’s National Interests in a Globalising World: Further Reflections on Constructive and Beneficial Concentricism, Volume 2 on Foreign Policy Interests in the Innermost Circle, published by Bolytag International Publishers in 2007). Dr. Abiodun belongs to the Socrates school of thought according to which ‘Man must rise above the atmosphere and beyond, for only thus will he fully understand the world in which he lives,’ (vide p. 37 of the book).

Put differently, when Professor Adebisi Arewa emphasized at the thruMYeyes 288th session the point that Nigeria’s problem has nothing to do with lack of professionals, he could not have been more correct. Nigeria’s problem is lack of political will. And without jot of doubt, this lack of interest was further buttressed by another revelation that, earlier in 2026, former Minister of External Affairs, and President of the Academy of International Affairs, Professor Akinwande Bolaji Akinyemi, CFR, similarly drew attention of the Federal Government to the need to consider the need for space technology development in anticipation of the challenges of nuclear rivalry in the outer space. There is nothing to suggest that Government is even looking in the direction of grandeur du Nigeria for which the developkent of space technology programme is required. In Nigeria, election is everything and anything political is said to be fair. This is most unfortunate. How will Africa be affected in the foreseeable future? What future has Africa as Professor Tunde Adeniran may want to ask in his current research on redefining Africa’s future?

From a deductive qualitative methodology, it can be posited that, if the U.S. Airforce Secretary, Troy Meink, had told the Air, Space and Cyber Conference in National Harbor, Maryland, on September 14, 2026 that the United States had deployed space control weapons in Earth’s orbit, the nature and type of the control measures cannot but be nuclearized robotics, especially that they were designed to be an anticipated deterrent and message for both China and Russia. Putting on orbit control weapons that will not be strong enough to deter is bad robotic diplomacy. In other words, the capacity of bombs deployed in the outer space must be stronger than the Little Man deployed in Hiroshima and the Fat Man dropped on Nagasaki. Many problems were identified at the 288th Session by Professor A. Bolaji Akinyemi’s ThruMYeyes. First problematic was being able to deploy on orbit control weapons but not being able to withdraw them if need be. Second is the possibility of a robot escaping from where it is logged up and it cannot be brought back because of lack of control over it? A third issue is who has responsibility to control the weapons in the space? Is it the UN or the US or the coalition of States? Another question is who is trustworthy? Can there be element of trust with Donald Trump’s admission of having sent on orbit space control weapons? Should there not be a national debate on this issue of robotic diplomacy? This was the question given to the Members of the Academy of International Affairs on the platform to begin to investigate by Professor Bolaji Akinyemi.