The politics around a decision like this are fascinating. I assume they've already paid in part or in full for the launch, and regardless, they did R&D on a satellite which is itself an asset that is now difficult to return to the owner!
You used "they" a couple times in that comment and it is important to question who "they" is given the political environment in Myanmar. Is the "they" that paid for the satellite and did the R&D the same "they" that who would be controlling the satellite? If not, would the new "they" use the capabilities of this satellite in a nefarious way?
In context of this satellite, they is the MAEU (Myanmar Aerospace Engineering University) and the reason the satellite is being held is because apparently JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) can't reach the rector of the MAEU to make sure what the satellite would be used for.
So, all in all, Japan is being careful and the situation in Myanmar is "undetermined". I think it is questionable where the "spying concern" is coming from, aside from being clickbait.
>Officials at JAXA could not be reached for comment. MAEU did not respond to calls seeking comment, nor did a spokesman for Myanmar’s junta.
It could be used for spying, because it's a satellite with cameras. If it has the capabilities to be used for spying is unclear, all the data would go through Japan anyway. Japan does not want to comment on it, persons responsible at MAEU are in prison or in hiding and the junta would probably lie anyway.
Maybe I am underestimating them, but I feel like the more likely scenario is a government and it's agencies in disarray. Would the new governing entity even know or care about that particular project right now?
“Spying” looks like editorial click bait. It isn’t even mentioned in the article. The concern I think is domestic use to commit genocide against their own people.
> “We won’t get involved in anything that has to do with the military. The satellite was not designed for that,” one of the officials, a manager of the project, told Reuters, asking not to be identified.
I dare you to find a quote by anyone familiar with the satellite citing military use.
He said it right there. If it has no possible military use, why did he even mention the military?
Nice bit of goal post rearrangement there, given an explicit direct quote in the article stating the satellite could have military applications. On what basis do you assert that Human Rights Watch are not capable of assessing the satellites capabilities and possible uses?
>He said it right there. If it has no possible military use, why did he even mention the military?
How do you get "the satellite could have military applications" from "The satellite was not designed for that"?
>On what basis do you assert that Human Rights Watch are not capable of assessing the satellites capabilities and possible uses?
You mean aside from "We won’t get involved in anything that has to do with the military. The satellite was not designed for that"? Why do you think the HRW has any capability to assess the possible applications of a satellite? Nothing on the HRW website either...
Yes, use by the military to continue committing genocide against their own people. “Spying” in geopolitical context usually means use against other countries.
Something similar happened with the US and Iran. The Shah paid for military fighter jets, but then the Islamist theocracy took over. So the US froze the money and obviously wasn't going to deliver the jets to a USSR supported regime. The question of property legitimacy after a revolution is a recurring one throughout history.
Concepts like legality have much less meaning between countries. It's not like there is a court where Myanmar can sue if it wants their satellite back. At this level, the ultimate recourse is declaring war and reclaiming it by force but we all know how that would turn out.
Diplomacy is a critical function of any government due to what you're saying, and IMO this could be a consequence of Myanmar neglecting that reality (for a myriad of valid and invalid reasons, I don't know enough about the current situation to speak with any intelligence about it).
Not all international disagreements are disagreements between sovereign nations themselves. It's possible that MAEU could sue JAXA or Hokkaido University in a Japanese court if they think they're violating Japanese law.
If that's not the case, or if the Diet passes a new law that protects their countrymen in this dispute, then yeah it becomes the type of conflict you describe.
The WTO has been effectively out of order these past years as the US has blocked the appointment of new judges to the appeals court.
It's supposed to have seven judges, a minimum of three judges are required to issue rulings, but since 2019 there are only two judges left [0]
So any ruling the WTO main body makes, like for example declaring US tariffs on China illegal [1], only needs to be appealed to be stuck in procedural limbo, which is exactly what ended up happening with the WTO ruling on US tariffs [2]
Also, the Japanese government and individual national universities, including Hokkaido University [1, in Japanese], have regulations on the export of technology that can be used for military purposes. I work at another national university in Japan, and there has been a lot of internal debate, with political overtones, about how strictly those regulations should be enforced and how to deal with technology that has both military and civilian applications. I can easily imagine the researchers at Hokkaido University deciding that the military coup in Myanmar meant that deploying the satellite would run the risk of violating the rules of either their own university or the Japanese government.
Mistral class helicopter carrier, payed by Russia, built in France, delivered to Egypt instead due to the War in Donbass. France had to compensate Russia.
