Australia's Frozen Underbelly
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
AUSTRALIA’S FROZEN UNDERBELLY: WHERE LONG-TERM THREATS MEET GEOPOLITICS Major Julian McMahon JCSP 46 PCEMI 46 Solo Flight Solo Flight Disclaimer Avertissement Opinions expressed remain those of the author and do Les opinons exprimées n’engagent que leurs auteurs not represent Department of National Defence or et ne reflètent aucunement des politiques du Ministère Canadian Forces policy. This paper may not be used de la Défense nationale ou des Forces canadiennes. Ce without written permission. papier ne peut être reproduit sans autorisation écrite. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by © Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, représentée par le the Minister of National Defence, 2020. ministre de la Défense nationale, 2020. CANADIAN FORCES COLLEGE – COLLÈGE DES FORCES CANADIENNES JCSP 46 – PCEMI 46 2019 – 2020 SOLO FLIGHT AUSTRALIA’S FROZEN UNDERBELLY: WHERE LONG-TERM THREATS MEET GEOPOLITICS By Major Julian McMahon “This paper was written by a candidate « La présente étude a été rédigée par un attending the Canadian Forces College stagiaire du Collège des Forces in fulfillment of one of the requirements canadiennes pour satisfaire à l’une des of the Course of Studies. The paper is a exigences du cours. L’étude est un scholastic document, and thus contains document qui se rapporte au cours et facts and opinions which the author contient donc des faits et des opinions alone considered appropriate and que seul l’auteur considère appropriés et correct for the subject. It does not convenables au sujet. Elle ne reflète pas necessarily reflect the policy or the nécessairement la politique ou l’opinion opinion of any agency, including the d’un organisme quelconque, y compris Government of Canada and the le gouvernement du Canada et le Canadian Department of National ministère de la Défense nationale du Defence. This paper may not be Canada. Il est défendu de diffuser, de released, quoted or copied, except with citer ou de reproduire cette étude sans la the express permission of the Canadian permission expresse du ministère de la Department of National Defence.” Défense nationale. » Word Count : 4,673 Nombre de mots : 4.673 AUSTRALIA’S FROZEN UNDERBELLY: WHERE LONG-TERM THREATS MEET GEOPOLITICS INTRODUCTION “Men Wanted: For hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success”.1 Ernest Shackleton’s original call for volunteers to venture down to the Antarctic sums up how the conditions of this distant land were viewed in 1901. Antarctica is still one of the most remote places on earth, and statistically the world’s coldest and driest continent.2 Its isolation from the world has meant that it has no indigenous inhabitants. As the final frontier, Antarctica is a time-capsule for the earth’s carbon emissions, and has biodiversity that has been uncorrupted by many of the pollutants which affect the rest of the world. The limited levels of radio and light pollution produces an excellent environment for monitoring the electromagnetic spectrum and increases the visibility of objects in space.3 This paper will discuss the geopolitical and strategic importance of Antarctica. It will focus on Australia’s strategic partners in the region and how the Australian Defence Force (ADF) can be used to advance Australia’s strategic interests in Antarctica. ANTARCTIC TREATY SYSTEM In the 1960s under the shadow of the Cold War, a critical agreement was struck between nations on how Antarctica should be best managed and preserved. The 1 Nancy Koehn. Ernest Shackleton, Exploring Leadership. New Word City, 2010. 2 David Walton. Antarctica: global science from a frozen continent. Cambridge University Press, 2013. 3 Anne-Marie Brady. "China’s expanding Antarctic interests." Implications for Australia. Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)–Special Report (2017). 1/24 Antarctica Treaty was unique for a number of reasons. Firstly, the requirement to keep below 60 degrees latitude nuclear free was significant. Secondly, the treaty essentially recognised sovereignty in an unorthodox way – anyone that was conducting scientific research in Antarctica had unimpeded access to enter another countries’ territorial claim.4 Legal scholars often argue that it is this aspect of the treaty that make it of limited use, given that a country is not able to enforce the boundaries of their territorial claim. However, it may be this factor that has aided its treaty’s longevity and success.5 As Antarctica has been quarantined for scientific research there is an abundance of untapped living and non-living natural resources. Examples of living resources are krill, whales and seals; and non-living being rare earth minerals, oil and gas. There are one-of-a-kind natural resources such as carbon dioxide emissions trapped in the ice – these provide millions of years of climate change records.6 It is the remoteness of Antarctica, and its heavily restricted operating environment that have made it so valuable for scientific research. The non-nuclear aspect of the Antarctic Treaty has several ramifications for the capabilities of major powers, but strongly favours Australia and New Zealand’s policy of being nuclear-free. The importance of a coherent policy regarding nuclear weapons and the required deterrence measures are now more relevant than ever – they remain a true existential threat. The US’ maximum pressure campaign against Iran is a key example of 4 Arthur Watts. International law and the Antarctic treaty system. Vol. 11. Cambridge University Press, 1992. 5 Jacob Reed. "Cold War Treaties in a New World: The Inevitable End of the Outer Space and Antarctic Treaty Systems." Air and Space Law 42, no. 4 (2017): 463-486. 6 Jeffrey McGee. "Framing Australian Antarctic policy: the 20-year Antarctic plan and beyond." Australian Journal of Maritime & Ocean Affairs 9, no. 1 (2017): 25-41. 2/24 a major powers actions to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons.7 The unique nature of the non-nuclear requirements of the Antarctic Treaty cannot be understated. The US has had previous diplomatic issues with New Zealand’s nuclear free policy – which resulted in the infamous incident where New Zealand refused to let a US nuclear powered ship enter its harbour.8 Antarctica’s nuclear free status has enabled it be used as part of the global monitoring system to check for nuclear weapons testing. 9 Contemporary examples of nuclear capabilities gaining primacy include Israel’s unilateral strike to destroy a nuclear site in Syria; the US’ Operation Left of Launch, to destroy North Korea’s nuclear missile delivery mechanisms; and Operation Olympic Games, a joint Israel, US cyber operation to disrupt Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. It is not just rogue states that have brought relevance to this topic, China and Russia’s development of advanced delivery systems such as hypersonic rockets were the catalyst for the US’ departure from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty.10 Furthermore, the US’ withdrawal from the Nuclear Deal with Iran, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was a significant development.11 For Australia, the Antarctic Treaty’s prohibition of nuclear technology provides it an offset to the major powers’ capabilities of nuclear-powered submarines and ice-breakers. Notably, these capabilities when operating in the Northern hemisphere, in environments such as the Arctic, afford major powers significant advantages. 7 Kenneth Katzman. "Iran: Internal politics and US policy and options." Congressional Report. Congressional Research Service (2019). 8 Sam Bateman. "Coming back to the US fold: New Zealand defence and security policies." (2010). 9 Masa-Yuki Yamamoto. "Infrasonic waves in Antarctica: a new proxy for monitoring polar environment." (2013). 10 Kingston Reif. "Trump to Withdraw US from INF Treaty." Arms Control Today 48, no. 9 (2018): 23-24. 11 Paul Kerr. "Iran Nuclear Agreement and US Exit." Congressional Research Service, [Library of Congress], 2018. 3/24 The Antarctic Treaty started with twelve members: Australia, Argentina, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Soviet Union, South Africa, US and United Kingdom. The total involvement today consists of 54 signatories and 29 consultative parties. A key difference to the Arctic is Antarctica’s ice sits on a sizeable land mass – this has led to territorial claims, some of which are overlapping and still unresolved. This land mass creates the possibility of future mining opportunities. If you look at the proximity of countries such as South Africa, South America, New Zealand and Australia it is evident why it is in their strategic interest to have territorial claims. The largest of the claims is Australia’s with 42%. The signatories to the Antarctic Treaty meet once annually. Recently the proposal for areas in eastern Antarctica to become a marine sanctuary was not supported by Russia or China.12 The frustration of many nations is that the focus of operating in the Antarctica should be for scientific research and not political advantage. Perhaps a new era of increased competition has begun. The current situation in Antarctica cannot be understood without a contemporary understanding of the geopolitical considerations of the major stakeholders involved. It is this interplay of competing priorities and geopolitical strategic decisions that manifests itself in Antarctica. There is an argument that territorial claims for future resource extraction in Antarctica