3/19/13 WPR Article | Diplomatic Chill: Politics Trumps Science in Antarctic Treaty System Home Daily Briefings Columns Trend Lines In Depth Features Reports Media Roundup News Opinion Leading Indicators Login Newsletters About Search WPR search Browse Select an author Select a region Select an issue Home Daily Features Diplomatic Chill: Politics Trumps Science in Antarctic Treaty System By Anne-Marie Brady, on 19 Mar 2013, Feature Login to Discuss Email Print Republish www.worldpoliticsreview.com//articles/12802/diplomatic-chill-politics-trumps-science-in-antarctic-treaty-system#.UUjVLKZcXuY.facebook 1/8 3/19/13 WPR Article | Diplomatic Chill: Politics Trumps Science in Antarctic Treaty System Share 2 Like 1 Tweet 0 There are two ways to get this Kindle file: 1. Download the Kindle file (.mobi) directly to your computer. If you choose this option, you can use the Send to Kindle app to send the file to your Kindle device or application. 2. Send the file directly to your @Kindle.com email address. To use this option, you must set your @Kindle.com address on our preferences page. × Tension is rapidly accelerating in Antarctic affairs on a range of issues, all of them relating to sovereignty and resources. The tensions include disputes over proposals for new marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean; renewed friction between the U.K. and Argentina over their overlapping claims in Antarctica; significant numbers of countries expressing an interest in exploring Antarctic minerals, despite a ban on mineral extraction; increasing numbers of states trying to expand their Antarctic presence, signaling both heightened interests and insecurities over Antarctica’s current governance structure; and escalating conflict between anti-whaling groups and the Japanese government over whaling in the Southern Ocean. Combined, these tensions are putting increased pressure on the Antarctic Treaty and a body of subsequent international agreements known collectively as the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) that have governed the Antarctic continent and Southern Ocean since 1961. At the time it was drafted, the treaty represented an innovative approach to defusing potential tensions over sovereignty arising in Antarctica. Seven states claim Antarctic territories; the treaty permits them to maintain those claims, though not to extend them, while also permitting other countries to ignore the claims and to regard Antarctica as an international space. The groundwork for putting together the Antarctic Treaty was forged during the 1957-1958 International Geophysical Year, which launched a program of international scientific collaboration and saw national-based programs stepping up their investment in polar research. Drawing on that background, the treaty states that Antarctica “should not become the scene or object of international discord” and highlights “freedom of scientific investigation” as a key activity on the continent. From the scientists’ point of view, Antarctica is a perfect laboratory for many areas of scientific research. But from the politicians’ perspective, investing in Antarctic science is a means to signal presence and influence Antarctic decision-making. www.worldpoliticsreview.com//articles/12802/diplomatic-chill-politics-trumps-science-in-antarctic-treaty-system#.UUjVLKZcXuY.facebook 2/8 3/19/13 WPR Article | Diplomatic Chill: Politics Trumps Science in Antarctic Treaty System In addition to the Antarctic Treaty, a number of other international instruments also govern Antarctic affairs, such as the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Fifty states have signed the Antarctic Treaty, but only 28 -- the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties (ATCPs) -- actually have a say in how the continent is governed. The 22 non-ATCP states within the treaty are effectively “second-class citizens” with no rights other than to observe meetings. The number of signatories to the treaty and the level of activity in Antarctica have been fairly static since the signing in 1991 of the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, also known as the Madrid Protocol, which came into force in 1998. Among other things, the protocol placed a ban on Antarctic mineral exploitation. But in the past two years, two new states, Malaysia and Pakistan, have signed the treaty; Iran has announced its plans to set up an Antarctic base, though it has not yet said whether it will sign the treaty; a rush of new bases have been announced by various ATCPs; and China, South Korea, the United States and Australia, among others, have significantly increased their Antarctic budgets. Meanwhile, global environmental groups are lobbying governments and attempting to sway public opinion to preserve and extend environmental management in Antarctica. Their concern is not unwarranted. China, South Korea, Russia, India, Belarus and Iran have all expressed an interest in assessing Antarctic mineral resources; China has taken up significant fishing rights in the Southern Ocean; and Japan has stated that “food security” necessitates its continued whale hunt in the Southern Ocean. The decline of global oil stocks and heightened food security concerns are reawakening global interest in the Antarctic continent and its oceans. Yet with their unwieldy structure, the treaty and its associated instruments appear inadequate to deal with the many new challenges. The Antarctic Treaty was a product of the Cold War, designed to keep the conflict between the U.S. and the Soviet Union and their respective allies out of the Antarctic region. It succeeded in that regard, but now, two decades after the end of the Cold War, the Antarctic Treaty looks like an antiquated gentleman’s agreement desperately in need of reform. Poorer countries are effectively excluded from Antarctic governance because only those nations with recognized Antarctic interests, whether as original claimant states or through established Antarctic scientific research programs, may become ATCPs. The limitations on which states can have a say on Antarctic affairs undermines the political legitimacy of the treaty, which, as with any international instrument, will be measured by the number of states that sign up to it -- and the extent to which signatories respect its principles. The ATCPs are an exclusive group of states with the resources and scientific infrastructure needed to conduct Antarctic science. National Antarctic bases are in turn a way to signal presence, which could be a key basis for any future ownership claims if Antarctic mineral resources were ever to be divvied up. In 2048, the Madrid Protocol can once again be reviewed by the ATCPs. This review is not automatic -- one of the ATCPs must request it. But judging from the recent behavior patterns of some Antarctic states, finding a government willing to put forward the motion should not be difficult. Many oil-poor states and those that lack guaranteed access to oil through their allies regard Antarctica’s mineral resources as a potential solution to their medium-term energy needs. But before the ban can be lifted, a comprehensive minerals treaty would have to be in place. This is why environmental groups are already building campaigns aimed at mobilizing global public opinion to support a continuation of the ban on mineral exploitation in Antarctica. It is also why countries, such as China, that are interested in the potential of Antarctic minerals are now engaging in the strategic planning and research that will help construct a new instrument of global governance. www.worldpoliticsreview.com//articles/12802/diplomatic-chill-politics-trumps-science-in-antarctic-treaty-system#.UUjVLKZcXuY.facebook 3/8 3/19/13 WPR Article | Diplomatic Chill: Politics Trumps Science in Antarctic Treaty System One thing is certain: Antarctica is rich in mineral resources. In a series of reports and maps published in the 1980s, a team of international researchers working with the U.S. Geological Survey divided the Antarctic continent into three major geologic zones: the Andean metallogenic province, which contains mainly copper, platinum, gold, silver, chromium, nickel, diamonds and other minerals; the Trans-Antarctic metallogenic province, which contains what may be the world’s largest deposit of coal, plus copper, lead, zinc, gold, silver, tin and other minerals; and the East Antarctic iron metallogenic province, which contains significant amounts of iron ore, as well as gold, silver, copper, uranium and molybdenum. The key locations likely to have oil and natural gas deposits were identified as the Ross Sea, Weddell Sea, Amundsen Sea and the Bellingshausen Sea, with the Ross and Weddell Seas likely to have significant supplies. Due to economic, engineering and -- after 1998, when the Madrid Protocol came into force -- environmental and political constraints, this earlier research did not progress much further until recently. Last year, however, China’s annual Antarctic expedition included geologists investigating petroleum deposits in the Weddell Sea. South Korea has been engaged in similar research for a number of years. And as noted, other states have expressed an interest in doing the same. In January 2012, China announced it planned to set up a new coastal base in the Ross Sea region of Antarctica. Some critics of the treaty say that Antarctica should be run by the United Nations. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, for instance, Malaysia, supported by many other developing countries, unsuccessfully raised