Peace and Science

Antarctica is often celebrated as a continent of peace and science. All “measures of a military nature” are prohibited by the Antarctic Treaty signed in 1959 and ratified on 23 June 1961. Despite its demilitarised status under the treaty, speculation remains rife about the future use of Antarctica, including whether the continent may become a catalyst for military conflict between global powers. Tom Lord from Canterbury University and Patrick Flamm from the Peace Research Institute Frankfurt (PRIF) found that conversations about Antarctic security and potential militarisation appear to have increased in recent years, both in frequency and in salience.

At a Turning Point?

The continent has generated many provocative headlines, including, for example, in The Economist, “Intrigue, greed and hostility burn in the Antarctic”, in The Atlantic: “The Countries Taking Advantage of Antarctica During the Pandemic”, or in The Independent: “Geopolitics threatens Antarctica’s future as a peaceful hub for science”. This echoes within parliamentary chambers of key Antarctic nations. In a 2023 discussion in the Australian Senate about spending cuts to the nation’s Antarctic Division, one senator from Tasmania, the state hosting the Australian national Antarctic programme, argued: “Not only does it threaten jobs and very important science that happens there; let’s talk about national security, shall we? Listen to this, Tasmanians: China’s on our tail; here it comes!” 

The Wider Implications

Traditionally, Antarctic security concerns have revolved around two issues. First, the potential dual use of Antarctic facilities, meaning to conduct research or testing of systems that may be of military value, or the potential use of Antarctic facilities for military purposes in a conflict outside of the Antarctic region. Those concerned about such developments often point to the expansion of Chinese and Russian Antarctic facilities and activities, and in particular the relationship between Antarctic facilities and military-utility space-based infrastructure.

Mere Security Spectres?

While it is technically possible for dual-use technology to be used in Antarctica, there have been questions around their use case. Claire Young from Australia’s Lowy Institute argues that using Antarctic ground facilities to support China’s space infrastructure would be of little benefit, particularly given the number of ground facilities in other regions of the world and increasing capabilities with satellite-to-satellite relay. Furthermore, the spirit and letter of the Antarctic Treaty provides a framework for facility inspections to ensure compliance with the demilitarization provisions of the Antarctic Treaty. Inspections of Antarctic facilities, so far, have not identified any activities contravening the Antarctic Treaty.

Ripple-On Effects of Treaty Potential Modification

There have been fears that, in the event of substantial modification or even collapse of the Antarctic Treaty or its related agreements (including its Environmental Protocol, which prohibits commercial mining indefinitely), Antarctica would be subjected to a scramble for territorial control and resource rights. This can have the further potential to lead to a militarisation of the continent. In this context, states’ Antarctic activities and investment in infrastructure such as civilian research stations are often suspiciously viewed as attempts to secure future access to resources on the continent.

Antarctica Seems Isolated From Global Conflicts

Given the geographic isolation of Antarctica, the current suspension of territorial claims, and the absence of offensive military hardware in the region, the conditions that give rise to crises elsewhere on the globe are all substantively absent from the continent. There is, for example, an absence of a permanent population, no escalation due to misinterpretation of an adversary’s actions, no violations of sovereign airspace, or other issues that occasionally lead to armed conflicts in other parts of the world.

This does not imply that there are no challenges or tension in Antarctic diplomacy. Today, the Antarctic is increasingly a contested space, similar to the conditions of the 1980s during the build-up to the planned but ultimately abandoned mining convention. While such open contestation of norms and goals is a departure from the de-politicised, technical nature of Antarctic management, it does not necessarily indicate weakness or the imminent collapse of the regime or the risk of militarisation.

Beyond Security Spectres and Lawfare

The most recent example for a contestation of norms and policies occurred at the October 2024 meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Not only was there no progress on new Marine Protected Areas in the Southern Ocean after many years of failure, but obstructionist behaviour by Russia and China meant that a long-running key measure for a precautionary krill fishery lapsed. Australian Antarctic expert Tony Press used the term “lawfare” to describe China’s more assertive behaviour in Antarctic diplomacy, a concept that usually denotes the misuse of legal norms to damage, discredit, or otherwise disadvantage an adversary.

A Rising Power

Tom Lord and Patrick Flamm from PRIF assess that while Chinese behaviour may be frustrating for Western diplomats, China might merely contest the interpretation of the rules according to its interests. China has not openly broken or disregarded any rules around the ATS. After a “century of humiliation” at the hands of Western imperialism where China was forced to follow the rules of others, Beijing’s ambition in international affairs has been to become a rule-maker itself. The ATS is no exception here, and so the question is how to accommodate this new great power within existing governance arrangements, while preserving the non-militarized status and existing environmental protections of Antarctica.

States, Their Self-Interest, and Peace

At present, the ATS confers on all parties significant benefits aligned with their national interests. Most notably, those are a peaceful, stable continent, access to undertake scientific research, and significant and exclusive political authority in Antarctic affairs, from which outside rivalries and conflicts have been largely kept away. It is worth noting that while geopolitics has never been entirely absent from Antarctica, major points of international contention – territorial claims, militarization, resource use, and environmental protection – have been skilfully mitigated and managed within the framework of the ATS.