Recent documents from a U.K. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committe have revealed that Russian geologists had found massive oil reserves within the waters of the British Antarctic Territory in the Wedell Sea region. When I visited this region in November 2022, the sea ice measurements had confirmed rapid thinning and easier maritime access. The Russians have not been vocal about any specific projects, but resource exploration forays could be a threat to The Antarctic Treaty System. This treaty system has been a remarkable example of international scientific collaboration which has thus far trumped the impulse for states exercising their territorial claims through force. However, given the current state of geopolitics, there could be an erosion of this solidarity for science in the Antarctic.
The continent’s mineral wealth could be more accessible and permanent habitation more affordable to establish for those seven countries that claim territory in Antarctica. Notably, Chile and Argentina already have permanent settlements with schools for children at their bases as part of their claim to territory in Antarctica. The recent revelation about Russian oil forays prompted Chile to alert its defense forces and hold a security meeting at their Antarctic base as a show of strength and claim. On the other hand, the climate crisis could also motivate parties to the Antarctic treaty (which include Russia and Ukraine as well) to remain steadfast in scientific collaboration and conservation regardless of domestic political interests.
Perhaps the most apocalyptic scenarios around the global impact of climate change pertain to the melting of the Antarctic ice sheet. The continent of superlatives that is often labeled as the coldest, windiest, driest but also “wettest” land mass on Earth, contains over 70% of the planet’s freshwater in its mammoth ice cap. Although the most recent detailed models of Antarctic hydrology and climate change impacts, going up to the year 2350, do not envisage a complete melting, there are major concerns from even a modest change in ice cover (specially of the East Antarctic ice sheet) and its impact on precipitation patterns.
The Vernadsky base on the Antarctic peninsula provides an intriguing legacy that could provide further linkage between science and contemporary conflicts. It was one of the bases where the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole was first researched and led to the only international environmental treaty ratified by all UN member states and affiliated entities to protect the planet from harmful ultraviolet radiation. Originally a British base, it was handed over to the Ukrainian government in 1996. They chose to name it after one of the leading figures of modern systems ecology — Vladmir Vernadsky, who was among the first thinkers to suggest the notion of a “biosphere.” Vernadsky is revered as a scientist both in Russia and in Ukraine as he believed in a dual and symbiotic identity for both cultures. Perhaps this base in his honor can once again revitalize science diplomacy between both parties.
As a recent essay in the digital magazine Aeon noted, Antarctica presents humanity with a paradox — we have regimes to protect it directly from impact but some of the most consequential impacts on the continent as well as what it could unleash on the rest of the planet come from our individual actions on carbon emissions far from the continent. The Antarctic is at once a vitally important and equally vulnerable location which we hope to bring closer to our communities of practice in business and academia to enhance action at home. Political scholar of the Antarctic, Daniela Legett, warned us in an important essay almost a decade ago, that the Antarctic treaty system remains fragile, despite its success thus far.
Despite the aforementioned seven claimant nations, vast parts of the continent are still “unclaimed” by any country. The largest such territory in the world where no country claims sovereignty is in a region called Marie Byrd land in Western Antarctica. At one point the former Malaysian leader Mahathir Muhammad suggested to the United Nations that the continent should be accessible to developing countries rather than being a playground for elite scientists from rich countries. He suggested possible claims there for the Global South through the United Nations. The current Antarctic Treaty system is outside the purview of the United Nations and perhaps there should be consideration given to bringing Antarctica within some form of multilateral trusteeship.
Russia is of course an important member of Antarctic Treaty system with major research bases on the continent as well. Data sharing is essential for success of Antarctic science, and it is clearly under threat. While Russia may benefit from some aspects of climate change in terms of longer growing seasons, there is also strong evidence to suggest that the country is ill-prepared for the negative consequences. The international community should use the Antarctic Treaty System to engage with Russia as a non-claimant country thus far (quite unlike the Arctic where it has the largest coastal territory). The benefits of scientific cooperation on the Antarctic thus have more potential for traction with Russia.
The United States has an opportunity to use Antarctica as a way of championing multilateralism at a time when it is increasingly isolated with its foreign policy decisions. A positive sign that this prospect is registering with the White House is the publication of a “National Security Memorandum” issued on May 17th of this year which notes that the United States would “continue to lead international cooperative efforts through the Antarctic Treaty System.” It is high time we pay attention to this proverbial Terra Incognita to ensure that one of humanity’s greatest successes in science diplomacy does not fall prey to ravenous resource scrambles.
