ONLINE CURRENTS VOL3 - Flipbook - Page 20
Perhaps most insidiously, military activity on the continent lends toward the idea of conflict in
the region, rather than conservation and consensus. The need for command and control
between states remains the underlying priority, while sitting comfortably within the
prerequisite of Antarctic jurisdictions. Dr Alan Hemmings,a specialist on Antarctic
governance, reflected on this through the interesting question “why did we get an
International Space Station before an International Antarctic Station?”. 46 Such statements
point towards the hindrance of unspoken land claims, which does little to encourage
progressive custodianship and global vision for Antarctica.
The extent for which political posturing pressurizes the legislative capabilities of the treaty
continues to increase as global crises heighten. In particular, there are new calls to adopt
modernized measures to the now 25-year old Madrid protocol to ensure a future without
mining on the southern continent. The protocol prohibits commercial exploration below 60°
South latitude (everything below the tip of the Antarctic peninsula), which has left Antarctica
almost entirely untapped area for mining. Only almost, as the scientific liberties of protocol
allow mining for research purposes. This has lead to historical mapping of mineral and oil
deposits in Antarctica, which are now well-established within states 47, prioritizing the need for
states to maintain (or increase) influence and access to resources. So in the event of the
Madrid Protocol’s collapse, or more likely inevitable expiration, the starter pistol will fire the
Antarctic mining race into action, placing certain states with a head start and likely winners.
And ultimately, leaving conservation priorities last in the pecking order.
It becomes difficult to not imagine a fate for Antarctica where nation racing is no longer the
precedent. Although the Antarctic Treaty system has provided optimism that international
20
