In 1959, twelve countries that have territorial sovereignty claims over Antarctica signed a unique treaty, The Antarctic Treaty, on the basis that “it is in the interests of mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord”.
Of the twelve original signatories of the Treaty there are five in the Global South (Argentina, Australia, Chile, New Zealand and South Africa), three are medium powers of which two are in Europe (Belgium and Norway) and one in Asia (Japan), and four are veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council (USA, UK, France and Russia). Moreover seven of the 12 signatories are also claiming sovereignty over (mostly) overlapping territories in Antarctica (Argentina, Australia, Chile, New Zealand, France, Norway, and the United Kingdom). The United States and Russia reserved their right to make territorial claims in the future. The treaty provided for a freezing of sovereignty claims for the twelve signatories, the demilitarization and denuclearization of the continent and the control over the exploitation of natural resources in the region. The emerging Antarctic Treaty System therefore is an instrument that a**ists in the promotion of peace, stability and disarmament but it is not widely known.
When the treaty was signed in 1959, following the International Polar Year 1958, most of the regional structures that have a stake in global peace and stability had not been created such as the AU, ASEAN, the EU, and regional organizations such as SADC and MERCOSUR. The context of international relations in 1959 is entirely different from that of 2008 and the technologies applicable to 1959 are now eons ahead. The existence of global peace and stability architectures, the new international context and the potential for use of new technologies in the exploration and exploitation of Antarctica’s resources might impact on the manner in which states engage on their Antarctic commitments. For example, for most states, 2009 constitutes the deadline to establish the outer limits of their continental shelf according to the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS). The review of UNCLOS in 2008 is taken by some as also impacting the Antarctic Treaty, which is not the case; nevertheless, confusion in the international public opinion is rife in this respect. A second issue that is at the heart of the contemporary global preoccupation is the relationship between global warming and Antarctica. This link is not widely understood either and also needs to be brought to the public attention.
As it currently stands, none can be sure of what the review of the treaty will mean for Antarctica as a military-free zone. It is the only continent on this planet that is free of guns, military and defence, and it was declared a nuclear free zone. Any and all research conducted on this continent is purely scientific and for the advancement of humanity. The problem that will arise and has started to rear its head is that countries have realised the economic viability of Antarctica, as like the Arctic, it has abundant natural resources - gas and oil mainly. This as we have come to know, is one of the main reasons for discord among states. Currently Argentina and Chile, old rivals, have gone to a point of declaring war as they are the closest to Antarctica, meaning that their continental shelves could be shared with Antarctica. Countries are secretly staking their claims to Antarctica, with the two world powers, Russia and the USA, reserving their rights to claim. The Cold War kept these parties at bay back in 1959 - what is there to stop them now?
