A Very Cold War of the 21st Century: Whaling and the issue of international recognition of the Australian Antarctic Territories

The issue of whaling in the Southern Ocean has once again sparked a series of diplomatic tiffs between Australia/New Zealand and Japan. At play are a series of complex international legal arguments, as well as the issue of international recognition of the ownership of Antarctica. Whilst these clashes over whaling seem to be minor diplomatic stoushes, the long term consequence, especially as it intersects with the issue of territoriality and sovereignty, could result in the opening of Pandora’s box not just in the Southern Ocean, but a conflict that encompasses a multitude of nations over the ownership of the continent of Antarctica.

The emergence of an international response to commercial whaling

Commercial whaling had been a part of the Australian economy since the early days. By the 1970s, pressure from wildlife conservation groups resulted in the Australian Fraser Government inquiry into the issue in 1977. In 1980 the Australian Fraser Government banned whaling within Australia's fishing zone. It was not long before there was a general global movement initiated and led by the West to ban commercial whaling around the world. Of the various whaling nations, Japan’s whale hunt programme is by far the largest. Since the enforcement of the moratorium on commercial whaling by the International Whaling Commission in 1986, Japan has adopted the strategy of claiming that the whales it kills are for scientific research, thus bypassing the moratorium. Japan’s argument is weakened severely due to the harvesting of the whale meat for commercial consumption, and the public marketing campaigns conducted in Japan encouraging the consumption of whale meat.

The yearly ritual of anti-Whaling protesters clashing with Japanese whalers seems to get more heated every year. In January 2009, two anti-whaling activists who illegally boarded the whaling ship the Yushin Maru No. 2 were captured and held hostage by the Japanese crew. They were tied to the ship’s rails in full view of cameras. The prisoners, Australian citizen Benjamin Potts and British citizen Giles Lane of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society were eventually handed to Australian authorities through the cooperation of the Japanese government.

In January 2010, the $2 million activist boat, the Ady Gil was rammed by a Japanese whaling ship Shonan Maru No. 2 and sunk whilst being towed by Sea Shepherd. Immediately after the ramming, the Japanese used high pressure hoses to attack the crew of the Ady Gil who were trying to save themselves.

Territorial claims in Antarctica

Superimposed on this emotive issue is the issue of territorial claims on Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty deals with international relations as it pertains to Antarctica, the only continent in the world without an indigenous human settlement. Long viewed as a potential source of great mineral and resource riches, Antarctica’s isolation and its extreme environmental conditions meant that the continent was relatively protected from exploitation so far. However, several growing factors will begin to add pressure to the general protection of Antarctica from exploitation as spelled out by the Antarctic Treaty. These factors are often overlapping and add great complexity to the issue of Antactica. They include:
1. Nationalism, sovereignty and international law
2. Resource scarcity and increasing commodity prices
3. Emergence of China and India as economic, political and military powers
4. Islamic nationalism and re-emergence of Russia
5. US and Russian claims
6. Advances in technology and transport facilitating easier access to Antarctica
7. Emergence of biotechnology
8. Depletion of world fish stocks

Nationalism, sovereignty and international law: The Antarctic Treaty

It is a common misconception that the Antarctic treaty brought with it certainty and clarity in terms of territorial governance of Antarctica. Unfortunately this is far from the case.

With the ratification of the Antarctic Treaty in June 1961, the governments of Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, the French Republic, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, the Union of South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the United States of America all agreed that Antarctica should only be used for peaceful and scientific purposes, and that any measure of a military measure be prohibited. The treaty outlines the rules of international relations as it pertains to the signatories and their activities and territory claims in Antarctica. The Antarctic Treaty has since been acceded to by many other nations. The total number of Parties to the Treaty is now 47.

Seven countries - Australia, Chile, Norway, the United Kingdom, Argentina, France and New Zealand had made eight sometimes overlapping territorial claims to land in Antarctica below the 60° S parallel before 1961. These claims have been recognized only between the countries making claims. Other countries do not recognize any claims. To complicate matters the US and Russia maintain a “basis of claim” and reserve the right to make future claims if they wish. All positions are explicitly protected in Article IV, which preserves the status quo: It is commonly thought that the Antarctic Treaty defers or suspends these claims. This is incorrect. Article IV of the treaty merely specifies that previously asserted claims are not affected by the treaty and it does not suspend or invalidate claims made previously.

In addition, territorial claims below the 60° S parallel have only been recognised among those countries making claims in the area. It is usual for claims to be indicated on maps of Antarctica. However, this does not signify de jure recognition.

The Antarctic Treaty Secretariat

From 1961 until 2004, The Antarctic Treaty operated without any continuing institution. This changed on the 1st of September 2004, when the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat was established and based in Buenos Aires.
Under direction of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting (ATCM), the Secretariat carries out the tasks specified in Measure 1 (2003), which can be summarized under the following headings:
• Supporting the annual ATCM and the meeting of the Committee for Environmental Protection (CEP).
• Facilitating the exchange of information between the Parties required in the Treaty and the Environment Protocol.
• Collecting, storing, archiving and making available the documents of the ATCM.
• Providing and disseminating information about the Antarctic Treaty system and Antarctic activities.

Resource scarcity and increasing commodity prices: the impact of Biotechnology

An emerging issue faced by the ATCM is the advent of biotechnology. Biological prospecting has become a lucrative business around the world. In recent years the ATCM has discussed issues arising from biological prospecting in Antarctica. The isolation or Antarctica and its extreme weather conditions mean that many species of flora and fauna and micro-organisms have evolved unique characteristics and capabilities which may be used commercially. The 28th ATCM adopted a resolution calling on the Treaty Parties to remind their national Antarctic programmes and other research institutes engaged in Antarctic biological prospecting activities of the provisions of Article III.1 of the Treaty concerning scientific exchanges and the availability of scientific observations and results from Antarctica.

Tangled with the issue of scientific research is Japan’s principal excuse for maintaining its significant commercial whaling operation in Antarctic waters. As fish stocks are depleted around the world, there is a possibility of other states borrowing from the precedence set by Japan in terms of using scientific research as a cover for commercial activities in fisheries.

The emergence of China and India as economic, political and military powers

The rise of China and to a lesser extent India as an economic superpower has seen rapid increase in the global demand in mineral commodities. As mineral deposits are exhausted around the world, there is every possibility that the stresses caused by the demand will result in temptation to commercially exploit mineral resources in Antarctica. The Protocol for Environmental Protection declares that “Any activity relating to mineral resources other than scientific research shall be prohibited” (Art. 7). According to the Antarctic Treaty Secretariat, although that is the current rule, the Consultative Parties negotiated in the 1970s and 1980s (before the Protocol was adopted) a regime for the exploitation of the mineral resources of Antarctica. This is the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities (CRAMRA), which was signed in Wellington on June 2, 1988.

Islamic nationalism and the re-emergence of Russia

China and India’s ascendency will no doubt have flow on effects on the military balance of power, and will probably trigger a response from the US and Russia in their attempt to secure and maintain their position globally. Russia itself has been undergoing an economic metamorphosis and its re-emergence will in turn fuel further jostling by the big powers. Furthermore a rise in nationalism can be envisaged in China, India and Russia, as has already been happening for a number of years. The volatile rise in theocratic nationalism, principally in the Islamic world will further complicate matters.

It is not unrealistic to envisage the rise of future powerful theocratic dictatorships that have little regard for international diplomacy or consensus building, where there is little respect for the claims of states with different religions and political systems. After all, theocratic states are almost certainly inclined to defy international opinion by deferring to the use of higher powers and divine right to justify their actions.

Resource scarcity and increasing global commodity prices

With nationalism will come greater questioning of the validity of the claimants to Antarctic territory. Coupled with this will be the added pressure resulting from the scarcity of resources and the increases in global commodity prices. As non-renewable resources are depleted, the inevitable price rises will result in ever greater temptation to prospect for and commercially exploit mineral and energy resources in Antarctica.

Whilst the Antarctic Treaty clearly spells out that the continent should not be commercially exploited or militarised whatsoever, the majority of the world’s sovereign states are not signatories to the treaty. There is also nothing stopping member countries from withdrawing from the treaty if their national position is incompatible with the tenets of the Antarctic Treaty.

Advances in technology and transport

When early explorers ventured to Antarctica, the continent was a vast and unknown place. It would have been akin to travelling to a different world. Today, advances in technology and transportation means that travel to Antarctica is no longer a life and death struggle. In fact, tourism is already emerging in its infancy. This is testament to the relative ease of access. With easy access will come greater pressure and greater temptation to commercially exploit resources in Antarctica. Commercial ventures in areas with unclear and contentious ownership have historically attracted militarisation and even armed conflict.

Conclusion

Whilst militarisation and armed conflict is not a logical concept in the Western Liberal paradigm, it is arguable that other cultures and world views may be less disinclined to rule out military action in staking their claims or challenging the claims of others. Potentially, scarcity of resources will lead to the temptation of nationalistic or authoritarian states to alleviate domestic political pressures to ensure the survival of political incumbents; as the adage goes, ‘all politics is local’. This could lead to states resorting to state sanctioned bullying or strong arm tactics and eventually involve punitive action or force being applied by individual states towards helping their nationals to exploit the resources in Antarctica and its surrounding waters.

Whaling and the issue of Antarctic territorial ownership are inextricably linked, even though the two issues are seldom discussed together at the diplomatic levels, not is much attention given to the linkage between the two issues by the media. Perhaps it is timely for more attention to be paid on studying the potential negative interaction between these two issues and the emerging trends previously discussed in this paper. Timely analysis and diplomacy may well reduce the potential for adverse international relations or worse still armed conflict in the last remaining pristine part of the world today.

About ISIS

About ISIS

Paradigm Infinitum's Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) was established in 2008 as an arm of Paradigm Infinitum (a training and consulting firm). ISIS is engaged in a range of activities focusing on objective policy analysis and fostering dialogue and debate within and between the public sector, the private sector, elected representatives, academia and the informed public. This is a way for Paradigm Infinitum to give back to the community, and also to give back to our former participants, by engaging them in issues, and offering coaching and mentoring through our research fellow programme.

Why Become involved in ISIS?

ISIS is engaged in a range of activities focusing on objective policy analysis and fostering dialogue and debate within and between the public sector, the private sector, elected representatives, academia and the informed public. All participants who complete an intensive programme (such as the LEAD Programme) with Paradigm Infinitum are eligible for membership. Participants who complete individual modules are eligible for associate membership.

Membership and Associate Membership is free, and members are encouraged to become involved with ISIS. Members and Associates are also eligible to become Associate Fellows and Fellows by submitting research and analysis to ISIS.

Objectives of ISIS

(1) To undertake research in various and specific fields and conduct analyses of public policies on local, national, regional, international and strategic issues;

(2) To promote general and professional discussions on important national and international issues through seminars, forums, conferences and other activities;

(3) To provide a forum for individuals, experts and intellectuals of various fields for the exchange of views, opinions and research in an unimpeded and conducive environment;

(4) To assist and guide participants to conduct analyses of national, regional, international and strategic issues.

Mission:

Our mission is to analyse and promote the understanding of major international and strategic issues and current affairs in order to contribute to the development of policy and the strengthening of liberal democracy/the betterment of society.

The Institute examines areas such as social policy, military strategy, political strategy, economy, science and technology issues, and corporate and business policies.

Its programmes are directed towards six major areas of interest:
1. Emerging Issues and Strategic Trends.
2. Defence, Security, Trade and Foreign Affairs.
3. Local, National, Regional and International Political Economy.
4. Leadership, Organisational and Community Capacity Building.
5. Social Development, International Understanding and Cooperation.
6. Science, Technology, Industry, Energy and Natural Resources.

ISIS provides information, discourse and analysis on strategic trends, and facilitates contacts between government leaders, civil servants, business executives, analysts and observers that would assist in the development of better public policy.

ISIS Forums are a source of timely and objective information, and a discussion platform on international strategic issues for elected representatives, the diplomatic and consular corps, public servants, business and policy analysts, business executives, professionals, economists, the military, commentators, journalists, academics, NGO leaders, and the informed public. The Institute provides independent and objective analyses and owes no allegiance to any government or to any political parties. The Institute’s activities are timely, impartial and relevant, and provide independent information and commentary on a range of strategic issues impacting on national, regional and international business and political economy.