Antarctic diplomacy hits another iceberg

Prior to the just-completed annual gathering in Hiroshima of the Antarctic Treaty parties – the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting – my colleagues at the University of Tasmania wrote here in The Interpreter (Opens in new window) that despite the deeply troubled world order at the moment, the meeting had the potential to provide a “credible demonstration that competent, good-faith multilateralism remains possible.”

Even with expectations that major breakthroughs were unlikely, the results of the meeting proved, despite the strong efforts of Japan as host country, quite unimpressive.

The main diplomatic questions before the meeting, beyond relatively routine business like review of budgets and management plans, and reports from observers, were whether the endangered Emperor Penguin would be designated for special protection, possible new regulations related to tourism, steps towards improving transparency of Treaty System meetings, and decisions on conferring the status of Consultative Party on new applicants.

None of this occurred.

The issue with the greatest emotional pull, protection of Emperor Penguins, received considerable attention (Opens in new window) given recent red-listing of the species as endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). There was speculation that IUCN’s action would give China an off-ramp to reverse its opposition at prior meetings to specially protected status, but it didn’t do so, and Russia opposed the designation as well. There was overwhelming support from other states, but all decisions on matters of substance are taken by consensus: this makes achieving agreement quite difficult on controversial matters.

Rising numbers of primarily ship-borne tourists in Antarctica have given impetus to negotiations over enhanced regulations to promote environmental protection and safety. Despite continuation of lengthy discussion, little more was achieved than a narrowing of the focus for future work. No new rules on opening up the meetings to greater scrutiny were agreed, despite calls for reform.

Canada, Belarus, Türkiye, and Colombia sought consultative status. Although in theory applications are judged on the basis solely of scientific capacity, the applications of Canada and Belarus are as a practical matter caught up in geopolitical bloc rivalries. Colombia’s application wasn’t quite ready for final resolution. But Türkiye seemed to come close in behind-the-scenes negotiations.

It is clear that geopolitical forces unrelated to the Southern Hemisphere are making agreement difficult within the Antarctic Treaty System. The politics flowing from the Russian invasion of Ukraine are present throughout, even though as a treaty body both the Russian Federation and Ukraine sit at the table as equals. Indeed, the meeting’s plenary included pointed exchanges between the two related to the conflict, but this didn’t devolve into a challenge to the operation of the meeting. Still, many delegations were under instruction to limit or avoid engagement with Russian delegates. This inevitably has a practical impact on negotiations, and can act as a barrier to reaching compromises – especially as Russia traditionally doesn’t hesitate to block consensus when it has a strong view.

Many states also, but for different reasons, seem to have trouble finding a way forward with China. That was the case with Emperor Penguins, yet we see similar tensions at Antarctic fisheries negotiations when it comes to addressing Chinese objections to large-scale marine protected areas sought by many countries.

But it would be incorrect to conclude that China and Russia are the sole or even main obstacles to agreement. In the discussions over the status of Türkiye, it was India that objected. And blame for the endless debate over tourism cannot be laid at the feet of China and Russia – many share that responsibility.

Other disappointments at the meeting included watering down of references to climate change at the request of the United States, which prefers to speak of sea ice loss or generic environmental changes. These expressions of Trump administration policy are hardly surprising but tend to undermine straightforward discussion of the realities on the continent.

After years of similar meetings with limited results, the sense of frustration among delegates is palpable.

Antarctic diplomacy has settled into a pattern. The basic foundation is sound – the treaties keep the peace, allow for the conduct of science, and permit the operation of (for the most part) sustainable fisheries. Antarctica is much less troubled by discord than many other regions – which is all to the good.

But in terms of advancing cooperation through innovation, meeting the test of a rapidly changing environment due to climate change, and evolving improved governance, not much is happening. We will see if the treaty parties can muster greater ambition at the next meeting, to be hosted by South Korea in Incheon a year from now.