Antarctica, explained.
US Coast Guard icebreaker Polar Star off Antarctica (David Mosley/US Coast Guard Photo)
Funding cuts and policy uncertainty signal a worrying potential for American withdrawal from a continent where influence matters.
Subscribe to The Informer for monthly expert analysis, and to Events for advance notice of visiting world leaders and distinguished guests.
You may unsubscribe from Lowy Institute newsletters at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
Timely advocacy is needed for the United States to stay the course in AntarcticaTimely advocacy is needed for the United States to stay the course in Antarctica
The United States is at a critical juncture with respect to its Antarctic policy. For decades the leading nation in Antarctica in terms of research investment, infrastructure and personnel, the United States has begun to pull back. This has significant implications for Australian Antarctic policy. Australia and like-minded countries need to nudge the United States in a productive direction before policy shifts settle for the longer-term.
At the recently concluded Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Milan, the United States sent its first delegation to an Antarctic diplomatic meeting since the start of the second Trump administration. That delegation was smaller than usual, and the United States contributed only a single paper.
Even more significant is the considerable reduction in funding for Antarctic science that is currently being finalized in the budgets of key US agencies. This includes cuts to the National Science Foundation, which runs the US Antarctic Program, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which leads US Antarctic fisheries science.
The Antarctic Treaty reserves the continent for peace and science, and it is traditionally the degree and quality of science nations conduct that provide the foundation for political influence in Antarctica. The continent is demilitarised – although military support for science logistics is permitted.
On icebreaker support, the picture is mixed. While the US plans to end its lease of the RVIB Nathaniel B. Palmer light icebreaker, a ship which plays a key role in science especially in the Antarctic Peninsula, the recently enacted budget from Congress contains major funding for new US Coast Guard icebreakers. Some of these icebreakers will be available to support the US Antarctic mission, including the key annual ice breakout effort at McMurdo Station. The new icebreakers will only deploy years from now, but this investment in icebreaking capability is the largest by the United States in a generation.
Adelie penguins hard at work. The Antarctic Treaty reserves the continent for peace and science although military support for science logistics is permitted (John B. Weller/The Pew Charitable Trusts via US State Department)
US policy on Antarctica is at an uncertain point. The State Department is conducting a review of US participation in international agreements, which includes the Antarctic Treaty. Key senior positions with a direct impact on Antarctic policy at the Department have yet to be appointed. Although for the first time in 30 years the US announced a formal Antarctica policy late in the Biden Administration, that policy could be withdrawn or revised.
At some point, the US will settle on revised policies. The next big Antarctic diplomatic meeting on the calendar is in Hobart, where the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources will gather in October. The Trump administration will have a further incentive at that time to make decisions on whether to continue traditional approaches to Antarctic policy or move in a different direction.
The United States, like Australia and other key countries active in Antarctica, are bound by the treaties that comprise the Antarctic Treaty System. This includes its Environmental Protocol, which contains a comprehensive ban on mining and similar extractive activities, both on the continent and in the Southern Ocean. It is in no one’s interest for the Treaty system to be thrust into chaos based on a presidential decision, pulling back on core Antarctic environmental protections. To avoid this risk, Australia and other friends need to explain to the Trump administration why the Antarctic Treaty is in the profound interests of the United States and its allies.
The Trump administration can be reminded that the United States has historically carried out more inspections of foreign facilities in Antarctica than any other country, and it can promote peace and security in the region by continuing such efforts.
The Antarctic Treaty was negotiated and signed in Washington in 1959, pursuant to a legal regime that was proposed by the United States. The US has the largest presence of any nation in Antarctica, operates the largest research station, and the only station at the geographic South Pole. The United States has been a leading diplomatic force in Antarctica for decades, thus able to influence events there and monitor the activities of strategic rivals.
Russia has traditionally had a strong interest and presence in Antarctica, and China’s activities and investment have increased markedly over the past 15 years in line with its rise in economic power and global engagement generally. A prolonged retrenchment of US presence and investment in Antarctica, including in polar science, will lead to concerns that the United States will be allowing China to overtake its influence in Antarctic affairs. We are yet to reach that point, but the concerns exist.
Australia and its other allies can press the United States to remove any ambiguity about its continued support for the basic tenets of the Antarctic Treaty System, including the need to adhere to all of its environmental rules. They can join with the United States in seeking to ensure that the continent remains demilitarised, and that concerns related to dual use of technologies by potential adversaries are addressed, in part through the exercise of the Treaty’s robust right of inspection. The Trump administration can be reminded that the United States has historically carried out more inspections of foreign facilities in Antarctica than any other country, and it can promote peace and security in the region by continuing such efforts.
The United States can also be pressed to continue to cooperate on current policy challenges facing the Treaty System, including promoting sustainable fisheries management and conservation through supporting the existing commitment for a network of marine protected areas, and working constructively towards tourism regulations that promote safety and environmental protection.
About the author
Evan Bloom
Evan T. Bloom is a lawyer and former senior US diplomat. During his 30-year career at the US Department of State, he served as Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and Fisheries and Director of the Office of Ocean and Polar Affairs and was a member of the federal Senior Executive Service.
Topics
The most-pressing world events explained by Lowy Institute experts and global contributors, in your inbox, every Thursday.
You may unsubscribe from The Interpreter at any time. For information on our privacy practices and how to unsubscribe, see our Privacy Policy.
