Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
into sharper focus a different kind of geophysical and geopolitical architecture - one based
on recognizing that the Antarctic was an integral part of planet Earth and its geophysical
systems. As such, it offered a different vision, one that was potentially far removed from
the contest between nations for defined sovereign rights.
Post-colonial Antarctica
The signing of the Antarctic Treaty on 1 December 1959, negotiated between the United
States and eleven other parties including Britain and the Soviet Union, was far from a
smooth process. Having gathered in October 1959, on the back of an invitation from the
US State Department to those countries involved in the Antarctic dimension of the IGY,
the omens were not good. Even after some 60 preliminary meetings, the twelve parties
disagreed with one another over some fundamental issues. The most significant was the
question of ownership. The seven claimant states, with the partial exception of resource-
strapped New Zealand, were determined to retain their claimant gang membership. Every
head of delegation to the claimant states devoted their opening addresses to articulating
their 'inalienable' rights to, at least a portion of, the continent. For the five other parties, in-
cluding Belgium, Japan, and South Africa, these words were emblematic of wishful think-
ing. For the last decade, the United States and the Soviet Union had refused to recognize
any sovereign rights to the Antarctic, and what is more, reiterated their right to press their
own claims in the future. The IGY did nothing to alter this worldview; rather, it reinforced
it.
For all the IGY and its fine rhetoric, sovereignty and ownership of the Antarctic was a
stumbling block. There were also additional problems to be confronted - since members of
the arm sea ice extenten Peninsulaed forces supported the IGY scientists, did the Antarctic
need to be demilitarized? The US Navy was the biggest operator under its annual Operation
Deep Freeze programme, and if other militaries implemented further exercises, they might
resuscitate former tensions. Should nuclear testing be banned given that the continent was
free from indigenous human population? One could argue that it was better to test there
than on supposedly thinly populated areas in the Pacific Ocean and Siberia. Was it reason-
able for other signatories to demand the right of inspection of other scientific stations and
installations in order to ensure that the content and spirit of any nascent treaty was respec-
ted? Could there be an 'open-skies' policy in the Antarctic whereby parties could observe
one another from the air? How would one enforce any measures if sovereignty were dis-
puted? Did the parties concerned need to discuss resource-related issues such as mining
and/or fishing? Would scientists and science be sufficiently emollient to overcome schisms
