Antarctic Ambitions: Strategic Implications and Interests in the Antarctic Region
By Major Joseph A. Fernandez, U.S. Army
(Photo: AI image generated using the prompt “Image of Polar Competition”. Retrieved November 15, 2023, from: https://www.artstation.com)
This essay serves as the inaugural installment in a series delving into the multifaceted dimensions of the Antarctic's geopolitical and environmental significance. The present paper sets the scene by providing an in-depth analysis of U.S. involvement in Antarctica. It begins with an introduction that establishes Antarctica's unique geopolitical significance for the U.S., followed by a historical exploration of the origins and principles of the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). The essay then discusses the evolution of the ATS in response to environmental concerns and the governance mechanisms through the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM). It subsequently shifts focus to the current U.S. policy in Antarctica, underscoring scientific research and environmental protection. The paper concludes by exploring the changing global landscape, particularly the strategic interests of Russia and China in the region, and their implications for U.S. policy. This paper sets the stage for the forthcoming series by combining historical context with contemporary analysis, offering a nuanced understanding of the U.S.'s role in Antarctic affairs.
Antarctic Ambitions: Strategic Implications and Interests in the Antarctic Region Introduction
Antarctica, a continent of unique geopolitical significance, should stand at the forefront of U.S. strategic interests, reflecting the critical importance of its vast natural resources, scientific research potential, and governance through the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS). This prioritization does not diminish the U.S. vigilance towards Chinese and Russian activities or other regions but underscores the multifaceted nature of U.S. foreign policy, where the strategic imperatives of Antarctica are integral alongside the broader geopolitical dynamics. Far more than just a remote icy wilderness, it serves as a vital nexus for scientific discovery, environmental stewardship, and international diplomacy. This essay embarks on a comprehensive exploration of the historical trajectory of U.S. involvement in Antarctica, dissecting its evolution from a geopolitical vantage point. It analyzes U.S. involvement pursuant to current and future strategic interests, particularly in the face of rising global challenges and the shifting dynamics of international relations. By delving into the development and impact of the ATS and examining the U.S. role in shaping this unique international agreement, this paper provides a nuanced understanding of how the U.S. has navigated the complex political landscape of this enigmatic continent.
Origins and Core Principles: ATS and Cold War Context.
Global leaders conceived the ATS during a critical juncture in global history - the Cold War era, characterized by profound geopolitical tensions. International discord between major powers, notably the U.S. and the Soviet Union, marked this period, including an arms race, space race, and numerous proxy wars. In this context, the potential for Antarctica to emerge as another arena for superpower competition loomed as an important concern. The genesis of the ATS can be traced back to the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957-1958, a monumental event in scientific collaboration.[1] The IGY, drawing inspiration from the International Polar Years of 1882-1883 and 1932-1933, expanded its scope far beyond its predecessors. Rather than concentrating solely on polar research, the IGY ambitiously aimed to study a wide array of geophysical phenomena across the entire globe.
The expansive scientific endeavor, involving 70 countries, lasted for 18 months. A coinciding full sunspot cycle maximized opportunities for comprehensive geophysical measurements and observations. In this backdrop of global scientific collaboration, the founding members signed the ATS in 1959 and provided a stark contrast to prevailing Cold War tensions. [2] The treaty'sformulation, influenced by the spirit of cooperation fostered during the IGY, emphasized peaceful scientific collaboration in Antarctica. It represented a collective effort to prevent the continent from becoming a new frontier for geopolitical strife. The ATS, therefore, marked a significant diplomatic achievement during a period rife with global conflict. Notably, the ATS requires unanimous agreement of the consultative parties. After 2048, any one party can initiate a review of the treaty. It set a precedent for international cooperation in scientific research and the peaceful use of shared global spaces.
The ATS became deeply intertwined with the intense rivalry between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. A race for technological and territorial supremacy characterized the Cold War, extending even into the uncharted territories of Antarctica. In this climate of heightened tension and competition, the potential for Antarctica to become another arena for East-West conflict was a significant concern. During this period, both superpowers expanded their scientific and military frontiers in which Antarctica presented a new strategic domain. The U.S., cognizant of Soviet interest in the region, recognized the need to prevent the Antarctic from becoming a front for Cold War hostilities.[3] This led to a strategic shift in U.S. Antarctic policy of seeking military advantage towards scientific collaboration and peace.
The U.S. played a pivotal role in steering the negotiations that led to the ATS. A key element of U.S. strategy required that Antarctica remained demilitarized and prevented from becoming an extension of the global geopolitical contest. The American approach emphasized scientific research over military presence, advocating for using the continent as a natural laboratory for scientific exploration, free from the military tensions that characterized the era. The ATS, therefore, emerged as a unique solution to the Cold War conundrum, allowing for cooperation in a time of division. It reflected a rare consensus among contending powers in favor of collective scientific advancement and environmental preservation. Observers see this treaty as one of the Cold War's few success stories in international diplomacy, where the U.S. successfully aligned its national interests with broader global objectives, thereby fostering an unprecedented era of peaceful exploration and research in Antarctica.
Several countries, including Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom, established territorial claims in Antarctica by the mid-20th Century, often based on historical exploration, geographical proximity, and scientific activities.[4] Overlapping claims created potential flashpoints for conflict, particularly amidst the heightened tensions of the Cold War. In response, the ATS, which came into force in 1961, aimed to mitigate these risks by freezing all territorial claims, thus preventing the escalation of disputes and new claims.[5] The treaty demilitarized Antarctica by banning military bases, weapons testing, and nuclear explosions - significant moves to maintain the continent as a zone dedicated to peace and scientific exploration.[6] The collaborative spirit of the IGY influenced this commitment by emphasizing scientific research and cooperation among nations. Despite these measures, the underlying territorial claims remained. With global interest in regional resources rising, the potential for future disputes persists, underscoring the importance of the treaty's provisions in maintaining peace and prioritizing scientific inquiry in this unique and sensitive environment.
Figure 1: National claims to Antarctic Territory (Map: Australian Antarctic Data Centre).
Over the decades, the ATS evolved to address growing environmental concerns associated with increased anthropic activity in the region. The 1972 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals focused on the protection of seal populations as the first step. The 1980 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources followed, which aimed to preserve marine ecosystems. However, the most comprehensive environmental protection measure came with the 1991 Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty.[7] This protocol designated Antarctica as a "natural reserve, devoted to peace and science" and laid out stringent guidelines for all human activities to minimize environmental impact. It also banned mineral mining to ensure the continent's pristine nature remained undisturbed.
The ATS reflected a period when global interests in Antarctica centered predominantly around research as opposed to geopolitical competition. At the time of its creation, the relatively minimal economic and strategic interests in the region facilitated a consensus on prioritizing scientific exploration. The bipolar nature of the world order also shaped this agreement, where weaker powers like Chile exercised limited influence and consequently aligned with superpowers such as the U.S. Thus, the ATS, more than a testament to prioritizing peace, represents a pragmatic response to the specific geopolitical and interest-based landscape of its time. By setting aside territorial ambitions and focusing on shared goals, the nations of the world have ensured that Antarctica remains a notable example of international collaboration. It demonstrates how diverse nations can come together to focus on shared scientific goals, despite differing political agendas.
The Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCM) facilitate the governance of the ATS.[8] These serve as a platform for member states to discuss, collaborate, and make decisions on various treaty-related matters. The ATS, in its practical application, has functioned as a model of international cooperation, albeit with a pragmatic foundation. Its creation established Antarctica as a neutral, non-militarized zone primarily dedicated to scientific endeavors, a framework that has largely been effective. The lack of significant opportunities for economic exploitation or national security concerns in Antarctica contributes to this success. However, the changing international landscape, coupled with the impacts of climate change and technological advancements, is altering the foundational conditions that established the ATS. These evolving dynamics suggest that the U.S. may need to reassess and adapt its policy, strategy, and operational approaches to meet the emerging challenges and opportunities in the region. The ATS showcases how shared interests, even in a contentious global environment, can lead to robust frameworks that bridge geopolitical divides. The ATS' success in preserving Antarctica underscores the value of collective action and diplomacy in addressing global challenges, setting a precedent for other international endeavors.
The Evolution of U.S. Policy in Antarctica
Tracing back to 1946, President Harry S. Truman initiated Operation Highjump (The United States Navy Antarctic Developments Program, 1946–1947), marking an early foray into polar engagement. By 1971, President Richard Nixon had directed the National Security Council to devise an Arctic policy, setting a precedent for subsequent administrations.[9] The U.S.-led ATS has shaped U.S. policy in the Antarctic, orienting it predominantly towards scientific research with little focus on security aspects. This approach reflects an implicit reliance on the treaty as a robust international mechanism, although it lacks an enforcement mechanism to deter latent threats or malign activities in the Antarctic region.
In a notable policy shift, the Clinton administration, through the Presidential Decision Directive titled "U.S. Policy on the Arctic and Antarctic Regions (PDD-26)" in 1994, included the Antarctic in its polar policy considerations for the first time.[10] This directive dedicated a significant portion to preserving Antarctica's pristine environment and notably marked a departure from earlier policies by not categorizing the polar regions as national priorities. This shift may have inadvertently encouraged Russia and China to deepen their focus on these areas. The Bush administration introduced National Security Presidential Directive 66 and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25 in 2009.[11] This was the first major policy update in nearly 15 years with a diminished emphasis on Antarctica in the realm of international security.
In the 2017 National Security Strategy, the Trump administration briefly touched upon the Arctic within the broader framework of 'common domains', a term used in international relations to describe areas of global significance that require international cooperation, such as space, cyberspace, and international waters. However, this strategy did not specifically address Antarctica.[12] While it identified Russia and China as 'revisionist powers' -- nations seeking to alter the global status quo -- its focus primarily centered on homeland defense, with a less explicit emphasis on the strategic importance of the polar regions. Secretary of Defense James Mattis expanded on this in the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which underscored long-term strategic competition, particularly highlighting Russia and China as challengers to the international rules-based order.[13] This strategy pointed to a period of 'strategic atrophy', signaling concern over the weakening of the post-World War II international order due to the actions of these nations.
The 2019 National Defense Security Strategy, designated the Arctic as a 'strategic terrain', indicating its growing geopolitical importance. In this context, the insights of General Charles Q. Brown, then Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force and a key figure in shaping U.S. military strategy, become particularly relevant. General Brown observed that the developments in the Arctic could be precursors to similar strategic challenges in the Antarctic.[14] His analysis suggests the need for a cohesive strategic approach towards both polar regions, recognizing the interlinked nature of geopolitical dynamics in these areas. General Brown's perspective underscores the importance of including the Antarctic in strategic considerations, in alignment with the evolving global security environment.
The 2020 polar memorandum marked a significant milestone as the first presidential directive in the 21st century to explicitly recognize Antarctica's role in national security and defense strategies.[15] This directive reflects a growing awareness of the changing geopolitical landscape in Antarctica, acknowledging its increasing importance in international security and global political dynamics. However, it is important to note that this policy shift appears to be more of a response to existing discourse and scholarly analysis, which have already identified Antarctica as a potential arena for future great power competition.
In contrast, when considering the strategic realignment of military forces, such as the reorientation of the 25th Infantry Division and Alaska-based units towards the Arctic, a similar proactive stance in the Antarctic region has not been as evident. The U.S. military's increased focus on the Arctic, exemplified by these shifts, suggests a more immediate and tangible response to the geopolitical changes in that region. This raises the question of whether a parallel shift in military focus and resources towards the Antarctic is foreseeable or necessary, given the evolving strategic landscape. Such a comparison underscores the need for a balanced approach in addressing both polar regions' security concerns, considering the unique challenges and opportunities each presents.
Historically, a notable lack of strategic depth has marked U.S. policy towards the polar regions. In response to emerging challenges, the U.S., since 2019, has significantly enhanced its policy engagement in these regions. This policy shift, predominantly reactive in nature, reflects a belated acknowledgment of the strategic importance of the Arctic and Antarctic. The lack of an overarching, forward-looking polar policy framework has positioned the U.S. at a strategic disadvantage in these geopolitically important areas. This gap in U.S. policy may have wider implications for global power dynamics, particularly in the arena of geopolitical competition with Russia and China.
The U.S. Scientific Approach to Policy
Since the early 20th century, the U.S. has played a significant and influential role in Antarctic affairs, marked by the pioneering efforts of explorers like Admiral Richard E. Byrd. As an American aviator and polar explorer, Admiral Byrd led several expeditions, including the first American expedition to Antarctica from 1928 to 1930, setting the stage for U.S. interests and scientific exploration in this remote region.[16] This legacy of exploration was pivotal in 1959 when the U.S. joined as one of the original twelve signatories of the Antarctic Treaty. This agreement marked a major shift from potential military involvement to a commitment to scientific research and environmental stewardship, with the U.S. Antarctic Program, run by the National Science Foundation (NSF), primarily guiding it. Embracing the treaty's core principles of demilitarization, scientific collaboration, and the suspension of territorial claims, the U.S. has consistently promoted the peaceful use of Antarctica.[17] This approach, aligning with the global vision of maintaining Antarctica as a distinct zone for research and international cooperation, highlights U.S. transition from military-led expeditions to NSF-driven scientific endeavors, reaffirming its commitment to preserving Antarctica as a realm of peace, scientific inquiry, and environmental conservation.
Central to the U.S. policy in Antarctica is the emphasis on scientific research. The U.S. operates several research stations, with the McMurdo Station being the largest. These facilities, currently funded through the NSF, facilitate a wide range of studies from climate change to marine biology. The U.S. also collaborates with various international partners, reflecting the spirit of the Antarctic Treaty. Alongside scientific endeavors, the U.S. has shown a strong commitment to environmental protection. Adhering to the Protocol on Environmental Protection of the Antarctic Treaty, the U.S. ensures that its activities in the region minimize ecological impact and preserve Antarctica's pristine environment for future generations.
The U.S. engages actively in the ATCM, playing a pivotal role in shaping the treaty's governance mechanisms and future directions. As global interest in Antarctica grows, driven by its strategic importance and potential resources, U.S. policy emphasizes the continent's status as a zone of peace and scientific exploration. The U.S. continues to champion the principles of the Antarctic Treaty, advocating for international cooperation, transparency, and a collective approach to the challenges and opportunities that Antarctica presents in the 21st century.
Changing Global Landscape and Its Implications for U.S. Policy
Traditionally, observers have viewed the Antarctic region as a distant and barren ice-covered expanse, but it is increasingly becoming a focal point in global geopolitics. The environmental and geopolitical implications of climate change-induced ice melting underscore this shift in perception. The receding ice is not just an environmental concern but also exposes a wealth of untapped resources, capturing the attention of major powers and thereby intensifying international geopolitical dynamics.[18] These developments place significant strain on the ATS, challenging its role and effectiveness in the current geopolitical context. While Ryan Patrick Burke's The Polar Pivot: Great Power Competition in the Arctic and Antarctica offers an in-depth analysis of these issues, the primary focus here is to explore how these changing dynamics directly impact the ATS and the need for its reevaluation. The reference to Burke’s work serves to illustrate the growing importance of the Antarctic in global strategy discussions, which is a critical backdrop for understanding the evolving role and challenges of the ATS.
Concomitantly, technological advancements have facilitated an increased presence of nations in Antarctica, amplifying human activity and potential environmental risks. The engagement of non-signatory nations, unbound by the ATS, poses a significant threat to the region's stability, potentially leading to unregulated resource exploration and harmful environmental practices.[19] The lack of an enforcement mechanism within the current ATS framework highlights the urgent need for diplomatic engagement and potential treaty revisions.
The increasing strategic interests of Russia and China in the polar regions, particularly evident in their substantial investments in icebreaker fleets for both the Arctic and Antarctic, are reshaping the geopolitical landscape. This development, indicative of their intentions to expand influence in these critical areas, aligns with observations made by General Brown in 2019. He offered a credible and authoritative perspective on global defense dynamics. His analysis of Russian and Chinese activities highlights the strategic importance they place on these regions.[20] Further, the resistance of Russia and China to the creation of additional marine protected areas in the Southern Ocean emphasizes their broader geopolitical ambitions. This stance suggests that they are pursuing increased resource exploitation and potential territorial claims, which aligns with their efforts to assert dominance in the polar regions. Therefore, not only do we quote General Brown's insights, but we also consider them integral to understanding Russia's and China's strategic intentions, which are key in evaluating the evolving geopolitical dynamics of the Arctic and Antarctic.
Since joining the Antarctic Treaty in 1985, China has adopted an assertive approach in the Antarctic, aligning with its broader strategic ambitions, as notably seen in its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). China further extends this approach to the polar regions with the 'Polar Silk Road' concept, actively establishing a significant presence in these areas.[21] China’s 'strategic overlay' actively integrates additional layers of strategic considerations, such as military and geopolitical interests, superimposing them on its activities in Antarctica. The involvement of the People's Liberation Army in its icebreaker program and the establishment of dual-use Bei-dou2 satellite stations exemplify this. These actions suggest that China's Antarctic endeavors are not solely for scientific and environmental purposes but also serve broader strategic objectives, potentially including military capabilities.[22]
The heightened focus of China in the region raises concerns about intensified intelligence-gathering and surveillance operations, signaling a more assertive stance in leveraging the polar regions for strategic advantages. This perspective aligns with the evolving dynamics of major powers increasingly exerting their influence in both the Arctic and Antarctic. General Laura Richardson, Commander of U.S. Southern Command, reinforces this viewpoint. She notes that China has employed state-owned enterprises to secure rights for building installations near the port of Ushuaia.[23] This move is strategically significant as it bolsters China’s presence at the Strait of Magellan, thereby improving its access to Antarctica and expanding its geopolitical reach.
In Antarctica, Russia's activities have historically centered around scientific research stations and logistical operations. However, the potential for dual-use capabilities in these endeavors raises concerns. For example, the modernization of Russian research stations and infrastructure in Antarctica, alongside investments in icebreaker fleets capable of navigating the challenging polar conditions, could provide Russia with strategic advantages under the guise of scientific exploration.[24] This development is particularly noteworthy in the context of increasing global interest in the region's resources and shipping routes, potentially turning Antarctica into a subtle geopolitical battleground.
Russia's increasingly militarized approach in the polar regions, particularly in Antarctica, is a strategic maneuver that could have profound implications on the geopolitical dynamics of the region. While the ATS restricts overt military activities, Russia's growing interest and investment in Antarctica suggest a strategic intent that extends beyond scientific research. This shift in policy, potentially in response to perceived national security threats and the presence of other global powers, signals a more assertive Russian stance in the region.
While direct examples of militarization in Antarctica are less evident due to treaty constraints, Russia's overall polar strategy, which includes a significant military component in the Arctic, indicates its broader ambitions in the polar regions. The interplay between Russia's activities in the Arctic and its approach to Antarctica is a subject of analysis by experts, who highlight the implications of great power competition in these areas.[25] Therefore, we must view Russia's engagement in Antarctica within the larger context of its polar strategy, recognizing the potential for strategic maneuvering and the need for vigilance by treaty nations.
Burke argues that U.S. polar strategy, particularly in Antarctica, has historically been less competitive to the strategic efforts of Russia and China.[26] Observers perceive the U.S. as lagging in dedicated resources and attention to these regions, which are gaining increasing significance in global geopolitics. Burke advocates for an "American polar pivot," calling for increased investments in polar capabilities and adjustments in military deployments and multinational exercises. Moreover, Burke argues for the U.S. to reinforce its military presence and develop a comprehensive strategy to ensure that China and Russia cannot dominate the Arctic and Antarctic regions.[27] This strategic pivot would involve enhancing military capabilities suited for the harsh polar environments and forming robust alliances to maintain American influence and safeguard the global commons in the polar regions.
The evolving U.S. policy in Antarctica, anchored in the ATS, must adapt to the shifting global landscape marked by the growing interests of nations like China and Russia. This adaptation involves reinforcing the U.S.'s commitment to peace and scientific research while also addressing new strategic challenges. A nuanced and proactive approach is necessary, one that not only preserves the core values of the ATS but also enhances its relevance and effectiveness. Such an approach should focus on fostering international cooperation, advancing scientific discovery, and strengthening environmental stewardship. This strategy will require diplomatic efforts, increased research investment, and a vigilant stance on compliance with treaty provisions, ensuring that Antarctica continues to serve as a model for international collaboration and peaceful exploration.
As the Antarctic landscape undergoes profound transformations, so too must the strategies to safeguard its future. A detailed understanding of the activities and intentions of China and Russia in Antarctica is crucial for formulating effective U.S. policies. These policies must adapt to the complex interplay of environmental stewardship and geopolitical maneuvering in this increasingly significant region. Incorporating the insights from Burke's work offers a robust framework for comprehending the intricate dynamics at play in Antarctica, emphasizing the need for a strategic, adaptive, and environmentally conscious approach to its stewardship.
Competitive Concern
Russia's and China's track records in the international arena reveal a pattern of actions that often indicate a disregard for various international treaties, a concern that extends to their activities in polar regions. A notable instance occurred when Russia breached the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, which prohibits ground-launched missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers.[28] Despite formal acknowledgments of these violations, Russia has encountered limited consequences. This pattern raises questions about Russia's adherence to other significant treaties, including those relevant to the polar regions, such as the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which have seen lax enforcement and compliance.
Similarly, China's controversial role in the international treaty framework stems especially from its human rights practices in Xinjiang, which contravene various international human rights treaties.[29] This includes treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Convention against Torture, among others. Despite China’s ratification of these treaties and its evident violations, the international community has imposed minimal repercussions or sanctions. This situation becomes concerning when considering China's commitments under polar region-specific treaties like the ATS. The pattern of treaty violations by both nations, not confined to specific regions or types of treaties, poses a broader question about their adherence to international norms, including those governing the sensitive and strategic polar regions.
Russia's and China's activities in Antarctica also highlight their strategic interests, which clash with the ATS principles. Russia, for example, has been conducting oceanographic expeditions and military-grade drone tests, activities that extend beyond peaceful scientific exploration and hint at naval intelligence and surveillance ambitions.[30] Such actions reflect a strategic intent to establish a regional geopolitical and military presence. China, declaring its aim to become a "polar great power," has built significant infrastructure in Antarctica, including a new base within signal intelligence range of key allies.[31] This move, coupled with satellite operation advancements, suggests China’s pursuit of a dual-use strategy, enhancing its military and geostrategic capabilities in the South Pole.
Russia’s and China's actions indicate a desire to leverage Antarctica for broader strategic gains, potentially at odds with the ATS.[32] Their increasing presence and the establishment of military-capable infrastructure could serve as a precursor to asserting greater control and access to the continent's resources, challenging the treaty’s framework. The continuous expansion of Russia and China's influence and capabilities in Antarctica may strain the existing treaty structure, leading to a necessary reevaluation of the treaty's capacity to accommodate or counter these nations' evolving geopolitical ambitions.[33]
In Antarctica, a region increasingly recognized for its strategic importance due to environmental and geopolitical factors, the activities of Russia and China have drawn scrutiny regarding their adherence to the ATS. This treaty, fundamental in prohibiting the militarization of the continent, faces challenges in the context of advanced technologies and the broadening interests of these global powers. While no records explicitly document Russia's and China's activities in Antarctica as treaty violations in the Antarctic Inspections Database, concerns exist regarding how well their activities align with the treaty’s limitations on military operations.
The ATS includes a comprehensive inspection process, an essential mechanism for ensuring adherence to the treaty. The publicly accessible Antarctic Inspections Database details this process, recording all conducted inspections and offering transparency and oversight. The reports in this database play a crucial role in evaluating the compliance of treaty signatories, offering insights into the activities conducted in this remote environment. Despite this robust inspection framework, the unique challenges of Antarctica – its nuanced nature of international diplomacy and enforcement – complicate the monitoring and verification of treaty compliance. The intricacies of differentiating between civilian and potential military activities, particularly with dual-use technology, add layers of complexity. This situation highlights the ongoing need for vigilance in the application of the inspection process and the interpretation of its findings, ensuring that all activities in Antarctica align with the treaty’s purpose of peaceful use and scientific exploration.
Therefore, while the Inspections Database serves as a vital tool in maintaining the integrity of the ATS, the complexities inherent in this region call for continuous and careful evaluation of all activities. This is essential not only for upholding the treaty’s principles but also for navigating the evolving geopolitical dynamics in one of the world's most strategically significant and environmentally sensitive areas.
Conclusion
Antarctica's evolution from a contested territory to a symbol of international cooperation under the ATS reflects a significant shift in global geopolitics. The U.S. has played an instrumental role in steering this transition towards scientific research and environmental stewardship. However, the increasing strategic interests of global powers like Russia and China, coupled with the challenges of climate change and technological advancements, call for a proactive reassessment of U.S. policy. Moving forward, the U.S. must strengthen its commitment to the ATS and adapt to the new geopolitical realities. This includes enhancing scientific collaboration, bolstering environmental protection efforts, and engaging in diplomatic initiatives to ensure that Antarctica remains a zone of peace and scientific exploration. To that end, maintaining a vigilant stance on the activities of other nations in the region and fostering international dialogue will be crucial in addressing the evolving challenges and securing the future of this unique and invaluable global commons.
As this paper concludes, it not only synthesizes the historical and current U.S. involvement in Antarctica but also sets the stage for future discussions in this series. The evolving geopolitical landscape, marked by the strategic interests of nations like Russia and China, poses new challenges and opportunities for U.S. policy. Subsequent papers in this series will build upon this foundation, delving deeper into specific aspects of Antarctic geopolitics, environmental challenges, and international relations. Through this series, readers can expect a comprehensive exploration of Antarctica's evolving role in the global arena, emphasizing the importance of informed policy-making and international cooperation in securing the future of this critical global commons.
About the Author
Major Fernandez enlisted in the Army as an Infantryman in 2001. After completing initial training, he served in the 75th Ranger Regiment as an assault breacher during the invasion of Iraq and later as a Ranger team leader, reconnaissance team leader, sniper squad leader, and sniper platoon sergeant. As a Sergeant First Class he attended Army Officer Candidate School and commissioned as an infantry officer in 2011. He served as both an airborne rifle and mortar platoon leader, Aide-de-Camp to the Deputy Commanding General of the 82nd Airborne Division, a Special Missions Unit member, and a company commander in the 1st Infantry Division. After more than 20 years in the Infantry, he became a Latin America FAO and is currently assigned to the U.S. Embassy in Santiago, Chile.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or any part of the U.S. government.
End Notes
[1] IGY (1957) International Geophysical Year (IGY), International Geophysical Year (IGY) | Eisenhower Presidential Library. Available at: https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/research/online-documents/international-geophysical-year-igy#:~:text=From%20July%201957%20to%20December,called%20the%20International%20Geophysical%20Year. (Accessed: 01 November 2023).
[2] The Antarctic Treaty, 402 U.N.T.S. 71, entered into force June 23, 1961
[3] Rep. REPORT OF OPERATION HIGHJUMP I. U.S. Navy Antarctic Development Project 1947. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, 1947. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0088221.pdf
[4] The Antarctic Treaty, 402 U.N.T.S. 71, entered into force June 23, 1961
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] The protocol on environmental protection to the Antarctic Treaty (1991) Environmental Protocol | Antarctic Treaty. Available at: https://www.ats.aq/e/protocol.html (Accessed: 10 November 2023).
[8] ATCM and other meetings (2023) ATCM and Other Meetings | Antarctic Treaty. Available at: https://www.ats.aq/e/atcm.html (Accessed: 15 November 2023).
[9] National Security Decision Memorandum 144, “United States Arctic Policy and Arctic Policy Group,” December 22, 1971, https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsdm-nixon/nsdm-144.pdf
[10] Presidential Decision Directive 26, “United States Policy on the Arctic and Antarctic Regions,” June 9, 1994, P.2, https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/pdd/pdd-26.pdf
[11] National Security Presidential Directive // Homeland Security Presidential Directive 25, “Arctic Region Policy,” January 9, 2009, https://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-66.htm
[12] Donald J. Trump, National Security Strategy of the United States of America (Washington, DC, Executive Office of the President, 2017)
[13] Mattis, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, P.1.
[14] Pawlyk, Oriana. “More US Military Power Needed in Antarctic to Deter Malign Activity, General Says.” Military.com, July 30, 2019. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/07/30/more-us-military-power-needed-antarctic-deter-malign-activity-general-says.html
[15] Donald J. Trump, “Memorandum on Safeguarding U.S. National Interests.”
[16] Rep. REPORT OF OPERATION HIGHJUMP I. U.S. Navy Antarctic Development Project 1947. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, 1947. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD0088221.pdf
[17] National Science Foundation. (n.d.). U.S. policy for Antarctica. NSF.
[18] Burke, Ryan Patrick. The polar pivot: Great power competition in the Arctic and Antarctica. Boulder, CO.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2022.
[19] IRAN Daily Brief, Unclassified, Dated 02OCT23.
[20] Pawlyk, Oriana. “More US Military Power Needed in Antarctic to Deter Malign Activity, General Says.” Military.com, July 30, 2019. https://www.military.com/daily-news/2019/07/30/more-us-military-power-needed-antarctic-deter-malign-activity-general-says.html
[21] Sharma, Anu. “China’s Polar Silk Road: Implications for the Arctic Region.” Air University, Oct 25, 2021.
[22] Burke, Ryan Patrick. The polar pivot: Great power competition in the Arctic and Antarctica. Boulder, CO.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2022.
[23] Richardson, Laura J. “Statement of General Laura J. Richardson Commander, United ... - House.” NATIONAL SECURITY CHALLENGES AND U.S. MILITARY ACTIVITY IN NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA, March 8, 2022. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20220308/114486/HHRG-117-AS00-Wstate-RichardsonL-20220308.pdf
[24] Boulègue, Mathieu. “The Militarization of Russian Polar Politics.” Chatham House, June 6, 2022. https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/06/militarization-russian-polar-politics
[25] Burke, Ryan Patrick. The polar pivot: Great power competition in the Arctic and Antarctica. Boulder, CO.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2022.
[26] Burke, Ryan Patrick. The polar pivot: Great power competition in the Arctic and Antarctica. Boulder, CO.: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2022.
[27] Ibid.
[28] Karako, Tom. “Putin’s Treaty Problem: The Lessons of Russia’s INF Treaty Violations.” CSIS, July 14, 2014. https://www.csis.org/analysis/putins-treaty-problem-lessons-russias-inf-treaty-violations
[29] O’Connell, Giavanna. “A Look at the International Treaties China Is Violating in Xinjiang.” Just Security, September 18, 2020. https://www.justsecurity.org/72074/how-china-is-violating-human-rights-treaties-and-its-own-constitution-in-xinjiang/
[30] Militarization of Russian Polar Politics: Antarctica, the Southern Ocean, and the South Pole. Chatham House, June 2022 Retrieved from https://www.chathamhouse.org/2022/06/militarization-russian-polar-politics/05-antarctica-southern-ocean-and-south-pole.
[31] Molloy, Shannon. Why China has just built its fifth base in Antarctica. News.com.au. February 19, 2024. from https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/why-china-has-just-built-its-fifth-base-in-antarctica/news-story/5208144d15f6eaca5f5aea7c16364f67
[32] Klinck, Heino. New Arctic strategy? Good. Now do one for the Antarctic: China and Russia aren’t limiting their adventurism to the northern polar region. Defense One. March 20 2024. https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2024/03/new-arctic-strategy-good-now-do-one-antarctic/395091/
[33] Ibid.