It is of course impossible to fully predict how the international community would react to a settlement claiming sovereignty in Antarctica. It is, in fact, two questions: 1. How would the signatories of the Antarctic Treaty react to a settlement that is a clear violation of the treaty? 2. How would countries deal with it diplomatically? The Antarctic TreatyThe Antarctic Treaty is an interesting document but the sections of most interest to the ASRG is Article 1 and Article 10. Article 1 sets out the prohibition on the use of military forces and fortifications on the continent. Meanwhile, Article 10 requires the treaty signatories to take appropriate efforts "in line with the UN Charter" to prevent others from breaking the treaty. Strictly speaking, establishing a country on the continent doesn't break the treaty in any obvious way. And even if it did, Article 1 seems to limit the amount of force that could be used to remove settlers. SecrecyThe most dangerous time for the settlement in terms of other countries trying to stop its development is the first year(s) before sufficient population and infrastructure can be put in place to resist being removed. As such it is not in the settlement's best interest to immediately announce its establishment. Rather, it should be set up in secret and only announce itself when its good and ready or there is no other alternative. Once the existence of the settlement becomes public knowledge the treaty signatories have a choice. First, they could ignore the settlement and hope it fails on its own. This is the response they took when the activist group Greenpeace set up a base on the continent (the first by a private organization). This would be the preferred strategy but they could be just as likely to want to remove the settlement. If this option is taken the settlement's survival will depend on how hard it is to dislodge its population. This is further discussed in the report on settlement defence. Regardless of which option is taken no one is likely to recognize the new country's existence. This is both a hinderance and a victory. After all, as long as the settlement remains it can always eventually be recognized. Diplomatic RecognitionDiplomatic recognition would open up access to international organizations and trade. The challenge is how to go from having no 'friends' to having all the 'friends'. This isn't always easy. There is currently 16 countries with limited recognition for a variety of reasons. Transnistria, Abkhazia, Artsakh, and South Ossetia form an odd quartet in that they each recognize each other but in turn recognized by very few 'real' countries. These countries even have their own international organization. As you can see diplomatic recognition isn't a tidy process. Bhutan, for instance, doesn't recognize either China or Taiwan diplomatically. This also makes it clear that a country doesn't need to be recognized to function. Still, diplomatic recognition would greatly increase the settlement's long term prosperity. So how do you get countries to recognize the settlement? To answer this question you have to understand the reasons why they would be hesitant to recognize the country in the first place. And the answer was the first thing we discussed: the Antarctic Treaty. The Antarctic Treaty is a rather fragile construction. The spirit of the treaty is often violated, if not the letter of the treaty. Indeed, great power competition has ramped up. All the while the treaty was never written in a way to make it clear how rule-breakers would even be punished. The Antarctic Treaty is founded on the basis of agreement by consensus for rule changes. This was easy when the number of signatories were small and the ability to exploit the continent remote. However, the number of signatories has increased and the ability to profit from the continent has increased. It should come as no surprise that it has been 30 years since the last major update to the treaty. Based on these factors it is highly likely the treaty system will break down at some point. The settlement would be best served by this not happening immediately (as there are aspects of the treaty that protect a prospective settlement) but could take advantage of the treaty's eventual collapse to gain diplomatic recognition. Concluding RemarksJoining the community of nations should be the settlement's end goal but it should be realized that there is
likely to be a significant period between the settlement announcing its existence and it gaining recognition. It may even be put under significant pressure, if not out-right invasion. This period is when the settlement's institutions will have their first real test. A trial by fire in a land of ice.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Published ResearchAs the project develops and gaps in understanding are filled finalized plans will be posted here. The end goal being a comprehensive plan for settling Antarctica. All plans subject to update as new information is learned. Archives
April 2024
Categories
All
|