Once upon a time, the serene stillness of the Arctic and Antarctic was a perfect metaphor for human indifference to both regions. The onset of global warming, however, has changed everything, especially in the Arctic.
PARIS – Ever since mankind began to map the world, the north and south poles have fascinated us, both poetically and scientifically. But, save for a few whalers and explorers, not many people ever went to have a closer look. The serene stillness of the Arctic and Antarctic was a perfect match for human indifference. The onset of global warming, however, has changed everything.
Of course, that old indifference was not universal. In a rare spurt of collective political intelligence, and in order to prevent any risk of international conflict, an international treaty was signed in 1959 to govern Antarctica. This treaty dedicated Antarctica to exclusively peaceful aims. It recognized the existing territorial claims, declared them “frozen,” and forbade all physical assertions of sovereignty on the land of Antarctica.
The nature and content of that treaty were purely diplomatic. Only after its ratification did the first environmental issues arise. These were added to a revised treaty in 1972 by a convention on seal protection, followed, in 1980, by a convention on wildlife preservation. Most importantly, a protocol signed in Madrid in 1991, dealt with protecting the Antarctic environment.
As French Prime Minister, together with Australia’s then Prime Minister Robert Hawke, I was responsible for proposing the Madrid protocol, which transformed the Antarctic into a natural reserve dedicated to peace and science for 50 years, renewable by tacit agreement. It was not an easy success. We had to reject first a convention on the exploitation of mineral resources that had already been negotiated and signed in Wellington in 1988, thus risking reopening very uncertain negotiations. We were bluffing, but our bluff worked.
The Antarctic environment is now effectively protected by the international community, which is the de facto owner of this continent, without any national differentiations. It is the only such case in the world. Indeed, international lawyers who are seeking to define the legal status of outer space – Who will own the moon? Who will own the resources that may one day be extracted there? – often look to the “Antarctic treaty system” for precedents and analogies.
But Antarctica had one great advantage, as compared to the Arctic, which is now in peril: there were only penguins in Antarctica, not voters, especially voters of different nationalities.
Antarctica, though a huge continental archipelago, measuring 24 million square kilometers, and covered in ice that is 4-5 kilometers thick, is far from any inhabited continent. The Arctic is only water, with the North Pole itself 4,200 meters under the surface. But five countries are very close: Norway, Russia, the United States, Canada, and Denmark (via Greenland, which will become independent in the coming years).
Throughout most of human history, ice almost completely barred all navigation in the seas surrounding the North Pole, and the Arctic was asleep in a silent indifference. Everything has changed radically during the last three years. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has established that global warming is not uniform: whereas temperatures rose, on average, by 0.6°C in the twentieth century, the increase in the Arctic region was 2°.
Some estimates suggest that about 20% of the world’s total oil reserves lie under the Arctic. In 2008, for the first time in human history, two navigation channels through the polar ice field – in the East along Siberia, and in the West along the Canadian islands – were open for a few months, allowing boats to go from Europe to Japan or California via the Bering Straits, rather than the Panama Canal or the Horn of Africa, thereby saving some 4,000 or 5,000 kilometers.
Given global warming, this may now become a regular occurrence: thousands of ships will pass through the Arctic passages, emptying their fuel tanks and causing oil slicks and other forms of pollution. This poses a real threat to the Eskimo and Inuit populations, as well as to polar bears.
Moreover, according to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, countries’ enjoy absolute sovereignty in the first 12 nautical miles (about 20 kilometers) of their coastal waters sea, and almost absolute sovereignty, limited by a few conventions, within 200 nautical miles (360 kilometers) of their coasts. Any country that can prove that the seabed beyond 200 nautical miles is an extension of the continental shelf on which it is sovereign can claim sovereignty over it as well.
Russia, which three years ago used a submarine to plant a platinum copy of its national flag at the North Pole, claims sovereignty over 37% of the surface of the Arctic Ocean. The territories claimed by Russia include the North Pole and a huge oil field. If this oil is exploited, the pollution risks will be far higher than anywhere else. And could Russia, given its rearmament policy, be planning to set up underwater missile launch sites?
It is therefore urgently necessary to negotiate a treaty that guarantees peace and environmental protection in the Arctic region. It will probably be very difficult to achieve, but the effort should be viewed as a great cause for humankind.
PARIS – Ever since mankind began to map the world, the north and south poles have fascinated us, both poetically and scientifically. But, save for a few whalers and explorers, not many people ever went to have a closer look. The serene stillness of the Arctic and Antarctic was a perfect match for human indifference. The onset of global warming, however, has changed everything.
Of course, that old indifference was not universal. In a rare spurt of collective political intelligence, and in order to prevent any risk of international conflict, an international treaty was signed in 1959 to govern Antarctica. This treaty dedicated Antarctica to exclusively peaceful aims. It recognized the existing territorial claims, declared them “frozen,” and forbade all physical assertions of sovereignty on the land of Antarctica.
The nature and content of that treaty were purely diplomatic. Only after its ratification did the first environmental issues arise. These were added to a revised treaty in 1972 by a convention on seal protection, followed, in 1980, by a convention on wildlife preservation. Most importantly, a protocol signed in Madrid in 1991, dealt with protecting the Antarctic environment.
As French Prime Minister, together with Australia’s then Prime Minister Robert Hawke, I was responsible for proposing the Madrid protocol, which transformed the Antarctic into a natural reserve dedicated to peace and science for 50 years, renewable by tacit agreement. It was not an easy success. We had to reject first a convention on the exploitation of mineral resources that had already been negotiated and signed in Wellington in 1988, thus risking reopening very uncertain negotiations. We were bluffing, but our bluff worked.
The Antarctic environment is now effectively protected by the international community, which is the de facto owner of this continent, without any national differentiations. It is the only such case in the world. Indeed, international lawyers who are seeking to define the legal status of outer space – Who will own the moon? Who will own the resources that may one day be extracted there? – often look to the “Antarctic treaty system” for precedents and analogies.
But Antarctica had one great advantage, as compared to the Arctic, which is now in peril: there were only penguins in Antarctica, not voters, especially voters of different nationalities.
BLACK FRIDAY SALE: Subscribe for as little as $34.99
Subscribe now to gain access to insights and analyses from the world’s leading thinkers – starting at just $34.99 for your first year.
Subscribe Now
Antarctica, though a huge continental archipelago, measuring 24 million square kilometers, and covered in ice that is 4-5 kilometers thick, is far from any inhabited continent. The Arctic is only water, with the North Pole itself 4,200 meters under the surface. But five countries are very close: Norway, Russia, the United States, Canada, and Denmark (via Greenland, which will become independent in the coming years).
Throughout most of human history, ice almost completely barred all navigation in the seas surrounding the North Pole, and the Arctic was asleep in a silent indifference. Everything has changed radically during the last three years. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has established that global warming is not uniform: whereas temperatures rose, on average, by 0.6°C in the twentieth century, the increase in the Arctic region was 2°.
Some estimates suggest that about 20% of the world’s total oil reserves lie under the Arctic. In 2008, for the first time in human history, two navigation channels through the polar ice field – in the East along Siberia, and in the West along the Canadian islands – were open for a few months, allowing boats to go from Europe to Japan or California via the Bering Straits, rather than the Panama Canal or the Horn of Africa, thereby saving some 4,000 or 5,000 kilometers.
Given global warming, this may now become a regular occurrence: thousands of ships will pass through the Arctic passages, emptying their fuel tanks and causing oil slicks and other forms of pollution. This poses a real threat to the Eskimo and Inuit populations, as well as to polar bears.
Moreover, according to the Convention on the Law of the Sea, countries’ enjoy absolute sovereignty in the first 12 nautical miles (about 20 kilometers) of their coastal waters sea, and almost absolute sovereignty, limited by a few conventions, within 200 nautical miles (360 kilometers) of their coasts. Any country that can prove that the seabed beyond 200 nautical miles is an extension of the continental shelf on which it is sovereign can claim sovereignty over it as well.
Russia, which three years ago used a submarine to plant a platinum copy of its national flag at the North Pole, claims sovereignty over 37% of the surface of the Arctic Ocean. The territories claimed by Russia include the North Pole and a huge oil field. If this oil is exploited, the pollution risks will be far higher than anywhere else. And could Russia, given its rearmament policy, be planning to set up underwater missile launch sites?
It is therefore urgently necessary to negotiate a treaty that guarantees peace and environmental protection in the Arctic region. It will probably be very difficult to achieve, but the effort should be viewed as a great cause for humankind.