The Antarctic as a Park

The Antarctic is remarkable for reasons beyond its harsh climate and pristine wildness and beauty. It is one outpost on Earth where there are no national boundaries, where visitors can go anywhere without visas or passports and where a variety of nations work side by side in the interest of scientific research. But the Antarctic no longer is protected by its sheer isolation from worldly problems. The ice-capped continent is facing new economic and environmental pressures that threaten to upset the idyllic fashion in which the region has been administered peacefully by the international community since the early 1960s.

Even tourism, with its attendant litter, has come to the continent and the South Pole. But the immediate concern of the United States is whether to ratify a proposed new treaty that would provide for the controlled exploration and development of mineral resources, including petroleum, in the Antarctic. The Bush Administration has been one of the most vigorous supporters of the 1988 Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral Resource Activities. But a growing number of countries are dropping support of the convention in favor of the permanent protection of Antarctica from such exploitation by declaring the continent a world park or wilderness reserve.

It already may be too late to save the convention. At last week’s Paris conference of 39 nations on Antarctica, there were reports that convention opponents France and Australia have been joined by Italy, Belgium and India. Brazil and Mexico also may oppose ratification, reported The Times’ Rone Tempest. Jacques-Yves Cousteau, a leader of the French opposition, claimed that the U.S. delegation was the only one still in support of ratification and that even the U.S. delegation was not in unanimity. Sen. Albert Gore Jr. (D-Tenn.) has sponsored a resolution that would postpone American approval pending study of a plan to manage the Antarctic as an ecological commons under a new international treaty.

While Gore said the minerals convention is a considerable step forward, the pact does not provide the needed environmental protection for the continent, and might have the effect of stimulating commercial exploitation. The minerals convention requires ratification by 16 of the 20 nations that participate in the Antarctic treaty system. Mineral exploration has been forbidden under a gentleman’s agreement, but there are considerable fears of a sudden rush to exploit the continent’s resources in the absence of any formal regulation.

Even environmentalists acknowledge that the convention is exceedingly strict. For instance, the opening of any area to mineral exploration would require the unanimous vote of all 20 counties. And no actual production could occur until all the countries agreed on an additional protocol establishing liability for environmental damage.

Considering the bleak outlook for the minerals convention at the moment, there is no rush for the U.S. Senate to ratify it. The United States should reassess its position and seriously consider the proposals for a comprehensive new convention making the Antarctic an international park or global ecological commons.