{"id":5329,"date":"2013-04-11T13:30:31","date_gmt":"2013-04-11T03:30:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=5329"},"modified":"2013-04-12T08:59:21","modified_gmt":"2013-04-11T23:59:21","slug":"introducing-australias-antarctic-challenge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/introducing-australias-antarctic-challenge\/","title":{"rendered":"Introducing Australia’s Antarctic challenge"},"content":{"rendered":"
Guest editor Anthony Bergin<\/strong>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/a>Here\u2019s Australia\u2019s Antarctic scorecard:<\/p>\n And we support this important national effort with a budget of a mere $112.8M for Australia\u2019s Antarctic program \u2013 not bad, eh?<\/p>\n But while other nations are ramping up their Antarctic activities, has Australia taken its eye off the ball? The last two austral summers has seen a flurry of activity in Antarctica brought on by the various centenaries of great expeditions of the heroic age of Antarctic exploration.\u00a0 The visibility of Antarctica has been enhanced by these commemorations, and the period has also been marked by some high profile visits to the continent itself.<\/p>\n A great deal is happening in the Antarctic: because of budget pressures brought on by the global economic crisis, many of the \u2018old\u2019 Antarctic nations are reducing their Antarctic capabilities while the \u2018new\u2019 Antarctic nations, especially in Asia, such as China, India and South Korea, are increasing their investments in capability and science. These new investments may well have implications for the balance of influence that has been the hallmark of Antarctic relations. Meanwhile, our Antarctic infrastructure is getting a bit long in the tooth and Australia has some big decisions to make in the near future, such as what to do with our aging flagship ice-breaker Aurora Australis.<\/p>\n As a leading Antarctic nation, Australia has a great deal invested in its science and Antarctic capability, in an environment where other nations are rapidly catching up.\u00a0 Antarctica therefore raises important questions for Australia. That\u2019s why we\u2019ve commissioned a series of contributions that will look at the range of Australian objectives in Antarctica, the assumptions that underpin these goals, and the options open for us on how best we can achieve our objectives. It\u2019s hoped that these contributions will inform those who are responsible for formulating and implementing our Antarctic policies.<\/p>\n So we\u2019ll look at a range of strategic policy interests we\u2019ve got in Antarctica and whether we need to trade off any of these goals:<\/p>\n How we set and weigh both complementary and competing priorities amongst our Antarctic objectives will be a key challenge (even if it\u2019s somewhat imprecise), as will judging how other Antarctic players react to our policy objectives and our pursuit of them. (Some of our policies might not be complementary with those of other Antarctic players).<\/p>\n How we set our Antarctic policies in a broader international context will be important, and that should play into how much we actually spend on our polar commitments. It may even be that there\u2019s a case for reducing<\/em> our current Antarctic activity. But it\u2019s noteworthy that last year\u2019s Australian Defence Force Posture Review<\/a> (PDF, p.iv) judged that \u2018over time, increased resources for relevant agencies, not just Defence, will be necessary to strengthen Australia\u2019s presence in Antarctica and the Southern Ocean\u2019.<\/p>\n In recent years we\u2019ve not really had to worry too much about Antarctica. But that state of contentment mightn’t last much longer. If the views of University of London\u2019s Professor Klaus Dodds<\/a> are correct, Antarctica is facing a series of crises over sovereign claims, commercial fishing, tourism, the rise of China and mineral exploitation. If these ‘Five Inconvenient Truths’ are to be believed, the treaty could break down, illegal fishing become rampant; our territorial claim disputed, the environment irreparably\u00a0 damaged and a ‘cold rush’ for oil, gas and other minerals begin\u00a0 .<\/p>\n Ukrainian scientists in West Antarctica, for example, recently announced that they\u2019d discovered a petroleum province<\/a>. Russia submitted a paper, (\u2018scientific results of Russian studies in the Antarctic in 2011\u2019) to last year\u2019s Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, which noted their interest in the continent\u2019s mineral potential and China is apparently also interested in Antarctic resources<\/a>. And as concerns over water security grow, iceberg harvesting might become viable: thirty per cent of the world\u2019s fresh water is stored in our Antarctic territory as ice.<\/p>\n The politics of Antarctica are starting to hot up. We need to ensure that our polar policy settings and capabilities are adequate for a new era in Antarctic affairs.\u00a0 Sitting on our hands, or trotting out familiar platitudes on our Antarctic policy won\u2019t be the best way to ensure our long term national interests in the frozen continent. We need to realistically consider our Antarctic interests and the future of our engagement in Antarctic affairs.<\/p>\n In the following weeks we\u2019ll be posting a number of pieces on The Strategist on the challenges ahead for our Antarctic policy, and how we can best continue to contribute to remain a leading Antarctic player.<\/p>\n\n
\n