U.S. National Strategy Reinforces Commitment on Antarctic Treaty System

The United States Reinforces Commitment to Antarctic Treaty System

Authors: Evan T. Bloom and William (Bill) Muntean

On May 17, 2024, the White House issued a National Security Memorandum on United States Policy on the Antarctic Region (NSM-23) and Fact Sheet. This is one of the most important announcements by the United States regarding Antarctic policy in decades and replaces the previous national strategy that had been issued in 1994. The policy makes clear that “the United States will continue to lead cooperative international efforts through the Antarctic Treaty System (ATS) to maintain the Antarctic Region for peaceful purposes; protect its relatively pristine environment and ecosystems, particularly given the key role Antarctica plays in the global climate system; and conduct critical scientific research, long into the future.” The policy is fundamentally in keeping with longstanding U.S. practice for the region and reflects the significant benefits the ATS has provided to the United States, and thus NSM-23 is more of a policy update than a new policy. There are a number of notable elements to the policy; these include:

Alone and Updated:

NSM-23 rescinds and replaces the prior policy from thirty years ago issued under the Clinton Administration as Presidential Decision Directive/NSC-26 (1994). That document’s limited scope was intended to encourage the U.S. Congress to ratify the then newly-negotiated Environmental Protocol and to protect funding for Antarctic scientific research and operations. The updated policy also firmly separates Antarctica from Arctic policy, recognizing the significant differences between the two poles.

Strongly Support the ATS:

The policy gives strong support to the Antarctic Treaty and its related instruments which form the Antarctic Treaty System. NSM-23 focuses on the Treaty, its Environmental Protocol, and the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. Recognizing that the strength of the ATS is that it can evolve to face current issues, the policy says, “the United States has held and will continue to take a leadership role in negotiating and implementing related agreements concerning the Antarctic Region.” That leadership role has been evident in U.S. actions over the years, including its investment in Antarctic science and active role in Antarctic diplomatic bodies, but has not been a point of emphasis in high-level policy documents, until now.

Sovereignty:

The United States has for over a century, since 1924, rejected all claims to sovereignty in Antarctica, including those made by allies and friendly countries. The updated policy strongly and clearly supports that policy by stating that the U.S. “reiterates its steadfast position of not recognizing the sovereignty claims and reserving all its rights throughout the whole of the Antarctic Region, consistent with the Antarctic Treaty.” The countries that currently maintain claims are Argentina, Australia, Chile, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom. This removes any doubt that U.S. continues to wish to remain a bulwark against these claims, despite the fact that these claimants include close allies, and would oppose any other claims, which are in any event prohibited by the Treaty. Under the Antarctic Treaty, the United States (like Russia) maintains a “basis of claim”. While not discussing this aspect, NSM-23 clearly allows for that basis as a possible element of U.S. policy, even though there is no indication the U.S. would act on such a claim.

Peaceful Cooperation:

The policy refers to maintaining the region as a zone for peace and international cooperation to pursue science and environmental protection. NSM-23 does not focus explicitly on current concerns related to behavior by competitors like Russia and China, including with respect to how dual use technologies might be used now or in the future by these or other countries or resource management. It therefore demonstrates the U.S. commitment to maintaining the status quo in the region through international cooperation, which gives the impression that Washington wants to calm conversations about the inevitable rise of great power competition in Antarctica or the imminent demise of the ATS.

Civilian and Scientific Control:

According to NSM-23, the Department of State, National Science Foundation, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are the relevant U.S. government agencies for U.S. policy and actions in Antarctica. It is notable that the Department of Defense is not mentioned in NSM-23, which is consistent with the U.S. approach over the past decades to deemphasize Antarctica as a theater of conflict, and to ask other countries to invest in civilian rather than military support for Antarctic activities. Related, the policy also notes the importance of arms control, noting the Treaty’s basic prohibitions on militarization and support for compliance tools, specifically in-person inspections.

Compliance Monitoring:

The policy does not rely on good faith to achieve its aims but reinforces the importance of using the Treaty’s monitoring tools to “remain vigilant against actions by countries that could threaten U.S. national interests by bringing international discord to the Antarctic Region.” The Fact Sheet specifically discusses the importance of the inspection regimes (which the policy notes has been used more by the U.S. by than any other country), including most recently in 2020.

Domestic Action:

The U.S. has fallen behind in approving commitments that the U.S. made at ATCMs years ago, notably with respect to Measure 4 (2004), Annex VI (2005) on liability, and Measure 15 (2009), which deal broadly with environmental and tourism matters. The Fact Sheet promises that the Administration will “work with Congress to meet international commitments and to ensure the appropriate domestic legislation and regulations to safeguard the wide range of U.S. interests in the Antarctic Region,” which implies a willingness to proceed with these matters in Congress. It also states it will work with Congress to support its research stations and the research conducted there, including in the Southern Ocean, as well as the long-overdue and challenging process of modernizing its polar icebreaker fleet.

Environmental Protection:

NSM-23 provides the following guidelines, which are to “promote the application of a precautionary, ecosystem-based approach rooted in the best available science to sustainably manage target, associated, and dependent species.” The policy supports the Environmental Protocol’s prohibition on mineral resource activities, otherwise known as the “mining ban.” This is one of the Treaty System’s key contributions to environmental protection and reinforces the U.S. position at the 45th Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting in Helsinki, Finland where the United States led the efforts to reinforce the commitment to the mining ban that does not expire in 2048 or any other year.

Fisheries:

The policy gives strong support to the precautionary and ecosystem-based management approach of the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) and gives strong support for establishing marine protected areas, as tools to conserve Antarctic marine living resources. Of particular importance is the direction that NOAA and NSF will maintain strong science programs that inform CCAMLR decision-making and that “enable the United States to persuasively advocate for effective protection and conservation of Antarctic ecosystems and marine living resources.” NSM-23 thus underscores the key role that U.S. science provides in strengthening U.S. diplomatic efforts.

Climate Change:

NAM-23 advances U.S. policy objectives in particular by focusing on the importance of Antarctic in relation to climate change. NSM-23 notes how climate change information – including that from Antarctica – is developed and disseminated through the United States Global Change Research Program. It highlights scientific issues it is particularly interested in, including “ocean warming, sea level rise, ocean acidification, stratospheric ozone depletion, pollution, threats to biodiversity, and the risk of reaching tipping points such as the collapse of the West Antarctic ice sheet.” It also raises the importance of international collaboration, which could indicate that the United States will use the Fifth International Polar Year in 2032-2033 as an opportunity to cooperate in Antarctica on matters of global importance. The Fact Sheet states the United States will encourage countries “to set ambitious 2035 nationally determined contributions under the Paris Agreement that are aligned with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

By issuing this updated policy NSM-23, the United States has joined with the other countries most active in Antarctica in providing their national policies in recent years. It also provides welcome positive news about U.S. commitment to the region, including working with Congress to appropriately support U.S. interests in the region. While there are a variety of interests reflected in the various national policies, no country has expressed any desire to end or replace the Antarctic Treaty System. Although there will be challenges at the ATCM that has just started in Kochi, India, this consensus about the overall direction of the region is a positive development for the Antarctic region and the United States.

The writers are former U.S. heads of delegation to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings. The opinions and characterizations in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. government.

Authors: Evan T. Bloom and William (Bill) Muntean

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 14: Life Below Water – The article discusses the importance of protecting the Antarctic marine living resources and promoting ecosystem-based management.
• SDG 13: Climate Action – The article highlights the significance of Antarctica in relation to climate change and the need for international collaboration to address climate-related issues.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions – The article emphasizes the peaceful cooperation and international efforts through the Antarctic Treaty System to maintain the Antarctic region for peaceful purposes.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 14.2: By 2020, sustainably manage and protect marine and coastal ecosystems to avoid significant adverse impacts, including by strengthening their resilience, and take action for their restoration in order to achieve healthy and productive oceans – The article mentions the promotion of an ecosystem-based approach to sustainably manage target, associated, and dependent species in the Antarctic marine ecosystem.
• Target 13.3: Improve education, awareness-raising, and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning – The article highlights the dissemination of climate change information, including that from Antarctica, through the United States Global Change Research Program.
• Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable, and transparent institutions at all levels – The article emphasizes the importance of compliance monitoring and the use of the Antarctic Treaty’s monitoring tools to remain vigilant against actions that could threaten U.S. national interests in the Antarctic region.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 14.2.1: Proportion of national exclusive economic zones managed using ecosystem-based approaches – The article mentions the promotion of an ecosystem-based approach to sustainably manage the Antarctic marine ecosystem, indicating a potential indicator for measuring progress towards Target 14.2.
• Indicator 13.3.1: Number of countries that have integrated mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction, and early warning into primary, secondary, and tertiary curricula – While not explicitly mentioned in the article, the dissemination of climate change information through the United States Global Change Research Program suggests a focus on education and awareness-raising, which could be measured by this indicator.
• Indicator 16.6.1: Primary government expenditures as a proportion of original approved budget, by sector, disaggregated by sex, age, and persons with disabilities – The article emphasizes the importance of compliance monitoring and the use of the Antarctic Treaty’s monitoring tools, indicating a need for effective and transparent institutions to track and report on compliance efforts.

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: polarjournal.ch