First Committee reviews question of Antarctica for third time, three texts adopted.

First Committee reviews question of Antarctica for third time, three texts adopted

Three draft resolutions--concerning the updating and expansion of a 1984 United Nations study on Antarctica; an invitation to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties to inform the Secretary-General of their negotiations to set up a minerals regime; and exclusion of South Africa from participation in the meetings of the Consultative Parties--were adopted by the First committee (Political and Security) on 2 December, as it concluded its consideration of the question of Antarctica.

Each text was approved by a recorded vote, after at least 35 delegations--including most of the 18 Consultative Parties and 14 Non-Consultative Parties to the Treaty--announced they would not participate in the vote. The drafts were subsequently adopted in the General Assembly on 16 December as resolution 40/156 A, B and C.

It was the first time in the three years the question of Antarctica has been on the Assembly agenda that the First Committee was unable to agree on a consensus resolution. (Consensus texts adopted at the 1983 and 1984 sessions concerned the Secretary-General's study on Antarctica (A/39/583).) Because no consensus could be reached at the 1985 session, most Treaty Parties decided not to take part in the vote.

"The Consultative Parties are firmly of the view that consensus offers the only realistic basis for the consideration of Antarctica by the General Assembly", Richard A. Woolcott (Australia), Chairman of the New York group of the Antarctic Treaty Parties, told the Committee just before the vote began. "Accordingly, they will be compelled to reconsider their future participation in the consideration of this item unless consensus can be restored."

Because the tradition of consensus on Antarctic matters had been broken despite "diligent negotiations" by the Consultative Parties, a draft sponsored by Australia on the Secretary-General's study was withdrawn, Mr. Woolcott said.

The text on the updating and expansion of the 1984 study on the question of Antarctica was adopted in Committee by a vote of 80 in favour to none against, with 9 abstentions. Thirty-five States announced they would not participate. Among those not participating in the vote were 16 Consultative Treaty Parties--Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Federal Republic of Germany, France India, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, USSR, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay-- and 10 Non-Consultative Parties--Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden. Others not participating were Byelorussian SSR, Colombia, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Iceland, Israel and the Ukrainian SSR.

A majority of the votes in favour of the resolution--later adopted by the Assembly as resolution 40/156 A--came from non-aligned States, joined by two Non-Consultative Treaty Parties (Peru, Romania). Nine countries abstained--China, a Consultative Party, Austria, Canada, Haiti, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Samoa and Turkey.

The text of resolution 40/156 A calls for the expanded study to address such issues as the availability of information from the Treaty Parties on their respective activities in and deliberations regarding Antactica; involvement of specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations in the Treaty system; and the significance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the southern ocean. The study is to be prepared in time for the 1986 Assembly.

The text inviting the Consultative Parties to inform the Secretary-General of their negotiations to establish a minerals regime for Antarctica, sponsored by Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Cameroon, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Mali, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Rwanda and Sri Lanka, was approved in the Committee by a vote of 80 in favour to none against, with 9 abstentions. The same 35 States which did not participate in voting on the text later adopted by the Assembly as resolution 40/156 B.

States voting for the resolution were for the most part members of the Non-Aligned Movement. A Non-Consultative Treaty Party, Romania, also voted for the text. The 10 abstentions included those of Peru, a Non-Consultative Party, China a Consultative Party, and eight other States which asbtained on the previous resolution.

By that resolution, the Assembly affirmed that "any exploitation of the resources of Antarctica should ensure the maintenance of international peace and security in Antarctica, the protection of its environment, the non-appropriation and conservation of its resources and the international management and equitable sharing of the benefits of such exploitation". Consultative Parties to the Treaty would be invited to inform the Secretary-General on their negotiations to establish a regime regarding Antarctic minerals.

Resolution 40/156 C, sponsored by the African Group of nations, by which Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties would be urged to exclude South Africa--one of the 12 original Treaty Parties--from participation in the meetings of the Consultative Parties "at the earliest possible date", was approved in the First Committee by a vote of 81 favour to none against, with 9 abstentions. Thirty-six States did not participate.

fifteen Consultative Treaty Parties did not participate--Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Federal Republic of Germany, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, USSR, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay. Ten Non-Consultative Parties did not participate--Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Spain and Sweden.

China and India, Consultative Treaty Parties, and Peru and Romania, Non-Consultative Parties, voted for the next. Those abstaining included two African States--Malawi and Swaziland--along with Austria, Canada, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, Samoa and Turkey.

Under the draft withdrawn by Australia (A/C.1/40/L.84), the Secretary-General would have been asked to suplement his study on the question of Antarctica by addressing questions concerning the availability of information from Treaty Parties on their respective activities and the Treaty system to the United Nations, and the involvement of the relevant specialized agencies and intergovernmental organizations in the Treaty System, and to prepare the update for the 1987 Assembly.

Report

In December 1983, the Secretary-General was asked by the Assembly (resolution 38/77) to prepare a "comprehensive, factual and objective study on all aspects of Antarctica, taking fully into account the Antarctic Treaty system and other relevant factors". States conducting scientific research in Antarctica, as well as other interested States, relevant United Nations bodies and specialized agencies, and international organizations with scientific or technical information on Antarctica, were asked to assist in the task.

The study was first put before the First Committee in 1984, and was a focus of Committee discussions in 1985 as well. It deals with physical characteristics of the continent, as well as legal and political aspects of the question of Antarctica, the Antarctic Treaty system, and scientific research and natural resources in the Area.

Geography: According to the report, Antarctica, the southernmost continent, co nsists of the area around the South Pole, its adjacnet ice shelf, the southern extremities of the Indian, Atlantic and Pacific oceans (the so-called southern ocean) and various islands. Some 13.9 million square kilometres in area, of which 98 per cent is a permanent ice cap, Antarctica covers one tenth of the earth's surface. Seventy per cent of the world's fresh water is stored in the ice cap, the report states.

Legal and political aspects: Since the beginning of the twentieth century, seven nations--Australia, Argentina, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom--have made territorial claims to parts of Antarctica. The claims are based on various legal grounds, including discovery, occupation, contiguity, inherited rights, geological affinity and geographical proximity, formal acts of taking possession and administrative acts.

By the mid-1950s, increasing tensions over the sovereignty issue and the active involvement in Antarctica of such non-claimant States as the USSR and the United States led to the awareness that an international agreement for the area was urgent to avoid a world-wide confrontation. Activities connected with the International Geophysical Year (IGY) in 1957-1958 paved the way for negotiations to make Antarctica a zone of peace.

On the initiative of the United States, the 12 countries which had participated in IGY--Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, USSR, United Kingdom and United States--agreed to conclude a treaty aimed at preserving the continent for international scientific research to be used only for peaceful purposes. The Treaty, signed in 1959, entered into force in June 1961 after the original 12 Parties ratified it.

Since then, 20 more States have acceded to the Treaty: Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Czechoslovakia, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, German Democratic Republic, Federal Republic of Germany, Hungary, India, Italy, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden and Uruguay.

The Treaty stipulates in the preamble that "it is in the interest of all mankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord". Under article I the Treaty prohibits any military activity on the continent, such as establishing bases or testing weapons. The use of military personnel or equipment is permitted only to support scientific research or for other peaceful purposes.

The treaty requires exchange of information regarding plans for scientific research and provides for exchange of scientific personnel.

To ensure compliance with its provisions, the Treaty establishes a comprehensive system of on-site inspection with complete access to all areas and installations in Antarctica. According to the Secretary-General's report: "The system of observation and inspection is one of the vital elements in the Treaty for assuring its operation in accordance with its terms. The Consultative Parties are convinced that it contributes significantly to the effectiveness of the Treaty and the realization of its principles and objectives, the most important of which is preservation of peace in Antarctica."

Inspections have been carried out by New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, Argentina and the United States. None has uncovered violations of Treaty provisions, according to the Secretary-General.

Sovereignty: The report clearly indicates that the Treaty does not settle the issue of territorial sovereignty. Rather, it freezes the status quo by providing, in article IV, that nothing contained in the Treaty shall be interpreted as a renunciation of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica; as a renunciation or diminution of any basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica which any Contracting Party may have; or as prejudicing the position of any Contracting Party regarding its recognition or non-recognition of any other State's right of or claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica.

Article IV also states that no acts or activities taking place while the Treaty is in force shall be a basis for asserting, supporting or denying a claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica or create any rights of sovereignty on the continent. No new claim, or enlargement of an existing claim, shall be asserted while the Treaty is in force.

Consultative meetings: A mechanism in the form of a system of biennial Consultative Meetings has been set up for exchange of information, consultations, consideration and formulation to further the principles and objectives of the Treaty. [The thirteenth Consultative Meeting was held in Brussels in October 1985.]

The Treaty is open for accession by any United Nations Member State, or by any other State which may be invited to accede to the Treaty with the consent of all the Consultative Parties. However, full participation in the work of the Consultative Meetings is accorded to original Parties to the Treaty and those Contracting Parties which demonstrate their interest in the region by conducting substantial scientific research there. So far, Brazil, China, the Federal Republic of Germany, India, Poland and Uruguay have acquired consultative status. Acceding Parties without consultative status have been invited to participate as observers in the work of the Consultative Meetings since 1983. As of 1984, non-consultative Parties have also been invited to attend as observers to negotiations on a proposed Antarctic mineral resource regime.

"Proof of interest in the form of substantial research activity may be regarded by some as a high entrance fee", the report states. However, Treaty Parties believe that such a requirement for consultative status "helps create a more professional approach", the Secretary-General reports. It is noted, however, that that requirement does not apply to the original Treaty Parties, not all of which have continuing research programmes in Antarctica.

Nuclear-weapon-free zone: Since the Antarctic Treaty was signed in 1959, the area has been free from militarization of any kind, including nuclear weapons, the report states. Compared with subsequent international agreements establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones, the Antarctic Treaty is unique in that it enjoys the concurring support of all five nuclear-weapon Powers. It has been noted that the Treaty thus represents an important example of co-operation between the Soviet Union and the United States in the field of arms control.

Environmental protection: The Antarctic exerts a critical influence on oceanic and atmospheric circulation, and thus on the global climate, the report observes. At the same time, Antarctic ecosystems are extremely vulnerable to disturbance. Since 1961, environmental protection of Antarctica has been a central issue in the Consultative Meetings. Approval of the 1964 Agreed Measures for the Conservation of Antarctic Fauna and Flora was the first significant step in that direction. Governments proclaimed the continent a special conservation area and agreed to take action to minimize harmful interference with the normal living conditions of native mammals and birds.

Because of the unique structure of the Antarctic ecosystem and the complex interactions between different species competing for food consisting mainly of krill (a small crustacean living in Antarctic waters), the report notes that an "ecosystem conservation standard" was required to manage the continent's living resources. In that regard, the 1982 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources represents an "interesting development in international law". Consultative Party negotiations also resulted in the 1972 Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Seals.

The 1946 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which set global quotas for catching whales, has helped to drastically reduce whaling in Antarctic waters, the report notes.

Mineral resources: "The hidden mineral wealth of Antarctica has been a subject of interest for many years", the report states. It has still to be proved that there are any mineral resources worth exploiting, but in recent years interest in the economic potential of the continent has increased. "As a result", the Secretary-General declares, "Concern for and tensions over the fate of the world's last unexploited continent are rising rapidly."

There are recorded "occurrences" (presence, often in minute quantities) of a wide range of minerals in Antarctica, including iron, coal, copper, molybdenum, gold, silver, chromium, nickel, cobalt, platinum, lead, zinc, tin, manganese, titanium and uranium. Because of the harsh environment, lack of infrastructure, tremendous transportation problems and high cost, there has been little minerals exploration activity until recently.

The mineral resource question "revives an old problem of claims for territorial sovereignty in Antarctica and non-recognition of such claims, because claimant States assert ownership over resources in their claims, while non-claimant States argue for freedom of access. The possibility of unilateral actions by both sides, and therefore of conflicts, is quite real and should not be discounted", the report states. In that respect, the possibility of Antarctic mineral resources raises the question of the need for elaboration of an international regime for management of exploration and exploitation of potential resources.

Problems raised by emerging interest in the economic potential of Antarctic mineral resources revolve around one main issue: how such resources should be managed. Supporters of one approach insist on discussion of the matter in a global forum, preferably established by the United Nations, to ensure that exploration and exploitation is carried out for the benefit of all mankind. Others, while acknowledging the need for an open international approach, favour consideration of the question within the framework of the Antarctic Treaty. In their view, the Treaty puts to rest the sovereignty issue; furthermore, the long presence in Antarctica of countries which have invested large resources should not be ignored.

The report notes that the Antarctic Treaty makes no special reference to mineral resources. However, the Consultative Parties have recorded their view that it would be "ironic" not to allow them to address the question of exploration and exploitation of those resources once it became an urgent issue of public concern.

The question was first raised informally in 1970, at the Sixth Consultative Meeting; two years later, participants in the Seventh Consultative Meeting, "noting technological developments in polar mineral exploration", decided to put the matter on the agenda. By 1977, the question was a major issue before the Consultative Parties, according to the Secretary-General. Consultative Parties were called on to refrain from exploration and exploitation of Antarctic mineral resources while working towards a regime covering such activities.

By 1981, the Consultative Parties decided that the question of elaborating a regime had become sufficiently urgent to convene a Special Consultative Meeting on the subject. Since then, negotiations have proceeded within that framework.

The Consultative Parties, by Recommendation XI-1 adopted at the eleventh Consultative Meeting in 1981, agreed that the regime should apply to all mineral resource activities on the continent and adjacent offshore areas "but without encroachment on the deep-sea bed", and that it should include procedures for adherence by other than Consultative Parties.

Debate

The question of Antarctica was first placed on the General Assembly agenda in 1983 at the request of two developing nations: Malaysia, and Antigua and Barbuda.

In 1983, the Assembly, acting by consensus, asked the Secretary-General to prepare a "comprehensive, factual and objective study on all aspects of Antartica, taking fully into account the Antarctic Treaty system and other relevant factors", for submission in 1984 (38/77). At the 1984 session, the Assembly, also by consensus, took note of the Secretary-General's study (39/152).

During the First Committee's 1985 debate, held over eight meetings between 25 November and 2 December, a central issue was whether or not the question should even be addressed by the Assembly. Most Treaty Parties felt the Treaty system was working well and that continued consideration of Antarctica by the United Nations was unnecessary, if not inappropriate. Many viewed the continued attention by the United Nations as an effort to dismantle the Treaty system--or all but the demilitarization aspects of it, at least.

Matters pertaining to the continent should be resolved by the Treaty Parties in the context of the Treaty, Treaty Parties said.

Arguments that the Parties formed a "closed club" were unfounded, the Consultative Parties contended. To counter criticism that information on the activities of Treaty Parties in Antarctica was unavailable to non-Members, it was pointed out that in 1983, it was decided that a handbook covering all recommendations of the Consultative Meetings should be prepared and regularly updated, and that final reports of the meetings would be transmitted to the Secretary-General for circulation at the United Nations.

Pointing to the co-operation that existed between all five nuclear Powers, in the context of Antarctica and the non-militarization of the continent, among other things, many Treaty Parties failed to see why the international community was attempting to change what, as Poland described it, was "one of the greatest achievements of international co-operation in modern times, based on a multilateral treaty". Any United Nations involvement in the question of Antarctica should be aimed primarily at strengthening the existing Treaty system, Czechoslovakia said.

Most Treaty Parties agreed with the United Kingdom that it was "virtually incomprehensible that the one area of the world where the Secretary-General's plea [to prevent nuclear catastrophe] and the aims of the [First] Committee have been met more fully than anywhere else should be under question here".

Non-Treaty Parties which spoke in the debate argued that Antarctica and its resources were "the common heritage of mankind" and that ways must be found to give the entire international community a say in managing its affairs, access to information being gathered, and a share in exploring and exploiting the natural--mineral--resources of the continent.

In that context, a number of countries supported the idea of setting up an ad hoc committee in the United Nations, to discuss international involvement in Antarctica. Non-Parties to the Treaty should not be excluded from benefiting from information obtained from activities undertaken in Antarctica, some States felt.

'Exclusivity'

a concern

Developing countries expressed concern at what they saw as the "exclusivity" of the Treaty, which limits voting membership to States which are actively participating in research in Antarctica--an activity they argued most developing countries could not afford. Some took the view espoused by Sri Lanka: "Participation should be based on the sovereign equality of Member States as embodied in the Charter."

African States in particular found it unacceptable that the Consultative Parties continued to allow South Africa to participate in their meetings. "Not juridical quibbling can . . . justify such a attitude on the part of States which in other circumstances claim to oppose racism and apartheid", Cameroon said.

Some speakers stressed they were not rejecting the Treaty system but, given the importance of the question, were arguing in favour of a United Nations mechanism for more thorough consideration of it and access to more information on Antarctic affairs.

"In talking about Antarctica we are not talking about a minute atoll of no significance in the middle of nowhere", said Malaysia, "We are talking about one tenth of the surface of the globe, strategically located, with a fragile ecosystem and possessing rich mineral resources. Antarctica, therefore, is of great significance to the world in terms of international peace and security, economy, environment, scientific research, meteorology, telecommunications and so on."

In outlining what it saw as the "realities" of the issue, Malaysia contended that States not party to the Antarctic Treaty were excluded from any involvement in managing the continent. The fact that non-Consultative Partiers could now participate as observers in the Consultative Meetings and the minerals negotiations was not sufficient. That participation was still limited, it said, and there was no evidence it had any influence on deliberations.

Only six of the 18 Consultative Parties were from developing countries, and no African or Arab States were represented, Malaysia pointed out Measnwhile, the "racist apartheid regime" enjoyed the status of Consultative Party.

"Whatever views may be held regarding the applicability of the concept of common heritage to Antarctica, at the very least it must be acknowledged that Antarctica is not the common heritage of the Consultative Parties, to be disposed of in any manner they think best", stressed Malaysia.

Antarctica's resources should be regarded as a "common heritage" and any exploitation thereof should ensure the maintenance of international peace and security on the continent, the protection of its environment, the non-appropriation and conservation of its resources, international management and equitable sharing of the benefits of such exploitation, Malaysia argued. All Member States should be involved in determining the regime that would govern resource exploitation on the continent.

Certain aspects of the question of Antarctica could "profit from further examination", Malaysia said. It would be useful for all States to examine information on the Consultative Meetings and Special Consultative Meetings, including current negotiations on the minerals regime, as well as information on the operations of the Antarctic Treaty system and activities of the Treaty Parties on the continent. More information on the role and effectiveness of the non-Consultative Parties would also be helpful.

As for the machinery through which such a study could be undertaken, Malaysia preferred the idea of an ad hoc committee in the United Nations, but would not yet press this idea.

The significance of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in the southern ocean should be elucidated, Malaysia said, especially as it related to the possible exploration and exploitation of its mineral resources. That could not be resolved by the Treaty Parties alone.

Some oppose

revision

Australia said Treaty Parties firmly opposed the proposal to establish a United Nations ad hoc committee on Antarctica. Such a move would lead to "institutionalized United Nations involvement in the management of Antarctic affairs" when a "proved, effective system" already existed for that purpose.

Furthermore, moves to revise or replace the Treaty system might reopen competition between States on the sovereignty issue, heightening international tension that had been avoided for more than 25 years.

Nor would an ad hoc committee add to the existing capacity for dialogue. "There is no problem in Antarctica the crux of whic we need to address", Australia said. "No people have colonized Antarctica; nobody has been denied self-determination in Antarctica; no nuclear explosions have taken place there; no dumping of nuclear waste takes place there. Nobody is exploiting Antarctica economically. On the contrary, the Antarctic continent's only export at present is scientific knowledge."

Austratlia said it was a "strong supporter of common heritage" in outer space and for the deep sea-bed. "But the prerequisites for applying the common-heritage concept are an international consensus that designated areas are beyond the limits of national jurisdiction and that they are not governed by an existing legal regime." Neither was that case in Antarctica, where there were long-standing sovereignty claims "whether they are accepted or not", and a Treaty that had existed for a quarter of a century.

The argument that the Treaty system was an "exclusive or closed club" with no accountability had no basis in fact, Australia said. Any State with a substantial interest in Antarctica had only to accede to the Treaty if it wished to participate more actively in Antarctic affairs. As for "accountability", Parties to Treaties concluded outside the United Nations were not normally expected to be accountable to the Orgaization.

In response to the African countries' plea for expulsion of South Africa from the Treaty, Australia said that even if South Africa were excluded from the Consultative Meetings it could not be excluded from the Antarctic. It was not in the interests of countries active in the region, or of the international community as a whole, to have any country acting in Antarctica without the constraints and obligations imposed by the Treaty. There were advantages to having South Africa bound by Treaty provisions, particularly those relating to demilitarization, denucearization, inspection, scientific investific investigation and environmental protection.

In response to criticism of negotiations on the mineral regime, Australia said, "Antarctica is not a cornucopia of untapped mineral wealth." No mineral deposits economically worth extracting had yet been found, and there was little likelihood of it happening in the future. The fact that negotiations for a minerals regime were taking place now rather than in 50 or 100 years reflected the Treaty's ability to anticipate and deal with issues before they became serious difficulties. Any United Nations Member could participate in the negotiations by acceding to the Antarctic Treaty, Australia pointed out.