Dear lexi3,
Thank you for a very interesting question. It seems, that the ban on
mining in Antarctica is almost unanimously agreed in the international
level (1). The arguments of those supporting the ban, as you might
already know, are basically environmental, to promote the protection
of the unique flora and fauna of the continent. In this sense, it
wasn’t easy to find arguments supporting a lift of the ban on mining
in Antarctica.
However, few arguments have been made, especially by U.S. officials,
who were opposed to the ban for a lengthy period, before the
ratification of the Antarctic Treaty, banning all mining and mineral
extraction activities in Antarctica.
First of all, U.S. officials have claimed, that such a ban is easily
over-ridden, if there is a potential of economically worthy mining
development opportunities in the region. Therefore, they claimed that
an internationally recognised ban might not be protected in such
conditions and there is no point in attempting to achieve such a ban
in the first place (2).
In this context, it should be mentioned that illegal fishing has
already taken place in Antarctica. Without regulation of the mining,
and with a complete ban, it could be claimed that the area would be
vulnerable to illegal, unregulated, and environmentally hostile
mining. An amendment introduced by the US to the treaty actually
means that a nation can avoid the ban on mining in Antarctica by
proposing an amendment to allow the permitting of mining and that does
not interfere with existing Antarctic sovereign rights (3).
A second argument made by US officials previous to resigning and
signing the treaty, was that actually, since environmental and mining
technologies are developing, they might not contrast each other in the
future. In my opinion, this is a much more viable argument. Tucker
Scully, director of ocean and polar affairs for the State Department,
claimed at that time, that “"It may be that in the future some exotic
mineral is found . . . and technology will be developed that allows it
to be extracted in an environmentally sound fashion."(4). Therefore,
if the main argument of those upholding the treaty is environmental,
this argument could be easily overridden by such technological
innovations.
This brings up another argument. In cases of shortage in minerals and
especially the energy producing ones, the ban could actually cause
“inflation” in the cost of minerals, depriving poor countries of the
ability to use the benefits of energy or minerals. In other words,
“This will become increasingly the case during the next century as the
profitability of Antarctic mining becomes a reality in the face of
diminishing world mineral supplies and a growing world demand for
them” (5).
The shortage could be “natural” (over exploitation of the existing
mineral reserves) but could also be the outcome of non-geological
factors, such as a major international conflict: "Non-economic
reasons, such as a major war or the desire to have secure emergency
resources regardless of cost, could put pressure on all Antarctic
resources” (6).
Naturally, another fact should not be overlooked: minerals mined in
Antarctica might be extremely useful for the benefit of international
society. Therefore, the ban on the extraction of these mineral might
be actually harmful to some societies.
Antarctica is also divided by several nations. It could be claimed,
that national interest are more important than the consideration of
international treaties. If a county such as Russia is dwelled in
economic crisis, but could help itself by executing minerals from its
territory in Antarctica, why shouldn’t it? Is the Antarctic
environment more important than medications for sick Russians? Is it
more important than bread and clothing for these people?
Sources
=======
(1) See for example: "Mining is banned in the Antarctic by the
Antarctic Treaty, and there are no known future plans by the Antarctic
Treaty nations to reverse this decision. The original Antarctic Treaty
of 1959 did not discuss resource issues for fear of jeopardising the
Treaty. By the 1980's the issues were raised again, and after the
failure of the Convention on the Regulation of Antarctic Mineral
Resource Activities (CRAMRA) to enter into force, new proposals were
accepted, which led to the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the
Antarctic Treaty. This was signed by the Antarctic Treaty Parties in
1991 and became law in January 1998 after the last of the signatories
had put in place the required domestic legislation. The UK legislation
was enshrined in the Antarctic Act (1994) . The Protocol sets out the
broad principles under which environmental protection in Antarctica is
to be regulated, and includes a ban on all commercial mining for at
least fifty years. The objective is to designate Antarctica as a
natural reserve devoted to peace and science . Even before the
Environmental Protocol became law it was clear that there were no
commercial pressures to introduce mining in Antarctica." British
Antarctic Survey, “Are there future plans for mining in Antarctica ?”
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_Antarctica/FAQs/faq_03.html
See also the following:
Auswärtiges Amt “Antarctica: the Antarctic Treaty system”
http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/www/en/aussenpolitik/vn/antarktis_html
DOD (India) Annual Report “Policy and Law relating to Global Commons „
http://dod.nic.in/ayr90-91/ar_exb.htm
(2) Greenlink, “ENVIRONMENTALISTS CRITICIZE U.S.-BACKED ANTARCTIC
PACT” Newsgroup misc.headlines.unitex, 1989-10-04 06:16:23 PST,
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3313%40ccnysci.UUCP&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain
(3) Kristen M. Fletcher , J.D. and Tim Wilson, J.D. “Antarctica
Treaty Purports to Protect Ocean”
http://www.olemiss.edu/orgs/SGLC/antar.htm
(4) Greenling, ibid.
(5) Bernard P. Herber, “Environmental policy, the global commons,
and Antartica” The University of Arizona Fall 1992 Volume 5, Number
1 http://www.udallcenter.arizona.edu/publications/initiative/5-1antarctica.html
. It should be noted, that Prof. Herber, like almost any other source
I have found, brings up no arguments in favour of lifting the ban, but
merely mentions that the shortage of world resources could cause a
demand for Antarctic minerals.
(6) Patrick G.Quilty "Is mining worthwhile in Antarctica?”
http://www-old.aad.gov.au/information/more_res/mining.asp
I hope this answered your question. Extensive research was cinducted
in order to find the very few dissenting voices on the question of
mining in Antarctica. I have used search engines as well as databases,
to locate information, using key words such as "antarctica", "lift"
"ban" "mining". If you need any clarifications on this question,
please let me know. I'd be pleased to clarify my question before you
rate it. |
