Australia's Antarctic spending surge is extravagant, un-strategic and poorly targeted

On 22 February PM Morrison announced $804.4 million in additional investment on Australia's Antarctic territories over the next ten years.  The stated reason is "to strengthen our strategic and scientific capabilities in Antarctica"...and "provide more opportunities for local businesses.......especially in Tasmania.”

There are also the unstated motives.  The main one is to resist China's expanding presence in the Antarctic and a possible future land-grab.  It is also obvious that the Government (to a lesser extent) seeks to pork-barrel Tasmania in order to gain votes in the coming federal election.

According to the PM, “The money we are investing in drone fleets, helicopters and other vehicles will enable us to explore areas of East Antarctica’s inland that no country has ever been able to reach before.....My government will continue to back our world-class scientists and expeditioners.....because their research.......is critically important to Australia’s future".  (The reason why such research is "critically important" has never been explained.)

Antarctica was originally the ultimate "Terra Nullius", and Australia lays claim to 42 per cent of the continent.  Our claim is largely the legacy of a British one, that was transferred to Australia in 1933.  The catch is that only four other countries, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, France, and Norway, recognise Australia's claim.  The Australian Antarctic Division (AAD), based in Tasmania administers the area, primarily by maintaining three year-round stations: Mawson, Davis, and Casey, and employs about 300 full-time staff.

Sovereignty on the continent is fraught, and provides an opening for other countries interested in staking a claim.  The Chinese and (to a lesser extent) the Russians have shown an increasing interest in Antarctica.  There is a long history on the part of Australia of Antarctic cooperation with China.  Last year, China built its fifth research station base in Australia’s territory and is now suspected of wanting to subvert the Antarctic Treaty by exploiting fisheries and tourism, and, possibly, by mining the continent or using it for military purposes.

One wonders whether, if the positions were reversed and China was the country with a historic claim on Antarctica, would China would be tolerant of Australian bases?  China’s activities in the South China Sea point to Beijing’s willingness to ignore international law, when it identifies a compelling reason to do so.

China actually condemned Morrison's plans to boost its scientific and strategic presence in Antarctica.  It claimed Australia’s multimillion-dollar plan was part of the “Morrison government’s anti-China agenda” and was driven by “hostility toward China.”

The 1959 Antarctic Treaty bans mining, protects fisheries, and stipulates the continent can only be used for scientific and peaceful purposes, and promotes cooperation between countries.  The treaty did not deny or support the territorial claims of the 12 signatories.  (China was not one of them.).  A protocol to the 1959 treaty was signed in 1991.  It banned mineral and oil exploration for 50 years and included regulations for the protection of the Antarctic environment.

The tenuous nature of Australia's hold on its Antarctic territories coupled with our commitment to use the territory exclusively for research and conservation purposes means two things:

·       The first is that Australia may never get an economic return from its claimed Antarctic territories.  [That said, this is not sufficient reason for abandoning our claim to such a large expanse of territory.  It does, however, suggest that we should be prudent in our spending.]

·       The second is that it is difficult for Australia is to assert sovereignty because of weak support in international law.  Australia also has a weak military compared with major powers so that Australia would struggle to defend its Antarctic claim or exclude occupation by other potential claimants.  [In this context it is worth noting that Britain in 1948 had conflict with Argentina and Chile, involving token gunfire from the British navy, over claims to Antarctica by these countries.]

So what is un-strategic about what Australia proposes to do?  In my opinion the problem is that spending large amounts of money on "research" on the Antarctic mainland is unlikely to achieve much.  We should instead pay more attention to our sub-Antarctic external territories, where we have a stronger claim and may be able to potentially exploit their economic resources, particularly in marine areas of our exclusive economic zone.

Australia's Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is one of the largest in the world with a total marine area of around 10 million square kilometres.  This is larger than the 7.69 million square kilometres of the Australian mainland.  This EEZ area is made up of 8.2 million square kilometres off Australia and its remote offshore territories, and 2 million square kilometres off the Australian Antarctic Territory.  The EEZ extends to a distance of not more than 200 nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline.

Within its EEZ, Australia has certain sovereign rights to the water column, seabed and subsoil.  These rights potentially are quite valuable, especially considering the size of the marine areas involved.  The issue is that, while Australia's claim to much of Antarctica is not widely recognised, we have a much stronger claim to our external territories.

Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, and the Cocos have an EEZ totalling about 1.2 million square kilometres.  They are also well populated and are unlikely to be claimed by another country (though you never know).

Australia has two other external territories in the Southern Ocean that are barely inhabited or entirely uninhabited.

Macquarie Island has no permanent inhabitants, though it has an AAD base usually manned by 20 to 40 people.  What is noteworthy is that the island has a huge EEZ of about 472000 sq kms.

While most Australians have heard of Macquarie Island, most are unaware of our other sub-Antarctic territory, the Heard and McDonald Islands.  The islands [about 4,000 kilometres south west of mainland Australia, 1630 km north of Antarctica, and 450 km south east of (France's) Kerguelen islands] were discovered in the mid-1850s by American sailor, John Heard.  In the 1880s Heard Island became a base for sealers, who hunted elephant seal, fur seal and sometimes penguins.  One hundred thousand barrels of elephant seal oil were produced there before the seal colony became depleted.

The territory covers 368 sq kms and has a vast EEZ of 411000 sq kms.  Despite being Australian territory, it is entirely unoccupied.  [The United Kingdom formally claimed the islands in 1910 but transferred them to Australia in 1947.]  Australia opened a research station in 1947 but interest in the islands dried up once Mawson Station was established on Antarctica, and the base on Heard closed in 1955.

The islands contain both the tallest mountain and the only active volcanos and glaciers on Australian-owned territory (excluding Antarctica).  They are cold, wet, and extremely windy.  Heard Island is bleak, and mountainous, and hides in dense cloud for much of the year and is 80 per cent ice-covered.  It dominated by a large massif (Big Ben) and an active volcano (Mawson Peak).  Vegetation and wildlife (including teeming penguin, seal and flying bird colonies) only exist on its low-lying areas.  The most recent expedition to Heard was in 2016 by RV Investigator.  It took a team of 40 scientists for six weeks.

McDonald Island lies 43.5 kilometres due west of Heard Island, and is the major island in the McDonald Islands group.  It rises to 186 metres.  The McDonald Islands are so volcanically active they have doubled in area since 1980 but are currently virtually uninhabitable.

Australia runs periodic sea patrols around Heard Island to police fishing activity (mainly in respect of Patagonian toothfish).  Heard Island itself is rarely visited and the main anchorage site for vessels visiting Heard Island is Atlas Roads on the north coast of the island.  It is relatively sheltered from the prevailing westerly and south-westerly winds but is not a safe all-weather anchorage site.  Personnel and cargo may be transported ashore via small boat or amphibious vehicle or by helicopter.

It is interesting to compare the Heard and McDonald Islands with their nearest neighbour the (much bigger at 7215 sq kms and less barren) Kerguelen Islands (450km away).  These islands are part of the French Southern and Antarctic Lands, and (notably) are permanently occupied by 50 to 100 French soldiers, scientists, engineers and researchers at any given time.  There are no indigenous or long term occupants.  In addition to research, about 3,500 sheep (used for meat) graze the main island, and small quantities of vegetables are grown in a greenhouse near the main French base.

The bottom line is that, comparing Australian and French sub-Antarctic territories, and also bearing in mind the resources Australia devotes to its tenuous Antarctic claim, our Heard and McDonald Islands' territory is shamefully neglected.  Surely it makes sense to devote a modest proportion of our annual AAD budget to a small permanent presence on Heard Island, as Australia did between 1947 and 1955.  While the territory is inhospitable, so is the Antarctic, and there is much that we are yet to know about it and its vast marine economic zone.

Leaving the territory and its vast EEZ unoccupied for years on end simply invites a squatter nation to move in.