THE PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1986. Disrupting Antarctica’s peace

Press, 6 February 1986, Page 16

THE PRESS THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 1986. Disrupting Antarctica’s peace

New Zealand does not make the policy that governs the treatment of private expeditions that make calls on New Zealand’s base in the Antarctic. New Zealand applies the general policy agreed on by all the signatories of the Antarctic Treaty. The Prime Minister, Mr Lange, this week asked for a review of the set of rules that New Zealand has devised to effect this policy, and of the way they are applied. His request came after incidents concerning members of two private expeditions to the Antarctic this summer. Mr Lange may well decide that problems have arisen not because the rules have been applied too rigorously, but because loose application of the rules has led to unreasonable expectations on the part of some private visitors to the Antarctic. Nearly three years ago, the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research, meeting in Leningrad, expressed concern at the growth of tourism and private expeditions in the Antarctic region. The committee, of which New Zealand is a member, recommended: “Those countries using public funds to conduct scientific research and related support programmes in the Antarctic in keeping with the principles of the Antarctic Treaty find it necessary to devote all available resources to their national programmes and to the support of agreed international projects. Accordingly we are unable to offer assistance to any private or commercial expedition.” A year later the same committee was moved to note: “There continues to be a general but wrong assumption by many planners of private expeditions that services and facilities provided by national agencies in Antarctica are available for universal use.” Last September, the United States amplified its attitude in a policy statement that said specifically: “No, repeat no, support or other services have been offered or may be offered to, inter alia, the following expeditions’ requests” and listed Footsteps of Scott and Greenpeace among others. The American statement added, however, that “normal hospitality and common courtesies may be extended, bearing in mind that the visitors must be fully self-sufficient.” It also noted that, “In emergency situations, the U.S. is prepared to attempt, in accordance with international law and humanitarian principles, the rescue of private expedition personnel . . .” Put bluntly, neither the Footsteps of Scott expedition nor the Greenpeace expedition complied with the rules. Neither expedition was fully self-sufficient. Both were depending, in the last resort, on a kind of blackmail. If things went wrong, as they did for the Footsteps of Scott, humanitarian considerations would bring help from the American and New Zealand bases. In New Zealand’s instance, rules were bent to provide hospitality to members of both expeditions. That led, on occasions, to assumptions by members of private expeditions that facilities were there to be used as a matter of right. Bases in the Antarctic, including New Zealand’s Scott Base, are provided by taxpayers to support scientific programmes. They are not neighbourhood bars, or something equivalent to huts in the mountains that may be used by anyone able to reach them. The director of the Greenpeace Antarctic expedition, Mr Peter Wilkinson,

said this week that countries such as New Zealand should recognise that Antarctica did not belong to them and that Greenpeace had just as much right to be there as they did. Quite so. But neither do any of the facilities or services maintained by New Zealand have any obligations to Greenpeace or any other private expedition. Whatever hospitality or help may be provided is at the discretion of the officer-in-charge at Scott Base. That officer is not answerable to any private expedition, but to the New Zealand Government. Any support or service received by any private expedition should be regarded as a favour, especially when the expeditions concerned have few links with New Zealand.

Greenpeace claimed to have the object of asserting that Antarctica is the common heritage of mankind and that the continent should be designated as a world park. But by asserting that anyone has a right to be there they open the way, potentially, for any of the harmful activities that they might claim to be trying to prevent.

The Antarctic Treaty has proved over many years to be one of the most successful international agreements in the world. It is generally honoured by its signatories, in spirit as well as letter, and it has played a fundamental part in maintaining the integrity of the continent. Among the threats, to the treaty and the continent, the activities of inadequately equipped private expeditions that do not keep to the rules of the treaty and its signatory States must rate high. The motives of private expeditions might also be questioned. Footsteps of Scott members wanted to have an adventure and, presumably, make some money. Greenpeace wanted to score political points. Neither is particularly praiseworthy in the context of the Antarctic; neither justifies any assistance from State-funded resources in the Antarctic, whether those resources are provided by New Zealand taxpayers or anyone else. Greenpeace, especially, has the capacity to make mischief and cause official irritation. That, indeed, is what the organisation exists to do. The presence of one of its ships in Auckland last year has already cost New Zealanders millions of dollars and caused this country unnecessary international embarrassments. French intervention can be blamed for this; but it did not endow Greenpeace with saintliness in all that it does. The attempt by Greenpeace to reach the Antarctic has brought disruptions to the New Zealand Antarctic programme this summer.

It may be that Governments will have to insist that private ventures stay completely away from scientific activities and their supporting bases. Sooner or later the idea will catch on with a commercial enterprise if private ventures are not resisted. To insist that private Antarctic ventures be genuinely self-sufficient, in accord with the Antarctic Treaty, might bring to their senses those who try to take advantage of the presence of such bases. At the very least, to be required to fend for themselves, might bring home to Greenpeace and others the realities of the continent for which they claim to have so much concern. The others could include the very interests that Greenpeace would denounce as potential exploiters of the continent.