logo
Russian and Chinese plans for Antarctic expansion spark alarm

Russian and Chinese plans for Antarctic expansion spark alarm

Experts warn Russia and China's plans to expand their presence in Antarctica may be linked to mining or military ambitions that are at odds with the nature reserve's peaceful governing principles.
Australia was among 58 signatories to the Antarctic Treaty, which covers activity in the region, which met behind closed doors in Milan in June and July.
Earlier this year, China announced plans to build a sixth permanent research station in Antarctica, while Russia is reopening and upgrading stations, as well as building a new runway for long-haul aircraft.
The two countries have also been accused of undermining conservation efforts by blocking new protections for marine areas.
Some experts have raised concerns the infrastructure and logistical expansions could be underpinned by non-scientific motivations.
Bill Muntean represented the United States at the 2023 meeting and is now a non-resident senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a policy research not-for-profit organisation based in Washington DC.
"There are significant questions and concerns over activities in the oceans off Antarctica," he said.
"What are Russia and China doing with their scientific explorations?"
The Antarctic Treaty, which came into effect in 1961, prohibits military activity on the continent, and promotes scientific research.
China and Russia are both signatories.
Compounding the two nuclear-armed superpowers' expansion blueprint is the fact the White House has announced deep cuts to its Antarctic funding, totalling about $US60 million ($91.9 million).
Jeffrey McGee, an expert in the treaty from the University of Tasmania, said Russia, China and the US were "big players" in Antarctica.
"This pullback of funding from the United States means Australia has to be ready to step up, in terms of maintaining and increasing our scientific and logistics presence," Professor McGee said.
"We need to make sure that we maintain and grow our influence in the region to protect that national interest."
Professor McGee said some scientific equipment that had been installed on Antarctica could have dual uses.
"What we are talking about here are infrared telescopes, GPS and ground-station receivers that can communicate with satellites," he said.
"More and more of that equipment has been put into Antarctic research stations.
"That gives rise to the possibility of that equipment having a dual purpose, in the sense that it can be used for scientific uses, but it can also interface with military and surveillance satellites, upload and download information or be involved in military command control communication systems."
Increasing a strategic footprint in Antarctica could allow nations to secure future access to natural resources, strengthen geopolitical influence, and have a greater say in shaping the continent's future rules.
Antarctica offers untapped potential and global leverage when it comes to science and security, as data from research stations that collect scientific data can also be used for military or intelligence purposes.
Building outposts also gives countries a physical and technological presence that could be repurposed in the future.
A report by the UK parliament's Environmental Audit Committee released last month highlighted how Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine deepened the geopolitical rift among signatories to the Antarctic Treaty.
It questioned the purpose of Russia's seismic surveys in Antarctica, suggesting they could be about identifying natural resources.
"Geopolitical tension and the prospect of potential mineral reserves are straining peace and environmental protection in Antarctica," the report found.
"Antarctica's potential reserves of oil, coal and iron ore present a risk of future conflicts."
The committee's chair, Tobi Perkins, told the ABC that Russia and China's expansion in Antarctica needed to be watched closely.
"At this stage we don't know exactly what we should be worried about, but in the absence of dialogue and clarity and transparency, the Antarctic Treaty partners must maintain robust oversight," the MP said.
While Russia and China's expansion plans are within the rights of the Antarctic Treaty, Mr Muntean says he wants the number of inspections of bases on the continent to increase.
Under the treaty, countries are encouraged to hold each other to account over compliance issues.
For example, Australia has conducted inspections in Antarctica for more than 60 years, including at bases operated by China, Russia and Moscow's puppet state, Belarus.
"One can speculate on any number of things that can be happening in Antarctica," Mr Muntean said.
"There hasn't been evidence of commercial mining that I've seen, just a lot of concern that the scientific activity could eventually lead to commercial mining.
"But if there are any questions about what is down there for military equipment, personnel or reconnaissance, we need to check it out.
"Shine the flashlight underneath the bed — is that a teddy bear or is it some scary monster? We've got the flashlight. Use it."
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump sends nuclear subs towards Russia over ‘provocative statements'
Trump sends nuclear subs towards Russia over ‘provocative statements'

News.com.au

time2 hours ago

  • News.com.au

Trump sends nuclear subs towards Russia over ‘provocative statements'

Donald Trump has ordered two US nuclear submarines to be moved closer to Russia in response to 'highly provocative statements' from the nation's former President Dmitry Medvedev. Mr Medvedev, now deputy chairman of the Security Council of Russia, taunted Mr Trump and his threats towards Russia over a Ukraine ceasefire, in a post on X earlier this week, writing 'each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war'. Taking to Truth Social on Friday, Mr Trump announced he had 'ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that'. 'Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances,' he added, without revealing the location of the submarines. Mr Trump didn't say whether a specific statement from Medvedev prompted the retaliation, as the Kremlin official has been on an anti-American tirade for weeks. The President also didn't specify whether he referred to nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed submarines. The location of submarines is usually kept secret by the military, so the public may never know where or whether the ships will be moved. Mr Trump's threat is the first time he's suggested using the nuclear option in his battle with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has defied America's warnings about continuing Russia's war on Ukraine.

Trump's new tariffs reveal somewhat vindictive and irrational strategy
Trump's new tariffs reveal somewhat vindictive and irrational strategy

ABC News

time3 hours ago

  • ABC News

Trump's new tariffs reveal somewhat vindictive and irrational strategy

Myanmar, Laos, Serbia and Syria. They seem unlikely targets for some of the most aggressive moves in Donald Trump's war on the global trading system. Yet these small and troubled nations are among those facing the highest tariffs from the United States in the wake of its president's slew of August 1 trade announcements. Myanmar, which mostly exports clothing to the US, and Laos, which predominantly exports electronics equipment, now face 40 per cent tariffs on the goods they sell to America, while Serbia will be hit with a 35 per cent tariff and Syria 41 per cent. None of these countries have been notably the subject of the same public Trumpian wrath as, say, Canada (35 per cent) and Brazil (50 per cent) since "Liberation Day" on April 2. And the country which is arguably the biggest target or threat to the US in terms of world trade — China — was not mentioned at all but will be engaged with in further negotiations. Having said that, there is still a 40 per cent on goods regarded as being "trans-shipped" to avoid higher tariffs (for which read "trans-shipped from China"). And the tough treatment on Friday of South-East Asian nations which are manufacturing hubs for China must be seen as an indirect assault on the regional economic superpower. In Australia, the focus on Trump's tariff announcements on Friday (AEST) was of course primarily on the "relatively" good news that we were still only facing a 10 per cent tariff, when the spectre of a 15 or 25 per cent generic rate had been mentioned by the US president in the days leading up to the announcement. The outcome somewhat took the wind out of the sails of those who have been criticising the prime minister for not getting to the White House, or into any meeting with Trump, and instead boosted the argument that there was little to be lost from staying out of his uniquely coiffed hair. Australia will enjoy the 10 per cent tariff rate being applied to those countries that buy more goods from the US than they export to America: that is, that run a trade surplus with one of the world's biggest economies. The new tariff regime starts at 10 per cent, based on trade balance, lifts to a 15 per cent rate for countries that only have a small deficit, while those with big deficits, that haven't negotiated, or that have otherwise incurred the ire of the president face this much wider and more unpredictable range of outcomes. It's worth pausing for a moment of silence to mark the momentous shift in global affairs that the Friday announcement confirms: the shift not just from a free trade ambition to a protectionist one by the United States, but a shift to a system of fairly arbitrary, vindictive and sometimes irrational decisions. Beyond that, though, the patterns in the trade deals that have been done to date — or perhaps more appropriately the lack of patterns and rigour — raise a range of other questions about their impact, and the extent to which they appear in some cases to be little more than standover tactics of lesser or greater actual import. Take the deals struck with Japan and the European Union last month. Both exemplified some striking features of the "deals" being done. In both cases, the parties documented very different understandings of the deals they thought they had done. There were also glaring holes in the deals in terms of major sectors about which there was only a conspicuous silence. For example, the EU deal was silent on wine and spirits. Most of the deals have yet to be formalised or legislated. Finally, the US has been claiming in almost all of the deals that it struck prior to August 1 that they involved massive commitments of investment in the US by the trade partners involved. For example, in Japan's case, the White House announced that Japan would create a $US550 billion fund to invest in the US, with Trump making the investment decisions and the US government receiving 90 per cent of the profits. It seemed this astonishing deal was news to Japanese negotiators who, the New York Times reported, had already made an offer (which in itself seemed extraordinary): to create a $US400 billion investment fund with half the profits going to the US government. The US president subsequently referred to the deal that he announced as a "signing bonus", which underpinned Japan "only" facing a 15 per cent tariff impost, even as doubts were aired about whether the investment would ever materialise. The NYT reported that Japan's chief trade negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa told Tokyo that the deal was that Japan would offer a blend of investment, loans and loan guarantees, totalling up to $550 billion, with profits to be allocated based on each side's committed risk and financial contribution. There have been similar scenes unfolding over possible investments from the European Union and South Korea. Equally unsettling has been the increasingly blatant intrusion of non-trade factors into the tariff decisions announced by the White House. Brazil is facing 50 per cent tariffs because Trump doesn't like the way former president, strongman and Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro is being treated by the Brazilian judicial system, where he is facing up to 40 years in prison for allegedly plotting a coup to stay in power after losing the 2022 election. By agreeing this week to a Trump demand for a ceasefire, Thailand and Cambodia appear to have ended up with lower 19 per cent tariffs they had originally been proposed. Canada appeared to be facing a more punitive tariff regime than Mexico at 35 per cent — which Trump said was due to Prime Minister Mark Carney signalling Canada would recognise statehood for Palestine. But it turns out the higher tariff rate will not apply to goods covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. That covers an estimated 94 per cent of Canada's exports to the US. The tariff decisions will have a very different impact to those suggested by the headline numbers in other countries too. For example, Germany may only face a 15 per cent tariff as part of the EU deal but is particularly exposed through its big automotive exports to the US. Another shock was the 25 per cent rate applied to India. This caused immediate political blowback for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi who claims "bestie" status with the US president but who immediately faced intense criticism at home that this elevated position had not saved India from a punitive tariff rate. What happened in India is just one of the examples of the political shock waves caused around the globe by Trump's moves, in addition to any economic impact they may have. There is considerable concern in Europe, for example, about how European Union member nations react to its deal. The federated nature of the EU structure lends itself to a lot more public debate about a deal not directly negotiated by national leaders. The concern among European political analysts this week is that the deal will play into the hands of far-right and nationalist groups in fuelling resentment against both the EU and sitting governments. It will take countries around the world some time to see how these domestic pressures play out. And then there's the question of how such a deliberately uneven playing field affects their relative competitiveness to each other, even when direct trade with the US is left out of the calculations. It feels like a certain resignation has crept into global trade discussions in the past few months. It is driven as much by a trade-off between uncertainty and certainty as specific tariff numbers. If there is one thing we seem to know about Donald Trump, it is that all that uncertainty is unlikely to end any time soon. Laura Tingle is the ABC's Global Affairs Editor.

Donald Trump says he's moving US submarines in response to 'provocative' Russia
Donald Trump says he's moving US submarines in response to 'provocative' Russia

ABC News

time4 hours ago

  • ABC News

Donald Trump says he's moving US submarines in response to 'provocative' Russia

Donald Trump says US nuclear submarines are being repositioned in response to "provocative statements" from Russia's former president, Dmitry Medvedev. In a Truth Social post on Friday, Washington time, the US president wrote: "Based on the highly provocative statements of the Former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev, who is now the Deputy Chairman of the Security Council of the Russian Federation, I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that. "Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances." Mr Medvedev, who is close to president Vladimir Putin, has been mocking Mr Trump on social media in recent days. After Mr Trump said he was giving Russia a 10-day deadline to agree to a peace deal in Ukraine, Mr Medvedev accused Mr Trump of taking a "step towards war". In an X post on Monday, he wrote: "Trump's playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10… He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn't Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country. Don't go down the Sleepy Joe road!" On Thursday, Mr Trump used social media to tell Mr Medvedev to "watch his words".

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store