The symbolic territory of Antarctica

Politiral

Cro,qruphv. Vol. 15. No. 5, pp. 359-364 lYY6 Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved 0962-6298/96 $ I5 (Ml + 0.00

Pergamon 0962-6298(95)00005-4

Comment The symbolic territory of Antarctica M. Manzoni

Consiglio Nuzionale

delle Rice&e, Segreteria Tecnico-Scient$ca Antartide, Coma, Italy

per il Progrumma

ANI)

PACNNI

P.

Dipatiimento

Territorial

di Scienze Politiche, Seziotze di Geografia, Uniuersitti di Trieste, 34170 Gorizia, via Aluiano 18, Italy

production

in Antarctica:

Antarctica is a symbolic the power

territory,

of the

changing

and transforming

in the continent’s

actions

ephemeral anthropizing dispersed and natural

Human

marginal

sporadic

resources

regional

accomplishments

installations’

declared

access

human

functional

goals-for

temporal

discrete

similarities

is not,

However,

the the on

elements as is the

on geomorphokqical

systems

and on the water

all the

more

symbolic

their

classification

example

or to

in fact. based

of the rest of the territory. depends

actions

observatories)

or route, or on geographic

control

are

the

numerous

and

are obvious.

region

settlement

transportation

in Antarctica

through

whose

as deserts,

mandate

spatial

automated

bases),

Antarctic

to the effective

In the latter,

that condition

such

the second,

perform

to such

and

temporary

of the

lands,

than they are transformative.

runways

territories,

necessary

areas.

are subjected

in Antarctica.

And in this sense

its strategies

takes place in Antarctica

and

which

and

of

Both constituent

is a reality grounded

metaphorical.

representative

deposits,

occupation

considerations

with desert

structures

fuel

(expeditions

of other and

morphok~gica~

construction

of bases,

representation

present space,

of the world’s

remains Power

but they are more

power-are

one-tenth

symbolic.

space,

of territorial

activities

and

on Antarctica

is essentially

metaphoric

the first element,

area. representing effect

that their functions

installation

an essentially

actors takes place and evolves.

it, But whereas

on the Antarctic

The process

case

which

of territory-space

surface

territory

restrictions (the

concept

and its changing

Antarctic

upon

of states and other international

elements

power,

metaterritory

of the oases. insofar

as rhe

as scientific

station--do not always correspond to the functions actually exercised. Indeed, the policies of certain Antarctic states are satisfied by the simple territorial realizations of only occasionally preSellc~. The modest

occupied

settlements

anthropization

and by other

of Antarctica

ephemeral

depends

and purely

exclusively

token

gestures

on very distant

of

seats of

power: the state capitals, the centres of technological specialization that make activities in the hostile environment possible. the headquarters of the international organizations. the

360

Comment

commercial

headquarters

of the tourist companies

of the richest countries. The Antarctic

space, insofar as it is the object of political decisions, is thus much closer to the capital and industrial cities of the northern southern

hemisphere

than it is to the extreme

In Antarctica, as in outer space, an extremely conducted

expensive

of the

effort for territorial control is

with no immediate or proximate return on resources.

in other hostile or uninhabited nearly always economically of natural resources Arctic petroleum regions,

reaches

lands.

territories, with the exception

of human resources:

or for the great works of hydrological of short-

and medium-term

different nature of Antarctic anthropization: confirmed

are

decided by the search for primary materials, the production

or the planned employment

The absence

The great undertakings

of military installations,

by a second fundamental

engineering

economic

this is the case for in arid and remote

prospects

indicates

the

it is, in fact, political and strategic. This is

circumstance:

the direct commitment

of the states,

present in Antarctica through public research bodies and other institutions of the states, including the armed forces. In certain between

writings

on international

the territorial conditions

law, striking

of Antarctica

similarities

have

been

and other areas beyond

revealed

any national

jurisdiction subject to international accords: for example, the 1967 treaty on the principles regulating

states’

atmospheric

activities

space,

in areas

including

of the exploration

the moon

and

and other heavenly

exploitation

bodies;

of extra-

the 1979 accord

regulating the activities of states on the moon and other heavenly bodies; the Law of the Sea convention

of 1982. On the one hand, Antarctic space

traditional territories as compared white continent’s

to planetary,

surface is available for the physical presence

under relatively natural conditions, outside

the isolated

promotes technological

emplacements

and the absence

vicinity of the stations,

spacecraft than to the characteristics expansion

where,

and exploitation

The explanatory

control,

which

temporal (provisional) selection,

are conditions

better likened

and remain

and human (limits total importation

of any territorial exploitation,

of their surrounding

of

even in the

to those of ships or

of the stable settlements which spontaneously

among their other functions,

categories

by 26 states represent the

are not self-sufficient

on the length of stays, turnover of ‘crews’, demographic

on other continents

difficulties. On the

(Long-distance

positioned

these installations

entirely artificial. Their spatial (size, isolation),

immediate

spaces. The

and activities of humans

and direct control of the territory is virtually

points of the stations.

on earth.) The bases and equipment

characteristics

and seabed

powers into strategic powers, is possible, as it now is everywhere

only territorial accomplishments;

supplies)

is even more similar to

albeit with certain environmental

other hand, in Antarctica the occupancy impossible

interplanetary

evolve

they serve as centres for the

areas.

of political geography

are the most suitable for analysing

the creation of territory in Antarctica, a symbolic place which coincides only slightly with reality but which has significant geopolitical value in that it completely fulfils the communications function given it by the actors on the international scene. In order to pursue their own objectives

regarding the Antarctic space, power and diplomacy

have

developed a suitable metalanguage in which common terminology assumes improper meanings. The concept of border, which ought to coincide with the legal concept of the spatial limitation of sovereignty, is not applicable in Antarctica. Indeed, the ‘borders’ between sectors claimed by certain states and not recognized by others are arbitrary geodetic lines which neither confine nor exclude the states activities; they are not surveyed nor, for that matter, are they controllable. The sectors’ ground borders are drawn on an ice cap in continual motion, and transverse all the natural geomorphological

M.

MANZONI

features. Similarly, the concept of occupation, to the spotty correspond

installation

of bases

361

AND l? PAGNN

already severely reduced, in spatial terms,

that are completely

to the usual structural and functional

isolated

requisites,

ability for real control of the territory. For example,

by land,

does

such as diffusion

Antarctic ‘occupation’

not

and the

does not serve

to create the possibility of excluding others, much less the ability to continue to do so, due to the logistical and even physical impossibility of developing temporal

discontinuity

and the occupants’

terms such as ‘border’ and ‘occupation’, require

an interpretive

reading,

‘territory’ does not correspond In common characteristics

an extensive presence,

dependence

fundamental to any politico-geographic

it is even more evident

geographical

are physical. Consequently,

political geography

limitations to human possibilities

here

of the greatest artificial resources

by the

most

advanced

in outer space is obvious.

immigration

In this sense as well, the analogy with human presence

The frontier between

by the exclusive

the Antarctic region and the inhabited

dependence

of Antarctic anthropization

insofar as it can no longer merely be considered

on the earth’s surface but requires that a technological crossing of the technological

political

of the Antarctic space cannot

interests, much less founded on the spontaneous

of individuals and communities.

advanced technology,

technology,

resulting from the use

capable of modifying a space.

Today, as in the past, significant and lasting colonization be triggered by economic

is faced with

creates maximum

for modifying a space. Yet on the other hand, because

possible

is also faced with its own most possihilistic hypotheses,

world is also modified

and environmental

aspects insofar as the ‘hostile’ environment

is made

of

to current usage when applied to the Antarctic context.

as in reality, the dominant

humanization

analysis,

that the primary concept

perception, AntarCtiGI

the

on the outside. While

of

its own most deterministic

geography

absolute

frontier is a discriminating

threshold requirement

upon

a spatial boundary

be surmounted.

The

of an economic

and

strategic nature which drastically limits the number of actors capable of operating on the Antarctic scene. In conclusion, but necessarily

the creation of territory in Antarctica has begun using traditional means remains

Occupation-essentially and partitioning-under conditions therefore

creates

unfinished,

and the outcome

virtual and metaphorical the southern

and improper.

polar region’s

geographic

possession

and environmental

a spatial order upon which power works only weakly and which

does not correspond

to the current accepted

scientific point of view the most appropriate Of Antarctic space

is anomalous

and which may foreshadow

iS that

Of

meaning

of territory.

From a

concept for defining the political condition

m&tterritOry.’

Politics and the Antarctic territory The transformation

of the Antarctic space into territory is promoted both by the states that

have advanced claims and by the Antarctic Treaty. The treaty, no matter how innovative and even utopian in its political solutions,

is conservative

creates the premises for traditional territorialization

in its territorial conception.

It

insofar as it: provides for certain uses

of the space and identifies a territory by specifically defining the limits of the area of application; confers territorial titleship upon the agreement’s contracting parties; spatially regulates

activities,

thus, in territorial terms,

providing

for the creation

of areas (for

example, the multilaterally managed or protected areas), defining and delimiting them not only on maps but also with concrete markers located on the landscape. The national states, as strong subjects of the international Antarctic community, have precise, consistent and continuative intentions for the region. They pursue these

362

Comment

individually, with different strategies. For the states, the Antarctic space already has enough territorial characteristics to constitute an authentic, traditional geopolitical object, with geopolitics understood to be the doctrine of international political relations which have territory as their theatre and their focus. The strategic goals of the states are pursued through the usual forms of geopolitical confrontation: control of territory (access, passage, settlement) and the utilization of the resources. For governments, the costs of strategic objects are by definition low. as power is their ultimate end. In fact, no matter what their level, the financial resources required are in any event justified in the eyes of the public that is asked to sustain them, Indeed, in a system based on the maintenance of peace and cooperation, the demonstration of individual strategic intentions is diplomatically inopportune. Therefore, actions with strategic ends are dissembled behind the screen of other activities, especially exploration and scientific research. The spatial distribution of scientific experiments, the request for transportation and communications infrastructure and the location of their settlements (for example, the US base at the South Pole physically stands at the point where all the sectors claimed by the other countries meet) are concrete territorial acts which at the same time have a high symbolic value, and which de j&to realize the strategic intentions denied by diplomacy. A more frankly political goal, territorial sovereignty, is pursued in strict connection with the claimant principle,

states’ strategic

not renounced

the treaty prevents

interests.

these

from being

do not seek more

or less exclusive

European

Austria,

powers:

Switzerland. political

These

From the perspective

enforced. Finland,

a category allow

broader of creating

and

manifestly

realize

Antarctic whose

is decidedly

logistical

importance

actors’ Scientific

and personnel. Antarctic

undeniable

seems

terms of the absolute with

other

scientific

primary, quantity

fields

research

a

by the product,

of LIPto 3500 titles per

the role of science, employed.

Analogies is great:

while

both in

are possible space

system

have Thus,

radically

innovated

at the conference

the

the fundamental

only

research

reasons

marking

for

and

reason

and

of various states which cannot realistically have strategic aims in Antarctica. The of the scientific policies introduced over the past decade by countries new to presence.

constitutes

play

is a measurable

to the means

importance

often

presence evolution

Antarctic

research

they

out for decades

resources

literature

is advanced,

out in Antarctica They may directly

physics,

international

scientific

disinterested

of the financial

science

and its results.

the strategic

but

carried

in terms

Antarctic

and

whose

advanced

the

However,

objectives, research,

disproportionate

of the research

where

states,

that are carried

by a body of scientific

year. Even for those states whose and indeed

Spain, Sweden

use of its space.

activity

which

Antarctica.

the activities

the specialized

the predominant

realization

strategies,

but non-claimant

regarding

although

small and medium

them to play the role of relatively

respective

is demonstrated

various

Italy, the Netherlands,

of involved

territory,

role or serve as a pretext.

states,

employed,

the

include

have, in

rights,

States with no territorial

expectations

are, in fact, the real tools constituting demonstrative

and their potential

rights or benefits

conditions

of humanity’s

states and two great powers

to sovereignty

Denmark,

constitute

and economic

interpreters

At least seven

their claims

forms

SCAR’s 30th anniversary,

for the

of

the the

singular role of Antarctic scientific policies was described, to paraphrase Von Clausewitz, as follows: ‘In AntXCtiGi, science is the continuation of politics by other means’. Technology is the basic operating tool for effectively carrying out any and all activities in Antarctica, and several actors have developed appropriate and remunerative polar technological specializations. States that do not produce the advanced technology is indispensable to their presence in Antarctica must acquire it elsewhere.

which

MANZONI ANI) I? I’AGNINI

M. The effective always

been

necessary

presence

of people

an essential

requirement

to produce

The human

presence

space

each

that

communities, ;ts fishing

territory,

of the

which

cc~nstitutes

a political

T‘li~ current Antarctic community.

to

on Antarctica‘s

or between

Certain

attractive

simply

With

natural

defusing

such

personnel; such

Each USC of the affirmation

and

on

Antarctic

a continental primitive

scale,

that could

lands.

there.

of these

each

of any actor that could such

of the

of distances-which.

polluted

as

also constitutes

value

by weighty

physical

the

for the unique

and last

and

on

ethical

And the political

arise from individual

elements the earth’s

ocean>-constitutes depends

economic

a use.

rather than

is confirmed

is respect

whose

exercise

as knowledge

environment-regulating

The

In

for the right-began.

for the future of humanity.

conflicts

status; that. in

arrival

that Antarctica’s

the

This

to emersed

to be the conservation

justification

conditions.

is

territorial

of such a choice

and

and greater

limited

and its resources

global

atmosphere

resources

the possible

to the

to new

nevertheless

the measurement

The worthiness

The scientific

right

conception,

processes,

of Antarctica

the

region.

to humankind’s spatial

between

of the international

in the Antarctic

to a pre-legal

of the absence

conflicts

actors

the states’

of the many functions

the

over its uses. Divergencies

to potential

that it is understood

respect

justification. of intact

preserving spaces

of the space.

laboratory

territorial

lay the foundations

conservation

cleansing

preservation

component.

liberties’

alludes

prior

shown,

ice) fulfil with

and

military

libertarian

distribution,

The safeguarding

environmental

industry

achieves

law and right were

those

use’ in the sense

the transformation

climate

arrival,

and their

The environmental This is a ‘negative

(air, water.

when

condition,

has definitively

justifications.

apparent

did not exist because

elements

(:arl Schmitt

its

times,

humankind’s

geographic

scientific

activities,

of state organizations

and the other

support

and dangerously

pre-territorial

,liberties‘ them.

system

of ‘pre-existing

in

fact. of the seas in ancient Antarctica’s

and tourist

correspond

positions

in the name

ambiguous

space

the treaty

diplomatic

11sage of Antarctica fundamentally

of: the

in economic

structures

territory,

of the states’ activities.

It is composed

involved

tourists

has

in turn

to the uses of the Antarctic

future is, in fact, a debate

uses of the Antarctic

though

those

of the embryonic produce

product

presence,

success.

debate

states,

for itself.

and finally, a significant

tends

Physical

and geared

technologies;

the personnel or

over the future

proposes

in advanced

and post offices;

produces

appeal.

actors

territory.

Spdce

geographic

in a defined political

is diversified

are the most numerous;

and trade

;I:, schools

property

of traditional

is thus the primary

in Antarctica

CC)lonist settlements; space

and

353

the

exclusive

justification

is

justification

is

appropriation

of Antarctic

and resources.

Only

a

generalized

revolutionary the expansion

environment.

on the icy continent anthropic

The normative In grappling conceptual

and

and adopted

of the human

of its natural primitive

political

conception

presence

ethical

arrangement,

by the entire in Antarctica

international and achieve

In this case, and only then,

would

cease,

and its space

revert

of

innovative

or

community, the integral

the attempts

halt

conservation

to produce

to its pre-cultural

even

could

territory

state.

to the

void.

role of political with

difficulties,

the

geography

Antarctic

region,

in Antarctica political

not only in the application

geography

meets

of its own technical

with language

substantial but even

in applying its own traditional models. If political geography had dealt with the Antarctic case at the end of the 19th century, it would have had before it one of the utopias of

Comment

364 naturalistic thought-uncontaminated degraded

by the

Antarctic

space,

humanized, much

unthinking marked

except

established

intrinsically

of traditional

and there

by a disorderly

here

locally and for the worse. as it is pre-established

a strictly territorial

vision

Indeed,

unable

states,

to abandon,

the

objects.

still organized

as

either in principle

or

Through

very limited

the states have created the premises

land where a very costly, temporary

is permitted

policies;

has not yet been

in which what is at stake is not real sovereignty,

this trophy, on a desolate human presence

assault,

the Antarctic territory is not so

of geopolitical

on Antarctic spaces and resources

possible confrontations

appropriative

by the national

territorial actors and therefore

perception, operations

ground. Today it instead faces the site of a utopia

intervention

only by massive technological

for

but its image. For

and entirely artificial

support,

an international

conflict could develop. The Antarctic

case demonstrates

territory is still in the beginning conditions,

possession

the possibility

or metaphoric

without occupation

of generating

conflict

even when

stages: in fact, under the unique Antarctic and without spatial transformation

can be

pursued. ‘Virtual territory’ is not unknown to history: the papal bulls of the 16th century, for example,

assigned sovereignty

over completely

unexplored

unknown lands and seas, defined by the arbitrary boundaries It was agreed that sovereignty discovered conventional

bringing

geography, exercises

were created between

Spain and Portugal, on these absolutely

geographical to pass

as knowledge,

what

Lacoste

bases. Thus, a

a determinant

polemically

asserted

of war or of

centuries

‘serves to make war’. Political geography,

dilemma

regarding

future is between

htarCtiGi’S

continental

realizable through the establishment scale.

political geography demonstrating

If the international could contribute

is for integral

geographic

pre-vision

retrogressive

region’s

opts for the politico-strategic

in the interests of humanity. If

in truth less probable

would reveal the necessity to current

be analogous

use,

to the logic of a peaceful and stabilizing choice by

conservation,

with respect

status would

use,

of territory,

of an integral natural reserve on the

the advantages of total internationalization

the choice truly

community

also role.

politico-strategic

pursued until now through primarily symbolic activities for the constitution and non-use,

later:

therefore,

a much more influential normative function than merely its descriptive

The basic

were

the two major

hypothetical,

symbol, the meridian, constituted exactly

entirely

coordinates.

effective only if lands, i.e. resources,

in those regions. Conflictual conditions

Catholic powers, peace,

would become

areas containing of geographic

today,

of an international

attempts

at appropriation.

to that of natural

parks:

the political-

solution which is The Antarctic

its space

would

be

territorialized in that it would be assigned borders and functions through an act of power on the part of international

will, but it could neither be appropriated

nor exploited

for

other uses by individual actors. The stabilizing benefits of an undivided Antarctica are confirmed for both choices by political geography in its function as a normative science that ‘serves to make peace’. And peace, as has been authoritatively observed, is indivisible as well.

Notes 1. The authors have discussed the phylological validity of the term, and would perhaps find the term ‘prototerritory’ the meaning conditions

to be more exact; however,

that the nature

‘metaterritory’

itself of the concept

such as those of Antarctica.

is considered

of ‘territory’ may change

adequate

to convey

in reference

with