Lynn Boylan (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

As someone who lives close to Newlands Cross, which is almost in Kildare, I think that qualifies me to speak on this motion. I would like to express Sinn Féin’s support for the motion. I commend the Green Party on tabling it. It would be welcome if Ireland joined the treaty. Not only would it be of great benefit to our research community, but I believe Ireland could play an important role in shaping the future of Antarctica and preserving it as a wilderness for future generations. I commend the arguments put forward in the motion about the positive role Ireland could play through its position of neutrality. In my contribution this evening, I would like to build on that and emphasise the positive role, which Ireland, with its own colonial history, understands.

To articulate our position, it is worth taking a critical look at the history of Antarctica through an anti-colonial lens. Antarctic exploration might not have the hallmarks of typical colonial projects because there were no indigenous people to subjugated and dominate, but make no mistake, if colonialism is reduced to its bare-bones definition of a struggle for control over territory and resources, the conquest of Antarctica fits the bill. The fact that states active in Antarctica are not currently plundering its resources does not erase the fact that the bulk of the continent is claimed by a handful of states based on a primitive process of discovering, claiming, and occupying. It is not as if there are no resources there to plunder. The continent likely has vast reserves of oil, particularly in the Ross and Weddell seas, with potential for mineral exploration under the ice sheet.

I will use my remaining time to challenge some themes of the narrative around Antarctic exploration and the treaty. A dominant narrative about the Antarctic Treaty is that it is responsible for "Pax Antarctica", as something that caused the imperial powers to set aside their self-interests for peaceful scientific purposes to the benefit of humanity. It is encapsulated in the motion being debated today, which calls the treaty "a progressive system". It is important to remember that the original flag-planting territorial claims have not gone away but are baked into the Antarctic Treaty, as evidenced by Article IV, which states "Nothing contained in the present treaty shall be interpreted as ... a renunciation ... of previously asserted rights of or claims to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica". In other words, the Antarctic is being held for science by the countries with territorial claims but they still reserve their right to exploit those reserves if or when the treaty falls apart. The probable reason why the Antarctic is still set aside for science has less to do with the treaty and more to do with the continent being locked under ice, with its resources still being too peripheral to the powers which could exploit them.

The second narrative is that Antarctica is a Terra Scientifica, set aside for the pursuit of knowledge, and that the scientific activity in Antarctica is, as the motion claims, apolitical. The reality is, as political ecologist Manon Burbidge has argued, that science is being used for naked political gain. Science serves to legitimise footholds in strategic locations across the continent. Most recently, we saw the siting of research centres by China, but the British, the Americans and others are equally complicit. The focus on science privileges wealthy countries in the governance of Antarctica to the exclusion of developing and former colonies. The colonial past and present are things that Ireland has a deep understanding of. We should reflect on them if we join this treaty.

I will conclude by looking to the future of the treaty in Antarctica. Unfortunately, the prospect of Antarctica remaining a preserve for science and conservation, free from military and mining activities, is bleak. Thanks to climate change, as the ice melts and technology advances, the barriers to resource exploitation will disintegrate. That is when the strength of this treaty will really be tested. Call me a cynic but it is more likely that we will then see national economic interests prevail, much as they have in the Arctic north. The question should be answered before too long, when the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, or the Madrid Protocol, and the ban on mining come up for review in the 2040s. Antarctica’s future is not yet written. If Ireland succeeds in joining, which I sincerely hope we do, we cannot just join; we have to be active. We must be a voice for a renewed internationalism that will speak up for former colonies and developing nations and protect the vast continent from the next phase of capitalism to materialise in Antarctica.