Antarctica, a continent of scientific cooperation and a beacon of peace in an antagonistic world

Antarctica, the white continent that seems so distant, is central to the thermal balance of Earth’s climate system. It covers approximately 14 million square kilometers (5,405,430 square miles) — the fifth largest continent on the planet — and is surrounded by the Southern Ocean, which spans nearly 20 million square kilometers (7,722,040 square miles). On its ice sheet, some 70 scientific bases from nearly 30 countries investigate the climate, oceans, atmosphere, glaciers, and their ecosystems.

This natural laboratory has been governed since 1961 by the Antarctic Treaty System, which stipulates that “Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only” and reserves it for scientific cooperation. In a world marked by geopolitical tensions and the climate crisis, this agreement stands out as a historical anomaly: an experiment in international cooperation that has endured for more than six decades.

Question. You have just published the book Antarctica as a Model for Global Peace, a collaborative work with specialists from various countries about Antarctica as an example of sustained international cooperation. What led you to produce it?

Answer. We did it to generate a movement of dissemination and debate in an increasingly antagonistic world. We sought common ground because, ultimately, we all want a healthy, stable, and secure world. The question was: Is this a valid example of peacebuilding? To answer it, we brought together 16 authors from 20 countries and showed that Antarctica is one of the most successful models of peaceful governance and international cooperation. If we don’t actively work to build peace, what naturally arises is tension and conflict.

Q. In a tense international context, concerns are growing about the future of Antarctica as a space for science and peace. How are these interpreted from the perspective of Treaty governance?

A. In the Antarctic community, which brings together the actors of the Treaty System, there is a clear consensus on the need to uphold it. The challenge arises when external actors come into play, where geopolitical and economic interests carry weight, sometimes in a hostile manner.

In this context, different narratives emerge. One is that of danger: for example, Russia’s geological prospecting campaigns, which some interpret as signs of interest in hydrocarbons, something [that is] explicitly prohibited. The idea that the Antarctic Treaty expires in 2048 is also circulating, which is false. The treaty has no stipulated end date.

What does exist is the Madrid Environmental Protection Protocol, which prohibits mining and allows for a possible review in 2048, but only if a party requests it and a qualified majority approves it. That possibility is remote, although some are using it to promote the idea of ​​positioning themselves in the search for resources. For its part, the United States has been a central player in the Antarctic Treaty System, and there is no evidence of non-compliance by any country. However, the United States is facing cuts in scientific programs and funding for polar research, which poses new challenges.

Q. What role should South America play in the future of Antarctica?

A. The South Atlantic remains one of the safest, least militarized, and most stable maritime routes on the planet. Between 80% and 90% of global trade moves by ship, and today many routes are under tension, such as the Suez Canal, the Panama Canal, and the South China Sea. In this context, the South Atlantic acquires strategic value.

Thinking about Antarctica also involves considering its surrounding areas. In the South Atlantic and the Southern Ocean, the routes connecting the Atlantic and Pacific pass close to the Antarctic Peninsula, the point on the continent closest to South America. It would be worrying for the region if this passage were militarized or became a battleground between powers. Therefore, there is a push for a more active role for Brazil, given its significant influence.

For Latin America, maintaining the status quo of Antarctic peace is important: a conflict would attract other actors with external interests. Even countries with territorial claims, such as Argentina and Chile, prioritize this balance. The region needs its own Antarctic agenda and to preserve this stability. The South Atlantic is key in this regard, as a natural projection toward the Southern Ocean and Antarctica.

Q. How has the Antarctic Treaty managed to remain stable for more than six decades?

A. There are five core principles of the Antarctic Treaty that explain it. The first is demilitarization: the continent cannot be militarized, and nuclear weapons and testing are prohibited. Next is transparency: all scientific and logistical activities must be reported and can be inspected by other countries. The third factor is “constructive ambiguity”: countries with territorial claims have agreed to freeze them. They do not relinquish their claims, but neither do they exercise them. Another principle is dialogue and consensus: decisions are made without objection from either party. Finally, there is flexibility, as the system incorporates complementary agreements that allow it to adapt. This combination explains its continued validity for more than six decades.

Q. Antarctica is often mentioned as a resource reserve, but it is also key to climate balance. What do we really know about that potential and its role in the global system?

A. Antarctica holds approximately 70% of the planet’s freshwater. In theory, it could contain fossil fuels, but their extraction — currently prohibited — would be complex: the continent has about 3,000 meters of ice, and the costs are very high. Furthermore, oil is still available in other regions.

As for rare minerals, it is presumed they might exist, but their presence is not known for certain. This, in a sense, works in Antarctica’s favor; there is no extensive prospecting because the treaty only permits scientific research, and there are no real incentives to create conflict.

Beyond its resources, Antarctica plays a central role in Earth’s thermal balance. Through ocean currents, it redistributes heat and regulates processes such as desertification and excessive rainfall. Climate systems are interconnected — we often say that without Antarctica there is no Amazon — and what happens in the far south influences the entire planet.

In addition, the Southern Ocean captures carbon and its icy surface reflects solar radiation. Furthermore, it regulates sea level, which could rise between half a meter and slightly more than a meter by the end of the century, impacting coastal areas, aquifers, and agricultural lands.

Q. If Antarctica plays such an important role in the planet’s balance, what is the greatest risk it faces today?

A. The main danger is global warming. Rising temperatures accelerate ice melt. We can imagine Antarctica as a giant cake about 3,000 meters thick, receiving heat from above, from the atmosphere, and from below, from the warmer ocean. This weakens its base and causes large blocks to break off, which now act as barriers to keep the interior glaciers on the continent.

Scientists agree that this process has already begun and is unlikely to stop. What we don’t yet know is how quickly it will occur or what its exact impact will be, because it’s a very complex system to model. One example is the Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica, known as the Doomsday Glacier because of its potential impact on sea level. The big unknown is the timing: whether it will happen over decades or in a much longer process. That is one of the greatest challenges for humanity.

Q. Plastic pollution in Antarctica is one of the problems that Agenda Antártica addresses. How prevalent is this phenomenon on the continent today?

A. Antarctica doesn’t generate plastic; it receives it: it’s a victim. Therefore, what can be done there is limited. There are direct sources, such as greywater from ships and scientific stations, but a large part of the microplastics comes from washing clothes and synthetic fibers. That’s why there’s talk of filtration and new regulations.

There is also a broader concern: a global treaty on plastics is being negotiated that targets the main sources of pollution affecting Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. It is important to understand that this is not a pristine place. It is also polluted, and that serves as a warning sign: it shows the extent to which our activities reach every corner of the planet.

One figure is frequently repeated: by 2050 there could be more plastic than fish in the oceans, at least by weight. Ultimately, we’re talking about how we treat our home, the planet that will continue to exist. The question is how we’re going to live on it.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition