China in Antarctica

Press, 12 April 1984, Page 20

China in Antarctica

The enthusiasm of the Minister of Science and Technology, Dr Shearer, to have the Chinese work through New Zealand in any Antarctic programmes has continued unabated during his visit to China. Apparently, New Zealand has offered seven sites in the Ross Dependency to China as possible areas for a base. China sought advice from New Zealand and the suggestions were made some months ago. Dr Shearer has revived the offers and has been quoted as laying down certain conditions. In laying down the conditions he has raised touchy issues. Dr Shearer is quoted as saying that a prerequisite for any agreement on a permanent base would be Chinese recognition that New Zealand had special rights in the Ross Dependency. He said that joint research agreements with the United States and West Germany contained such recognition. The issue being raised is that of territorial claims in the Antarctic. Only seven of the 16 consultative parties to the Antarctic Treaty make territorial claims there. New Zealand is one of the seven. The Antarctic Treaty freezes the question of territorial claims. The offer of sites is not a matter that New Zealand could push too far legally. In no sense does New Zealand have the power to offer to lease any area of Antarctica to China. The Chinese would have good reason to conclude that they could set up a base anywhere on the Antarctic continent and none would have the right to gainsay them. The agreements between the United States and New Zealand, and between West Germany and New Zealand, over research in the Antarctic can be interpreted in at least two ways in respect of territorial claims. The United States makes no territorial claims in the Antarctic and recognises none. The 1958 agreement between the United States and New Zealand would not be read by the Americans as recognising any special rights accruing to New Zealand in the Ross Dependency. The agreement with West Germany, negotiated in

the late 19705, could also be interpreted in different ways. However, it is this agreement that has been given to the Chinese as a model, and New Zealand is apparently insisting that any agreement reached with China contains at least as much recognition of New Zealand’s claims to the Ross Dependency as does the agreement with West Germany. Co-operation is the basis of almost all that is done in the Antarctic and it is heartening that China is obviously considering that, in any research it decides to do, it wants to co-operate with New Zealand. Chinese scientists have accompanied New Zealand scientists to the Antarctic during the last four years. China has acceded to the Antarctic Treaty, but has not yet become a consultative member. If an agreement is reached between New Zealand and China, it will doubtless contain some suitably-worded recognition (or non-recognition) of New Zealand’s claim. Dr Shearer is taking something of a risk in asserting that these agreements contain recognition of New Zealand’s special rights in the Ross Dependency. The sites suggested to the Chinese will doubtless be appropriate for scientific work and their selection could be accepted as a cooperative gesture based on New Zealand’s acquaintance with the region, rather than on any sense of possession. New Zealand should be careful not to get into an international argument over proprietorship. Whatever changes are made in the control, management, and activity in Antarctica, the clock will not be turned back to the days in which territorial claims had so much as casual international recognition. Trying to sustain token recognition of territorial claims among some countries, or ambiguous agreements that can not matter in the end or be enforced in any way, must be a waste of time. The process is equally likely to arouse objections from countries that have no direct interest in Antarctica.