The Terrifying Reason No One Claims Antarctica (yet)

What is the secret to Antarctica’s frozen status? Is there a hidden truth that Antarctica could soon be part of a terrifying breakdown in global order?

I want to show you how unsettling it is that no country has made a modern move to exploit Antarctica. It just doesn’t make sense. For example, just this year it was reported that Russia discovered roughly 37-45 trillion dollars worth of oil in an area technically controlled by no one (1). So did Putin’s Russia place forces immediately over the 500 billion barrels of oil? No. Did any other country see this tempting opening and lay claim to the trillions of dollars of oil? No. How is this possible?

Antarctica doesn’t just have oil - there’s mountains of unclaimed gold, diamonds, iron, natural gas, freshwater. But despite these massive resources, no one has ever fought for Antarctica, and everyone, including countries like the US, Russia, and China, say they never will. Really, no one wants forbidden fruit?

Why is no one making any serious claims in Antarctica? What is the secret to Antarctica’s frozen status? And is there a hidden truth that Antarctica could soon be part of a terrifying breakdown in global order?

What follows is the script and sourcing of my newest video on YouTube. I believe it’s a nice read. However, if you’d prefer an audio/visual version, feel free to watch:

Why Claims aren’t made.

First, below is a map of the situation in Antarctica today. Actually, this is really the situation from 1959 that’s been perfectly frozen for decades: a series of half-baked territorial claims without population, flags hammered in ice without serious military backup, border lines hastily drawn from boats on the coast to the very center of the continent - a first draft that never got a second. It’s a goofy historical relic.

Don’t let the flags and borders fool you. Countries don’t generally recognize the claims of others. In fact, making new claims or expanding claims is forbidden in the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, whose signatories affirm: “Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes,” (2). Antarctica is owned by no one, to be shared for all time. 

Why would so many countries, including global rivals like the US and Soviet Union, agree to something so utopian during a tense moment of the Cold War? It just doesn’t make sense without historical context. Two things were playing out in the years leading up to the Antarctic Treaty. 

First thing: colonialism on hard-mode. Antarctica is a tough place to colonize. Nonetheless, in the early 1900s, a lot of countries were still doing the same thing they’d been doing across the globe for centuries. It went like this: explore a place your country or empire hadn’t previously (even if there were already people there), do this ‘discovery’ before competitors, plant your flag, and exploit so-called ‘new’ resources.

Even before the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen became the first human to set foot on the South Pole in 1911, countries were already planting their flags on the outskirts of the continent and on Antarctic coasts. Argentina perceived control in its continuous presence on the island of St. Laurie starting in 1904. That’s seven years before Amundsen even got to the South Pole (5). In fact, when the Argentinian government made its first formal sovereignty assertion in Antarctica in 1923, it admitted it didn’t really know what the boundaries were: They declared control over quote “polar areas which have not been delimited,” (4,12). “Areas delimited” aka areas without known limits. The Argentinians were pointing south and saying, ‘mine’. 

The British Empire was not pleased at Argentina’s Antarctic contention. The UK had taken formal control of the Falkland Islands in 1833. In 1908, it asserted dominion over an area extending from the Falklands to Graham Land on the Antarctic Peninsula (4;7). Like the Argentinian’s, the British argument seemed like a stretch: one darting down South because it could.

The UK’s fantasy map didn’t only clash with Argentina’s. The country of Chile also included Graham Land in her list of possessions. In 1906, Chile tasked two of its citizens, fishermen, with not only fishing in Antarctic waters on their next expedition, but as an article I read quoted the government, to “assure Chilean dominion” (7,18).

Chile’s Antarctic case dates back to the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas, when Portugal and rulers of Spain split the unknown world for future colonization (7;4,10). When Chile declared independence from Spain three centuries later, they claimed to inherit this colonization right.

A 1948 CIA report said Chile’s Antarctic sovereignty rested on quote “shadowy historical rights”. The Chileans weren’t alone. Australia’s right to a chunk of Antarctica was based in historical shadow too. In 1841, the British explorer James Clark Ross was the first recorded to sail and see what today is called the ‘Victoria Land’ region, which he named for Queen Victoria (8). 90 years later, in 1933, the UK government stated that Victoria Land had been their possession since Ross named it. They then proceeded to transfer that possession to the Commonwealth of Australia (9).

So a guy called dibs, then decades later the British monarch transferred the dibs to Australia. Legit. 

That’s also what occurred for the Commonwealth of New Zealand, which received a chunk of Ross’s discovery from the United Kingdom in 1923 (10). In fact, British and commonwealth lands added up to about 50% of Antarctica, what I saw Norway’s Government snarkily call a “wish list”, based on the quote “virtue of their discovery” (11).

But don’t dish it out if you can’t take it, Norway. The “virtue of discovery” also seemed to be the basis of Norwegian Antarctica. They started whaling in the area around Antarctica in the 1890s. Within 25 years, they had five whaling stations on land (11). In 1927, ‘29, ‘31 and ‘39 they sailed to various places and called dibs. 

The final assertion on the map was that of France. Like the British, the French based their desires on an 1840 explorer who sailed to Antarctic land and named what he saw. In 1924 the French formalized their claim, helping themselves to a slice of Antarctica extending from the shore all the way to the South Pole (12).

But there was a massive problem for powers who wanted to say they had Antarctic heritage and carve a block off the frozen continent for themselves. There were no Antarctic people to claim as subjects, and the traditional plan B of sending settlers to bolster control was near impossible in such a harsh climate. Wintering in Antarctica in the early 1900s could be a literal death sentence. In fact, no one even attempted to stay through an Antarctic winter until 1898. 

How can you claim a place where none of your people have even spent a year of time? You can plant your flag and order some soldiers to hunker down, but not very many - and at an outrageous cost.

So countries were making empty assertions over an empty continent. The image of an explorer or soldier struggling to get a flag planted in ice as hard as rock for the glory of the Klingon Empire is a mental image more comical than threatening. And yet this all came to a screeching halt. What spooked everyone into stopping? What happened that caused all these countries to basically put up their hands and say, ‘you know what? Nevermind. Antarctica should be a place with no serious attempts at control.

What Terrified Everyone Into Becoming a Utopian?

That would be the second thing going on in the years leading up to the Antarctic Treaty: two absolutely devastating World Wars. Millions and millions of dead. The trauma from World War II produced some of the most fascinating and radical proposals to avoid such a thing ever happening again, ideas so out there they might end public careers today.

A low-hanging fruit is the example of Albert Einstein, who called for a world government, one which would stand above national governments. And he wasn’t alone. In the 1945 book “The Anatomy of Peace” Emery Reeves called for a federal world government quote “separate from and standing above national authorities,” (15,214). Later proposals imagined a proportional legislature for the entire globe; its military would be exclusive; all others would be banned (16). 

The idealism even infected those who came to hold high office. A 1949 US House of Representatives Committee hearing titled “To Seek Development of the United Nations into a World Federation” produced legislation with the goal of a world government able to enforce a permanent peace. (17) It was sponsored by future Vice President Hubert Humphrey, and future President of the United States John F. Kennedy. 

The United Nations we actually got was far more modest, with an unquestioning respect for national sovereignty, and a Security Council predisposed for paralysis. But though the 1945 UN Charter was not remotely as radical as previous proposals, the UN’s early activity still had an aura of utopianism - a utopianism that will have consequences for our story. 

But first in 1946, President Harry Truman asked former First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt to be a delegate to the United Nations. There, Roosevelt became chairman of the committee tasked with drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which she did in earnest alongside members from all over: the UK and France, yes, but also China, Lebanon and the Soviet Union. There’s plenty of valid criticisms of the institutions and systems built at this time, we’ll get there, but there’s no doubt of the sincere ambition of many to build a peaceful global order after World War II.

Some of my videos on Eleanor and the concept of world government.

This is the overton window, the landscape of acceptable ideas from which the Antarctic Treaty was born. People scarred from world wars, willing to consider the outlandish for the sake of stopping future conflict.  

So in 1948, an American diplomat was sent to capitals of countries that had planted flags in Antarctica in the preceding decades. His goal was to probe interest in a unique solution for Antarctica. What if instead of doubling down on fantasy, building and scheming and fighting and increasing tensions, like humans had done throughout history, what if in the spirit of a new, rules-based international order, everyone did the exact opposite - what if they agreed to give up their Antarctic ambitions for the sake of science? (7,24-45)

Now that might sound overly optimistic, a bit out there, but as we’ve learned, many global-order projects were out there in the late 1940s. So could the world really find consensus, go against instinct, hold hands and make Antarctica the first shared, conflict-free continent?

The Treaty

President Dwight D. Eisenhower thought so. The man who qualified himself for high office through success in World War II was nonetheless determined to avoid military build-up in Antarctica, particularly between the USA and its new rival, the Soviet Union. 

One way Eisenhower used his influence to pursue Antarctic peace was by supporting the International Geophysical Year from 1957 to 1958 (13). The program was a year of scientific collaboration to learn about the planet, and Antarctica was featured. The data acquired were shared openly, even between Cold War Rivals. 70 countries and tens of thousands of scientists took part. It was cool. My imaginary producer is telling me to knock it off.

Importantly, every country with some sort of stake in Antarctica was involved in the International Geophysical Year. Such was the success that the open question as the IGY came to a close was: what could be done to keep the good times rolling? 

An article from Eisenhower’s presidential library quotes what he saw in the geophysical year, quote: “the ability of peoples of all nations to work together harmoniously for the common good." (14)

At any other point of human history this might have seemed naive, but in the post-war era, dreaming was mainstream. Other countries responded by intimating they would support Eisenhower hosting a conference to find a permanent peaceful settlement in Antarctica.

So he did. President Eisenhower invited countries to attend an Antarctic negotiation, held quote “in the spirit of the international co-operation initiated during the IGY.” (7,28) The seven countries with Antarctic claims attended - as did the USA as host, alongside South Africa, Belgium, Japan and the Soviet Union.

The Antarctic Treaty was signed in Washington on December 1st, 1959. The idealism of the post-war years prevailed as 12 countries, including the seven with makeshift borders in Antarctica, agreed to freeze it all in place - no new claims or enlargement of existing claims so that Antarctica “shall not become the scene or object of international discord”

The Treaty banned military activity and weapons testing, including nuclear weapons. This would be enforced through making every inch of Antarctica open for inspections (2).

Article IV ensured no future activity could be construed as reinforcing a country’s sovereignty. In plain language, no one could start Antarctic colonies or build-up a military base and later use that as evidence that Antarctica was really theirs all along. No more calling dibs on penguins.

One 1964 analysis summed up the optimism surrounding the Antarctic Treaty: quote “It is to be hoped that the treaty will prove so successful that the question of national sovereignty will become purely academic and, as time goes by, all but forgotten.” (7,30) The Antarctic Treaty would be the secret weapon against old-school great-power colonial carving forever more, or would it? 

But before we go negative: here’s the astounding thing about the Antarctic Treaty. It worked. Countries behaved themselves. One small example: in 1963, the US invoked Article 7 of the Treaty and inspected a Soviet station on the South Pole. Was it tense? Did the Soviets complain about meddling Americans? Did the Americans suspect the Soviets were up to something there? No. It was purely procedural. It went great. Not even a whiff of a problem from either the Americans or the Soviets. A friendly encounter less than a year after both countries threatened the other with nuclear annihilation during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Antarctica was chill.

And so it’s basically been for decades. Since the Antarctic Treaty came into force in 1961, an additional 45 countries have joined, and a myriad of additional treaties protecting the Antarctic and extending the Antarctic Treaty have been agreed (23). Today, international researchers exchange across sites and share data openly. In the summers thousands are present to facilitate one another and learn about the continent and the planet. Sure, the Antarctic Treaty was agnostic on territorial claims, and no country ever gave up their historical assertions about borders and flags. But countries haven’t bolstered those boundaries either. Antarctica is controlled by no one, owned by no one. Antarctica is a utopian dream come true…

For now. And that’s unfortunately the scary piece of the puzzle here. Dreams end. Utopia’s fall. If Antarctica is an icey garden of eden, its resources are forbidden fruit to be picked. Are human relations what people in the 40s hoped for after World War II? Or is the time since the signing of the Antarctic Treaty a blip in the grand arch of history that’s bent by familiar human behavior?

No one has made a serious move to claim, control and exploit Antarctica. But now we add the frightful “yet”.

Why is there room for doubt?

The future of Antarctica is in doubt. Countries are poking around and realizing it may be in their interest to shave and shape the future of the continent. And other countries, seeing this, are responding in kind. The terrifying loop is exacerbated by an X-factor.

We already touched on a report from the U.K. House of Commons that Russia reportedly found 500 billion barrels equivalent of oil reserves. The fact the Russians were using their scientists to prospect for oil is already a potential threat to the Antarctic Treaty (1); if the Russians were to take any of that oil, that would be a clearcut violation. 

Russia’s activities have awoken the border buddies, the UK, Argentina and Chile. The UK House of Commons was the institution to raise alarm bells about Russia’s oil prospecting because it was done on what the UK considered its territory. This sort of anxiety was eliminated in the past decades by the Antarctic Treaty - it’s been a shared continent of science. But pushing the limits of the treaty has the potential to awaken the colonial beast again, countries like the UK could revert to old habits of scribbling lines on maps and insisting they’re accurate. 

The Chileans and Argentinians have been triggered in the same way. In May 2024, a group of Chilean lawmakers held a meeting in Antarctica and called out Russia for risking a race to exploit Antarctica’s oil, minerals and freshwater (21). Argentinian authorities demanded to know if Russia had quote “economic intentions” aka were they looking to start making money on Antarctic resources? You start to see the loop.

But this isn’t about singling out Russia as a bogeyman. Argentina’s President Milei visited the southern city of Ushuaia in April 2024, announcing a new base to serve as a quote “gateway to the white continent”. Who would build this strategic base near Antarctica? Why, the United States, of course. (22) In the past year, the US has been running ‘Southern Seas’ and other military exercises with both Argentina and Chile.

And there’s a couple newcomers melting away calm from Antarctic shelves. One of them is Iran, whose Navy Commander announced in 2023 that Iran had South Pole quote “property rights” and explicitly pledged military activity in the region (24;25). A more serious player is China, who entered the Antarctic Treaty as a consultative party in 1983 (26). China just opened its 5th research station in Antarctica, and has invested heavily in being in and around Antarctica through bases, fishing and icebreaker ships. While the US is reducing its direct presence on Antarctica, China is increasing its manpower (23). 

And because the Treaty makes the Continent communal space, China is able to put things on Antarctica where it pleases, as long as its stated purpose is scientific. But that ambiguity between science and occupation for future strategic value has been called into question. 

I have to point out that a lot of the alarm over China’s increased activity in Antarctica seems based in a general skepticism of China, so whether it’s mildly concerning or deeply concerning depends on if you trust the Chinese Government. Just as an example, an analysis I came across from the US Naval Institute declares there is quote “near unanimous agreement among Western experts that these [Chinese] investments are not intended for peaceful purposes.” But the evidence cited at the end of that sentence is a literature review that doesn’t make that claim. So is this just a fear of China extended to Antarctica? 

I don’t think so. In her informative piece for Foreign Affairs, Elizabeth Buchanan reported that China built its 5th research station quote “without submitting the necessary environmental evaluations to treaty members, as required.” (24) Buchanan also pointed out China’s aggressive deployment of “super trawlers” to increase their ability to fish in the Southern Ocean. And in 2022, China blocked a motion to give emperor penguins special protected status in the Antarctic Treaty. (25;27). Evading or blocking environmental protective measures does imply China’s long-term interest is something other than benevolent science. At a minimum, they’re finding open space, literally, and waiting for the situation to heat up. Speaking of heating up.

The X factor: climate change will play a role here. As the ice melts around Antarctica in the coming decades, the continent becomes more accessible; its resources more tempting. That’s a theme in a lot of my research on Antarctica; many treat climate change as the cause of Antarctic change: ice melts, countries act. But I find that cause and effect insufficient.

While climate change may be one catalyst in this situation, a large one no doubt, in my reading, it is not an explanation for the ominous feeling surrounding the future of the Antarctic Treaty. I believe a disturbing deterioration of the situation could happen even if climate change were not there to make it all worse. 

Another thing I’ve often come across in my research: a sense that the date we need to be afraid of is 2048, when a simple majority of Antarctic Treaty signatories can initiate conversations on changes to the Treaty. Again, I think that analysis is lacking - it places too much trust in these countries to obey international rules-based paper. Changes in behavior can come without changes to the Treaty. 

If you zoom out, what you really see are countries that appear to be posturing around Antarctica in a way reminiscent of the 50 years prior to the Antarctic Treaty - a period, by the way, without the psychological catalyst of rapid climate change - a period when old colonial powers planted flags in ice and implied penguins had a nationality. That model is thawing out today.

The words of all parties reflect an ongoing commitment to the Antarctic Treaty and scientific cooperation, but their actions imply a meltdown is on the way.

Which brings us to one terrifying final piece of the puzzle in Antarctica. What if I told you the Antarctic Treaty itself was an illusion? 

Commentary: Breakdown of the ‘Rules-Based Order’

The Antarctic Treaty is celebrated to this day as a triumph of international relations buzzwords. I worked for a D.C. Embassy for 5 years so I know the terms well: multilateralism, rules-based order, shared interest, collective action, cooperative framework. They all celebrate the systems and successes of the post-war era, the Antarctic Treaty correctly counted among them. In the face of modern threats to international order, these are the terms and systems public officials lean back on, because they seemed to work for a while. But things have changed.

There’s a fatal flaw in the systems created just after World War II. It’s an open secret: they don’t work without complete, total consensus, and they never violate a country’s sovereignty. Consider the United Nations: the UN doesn’t pass a sanction without unanimous agreement of the permanent security council; so even if Russia invades Ukraine, you need Russia’s agreement to sanction Russia at the UN. The World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization - total deference to national sovereignty. How about the International Court of Justice? Again, deference to sovereignty: the ICJ doesn’t have the power to enforce its own rulings; a judge can declare someone a war criminal, but unless the war criminal volunteers for trial, nothing happens. Even organizations known for being more effective: NATO, G7, G20, the European Council - none of them make sensitive decisions without consensus, total agreement between members. 

These consensus-based, sovereignty-respecting organizations worked for a while in an idealistic world with a sprinkling of consensus, as the world was for a little bit after World War II. But the institutions are ill-equipped to handle a cynical world with loads of disagreement. And in almost every other area besides Antarctica, the consensus is gone, if it was ever there in the first place.

Countries like Russia and China have long perceived the post-war order as fronts for Western Interest; an institution where the default is to do nothing is a place to protect the global order at the time of the institution’s creation: why are declined empires like the UK and France still on the United Nations permanent security council? You might say it’s because the UN was never meant to live up to ideals, but rather to fossilize the world as it was in 1945. This reality is being found out.

Over the decades, countries have become more brazen in trying to counterbalance post-war order. The BRICS group is a transparent attempt to unsettle the status quo to the benefit of emerging powers, to challenge the dominance of the American dollar, and Western grip on banking that meddles with efforts to invade a country like Ukraine or Taiwan. While that project struggles to achieve its largest goals, some of its members have long-since realized they can challenge the Western order without serious consequence. That’s because the western order would never disrespect their sovereignty, and because the countries that violate the Western order are also part of the consensus that enforces it.

That’s why it was so easy for China to stop the categorization of Emperor Penguins as a protected Antarctic species. No matter that everyone else agreed - in the post-war systems, it only takes one voice to say no. So the Chinese said: “we might want to fish in that precious ecosystem, soooo no.”

And that’s why the breakdown in global order could easily snowball in Antarctica, because the systems and institutions built after World War II are incapable of enforcing the international order without consensus. If the Treaty begins to be violated, countries won’t incur meaningful consequences, because they are equal parties to the consensus.

Some look at the Antarctic Treaty and see the success of the “postwar international rules-based order”. But the Antarctic Treaty was actually not a success of the “postwar international rules-based order”. The Treaty was the result of a blip of consensus. It has the same fatal flaw, and is therefore threatened if the consensus of the Antarctic Treaty fails.

And what might cause that consensus to fail? Some say climate change, which certainly doesn’t help. But the terrifying reality is far more simple. The reason no one has yet made a serious attempt to claim a change in Antarctica for themselves is because no one has bothered. No one has grabbed the forbidden fruit because no one has yet decided it’s worth reaching for. That could change. 

If this sounds overly simplistic, look elsewhere. The rules-based order has seized in Europe, where war has plundered borders and torn weapon treaties to shreds. Maritime agreements are chaos in the South China Sea, and escalation looms large. And if the United Nations and International Court of Justice keeps pace on writing non-binding letters of concern about the Middle East, they might deplete the world’s supply of ink. This has been a long time coming. 

In the 1970s, Richard Nixon and his Secretary of State Henry Kissinger began to operate foreign policy with a prediction of how the world would come to be. In the 1970s, the world had two poles of power: the United States and the Soviet Union. What Nixon and Kissinger predicted was a world with multiple poles of power. The US and Soviet Union, now Russia, but also rising players on the geopolitical board would have influence: Europe, Japan, India, China. As these players emerged, their interests would assert themselves. The systems built on the consensus of the winners of World War II would end. The global order would fracture. 

Some doubted their predictions would come true. When the Soviet Union collapsed and the Berlin Wall fell, some thought the West had ‘won history’ - the postwar era was an inevitable development of history bending towards justice.

But it’s bent in a far more familiar way in the decades since. As poles of power multiply, the behavior of countries at the literal global poles will look more like what we saw before World War I and II, when lines were drawn for fear someone else might do it first, when national interest in Antarctica trumped dreams of cooperating there “harmoniously for the common good”.

The Antarctic Treaty’s illusion of authority is cracking, and that’s unsettling. 

You can watch the full video here

Sourcing

1. “Russia’s Oil Exploration in Antarctica…” Saleem H. Ali. Forbes. May 25, 2024

2. The Antarctic Treaty Preamble. Accessed through Secretariat website.

3. Roald Amundsen. Norwegian explorer. Britannica. Accessed October 2024.

4. March 15, 1948 CIA Report. “Argentine Claims in the Falklands…” No.4606

5. “Día de la Antártida Argentina” 22 Feb 2019. MRECIC. 

6. Polar Record. 1948;5(35-36):241-243. Reproduced British Letters Patent of 1908 , 1917

7. “National Interests and Claims…” Wilson Arctic, Vol. 17, No. 1 (Mar., 1964), pp. 15-31 

8. "Sir James Clark Ross". Encyclopedia Britannica, 11 Apr. 2024

9. Australian Government. “Australian Antarctic Territory” 

10. NZ FAT. “Antarctica and the Southern Ocean” Accessed Oct ‘24

11. Norwegian Government. Meld. st. 32. Norway’s History in the Antarctic. 2014.

12. MEAE. “Antarctica: an exceptional continent.”

13. NASA. John Uri. July 5, 2022

14. International Geophysical Year (IGY) National Archives and Eisenhower Library. 

15. 1945 Emery Reeves , “The Anatomy of Peace” https://amzn.to/3NAD60n 

16. 1958 textbook, “World Peace Through World Law” https://amzn.to/3YymvRf 

17. Hearing on House Concurrent Resolution 64. “To Seek Development of the United Nations into a World Federation” 1949

18. LOC. History of the Antarctic Treaty System. Sophia Guido

19. Brady, A.-M. (2017). “CHINA’S INTEREST IN EX…” (p.17–20). ASPI. 

20. “How the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 Influenced…” Jan 28, 2022. Sophia Guido

21. AP. “In message to Russia…” May 23, 2024

22. El Pais. Changes on the map. Carlos Pagni APR 10, 2024

23. CSIS. U.S. Operational Retreat from Antarctica. William Muntean III. May ‘24.

24. Great-Power Competition Comes to Antarctica. Elizabeth Buchanan March 18, 2024

25. Mar 10, 2024 “Antarctic ambitions are reshaping…” Axios

26. “China in the Antarctic Treaty System” 2020 ASPI. Accessed JSTOR

27. “China blocks moves to increase protection…” PBS Jun 3, 2022