"Many countries will resign their activities in Antarctica {because} there is no hope of profits in the near future," says Krzyzstof Filcek, a Polish ecologist who studies Antarctic marine life. With the demise of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War and worsening economic problems, former East Bloc countries are slashing Antarctic research budgets. Four of nine Soviet research stations, which were strategically placed around the continent to act as markers for future claims, have been closed. Poland, noted for Antarctic marine biology, has managed to staff its Arctowski base with just 14 scientists and workers -- about one-fourth its usual complement -- and has cut back programs in meteorology and geology. In the U.S., Antarctic budgets have been rising steadily, mostly to pay for logistics. But the National Science Foundation, which runs U.S. bases, thinks that the government's commitment to Antarctica will wane, what with new restrictions on mineral development and declining Soviet competition. "We've been living on a tripod-geopolitics, future uses of Antarctica and research," says Guy Guthridge, an NSF Antarctic spokesman. "Now two of the three legs have been taken away from us." The U.S. Navy, for instance, regularly pays for about one-fourth of all oceanographic research, much of it centered on the Southern Ocean surrounding Antarctica. But with the end of the Cold War, the military may cut back because "there is no enemy," Columbia University oceanographer Arnold Gordon fears. This year, after a budget battle, more money was appropriated for U.S. Antarctica research, partly by redirecting funds earmarked for housing for the poor. Such environmentalists as Jacques Cousteau campaigned for the Antarctic minerals ban so Antarctica could be used as an environmental laboratory to study the ozone layer, global warming and pollution. But a major reason the number of Antarctic research bases doubled to 68 over the past 20 years had little to do with science. It "was politically inspired," says Alfred Fowler, head of the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Program. Countries "wanted a seat around the table" if there were mineral riches to divide, he says. Proof of a nation's continuing interest in Antarctica is that it supports scientists there. Nations realized they needed a base to qualify for membership in the treaty system that governs Antarctica, which was up for renegotiation this year. During those negotiations, Australia, New Zealand and France, responding to environmental concerns, blocked an agreement that would have permitted nations to survey Antarctica for minerals and oil -- even though the pact would have set difficult hurdles before development could begin. Instead, in October, the Antarctic treaty nations approved a substitute that bars mineral and oil exploration for at least 50 years and requires environmental safeguards for research bases. Critics say the environmental provisions will make science more expensive in Antarctica, already the costliest research site apart from outer space. Of the $193 million the U.S. plans to spend this fiscal year in Antarctica, only $22 million is budgeted for science. The rest is earmarked for planes, ships and helicopters to ferry researchers; for other logistics; and for environmental cleanup. For many countries, the cost of Antarctic science is already prohibitive. At Vostok station, famed for its studies of ice cores that disclose ancient atmospheres, the Soviets were so strapped for cash that they asked France to pay the salaries of Soviet workers as part of an international program. The French refused, say Antarctic scientists, but agreed to pay for scientific instruments for the Soviets instead. Stanislaw Rakusa-Suszczewski, who runs the Polish Antarctic program, says he has tried to persuade Hungary and Czechoslovakia to chip in enough money to make Arctowski a "post-Communist country" base, but to no avail. "I must look for another partner," he says. "Maybe Ukraine?" The countries with the strongest commitment to Antarctica may turn out to be the ones that are tied to the continent by nationalism, not science. Argentina and Chile claim parts of Antarctica as extensions of their countries, even though the Antarctic Treaty effectively makes the continent international territory. They bring families to live in Antarctica, not just scientists, encourage women to give birth at their bases and postmark letters there -- all to back claims of sovereignty. `They call them true settlements, not artificial science bases," says Jack Child, an American University expert on the region.
With the recently adopted 50-year ban on mining and oil drilling in Antarctica, environmentalists are rejoicing. However, some think the pact could backfire. Without the possibility of some return, many nations may conclude that Antarctic research isn't worth it. The United States has been a major player in Antarctica for decades. Although proof of a nation's interest in Antarctica was their research effort there, many nations, particularly Soviet Bloc, already find the research cost to be prohibitive and are cutting back.