300. Memorandum From the Acting Executive Officer of the Operations
Coordinating Board (Satterthwaite) to the
Members of the Board1
Washington, April 25,
1955.
SUBJECT:
- Location of U.S. Antarctic Interests
For the Board’s consideration May 4,2 there are enclosed two memoranda dealing with
the problem of the pros and cons of “rights” vs. “claims” in the
Antarctic.
The first memorandum contains the views of the State Department, agreed to by
the other agencies concerned except Defense, and requesting permission to
initiate bilateral negotiations which if successful would eventually have
the effect of shifting our policy from that of “rights” to one of
“claims.”
The second memorandum contains the Defense Department’s views of why the U.S.
should maintain its present position of “rights” rather than “claims.”
For the Board’s information there is enclosed as Attachment 3 a copy of the
transmittal memo to the NSC of February 10
on this subject3 which further describes
the opposing points of view.
The Board is asked to decide: (a) whether the NSC should be asked to amend NSC 5424/1 to enable State to initiate negotiations; (b)
whether State already has this capability under NSC 5424/1; or (c) whether State should be instructed not to
initiate negotiations at this time.4
Attachment 1
STATE POSITION REGARDING LOCATION OF U.S. ANTARCTIC
INTERESTS
- 1.
- Approval is requested for the initiation of bilateral negotiations
with the present Antarctic claimants (Argentina, Chile, Australia,
[Page 616]
New Zealand, the
United Kingdom, France and Norway) to obtain their recognition of
superior U.S. rights in certain areas (see map attached to
Memorandum to Board Assistants dated March 10, 19555) in return
for U.S. agreement not to contest their rights in the remaining
areas. The State Department believes that these negotiations should
be opened in the near future and is prepared to do so.
- 2.
- The proposed negotiations represent a positive step toward the
goals of “an early resolution of conflicting claims by amicable
means” and “international arrangements to promote the over-all
reduction of international friction, and the orderly solution of the
territorial problem among friendly powers” (Paragraph 9 b., NSC 5424/1). The U.S. would attempt to
remove itself from the most strongly contested areas without, at
this time, trying to settle disputes among Argentina, Chile and the
United Kingdom. Successful negotiations along the lines proposed
would also “reassert U.S. ‘rights’ in the Antarctic” (Paragraph 9
a.) in selected areas more effectively than is possible by other
means, and at the same time move toward the establishment of
specific claims. In the remaining areas U.S. rights would be yielded
in favor of friendly claimants, without abandoning them as regards
present non-claimants, thus helping to “exclude our most probable
enemies” (Paragraph 6). Decisions relating to an eventual U.S. claim
must await the outcome of the proposed negotiations. To the degree
they are successful, however, the negotiations will set the limits
of any future U.S. claim in competition with present claimants.6
Attachment 2
DEFENSE POSITION REGARDING LOCATION OF U.S. ANTARCTIC
INTERESTS
- 1.
- The United States should maintain its present policy of reserving
all rights in the Antarctic area until such time as an intelligent
analysis can be made to determine the areas of potential value. To
arbitrarily relinquish our claims to certain areas in return
[Page 617]
for their recognition of
superior United States rights in other areas is taking a gamble that
is considered unwarranted because:
- a.
- At the present time little is known of the potential value
of any part of the Antarctic continent. Large areas have
never been seen. To claim certain portions now and
relinquish rights to others without knowledge of topography,
geology, mineral deposits, and many other considerations
which bear materially upon relative values in the Antarctic
would be unwise and at best an unnecessary gamble.
- b.
- The proposed U.S. claims outlined in the paper include
large areas difficult of access in exchange for large
coastal areas relatively free of access,
- c.
- The report of the National Academy of Sciences on
“Antarctic Research—Elements of a Coordinated Program”,
dated 2 May 1949, states as follows:
- (1)
- “Every square mile of unexplored territory must be
assumed to have potential value at some time in the
future, if not now”.
- (2)
- “A continent-wide scientific program in Antarctica
cannot be fully developed until we have at least a
reconnaissance map embracing the entire area. It is
necessary to know what are the areas of ice-free
rocks, what are the approximate elevations of all
parts of the continent, and where the ice surface
will permit operations by different types of surface
and air transport.”
- 2.
- The immediate task ahead for the U.S. in Antarctica would appear
to be one of utilizing all feasible means to learn as much about the
continent as possible so as to place this country in an enlightened
and favorable position when it ultimately enters into discussions
with foreign powers for the purpose of finally delineating the
respective rights of each. At that time we will be in a position to
know the value of what we acquire and what we are giving up. The
United States is now preparing to conduct extensive operations in
the Antarctic, the results of which may be to supply valuable
information relative to the potential value of various sectors of
the continent and also to strengthen our claims in disputed
areas.
