Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, United Nations and General International Matters, Volume II

298. Circular Telegram From the Department of State to the Embassies in the Countries Participating in the Conference on Antarctica¹

Washington, October 24, 1959—4:39 p.m.

535. Since opening on October 15 Antarctica Conference discussing in committee most topics contemplated Treaty using draft articles considered at preparatory talks as basis discussion (memo of 12 power meeting July 23, 1959 previously pouched²) with which United States generally agrees.

Matters of concern to U.S. at this stage, include:

1. Zone application (Article 6) Soviets, Australia, New Zealand, Argentina favor inclusion high seas south of 60 degrees. U.S. insisting on exclusion high seas areas. Extension treaty rules to high seas would conflict with established international law rules governing freedom and use of sea. Moreover, inspection provisions likely be ineffective on high seas. On balance free world gains less than Soviets by restriction on use any portion high seas.

2. Regarding relationship Treaty to countries not parties, U.S. has introduced provision committing parties exert “appropriate efforts” consistent UN Charter to end that no one engage in activities contrary Treaty. UK has similar proposal.

3. US has also introduced provision as follows: “Any benefits which may be established by the present Treaty shall apply in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner both to countries which are parties to the present Treaty and to other states which are members of the United Nations or of its Specialized Agencies and which respect the principles embodied in the present Treaty. Nothing in the present Treaty shall be construed as creating obligations on the part of the High Contracting Parties, other than to the High Contracting Parties.” Purpose provision is make certain parties not required by Treaty cooperate in any way with unrecognized Communist regimes.

4. Soviets have proposed unlimited accession by other countries. U.S. can accept accession clause, but in no event can agree accession by other than members UN and Specialized Agencies. Further qualifications for accession such as active participation in Antarctica also desirable.

5. Agreement indicated, including by Soviets, on inspection article providing unilateral right of each party inspect all areas and stations. France, however, wants limited number observers and suggests provisions which might impair unilateral right immediate inspection.³

Other matters are:

6. Provision on freedom scientific research in Antarctica (Article 2) opposed by only Argentina.

7. Provisions maintaining status quo on rights and claims so that Treaty implies neither renunciation nor recognition and that no new claims shall be made, accepted by all except France which to date objects to non-recognition clause.

8. Article 1 approved in committee with addition Soviet proposal enumerating types military measures specifically prohibited. Soviets, however, accepted inclusion broad provision this does not preclude use military personnel and equipment for peaceful purposes.

9. Article on scientific cooperation agreed in committee with slight change.

10. On settlement disputes (Article 7) all agree except Soviets, Argentina and Chile who oppose compulsory jurisdiction ICJ.

11. Provision for periodic meetings reps of parties for recommending further administrative measures generally accepted by all. Discussion this topic fragmentary as yet.

Foregoing mainly background information for use in your discretion in event of discussion Antarctica Conference with appropriate officials.

Herter

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.829/10–2459. Confidential. Drafted by Owen and cleared with AF, ARA, EUR, and FE.
2. Document 290.
3. On October 22, the Department of State asked the Embassy in France to approach the Foreign Ministry concerning its position on inspection. (Telegram 1726 to Paris; Department of State, Central Files, 399.829/10–2259) The Embassy replied on the following day that the French said they would not be rigid and were sending their Legal Adviser to the conference. (Telegram 1790 from Paris; ibid., 702.022/10–2359)