302. Memorandum From the Head of the Delegation to the Conference on Antarctica (Phleger) to the Secretary of State1
Committee I met at 11:00 a.m. and resumed discussion of Article VI. The following UK proposal was considered:
“The provisions of the present Treaty shall apply to the area south of 60° South Latitude, including all islands and ice shelves, but shall not apply to the high seas.”
The UK explained that this was intended to include areas covered by more or less permanent ice. Subject to this clarification, the UK proposal was supported by Belgium, the U.S. and France.
The Soviet Union proposed orally the following text of Article VI:
“The zone of application of the present Treaty shall be the area south of 60° South Latitude without prejudice to any rights concerning the use by any country in accordance with international law of those parts of the high seas, excluding ice shelves, which are within the limits of that area.”
At the request of Chile the discussion of this proposal was deferred to a later meeting.
[Page 597]Discussion turned to the relationship of the treaty to non-parties (Article IX), including the question of accession. The UK stated its opinion that the Soviet proposal discussed on Octoer 26 was too wide and said accession should be confined to countries having a real and continuing desire to participate in scientific activity in Antarctica. If the IGY spirit is to be maintained, the UK said, it would be best not to introduce elements of tension into the Antarctic area. The UK expressed general agreement with a New Zealand proposal that would open the treaty for accession by any state which is a member of the UN or any of its specialized agencies, but would permit only those acceding states to participate in meetings of the administrative body which had demonstrated their interest in Antarctica “by maintaining national operations there.” The UK favored confining Article IX to the relationship of the treaty to non-parties rather than including also the question of accession, and suggested that the following U.S. proposal form paragraph 1 of this Article:
“Any benefits which may be established by the present Treaty shall apply in a uniform and non-discriminatory 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.”
The following UK proposal, according to the UK, would form the second and final paragraph of Article IX:
“The High Contracting Parties agree that they will not for their part, either individually or collectively, assist or countenance, whether directly or indirectly, any action, activity or claim by any other country which would be contrary to or inconsistent with the principles or purposes of the present Treaty.”
Chile argued that no article on accession was necessary since the Conference included all countries who participated actively in Antarctica during the IGY; the interests of other countries could be satisfied by a protocol, open to accession by other countries. Prime Minister Nash of New Zealand expressed the strong desire of his Government to have an unrestricted accession provision, with the qualification that continuing activity in Antarctica would be a prerequisite to participation in the meetings of the administrative body. (In the written proposal submitted by New Zealand accession would be restricted to members of the UN or its specialized agencies.) South Africa and Belgium generally agreed with the New Zealand position.
Committee II met at 3:00 p.m. M. Gros, Legal Adviser of the French Foreign Ministry, gave a detailed presentation of the French position with regard to Article IV, which included a suggestion that [Page 598] paragraph 1 be withdrawn from the Article and placed in a protocol to the Treaty which would have the same legal value as the Treaty and which would have to be signed and ratified together with the Treaty. The other countries expressed the desire that the two paragraphs in Article IV not be separated.
It was agreed to refer Article IV to the Drafting Committee, together with certain changes in wording suggested by France and the UK; the decision as to whether this provision, in whole or in part, should be placed in an Article or in a Protocol was deferred pending return of the Article from the Drafting Committee.
A suggestion by the Chairman of the Conference that a meeting of Heads of Delegations be held tomorrow afternoon to discuss how best to complete the remaining work of the Conference was approved.
For the U.S. Representative:
Secretary
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.829/10–2959. Confidential. Drafted by Fisher.↩