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

307. Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, November 7, 1959¹

Washington, November 7, 1959

SUBJECT

• Current Status of the Antarctica Conference

PARTICIPANTS

• The Secretary
• Ambassador Phleger
• Ambassador Daniels
• G—Mr. Merchant
• ARA—Mr. Rubottom
• IO—Mr. Wilcox
• FE—Mr. Steeves
• AF—Mr. Penfield
• EUR—Mr. Kohler
• ARA—Mr. Hemba
• G—Mr. Long

Ambassador Phleger, after distributing copies of a working paper prepared by the Antarctica Conference Secretariat² showing the present status of the draft treaty provisions and proposals, thanked the Secretary for the opportunity to discuss with the Secretary the current status of the Antarctica Conference proceedings and the prospects for concluding a treaty. He pointed out that it became evident early in the Conference that no effective negotiation was possible in the formal plenary sessions where most of the delegates were speaking for the record but that very real progress had been made at informal Heads of Delegations meetings which were being held frequently and during which no verbatim transcript of the discussions was made. In view of the fact that next week (Nov. 8–14) would be the crucial one, he wanted to discuss the treaty as a whole as well as the critical points at issue and to receive instructions and guidance on the pending problems.

Ambassador Phleger noted that the three principal points still at issue were (1) future accession to the treaty; (2) obligations of parties toward non-parties who might perform acts contrary to the principles of the treaty; and (3) duration and revision of the treaty. As these points were discussed during the course of the meeting, the Secretary instructed Ambassador Phleger in his negotiations to insist (1) with reference to accession, that accession be limited to members of the United Nations and its Specialized Agencies; (2) with reference to the non-parties problem, that parties be obligated not to assist non-parties in actions contrary to the principles of the treaty; and (3) with reference to duration and revision, that some provision be made for future revision. It was decided that Ambassador Phleger would request further instructions should an impasse develop on any of these issues.

Ambassador Phleger went over the draft treaty point by point as follows:

Article I—Peaceful Purposes

There had been no major difficulty with this article.

Article II—Freedom of Scientific Investigation

Argentina had been particularly adamant on this article although it now appeared that some revised, watered-down language might be acceptable.³ The Argentines feared that this clause might legitimatize trespassing on their sovereign territory, but the head of the Argentine delegation now seemed a bit more tractable on this issue. It was pointed out that U.S. was committed at the time the treaty was signed to make an undertaking with Argentina and Chile to the effect that nothing in the treaty would prejudice the right of the U.S., Chile, and Argentina to take defensive action under the Rio Treaty. At this point Mr. Rubottom stated that he was convinced Argentina and Chile would hold the U.S. responsible for any future difficulties which might arise in connection with the Antarctica Treaty.

Article II—Exchange of Scientific Information and Personnel

This article was emerging substantially in the form of the original draft. In answer to a question by Mr. Kohler on the definition of “other international organizations”, Ambassador Phleger stated it would be possible for a communist-front organization to be covered under this article but pointed out that the language was loose enough not to bind any party to cooperate with that type of organization.

Article IV—Rights and Claims

Ambassador Phleger pointed out that the French were obdurate on section 1(c) until the legal adviser of the French Foreign Office, who made a special trip to Washington on this point, was convinced that it should be included. In response to a question, Ambassador Phleger agreed that non-signatories were not bound by this article (which freezes claims and prohibits new claims by the parties) but stated that the important thing to consider was that the twelve nations most interested and most active in the area were bound by this article.

Article V—Inspection

Ambassador Phleger stated that, in addition to the original twelve parties, any nation which acceded to the treaty and was conducting substantial scientific activity in the area would have the right to designate observers.

This article had been accepted by the USSR ad referendum.

Article VI—Zone of Application

This Article as amended was finally agreed to by the Heads of Delegations.

Article VII—Disputes

Ambassador Phleger stated that it was impossible to get agreement on compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and that the article as written was the best compromise. The Secretary agreed.

Article VIII—Administrative Arrangements

Ambassador Phleger pointed out that the Argentines and Chileans wanted to avoid the creation of any group having administrative power in the Antarctic and that, therefore, the language of this article provided for a consultative group instead.

Article IX—Obligations Toward Non-Parties

Ambassador Phleger stated his feeling that the treaty should explicitly bind the parties not to assist non-parties in carrying on activities contrary to the principles of the treaty. He said New Zealand felt this idea was implicit in the other articles of the treaty but he had pointed out to the New Zealand delegate that if something was implicit, why not make it explicit. The USSR also had opposed this provision, partly, according to Ambassador Phleger, because this idea had not been developed by the preparatory committee and the Russian delegation had come to the United States evidently with instructions to accept the findings of the preparatory committee but not any new provisions. Mr. Kohler said that EUR felt a provision of this nature was mandatory. The Secretary observed that the more the Soviets object to this clause the more necessary its inclusion becomes and therefore instructed Ambassador Phleger to make a clause of this nature a sticking point in the negotiations.

Article on Nuclear Testing

Ambassador Phleger said that the nations physically close to Antarctica (particularly Argentina, Chile, Australia) were most insistent that Antarctica not be used as a nuclear testing range and had demanded an article to this effect.

Article on Duration

Ambassador Phleger said the Chileans were adamant on having a definite time limit, feeling that they could not accept a treaty in perpetuity even though the other delegations were tending toward an indefinite period. The Secretary pointed out that he thought some clause providing for revision in the future (which would therefore in effect counter any idea of a perpetual treaty) was desirable and he so instructed Ambassador Phleger.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.829/11–759. Confidential. Drafted by Long, initialed by Merchant and Phleger, and approved by S on November 18.
2. Not further identified.
3. On November 5, the Embassy in Buenos Aires had been instructed to approach President Frondizi on an “urgent basis” concerning the Argentine position on Article II. (Telegram 637 to Buenos Aires; Department of State, Central Files, 399.829/11–559) The Embassy reported later the same day that the Argentine position on Article II was still rigid, but Frondizi had stated the U.S. arguments in favor of the article “went far to meet Argentine objections and allay concern.” (Telegram 746 from Buenos Aires; ibid., 702.022/11–659)