308. Memorandum From the Head of the Delegation to the Conference on Antarctica (Phleger) to the Secretary of State1
At the meeting of Heads of Delegations on the morning of November 11, the following took place:
1. The draft on the Final Act was examined and approved subject to minor drafting changes.
2. The Article on fissionable material was considered.
The Soviet representative stated that he now had instructions and he could only agree to an Article on fissionable material if it provided that there should be no nuclear or thermo-nuclear explosions in Antarctica. He said this was for the reason that it was impossible to tell between an explosion for military or peaceful purposes, and if the Treaty were to be effective there should be a complete ban on nuclear explosions.
The Argentine representative said he had just received word that the Argentine Parliament had passed a resolution yesterday to the effect that no nuclear explosions should take place in Antarctica, and that he must take account of this expression of public opinion.
[Page 610]The Chilean and Australian representatives expressed approval of a ban on nuclear explosions, although later the Chilean said he thought there should be permission for peaceful explosions in connection with scientific investigation of Antarctica or its development.
The UK and US representatives expressed their objection to any prohibition of peaceful explosions for scientific investigation in Antarctica or its development. Later Argentina proposed, and the Soviet Union reluctantly agreed, that explosions might be permitted with the prior consent of all parties entitled to be represented under Article VIII.
3. It appearing that there was a complete impasse at this time, the Committee then proceeded to a discussion of the Article on Treaty jurisdiction.
The Soviet representative said he now had instructions and he was directed to state that the Soviet position was that there should be complete immunity for all persons from the jurisdiction of any country other than their own, which was the original UK provision. Chile, Argentina and France said this was utterly unacceptable. It was pointed out that the present provision was an immunity provision and was not a jurisdiction provision and had been the result of compromise in which the parties retained their position regarding jurisdiction, but agreed that there should be immunity for inspectors and scientists in order to make the Treaty effective.
At the afternoon meeting of the Heads of Delegations on November 11, the following took place:
- 1.
Jurisdiction. The Committee agreed that the Article on jurisdiction was acceptable with the insertion at the beginning of paragraph 1 of the words “in order to facilitate the exercise of their functions under the Treaty and without prejudice to the respective positions of the High Contracting Parties relating to jurisdiction over all other persons in Antarctica.”
The Committee directed that the Article be approved with this alteration.
- 2.
- Revision. The revised draft on this Article came from the Drafting Committee. Thereupon the delegation of Chile stated that it had received definite instructions not to agree to a longer period than 30 years before which a revision conference could be held. The Heads of Delegations approved the draft of the Drafting Committee and directed that it be made officially approved by delegations with the 40 years in it, but with a note at the bottom that Chile and Argentina reserved their position and wished 30 years.
- 3.
- Use of fissionable material. The Soviet delegation pressed its position that it desired a new first paragraph which would read “nuclear explosions shall not take place in Antarctica,” but that it was [Page 611] willing to consider an addition reading “except with the prior consent of all the High Contracting Parties entitled to have representatives under Article VIII.”
The Argentine then withdrew his earlier statement that “Antarctica shall not be used for nuclear or thermo-nuclear experimental test explosions.”
The Argentine, Chilean and Australian delegations expressed themselves in favor of the Soviet draft, provided it contained the provision that such explosions could take place after unanimous consent.
The United States delegation reserved its position and stated that it did not believe that there should be a prohibition of peaceful detonations for the scientific investigation of Antarctica or its development.
The matter was left to be taken up tomorrow; the Soviet delegate agreed to submit the Soviet position in the form of a proposal.
For the U.S. Representative:
Secretary
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.829/11–1159. Confidential. Drafted by Phleger.↩