309. Memorandum From the Head of the Delegation to the Conference on Antarctica (Phleger) to the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Merchant)1
It looks as though we were coming close to final agreement on a draft treaty. There is one item on which we have no instructions in our position papers. This has to do with the question of nuclear explosions in Antarctica.
Early in the conference, Argentina tabled a proposal that there should be no nuclear explosions in Antarctica.
A similar proposal is now being made by the U.S.S.R. on the ground that it is necessary in order to effectively police the ban on military testing.
Argentina, Chile, Australia and New Zealand are all strong for a provision banning all nuclear explosions and it would seem that there is not much chance of stopping such a provision.
[Page 612]I have kept Dr. Farinholt advised of the proposal, and both he and I have talked with Mr. Farley.2
The inclusion of such a provision might have the effect of making Argentina and Chile view the treaty as providing a positive benefit to protection against fallout, that might go far toward overcoming their objections to Article II which they regard as a derogation to their sovereignty.
The delegation would like your instructions on this point at your earliest convenience.3
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.829/11–1259. Confidential. Drafted and initialed by Phleger.↩
- A memorandum of Farinholt’s conversation with Farley is ibid., 399.829/11–1159.↩
- In a memorandum later in the day, Merchant authorized Phleger to accept a provision along the lines of the Argentine proposal provided that it permitted explosions for peaceful purposes by unanimous consent and provided further that in Phleger’s estimation the treaty would fail without it. (Ibid., 399.829/11–1259)↩