Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961–1963, Volume XXV, Organization of Foreign Policy; Information Policy; United Nations; Scientific Matters

464. Report on the Second Consultative Meeting Under the Antarctic Treaty¹

Washington, undated.

REPORT ON SECOND CONSULTATIVE MEETING UNDER THE ANTARCTIC TREATY

There is attached a report of the proceedings of the Second Consultative Meeting under Article IX of the Antarctic Treaty, held at Buenos Aires from July 18 to July 28, 1962. It is arranged by topic in the order of the agenda adopted for the meeting. There is also included a summary of the manner in which the question of “jurisdiction” was dealt with, which was not included in the approved agenda.

As at the Canberra Meeting, the Rules of Procedure provided that neither minutes nor a summary record of the debates should be produced. The Argentine Government as host may, however, have a taped recording of the proceedings. In the attached summary of the proceedings an account is given of the background of each topic as well as of the manner in which it was dealt with at the meeting.

Noteworthy features of the meeting may be summarized as follows:

(1) Unlike the Canberra Meeting, no efforts were made at Buenos Aires to convert SCAR into the official instrument for discharging the Governments’ responsibilities regarding scientific cooperation. In this regard, the British had obviously changed their earlier position. They appear to agree that it is best not to convert SCAR into an official body indirectly by delegating to that body the responsibilities of governments. However, the British, Australians and New Zealanders did oppose certain features of the Soviet proposal regarding exchange of scientific information (Item 6 of Agenda) on the grounds that the Governments would seem to be “dictating” to SCAR. In the main this view was shared by the United States, since the U.S. Government, although it finances the U.S. scientists engaged in Antarctic research, does not control them so that it can commit itself to meet deadlines on scientific exchange.

(2) On the question of the secretariat, the chief proponents of the establishment of one at the Canberra Meeting, namely, the United Kingdom and Australia, were practically silent. The opponents of a secretariat made lengthy speeches on the subject. The British and Australians did not put forward any arguments in favor of a secretariat. Nor did the British and Australians make any overt statements against resuming consultations in Washington (as they had at the Canberra Meeting). Washington as a site for interim consultations was favored not only by Belgium (as at the Canberra Meeting), but also by New Zealand, Norway, and Japan.

(3) The Soviet attitude, as at the Canberra Meeting and at the Washington Conference, was on the whole friendly and cooperative. It may be noteworthy that while the Soviets have up to now avoided any references to the inspection provisions, one of their representatives in a working group meeting emphasized the fact that the topic, “Exchange of Information under Article VII, Paragraph 5” (Item 9 of Agenda), was a “political” topic and related to the inspection system of the Treaty. The same Soviet delegate in the course of discussions of the press communiqué of the meeting, stressed the need to include a reference to the spirit of harmony and cooperation in which the meeting was conducted. The Soviet Ambassador made a point of telling the U.S. delegation what a fine thing the Antarctic Treaty was and that it should be an “example” to other agreements.

(4) There appeared to be general recognition of the fact that there had been insufficient consultation among the Governments in preparation for this meeting, and that as a result the meeting “accomplished” very little. Actually, the Governments that had so emphatically expressed their desire for the adoption of more “measures” at and after the Canberra Meeting, especially the United Kingdom, had not responded to efforts of the United States to consult on these matters prior to the Buenos Aires Meeting; and at the meeting, they did not press for even an exchange of views on some of their favorite topics. For instance: The British took steps to withdraw their modest proposal on jurisdiction at the first rumblings of Chilean opposition. The Australians did not avail themselves of the opportunity to present their reasons for the early convening of a meeting on communications.

(5) The recommendations adopted were in accord with the U.S. position for the several topics. The United States did not seek the adoption by this meeting of any recommendations for new measures or agreements beyond existing ones and believes that additional measures (for instance, on conservation, logistics, et cetera) require considerable consultation among governments prior to their formulation by meetings such as this.

1. Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, IO Files: Lot 67 D 378, Antarctica. Confidential. Attached is a September 6 memorandum by Owen transmitting the report to Assistant Secretary Cleveland. It contained a handwritten note reading, “Also attached is a copy of the Final Report containing the recommendations adopted.” The Final Report is not printed. The Recommendations of the Second Consultative Meeting are printed in American Foreign Policy: Current Documents, 1962, pp 534–537.