300. Memorandum From the Acting Executive Officer of the Operations Coordinating Board (Satterthwaite) to the Members of the Board 1
- Location of U.S. Antarctic Interests
For the Board’s consideration May 4,2 there are enclosed two memoranda dealing with the problem of the pros and cons of “rights” vs. “claims” in the Antarctic.
The first memorandum contains the views of the State Department, agreed to by the other agencies concerned except Defense, and requesting permission to initiate bilateral negotiations which if successful would eventually have the effect of shifting our policy from that of “rights” to one of “claims.”
The second memorandum contains the Defense Department’s views of why the U.S. should maintain its present position of “rights” rather than “claims.”
For the Board’s information there is enclosed as Attachment 3 a copy of the transmittal memo to the NSC of February 10 on this subject3 which further describes the opposing points of view.
The Board is asked to decide: (a) whether the NSC should be asked to amend NSC 5424/1 to enable State to initiate negotiations; (b) whether State already has this capability under NSC 5424/1; or (c) whether State should be instructed not to initiate negotiations at this time.4
- Source: Department of State, S/S-OCB Files: Lot 62 D 430, Antarctica—5424/1. Secret.↩
- No record has been found of an OCB discussion relative to U.S. Antarctic interests on May 4 or at any other meeting during this period.↩
- Reference is to Document 297.↩
- The list of attachments to this memorandum also includes the OCB Staff Study of March 29, supra. ↩
- No map was attached to the source text. Regarding the March 10 memorandum to the Board Assistants, see footnote 1, supra. ↩
- In a memorandum dated April 29, to Barbour and Merchant, Raynor recommended that Hoover be briefed on the importance of the Department proposal for bilateral negotiations on Antarctic interests. Raynor pointed out the likelihood of Department of Defense opposition to the proposals and the undesirability of accepting the Defense position, which no one else in the Antarctic Working Group supported. (Department of State, Central Files, 702.022/4-2955)↩