266. Memorandum of Discussion at the Department of State-Joint Chiefs of Staff Meeting, Washington, January 24, 1958, 11:30 a.m.1
1. Antarctica
General Twining said that he had just signed a letter (what he signed evidently is an internal Defense memo2) giving JCS views on four major aspects—area of claims, interest of Soviet Union, relation to [Page 468] IGY and demilitarization. He said that the Joint Chiefs now feel that the United States should be prepared to assert territorial claims, noting that the Soviet Union may well set forth a claim of its own.
Mr. Murphy noted that this appeared to be a change in the position of the JCS. He said that basically the State Department does not disagree with the view that we should be prepared to assert claims but noted that our present tentative view is that we should reserve our rights regarding territorial claims in any discussion about Antarctica.
Mr. Daniels said that he would like to comment on the various aspects referred to by General Twining:
- First, the main reason for confining a possible U.S. claim, while reserving U.S. claims to other areas, is to avoid unnecessary and undesirable conflict with friendly countries. The tentative feeling now is that assertion of a very broad claim would raise difficulties which would outweigh advantages.
- Second, regarding the role of the Soviet Union and proposed internationalization, the tentative feeling is that the Soviets have established an interest in Antarctica and will probably continue their bases there. An international regime would provide a basis for observation and control of Soviet activities. If the Soviets are not included in proposed internationalized activities, they will probably redouble their efforts to improve their position.
- Third, regarding the IGY, the present thinking is that action to assert claims during the period of the IGY would have unfortunate repercussions by injecting political considerations. This could lead to action in the forthcoming UN General Assembly which might be an unfortunate forum for consideration of the Antarctic problem
- Fourth, regarding demilitarization (non-militarization), the views of the Joint Chiefs could be most helpful. The idea is that the Soviets would be prevented from using their bases for military operations; at the same time, there would be no direct military activities in Antarctica by any of the powers participating in the internationalized activity. There is no intention, of course, to interfere with operations similar to those going on at present even though these are being conducted by U.S. military elements.
Admiral Burke commented that we live up to our international agreements whereas the Soviets do not. Mr. Daniels said that under an internationalized setup we would have a better chance to observe what the Soviets are up to than if there were no internationalized arrangements.
Admiral Burke said he felt it important to lay claim to all the areas in Antarctica to which we have any legitimate claim whatsoever, noting that our activities have covered a wide area. He stressed that we should make a large claim even though we did not press our claim to all areas. He added that the Soviets will probably learn that we are [Page 469] carrying on discussions with other powers, and when they learn this they will assert a claim of their own. Mr. Murphy commented that this is one reason why we are pressing now to get agreement on a U.S. position.
In reply to Mr. Sprague’s question, Mr. Daniels said that we have been conducting preliminary discussions with Australia and New Zealand regarding an international regime.
Mr. Daniels then noted that Antarctica is under discussion in the OCB. He then described the alternative proposal now under consideration which would involve an immediate proposal for establishment of an international regime, reaffirmation of all U.S. rights and an invitation to the interested governments to meet in order to work out a suitable agreement. Mr. Daniels commented that if this proposal did not work out we would still have reasserted our claims and obtained the benefit of trying for an international solution.
Admiral Burke inquired about possible Congressional reactions. Mr. Murphy commented that he thought Congress would be influenced to some degree by the position taken by the Executive Branch.
Mr. Daniels commented in regard to Soviet participation that the New Zealand Embassy had received word from its home government that the Soviets should be invited if there is any prospect for a conference on Antarctica to succeed.
General White suggested that the Monroe Doctrine might be applied to Antarctica on the theory that it is part of the Western Hemisphere. Mr. Daniels said that actually much of Antarctica is in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Admiral Burke felt that “demilitarization” should be defined more carefully, noting that airfields, for example, can be readily converted to military use. General Eddleman suggested that this concept should be defined in some such way as to say that the Antarctic should not be used for purely military purposes (non-militarization), and Mr. Daniels agreed that this definition would probably be better than use of the word demilitarization.
General White commented that much of the area involved is ice and shifts around. He felt this would complicate the problem of laying a claim. He also felt that we should have a look at the Arctic region while we are considering policy toward the Antarctic to ensure consistency.
Admiral Burke noted that the Soviets are very active in oceano-graphic work and have more vessels devoted to this than any other country.
Admiral Burke also said that the Joint Chiefs might do up a paragraph describing the areas to which the U.S. should lay claim. General Twining suggested that perhaps the lawyers should do this. Mr. Murphy observed that the lawyers in the State Department did [Page 470] not seem disturbed by the proposal that we should reserve our claims to large areas rather than making specific claims. General Twining said that the Joint Chiefs would explore this aspect.
Mr. Sprague inquired of General Twining whether the Joint Chiefs oppose internationalization. General Twining replied that the Chiefs take a flexible position but they do oppose internationalization. Mr. Sprague commented that we would have to have a Defense Department position for the OCB meeting on January 29. Mr. Daniels expressed the view that it was not essential to firm up a U.S. Government position immediately, noting that Argentina will hold a national election at the end of February and that it would be undesirable to have the issue of Antarctica injected into Argentina elections.
Mr. Daniels noted that U.S. scientists in general favored internationalization. Admiral Burke commented that scientists seem generally in favor of internationalized activity and observed that sometimes this is not always for the best. Mr. Sprague commented that if the U.S. should come out firmly for demilitarization there would probably be merit in internationalization. He stressed that the basic issue is to find the arrangement by which the U.S. will come out best vis-à-vis the Soviet Union.
Admiral Burke said that under an internationalized scheme there would be a large number of countries taking part. Mr. Daniels said he thought there would be about nine governments.
It was agreed that the Joint Chiefs would prepare a position on claims and also a definition regarding demilitarization.
[Here follows discussion of NATO, Indonesia, and the cold war.]