Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958–1960, United Nations and General International Matters, Volume II

275. Circular Airgram From the Department of State to All Diplomatic Posts¹

Washington, June 20, 1958.

CA–11231

On May 2, 1958, an invitation was extended by the United States to eleven countries to attend a conference for the purpose of concluding a formal international agreement on Antarctica in the form of a treaty, for the purposes set forth in the circular note of invitation. The circular note of May 2 was released to the public by the White House on May 3, and copies have been sent to all diplomatic posts. The circular note of invitation was addressed to the other eleven countries participating actively in the Antarctic program of the International Geophysical Year, namely, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the United Kingdom.

All eleven countries invited have officially accepted. In some countries, however, the question has been raised as to why the invitation was limited to the eleven countries mentioned above, and whether it might not be better to broaden the scope of the conference to permit participation by additional countries. The considerations set forth below are intended to be helpful in the event this subject should arise in conversation:

1. In view of the fact that a major purpose of the proposed treaty is to promote scientific research and international scientific cooperation in Antarctica, it was considered logical to invite the countries actively engaged in the Antarctic scientific program to agree among themselves on a basis for continuation of this fruitful activity beyond the end of the International Geophysical Year.

2. Even though the proposed treaty is signed only by the twelve countries participating in the conference, there is no thought that this would represent any discrimination against other countries which might later wish to engage in scientific activities in Antarctica. As the note of May 2 specifically stated, the proposed treaty would provide for “freedom of scientific investigation throughout Antarctica by citizens, organizations, and governments of all countries.”

3. It participation in the conference were broadened to include any country which might wish to attend on the basis of an asserted interest in Antarctica, the conference might well become unwieldy, unmanageable, and subject to political influence. Furthermore, this could raise the question of participation of Communist regimes which the United States and many other countries do not recognize. The door would be open to any country to participate in the debates, even though it had not engaged in activities in Antarctica or expressed other than the most general and intangible interest in the area. Such an arrangement would hardly be conducive to a successful conference or the early conclusion of a satisfactory treaty.

4. The general policy objectives which the United States proposed in its note of May 2 were as follows:

• “A. Freedom of scientific investigation throughout Antarctica by citizens, organizations, and governments of all countries; and a continuation of the international scientific cooperation which is being carried out so successfully during the current International Geophysical Year.
• “B. International agreement to ensure that Antarctica be used for peaceful purposes only.

• “C. Any other peaceful purposes not inconsistent with the Charter of the united Nations.”

  It is believed that the successful accomplishment of these objectives in a formal treaty will protect and serve the interests of all peoples and that the proposed treaty will also receive general support as a major contribution to world peace and the advancement of science.

5. Seven countries have asserted claims of sovereignty over certain portions of Antarctica (Argentina, Australia, Chile, France, New Zealand, Norway, and the United Kingdom). Even though these territorial claims are not recognized by the United States and many other countries, they are necessarily taken seriously by the claimant countries themselves. Those countries, in general, are opposed to any direct United Nations administration of Antarctica; and for similar reasons would prefer to limit the number of countries participating in the proposed conference and treaty to a relatively small group, such as the twelve countries currently active in Antarctica. The United States itself would prefer that the base of the conference not be broadened and that other members of the United Nations or specialized agencies which might assert an interest in Antarctica not be invited. A further enlargement of the number of participating states would meet with opposition on the part of many of the claimant states and create further difficulties and controversies which it would seem advisable to avoid in order not to prejudice the possibility of reaching a mutually satisfactory agreement which would be of benefit to all countries.

6. As indicated in the United States’ note of May 2, the proposed Antarctic treaty would be in consonance with the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations. It is anticipated that advantageous working relationships would be established with specialized agencies of the United Nations. None of the twelve countries currently engaged in Antarctica have expressed any desire to have that area placed under direct United Nations administration and many, as indicated above, are strongly opposed to any such proposal. It is the intention of the United States that the proposed treaty provide fair treatment to all countries and strictly adhere to the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter. Accordingly, there appears no justified basis on which other countries might seek to participate in the conference and thereby open the door to an indefinite extension of the list of participants without any agreed standards or criteria for such participation. Any such development would be prejudicial to the orderly procedure contemplated by the United States’ invitation of May 2.

The foregoing considerations are set forth for the information and background of the Embassy. It is not desired that the Embassy take any initiative in raising these points with government officials or other persons; but if the question of participation in the proposed Antarctic conference should come up in any conversations, it is hoped that the foregoing considerations will be helpful.

Dulles

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.829/6–2058. Official Use Only. Drafted by Daniels on June 13 and cleared with ARA, EUR, FE, IO, L, and NEA.