283. Memorandum of Discussion at the 397th Meeting of the National Security Council, Washington, February 26, 19591
[Here follows a paragraph listing the participants at the meeting.]
1. U.S. Policy on Antarctica. (NSC 5804/1; OCB Report, January 21, 1959 on NSC 5804/12)
Mr. Karl Harr, Jr., briefed the Council on the highlights of the OCB Report on U.S. Policy on Antarctica. He described in some detail the expanded Soviet program which began after the conclusion of the International Geophysical Year (IGY). He described this as the principal factor which dictated to the OCB the recommendation for a revision of U.S. policy. Mr. Harr also suggested that a revision of the policy should look carefully into the present organizational arrangements in the U.S. Government for dealing with Antarctica affairs.
Secretary Herter indicated very strong support by the State Department for the OCB recommendation for review which he said should be undertaken expeditiously by the NSC Planning Board. Secretary Herter stated that the activity of the Soviets in the area was indeed mysterious but that it could easily become the basis for Soviet claims for portions of Antarctica. He also endorsed Mr. Hair’s suggestion for a review of our organizational arrangements on the ground that the Department of Defense was carrying too heavy a load in terms of its own funds for support of U.S. programs in Antarctica.
Mr. Gray stressed that the issue before the Council was whether or not to agree with the OCB recommendation for a revision of the policy rather than what the revised policy should contain. He pointed out that concern had been expressed in some quarters as to whether what we would be talking about this morning at the Council would involve larger programs and more funds for Antarctica. This, however, [Page 537] was not the real issue before the Council at present. Mr. Gray added that the Planning Board had discussed the OCB recommendation for a review and supported the recommendation. Noting the presence at the table of Dr. T. Keith Glennan, Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Agency, as well as Dr. Killian, he invited comments from them both.
Dr. Killian pointed out that American scientists in general were very enthusiastic about the desirability of continued scientific research in Antarctica. Among other reasons for their enthusiasm they felt that the area was especially important from the point of view of global meteorology. The Antarctic likewise was a kind of laboratory in which to study the history of the crust of the earth. He also pointed out that our scientists had expressed some concern over the fate of our station at Little America. Obviously since it was insecure and sinking, the Little America base would ultimately have to be abandoned although scientists wanted very much to use it for one more year. Dr. Killian said American scientists were also genuinely concerned over the increasing extent of Soviet programs in the Antarctic although the Soviets have worked more cooperatively with the scientists of other nations in the Antarctic than they have in any other area of joint international effort. Finally our scientists have pointed out that the U.S. has been handling our Antarctic programs pretty much on a year to year basis. They believed that a long range program, covering perhaps a five year interval, would be more effective. In concluding Dr. Killian suggested that Dr. Glennan might touch upon the relevance of Antarctica to the U.S. earth satellite program.
Dr. Glennan pointed out that Antarctica was the best area in which to monitor satellites with polar orbits. Presently there were no plans for a U.S. satellite tracking station in Antarctica but it was only a matter of time before we should have to have one. Antarctica might also become very significant in terms of projects designed to increase our knowledge about the radiation belts surrounding the earth as well as projects for getting a man into Outer Space. Indeed Antarctica might prove to be the best site from which to attempt such a launching since the radiation belts were not so thick in the polar areas as they were elsewhere around the earth.
Secretary Herter again expressed his hope that the Council would decide in favor of a review of U.S. policy on the Antarctic and furthermore to undertake to complete such a review before next May when an international conference on Antarctica was likely to convene. A variety of subjects scheduled to come up at this conference needed to be looked at in any revision of our policy.
Mr. Gray then called on Mr. Elmer Bennett, the Acting Secretary of the Interior, who pointed out that the principal interest of his Department in Antarctica was in the mapping program for the area [Page 538] now going on. He said that the Department of the Interior strongly concurs in the views of the scientific agencies as to the importance of the mapping program and indeed was making some small provision for such a program in the Department’s budget. If a larger program, however, were to be undertaken it would probably have to be justified by larger considerations of policy since as far as Interior was concerned map making was of greater significance than map using. He was, therefore, inclined to defer to the judgments of the Departments of State and Defense with respect to general policy guidance on Antarctica.
Mr. Gray again stated that the issue now before the Council was whether or not to recommend a review of our current Antarctic policy and stated that if the decision was favorable, the Planning Board would undertake to review the policy expeditiously.
Mr. Allen Dulles observed that he wished to reinforce what Mr. Harr and Dr. Killian had had to say about the the extensive Soviet program in Antarctica. Mr. Dulles believed that it was probable that the particularly cooperative attitude of the Soviets with respect to Antarctic programs reflected the belief that such cooperation would enable them to move in without too much fuss if the U.S. moved out of any significant Antarctic areas. Mr. Dulles thought that the Soviets might even try to launch an earth satellite program in Antarctica.
The Director of the Bureau of the Budget said that in the face of the obvious enthusiasm of members of the Council for our programs in Antarctica he could only console himself with the fact that the Department of Defense has not submitted a Defense justification for our programs. Mr. Stans added that he would not oppose the OCB recommendation for a revision of our Antarctic policy and stated that a principal objective of any such revision should be to determine whether or not the time had come to assert U.S. claims to Antarctica in view of the increased Soviet activity in that region.
Mr. Gray indicated that the NSC Planning Board would proceed with an expeditious review of NSC 5804/1.
The National Security Council:
- a.
- Noted and discussed the reference report by the Operations Coordinating Board in the light of the recommendation therein for a review of U.S. Policy on Antarctica.
- b.
- Directed the NSC Planning Board to review expeditiously U.S. Policy on Antarctica (NSC 5804/1), in the light of the discussion at this meeting.
[Here follow the remaining agenda items.]
- Source: Eisenhower library, Whitman File. Top Secret, Eyes Only. Prepared by Gleason on February 26.↩
- NSC 5804/1 is Document 269; the OCB Report is supra.↩