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

288. Memorandum of a Conversation, Soviet Embassy, Washington, May 11, 1959¹

Washington, May 11, 1959

SUBJECT

• Antarctica

PARTICIPANTS

• H. E. Mikhail A. Menshikov, Ambassador of the U.S.S.R.
• Mr. Mikhail N. Smirnovsky, Counselor of Embassy of the U.S.S.R.
• Mr. Yuri V. Filippov, First Secretary, Embassy of the U.S.S.R.
• Ambassador Paul C. Daniels, Special Adviser on Antarctica

At the invitation of the Soviet Ambassador extended by telephone through Mr. Filippov, I went to lunch today at the Soviet Embassy. The only other people present were those listed above, i.e., the Ambassador, Mr. Smirnovsky, and Mr. Filippov. During the refreshments preceding luncheon, the Ambassador himself brought up the subject of Antarctica and expressed an interest in discussing and analyzing any points of difference that might exist between the Soviet Union and the United States. The conversation continued along this line, for the most part, throughout the entire luncheon.

It was apparent that Ambassador Menshikov had been giving considerable study to the Antarctic problem. He referred to most of the major points which were currently under discussion, and only occasionally accepted prompting from Mr. Filippov or Mr. Smirnovsky. Among the points brought up by the Ambassador were the following:

(1) Peaceful Use of Antarctica. The Ambassador referred to the three additional points proposed by the Soviet delegation last year under that general heading.² Neither of us felt there was any basic disagreement involved on that particular issue.

The Ambassador referred to the clause presented by the United States referring to the use of military personnel for peaceful scientific purposes. I explained that not only did that apply to the United States but to a number of other countries, and that for a continuation of our scientific program to be assured some such provision would be essential. I said, furthermore, that we considered abbreviating that phrase to read that military personnel could be used for peaceful purposes, without limiting such peaceful purposes; to scientific research. The Ambassador said that this seemed to be “new”; and I assured him that it was not new because at no time had we assumed that our military would be used for other than peaceful purposes. I pointed out, however, that for the purposes of insuring the peaceful use of Antarctica perhaps military personnel could be useful, and that accordingly it seemed desirable to draft a treaty so as to permit the use of military personnel for inspection purposes. The Ambassador gave no evidence of disagreement on this point.

(2) Rights and Claims. Ambassador Menshikov said that there had been an apparent misunderstanding in regard to our draft article on the subject of rights and claims. I agreed, but pointed out that perhaps the apparent disagreement could better be described as a misunderstanding of objectives rather than any disagreement in substance. We discussed the pros and cons of such an article a little further, without conclusive result, but the upshot was that the Russians were willing to discuss it further with an apparent willingness to seek an agreeable formula, since they were obviously impressed with the similarity of our two positions on this subject. This reflected to a considerable degree the first “thawing out” expressed by Mr. Filippov on the occasion of a recent call at the Department (see memorandum of conversation on the subject of Antarctica dated April 28, 1959³).

(3) Inspection. The Ambassador referred to the article providing for observers to insure the peaceful use of Antarctica. I referred to the agreement recently reached with Mr. Filippov that the removal of any numerical restriction on such observers might be mutually acceptable.⁴ The Ambassador said that he did not at this time foresee any major difficulties in regard to this provision of the treaty.

(4) Accession. The Ambassador said he did not understand why other countries having an interest in Antarctica should not participate in the treaty. I said that, putting it that way, I fully agreed, but at the same time there are other considerations entering into the picture which made a decision somewhat difficult. The main purpose was to get a treaty. I said this question had come up last year when the Soviet delegate had raised the question of opening the conference to an unlimited number of participants. Ambassador Menshikov said that that is not what he is talking about now, but rather whether, once the treaty had been concluded, other countries might not usefully participate in it by adhering to it. I said that the subject was complicated by the various and divergent interests of different countries, but that I should welcome the opportunity of exploring the thought further with him or his representatives as we went along. (At no time did Ambassador Menshikov or myself raise the question of the unrecognized Communist regimes.)

(5) Date of Conference. The question of the date of the Antarctic conference came up in due course. Ambassador Menshikov made no precise recommendation on that point, but both he and his associates indicated a willingness to get along with the conference. The Ambassador stated that it would be helpful if all possible points of disagreement between the United States and the Soviet Union were ironed out in advance. I said that was entirely my view, and we had endeavored to do that during the course of our preparatory talks. I said I did not think substantive points would come up at our next meeting on Wednesday, day after tomorrow, though the matter of the date would certainly be discussed then.⁵ The Ambassador insisted that it would be well to go over existing points of disagreement before that meeting in order to have a better basis for going ahead with a public announcement of the conference. I said that, of course, I was at all times agreeable to that and immediately fixed an appointment at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow, May 12, to receive in my office Mr. Smirnovsky and Mr. Filippov, in order to go over all pending points in the proposed treaty.⁶ This seemed to satisfy the Ambassador, though it is not entirely clear whether the Russians will or will not agree definitely on a date for the conference at the meeting on Wednesday, May 13. I pointed out that the United States would be willing to go ahead with a conference on any date that was “mutually agreeable” as we had said in our note of May 2, 1958, and had been saying ever since. I hoped that this “mutually agreeable” date would be reached very shortly, whether or not it was in August, September or October of this year.

(6) Consultations with Soviet Union. With reference to the indication given above by Ambassador Menshikov that it would be useful to explore mutually any points of disagreement that might exist between the United States and the Soviet Union in regard to Antarctica, I expressed willingness to go into that immediately and continuously, and it was agreed that there would be further talk along that line tomorrow morning as indicated above. I believe that Ambassador Menshikov was serious in indicating that he would like to attempt to reconcile points of difference between the United States and the Soviet Union before going into the conference, and that any clarification of pending issues might be conducive to an earlier as well as more successful conference. I did not see fit to mention to Ambassador Menshikov the fact that we must necessarily keep in close contact with ten other countries concerned with Antarctica, but did agree that it would be most useful if we attempted to reach mutual understanding on the major points which might come up at the conference. We agreed that we would attempt to do this during the coming weeks, beginning tomorrow.

After the usual amenities and comments on the Washington weather, I left with the impression that Ambassador Menshikov would be taking an increasingly active interest in Antarctic affairs as we went along.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.829/5–1159. Confidential. Drafted and initialed by Daniels.
2. The draft articles referred to here and below are those submitted by the U.S. Delegation at the 26th informal meeting, November 11, 1958.
3. A copy of this memorandum of conversation is in Department of State, Central Files, 702.022/4–2859.
4. This was done at the meeting between Daniels and Filipov on April 28.
5. A memorandum of discussion at the 46th informal meeting on May 13 is in Department of State, Central Files, 702.022/5–1359. The group agreed to hold the conference as soon as possible in October.
6. Smirnovsky and Filipov called on Daniels on May 12 and 14 to continue the discussions. Memoranda of these conversations are ibid., 399.829/5–1259 and 399.829/5–1459. Daniels concluded after these two meetings that the United States and the Soviet Union still disagreed only on the question of accession to the treaty and settlement of disputes.