292. Preliminary Notes on the Operations Coordinating Board Meeting, Washington, October 7, 19591
[Here follows item 1 on nutrition for national defense.]
2. Briefing on the International Conference on Antarctica
Ambassador Paul C. Daniels briefed the Board on the preparations for the forthcoming International Conference on Antarctica. Mr. Daniels said he wished to give “one man’s concept” of the possibilities for signing a treaty providing for cooperative international access to Antarctica. Mr. Daniels referred to the secret twelve nation preparatory meetings. These talks had resulted in sufficient agreement to warrant the holding of a full-scale treaty conference. The Conference will open in Washington on October 15, and delegations of a “high caliber” are [Page 579] already arriving. The United States chief delegate will be Mr. Herman Phleger. The chief Soviet representative is expected to be Deputy Foreign Minister Piryubin.
Mr. Daniels noted general agreement among the twelve participating powers on (1) use of Antarctica for peaceful purposes; (2) freedom of scientific investigations; (3) international cooperation in scientific investigations; (4) rights and claims in Antarctica (which in effect would be frozen at the present status). Signatory countries will be enjoined from making new territorial claims. Informal Soviet acceptance of these provisions was noted.
Ambassador Daniels then referred to the proposal for the rights of inspection for the purpose of ensuring peaceful pursuits and the observance of the treaty’s provisions. Mr. Allen (USIA) said the draft article on inspection was “very sweeping.”2 In reply to a question, Mr. Daniels repeated that the Soviets appeared agreeable to forego making territorial claims. He then spoke of the problems of accession to permit countries not parties to the treaty to accede to its terms at a later date. Acceding states would be bound by the terms of the treaty. The US supported accession limited to states which are members of the UN or its specialized agencies. This US position had not been challenged by the Soviets.
There followed a brief discussion of the zone of application of the treaty. Mr. Allen expressed his reservations about the US position that the high seas around Antarctica not be within the zone of application. Mr. Daniels said the US had legal objections as well as practical ones as the Navy, as a matter of principle, did not wish restrictions on use of the high seas. There was a brief discussion over the treaty provision for the settling of disputes. The US favors compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court. The Soviet Union is in opposition.
Mr. Daniels said that although we would down-play them, the provisions of the treaty for administrative measures would serve as a basis for a supra-national administration of Antarctica. Mr. Harr (White House) asked what role the US Congress would play. Mr. Daniels said he had on at least three occasions briefed Congressional committees on our views on Antarctica. He had encountered no “disagreeable opposition”. Two Congressional figures would be members of the US delegation.
Mr. Harr asked if, under the provisions of the treaty, the US would have access to Soviet plans for Antarctica. Mr. Daniels said this was the case and that the Soviets in Antarctica had generally been cooperative. Mr. Allen asked if USIA should “play up” the Conference. Mr. Daniels said it should be played up. The publicity given the Conference could have a material effect on the treaty’s ratification by [Page 580] the US Senate. At this point, Mr. Allen said that in his opinion the Antarctica pre-conference negotiations had been the best handled he had seen in a long while. Mr. Daniels said he wished that were unanimous view. Mr. Murphy said it was a unanimous view.
Mr. Gordon Gray (White House) asked if, during the course of the negotiations, any noticeable change had occurred in the Soviet attitude, especially since Khrushchev’s visit. Mr. Daniels said the Soviets, throughout the negotiations, had been generally cooperative. Mr. Harr said that although it was probably a purely State Department responsibility he thought it of extreme importance that a fresh, hard look be given the Conference as this international meeting provided us an unusually important public relations opportunity. If handled correctly, the US could be placed in a positive, enlightened and cooperative posture, indicating we are moving ahead in the resolution of international problems and serving as a case of deeds not words in the present East-West atmosphere. Mr. Murphy noted the Antarctica Conference preceded the reopening of the Geneva test ban negotiations by some twelve days and might give an indication of Soviet attitudes.
Mr. Daniels said last year the OCB had looked upon the Antarctica Conference as a good theme for propaganda. He felt it more important to get a good treaty first and then make propaganda. Mr. Harr agreed that it is best “not to kiss the cook until you taste the cookies.” Mr. Daniels said he hoped it would be possible for the President to receive the delegates or participate in the Conference in some way.
[Here follow the remaining agenda items.]
- Source: Department of State, OCB Files: Lot 62 D 430. Confidential. No drafting information appears on the source text.↩
- See Document 290.↩