296. Memorandum From the Head of the U.S. Delegation to the Conference on Anarctica (Phleger) to the Secretary of State1
Committee I met at 10:30 A.M. The United States representative expressed regret over an editorial in a Washington newspaper today, which referred to an alleged French attitude at the conference.2 A policy of discretion in dealing with the press was emphasized.
In the discussion of the provision on freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica (Article II of the working paper draft), the Argentine representative proposed the following text:
“In order to achieve the greatest possible measure of freedom in scientific investigation in the area the high contracting parties agree to cooperate for this purpose subject to the provisions of the Treaty.”
The New Zealand, Soviet and Japanese representatives stated that they considered the Argentine proposal too restrictive. The Soviet representative asserted that one of the main purposes of the conference was to establish freedom of scientific research in Antarctica for all countries. He stated that the Soviet delegation was prepared to accept the working paper draft of Article II. In an attempt to compromise the opposing points of view, the United Kingdom representative suggested wording that would provide for “freedom of disinterested scientific investigation in the Antarctic,” subject to the provisions of the treaty, “in particular, Articles III and IV.”
[Page 584]The Argentine delegate then suggested that there be a closed meeting of the heads of delegations to discuss the question. This was agreed to and the meeting was held from 12:00 noon to 1:00 P.M., to be continued at 10:00 A.M. tomorrow. At the closed meeting the Argentine delegate explained at length that any obligation stronger than an agreement to cooperate would not be acceptable to Argentina and, if insisted upon, would force Argentina to withdraw. Various language formulations were suggested in an attempt to meet the Argentine position but were not acceptable.
Committee II met at 3:00 P.M. and resumed discussion of the provision on peaceful use of Antarctica (Article I of the working paper draft), which was first considered yesterday. An Argentine proposal to prohibit nuclear tests and explosions of any type in Antarctica, regardless of their character and purposes, was withdrawn after discussion which pointed out that all weapons testing was already banned by Article I. In the discussion, concern over possible nuclear testing of a nonmilitary nature in Antarctica was expressed by the countries in the Southern Hemisphere represented at the conference, who suggested that no such tests should be undertaken by any country without some prior consultation with other countries directly concerned. It was agreed that a suggestion to report the concern of the conference on this question to the International Atomic Energy Agency and/or the Geneva Conference on the Discontinuance of Nuclear Weapons Tests should be taken up again at a subsequent meeting.
The following draft of Article I was approved unanimously by the Committee:
“Article I
“1. Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. There shall be prohibited, inter alia, any measures of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military manoeuvers, as well as the testing of any type of weapons.
“2. The Treaty shall not prevent the use of military personnel or equipment for scientific research or for any other peaceful purpose.”
In opening the discussion of the provision on rights and claims (Article IV of the working paper draft), the French representative submitted a proposal that would delete paragraph 1(c), which provides that nothing in the treaty shall be interpreted as recognition by any signatory of any other country’s claim or basis of claim to territorial sovereignty in Antarctica. The French proposal was opposed by the Australian, United States, Soviet, United Kingdom, Norwegian and [Page 585] New Zealand representatives, all of whom stated the acceptance by their delegations of the substance of Article IV of the working paper draft. Discussion of Article IV was to be continued tomorrow.
For the U.S. Representative:
Secretary