303. Memorandum From the Head of the Delegation to the Conference on Antarctica (Phleger) to the Secretary of State1
Committee I met at 11 a.m. and resumed discussion of Article VI. Chile submitted the following proposal orally:
“1. The provision of the present treaty shall apply on the lands, permanent ice (ice shelves) adjoining the land mass, floating ice (ice pack), waters and atmospheric space above the land within the zone limited by 60° South Latitude, without prejudice to the exercise by any country of rights exercised through international legislation with respect to the high seas.
“2. If, while exercising these rights, the principles recognized by the present treaty were to be affected, the representatives of the high contracting parties will consult among themselves in order to consider the situation that has arisen and to adopt adequate measures.
“3. In so far as the waters and aerial space above, up to fifty nautical miles from the land mass and the permanent ice adjoining the land mass, the high contracting parties agree in applying the provisions established in Articles I and V of the present treaty, without the limitations contained in paragraph 1.”
[Page 599]It was agreed to postpone discussion of this matter, pending submission in writing of the foregoing proposal and the proposal made orally by the Soviet Union yesterday.2
The text of Article V as submitted by the Drafting Committee was discussed.3 France recalled that it had reserved its position regarding the authority to designate observers. Of the five paragraphs in the Article, the first four relate to inspection, while paragraph 5 relates to notification to be given regarding expeditions, stations, and military personnel or equipment. Chile favored separating this Article into two Articles, following the division of subject matter described above. It was agreed that a Chilean suggestion to stipulate that inspectors should present credentials, and that aircraft engaging in inspection should identify themselves, could be met by strengthening paragraph 1 of Article VIII.
There was considerable discussion of the wording of paragraph 5.(a), quoted below:
“5. Each High Contracting Party shall at the time of entry into force of the present treaty inform the other Parties, and subsequently keep them informed in advance, of
(a) all expeditions to and within Antarctica, on the part of its vessels or nationals, or organized from its territory outside the region;”
There seemed to be general agreement to amend the final phrase of subparagraph (a) along the following lines: “or organized in or proceeding from its territory outside the region;”. It was agreed that clarification of this wording, which involves difficulties in its translation into Spanish, might take place outside the Committee. In the discussion of this matter, the U.S. observed that the question of the relationship of the treaty to third parties had not yet been discussed thoroughly, and pointed out that if non-signatories were to enjoy any of the benefits of the treaty they should assume some of the burdens of the treaty, such as giving notice of their intent to send expeditions to Antarctica. Australia and Belgium expressed their opinion that the treaty did not give any rights to non-signatories and, therefore, it should not seek to impose any obligations upon them.
The Representatives met informally in closed session at 3 p.m., October 30, adjourning at 6 p.m.
They discussed the items of third parties and accession. There was unanimous agreement that the treaty imposed obligations only upon the parties and that the benefits of the treaty were solely for the parties.
[Page 600]They agreed that there should be an accession clause making accession open to any state which was a member of the UN or its specialized agencies, the USSR saying that in the spirit of compromise it could accept such a provision.
There was unanimous agreement that participation in the consultative group should be limited to parties who at the time were engaged in substantial scientific activity in Antarctica and also that the right to appoint inspectors should be limited to parties who were entitled to have representatives on the consultative group.
The New Zealand representative was asked to redraft his proposals in the light of these views and to circulate them informally amongst the representatives.
The question of Article II was discussed at length. Three alternative formulations prepared respectively by South Africa, Australia, and USSR, were discussed. The Argentine representative said that he, personally, could recommend the South African draft to his government for approval but that the Australian and USSR drafts were not acceptable. There was general agreement that the South African draft was acceptable, the Soviet Union being the only one who objected. Finally in a spirit of compromise, the Soviet representative said that he could recommend the South African draft with minor changes which he then indicated.
The South African draft is as follows with the suggested eliminations by the Soviet Union indicated by the words stricken out:
“Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica and cooperation towards that end, as initiated and applied during the International Geophysical Year, shall continue and be further encouraged subject to the provisions of the present treaty.”
The Argentine representative expressed the view that the suggestions of the Soviet Union could be accepted and all then agreed that the South African proposal, as altered by the USSR, was an acceptable formulation and the Argentine representative said he would send it to his government with his recommendation of acceptance.
All of the foregoing is of course subject to final approval and represents the preliminary agreement of the parties for the purpose of drafting.
It was agreed that the representatives should continue their meeting at 10:30 Monday morning, November 2, with Committee II meeting that afternoon at 3 p.m.
For the U.S. Representative:
Secretary