315. Memorandum From the Head of the Delegation to the Conference on Antarctica (Phleger) to the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Merchant)1
The meeting of the Heads of Delegations at 3:00 P.M. continued the discussion on the banning of nuclear explosions. The UK, Argentina and South Africa presented proposals which banned nuclear explosions in Antarctica but in a subsequent paragraph provided that notwithstanding this prohibition and having in mind future scientific development and international agreements, the prohibition could be modified by the unanimous consent of Article VIII parties.
The Soviet representative said that these proposals were unacceptable but that he would make a proposal which, if it was accepted, he would present to his Government. The Soviet proposal was as follows:
“Nuclear explosions and disposition of radioactive material not resulting from nuclear processes in Antarctica shall be prohibited.
[Page 620]“The present article, shall cease to be in effect if all the contracting parties to this treaty whose representatives are entitled to participation in the meetings provided for in Article VIII will become parties to a general international agreement which may be concluded in the future concerning the use of nuclear energy including nuclear explosions and disposal of radioactive material.”
It was at once pointed out that this proposal had the effect of prohibiting nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes for all time in Antarctica no matter how desirable, unless and until there was general international agreement on the subject of nuclear explosions, which agreement might never be had.
Various delegations spoke in opposition to the proposal, saying that it tied the Antarctica situation to the world situation instead of dealing only with the situation in Antarctica.
The representative of the Union of South Africa said it was introducing the cold war into Antarctica.
I pointed out that while I was sure the Soviet representative had no such objective it was in fact endorsing in principle the Soviet position in the Geneva nuclear talks, namely, that nuclear explosions should be first banned, and then the parties should discuss the conditions under which they might be regulated and policed—the Western position being exactly the contrary, namely, that before nuclear explosions are banned the conditions under which nuclear explosions and other uses can be conducted and policed in the future should be decided on before the explosions are banned.
The Soviet representative did not budge and the meeting finally adjourned to meet again at 10:30 tomorrow morning.
Following the meeting I pointed out to the Soviet representative that its proposal was introducing into the Antarctica treaty, elements that had been the cause of differences between the Soviet Union and other nuclear powers and it was not helpful to introduce these differences here. I expressed the hope that the Soviet would see fit to change its position.
Two explanations of the Soviet position seem possible: (1) that the Soviet does not want any prohibition of nuclear explosions in the treaty, or (2) that if the subject is dealt with in the treaty it shall be dealt with in such a way as to improve the Soviet position at the Geneva talks. In the light of the Argentine position it is obvious that there can be no treaty unless there is a provision banning nuclear explosions in Antarctica.
At one stage this afternoon one representative suggested that we discuss the accession clause. I replied that under the circumstances this was not desirable and the matter was dropped.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.829/10–959. Confidential. Drafted by Phleger.↩