322. Memorandum From the Head of the Delegation to the Conference on Antarctica (Phleger) to the Secretary of State1
At the meeting of the Heads of Delegations this morning at 10:30, the following took place:
1. On the nuclear explosions Article the Soviet delegate stated that its final position was that paragraph 3 of the New Zealand draft would have to be dropped.
When pressed as to whether paragraphs 1 and 2 were acceptable, the Soviet delegation said they were in substance but had no final instructions on the acceptability of the exact language.
The U.S. Delegate then stated that as the Soviet position appeared final and it was a question of accepting that proposal or having no treaty, it was willing to accept the Soviet proposal.
Various delegations pointed out that they preferred the New Zealand draft, but on account of the insistence of the Soviet delegation and their desire to have a treaty, they would accept the Soviet draft.
2. On the accession Article the Soviet delegate repeated its insistence that the treaty be not open to accession by members of the specialized agencies. He repeated that the Soviet position was that the treaty should be open to accession by all states conducting scientific investigations in Antarctica and it had accepted a provision limited to UN members in a spirit of compromise. It was not prepared to further compromise by adding the members of specialized agencies, for this formula was only a method of discriminating against socialist states.
I then stated that the U.S. position was that members of specialized agencies should be eligible to accede, but in the light of the Soviet position, it was a choice of accepting the Soviet formula or having no treaty. As it considered a treaty of great benefit to the parties and to the world it was accepting the Soviet formula. Under the circumstances here where unanimity was required, this acceptance would be no precedent for other treaties or conferences.2
[Page 629]Other delegations, including Australia, South Africa, Belgium, New Zealand, France, Norway, and Chile made similar statements. Argentina, Japan and the UK said they had no instructions.
Several delegates stated that in a conference requiring unanimity it was expected that delegates would accept the overwhelming majority view and that adjustments would be made on this basis, but that in the present case it appeared that the overwhelming majority had to agree with the single nation which refused to alter its position.
The meeting then adjourned until 10:30 A.M. tomorrow to enable delegates to receive instructions.
The Committee of the Whole was scheduled to meet at 3:00 P.M. tomorrow and a Plenary meeting at 11:00 A.M. Friday in the hope that a treaty could be signed then.
- Source: Department of State, Central Files, 399.829/11–2459. Confidential. Drafted and initialed by Phleger and initialed by Herter. A copy was sent to Merchant.↩
At the Secretary of State’s Staff Meeting at 9:15 a.m. on November 25 the following discussion was reported:
“Mr. Kohler and Mr. Parsons expressed their unhappiness at our giving in to the Soviet position on the Accessions article, both feeling that it set a most unfortunate precedent which might be reflected at a Summit meeting. It was noted that several other delegations had held out although their position was now undermined by our concurrence in the Soviet position. Mr. Wilcox thought the activity by our delegation with other delegations had not been up to par. Mr. Berding outlined the plans for backgrounders and press releases in connection with the Treaty signing, if and when it occurs.” (Ibid., Secretary’s Staff Meetings: Lot 63 D 75)
↩