463. Memorandum From the Special Assistant for Antarctica, Bureau of International Organization Affairs (Owen) to the Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs (Cleveland)1
SUBJECT
- Buenos Aires Antarctic Meeting
I wrote all the telegrams from Buenos Aires during the Antarctic Meeting except the last one, No. 300 of July 30,2 which apparently was sent after I had left. I believe the following comments may be useful:
It is true that the Soviet delegation was, as at Canberra, displaying the utmost cordiality. The Soviet Ambassador made a point of telling me at great length how he thought the Antarctic Treaty should be an “example” for other agreements. Their Foreign Office man, Movchan, who had been at Canberra, was also cooperative. However, there was a marked difference in his attitude in conversation with me, depending on whether his Ambassador was present or not. At all receptions the Soviets stuck together like particles of an atomic nucleus so long as the Ambassador was with them. When on their own they relaxed and talked quite freely.
As for the other remarks in the telegram, I feel I am not familiar enough with UNESCO meetings to comment on the simile, but I believe the remark about delegates taking in “each other’s laundry” may be misunderstood. The delegates did make much use of references to the cordiality that marked earlier meetings. If there was less disagreement than there had been at Canberra, this appeared to be due to the fact that several of the delegations that had opposed us on some issues at Canberra were coming around to the U.S. views, in particular the British and Australians, on such questions as the immediate creation of an all Australian secretariat [Page 1053] or the adoption of additional multilateral regulations on a variety of subjects. But no special favors were made as among any delegates.
As to the desirability of not having these meetings too frequently, this, as you know, is well known to us. However, I advised against making a public statement to that effect since the United States is already accused of “holding back” too much. We can negotiate as to the date of the next meeting as we see fit. That the achievements of the meeting were “not very memorable” is true, but the main thing is that this was in accordance with the U.S. position papers.
The British acted too quickly in withdrawing their “jurisdiction” item. This was the result of Chilean pressure. The Argentines really did not want to make an issue of its inclusion in the agenda. We formally stated our approval of its inclusion and even suggested to the British that they should not cave in so easily.
- Source: National Archives and Records Administration, RG 59, IO Files: Lot 69 D 169, Antarctica Files, Multilateral, General, 1962. Confidential.↩
- Reference is to telegram 180, July 19, telegram 236, July 25, and telegram 287, July 28, from Buenos Aires. (Ibid., Central Files 1960–63, 397.022/7–1962, 397.022/7–2562, 397.022/7–2862, respectively) In telegram 300 from Buenos Aires, July 30, Ambassador McClintock wrote: “My overall impression is that this is a sort of minor ’UNESCO on Ice’ with tendency of members of same Penguin Club [an informal group of diplomats stationed in Washington from countries with Antarctic claims] to take in each other’s laundry. I see no reason for consultative meetings at intervals of less than two years. In my closing speech while lauding delegates for their not very memorable achievements, I stressed that thanks of conference should go not to cozy diplomats but to the scientists, seamen, and airmen who were living in a more rigorous environment in the Antarctic Continent and the Southern Ocean.” (Ibid., 397.022/7–3062)↩