THE ANTARCTIC TREATY AND THE FALKLAND CRISIS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP84B00049R000701790011-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 17, 2006
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: April 21, 1982
• Content Type: REPORT

Approved For Release 2006/05/25 : CIA-RDP84B00049R000701790011-1
21 April 1982
THE ANTARCTIC TREATY AND THE FALKLAND CRISIS
The conflict between the United Kingdom and Argentina over possession of
the Falkland Islands has some parallels in the conflict over claims-in the
Antarctic prior to the adoption of the Antarctic Treaty in 1961.. Certain-
.features of the Antarctic Treaty may be applicable to resolution of the
-Falkland Islan3s crisis. These are:
1. No recognition of or dispute of the sDvereignty claims of'any state;
in effect, deferral of the sovereignty issue for the period of the-
treaty.
2. Jurisdiction over inhabitants and visitors maintained by the states
of which they are citizens.
3. Freedom of access by all treaty signatories, including the right of
aerial observation anc3 inspection of all installations.
4. Free exchange of scientific information an-3 a mechanise' for ensuring
Approved For Release 2006/05/25 : CIA-RDP84B00049R000701790011-1
 Approved For Release"-n06/05/25 : CIA-RDP84B00049R000701790011-1
5. Use of the islarx1s for peaceful purposes only;. military weapons and
combat personnel prohibited.
6. Disputes settled peacefully by the parties concerned or by the
International Court of Justice.
Applying These Provisions to the Falklands
There are two ways in which provisions of the Antarctic Treaty might be
?_. The Falklands might be brought under the jurisdiction of the
Antarctic treaty by extending the area it covers to include the
Falklanxds.
? A separate treaty embodying appropriate provisions of the-Antarctic
Treaty might be forged for the Falklands alone.
There are at present 14 signatories to the Antarctic Treaty, and their
concurrence would have to be obtained to extend its jurisdiction--a difficult,
;perhaps impossible task. Antarctic issues are complicated enough without
adding the Falkland issue. A separate treaty is much is preferable.
Approved For Release 2006/05/252 CIA-RDP84B00049R000701790011-1
 Approved For Release 2006/05/25 : CIA-RDP84B00049R000701790011-1
sovereignty Ccns iperations
In the Antarctic, national flags fly over national installations quite
without regard for whether these installations are located in territory
claimed by the country from which the inhabitants cane.. Many national bases
in the Antarctic are located on territory claimed by another country. Applied
to the Falklands, this principle would mean that the presence or absence of
the Argentine flag (or of the UK flag or any other) would have no sovereignty
implications. The citizens of all nations could go about their business, and.
nations fly their flags over the operations in which their citizens are
engaged or the buildings where their affairs are managed. Joint or third
party administration of key facilities such as the airfield at Stanley would
have to be arranged.
Argentine and British sector claims in the Antarctic partially overlap
(as does the claim of Chile--see map) in the Antarctic Treaty area south of 60
degrees South Latitude. The Argentine press has already heralded Argentine's
possession of the Falklands as strengthening its Antarctic sector claims.
Since nations marking sector claims in both the Arctic and the Antarctic have
based them on the extension of lines from their sovereign territory adjacent
to the polar areas (though this proposition is not recognized in international
law), any solution which confirms the sovereignty of either the UK or
Argentina has the apparent effect of undermining the Antarctic sector claim of
the other. Thus, in any resolution of the immediate crisis the parties must
accept the proposition that the arrangement has no bearing on the Antarctic
sector claims of either nation.
Approved For Release 2006/05/25 1 CIA-RDP84B00049R000701790011-1
 Approved For Release-2006/05/25 : CIA-RDP84B00049R000701790011-1
To date, no major mineral or petroleum resources have been found either
on land or in the 200-mile offshore zones around the islands. A similar
situation prevailed in Antarctica when that treaty was signed; accordingly,
that issue was finessed. That approach would not work in the Falklands, whose
inhabitants have long assumed the right to exploit any resource they find,
even though they have lacked the ~funds acid expertise to do anything in a big
way. The best approach would probably involve sharing the costs and benefits
of:new efforts to find and exploit currently untapped resources.
With respect to the offshore resources that may attach to control over
the Falklands, a compact for joint exploration and exploitation might be
worked out that combined British money and know-how in offshore oil drilling
with Argentine logistical support and labor and would be in the best long-term
interests of both countries. The absence to date of major finds of mineral
resources provides some breathing space for the development of a mutually
satisfactory arrangement against the time when major econanic interests may be
at stake.
Settlement Considerations
The vast Antarctic is essentially uninhabited; only a few people in a few
isolated bases spend the winter there. There is enough roan so that bases and
Approved For Release 2006/05/21: C1A-RDP84B00049R000701790011-1
 Approved For Release 2006/05/25 : CIA-RDP84B00049R000701790011-1
activities of various countries can be separated if desired--although, in some
cases they tend to be clustered to afford opportunities for mutual support and
cooperation. Nevertheless, there are no conflicts over land use.
By contrast, before the Argentine invasion, the Falklands were almost
entirely inhabited by UK citizens. Although their settlements are small and
dispersed, they use most of the available territory for economic endeavors,
mainly sheep farming. Under an Antarctic-style treaty, new settlements
(analagous to new bases in the Antarctic) could be established by citizens of
other'nations in places not now inhabited, but unless the econanic base of the
islands were expanded, there would be nothing for the riew settlers'to do-
except interfere with the activities of the existing inhabitants.
Accordingly, provision would have to be made in such a treaty for preservation
of the property rights and economic interests of the present inhabitants, and
immigration would have to be controlled to correspond with expansion of the
economic base.
Parties to the Treaty
The Antarctic Treaty was signed by the 12 nations that at the time
conducted operations there. The treaty provided, however, that any member of
the UN might subsequently join and, in addition, became a consultative member
by mounting a scientific expedition to the region and establishing a base
there. Argentina would certainly and the UK would probably oppose any similar
Approved For Release 2006/05/25 : CIA-RDP84B00049R000701790011-1
5
 Approved For Release 2006/05/25 : CIA-RDP84B00049R000701790011-1
provision in a treaty covering the Falklands. Participants would have to be
limited to the two states concerned plus an honest broker or two. Conceivably
the UN or the US could serve in this role, but in the latter case Argentina
might prefer to add a Latin American country to counterbalance the presumed US
tilt toward the UK.
Approved For Release 2006/05/25 : CIA-RDP84B00049R000701790011-1
6