Evening star., 1960-08-20
Antarctic Treaty

respect to your editorial of
August IL commenting on
Senate action giving its ad-
vice and consent to the rati-
fication of the Antarctic
Treaty.
I shall not in this letter
repeat my reasons for per-
Sisting in the belief that the
ratification of this treaty
foreclosed any effective
pressing of well founded
United States territorial
claims to at least 80 per cent
Of the Antarctic.
I do wish, however, to
point out an incorrect and
misleading statement in your
editorial. You state:
During the Senate de-
bate fears were expressed
by some Senators that the
Soviet Union might some
how take advantage of the
pact to build secret military
bases, including launching
pads for missiles. But, as
supporters of the proposal
stressed. an open skies in
Spection system is an i'm
portant part of the agree
ment, with each nation at
liberty to conduct aerial or
ground reconnaissance when
ever and wherever it pleases.
1t is hard to see how any
secret military bases could
be established by any power
under this surveillance ar
rangement."
That statement is incor-
rect and misleading.
None Of Russia's satellites
are signatories to the treaty
and hence are not bound by
its terms.
Red China is not a sigma
tory to the treaty and hence
is not bound by its terms.
Even if we assume that
Russia will. contrary to past
experience, live up to the
terms and conditions of the
Antarctic Treaty, there is
nothing to compel Red China
or Russia's satellites to do so.
Through the ratification
OF this treaty with Russia,
Uncle Sam has, in effect,
tied one hand behind his
back in any possible future
struggle with Russia if it
should seek to dominate this
important and large segment
OF the world. Under the
treaty, any base established
by the United States in the
Antarctic would be subject
to inspection by Russia (and
the other signatories to the
treaty. as would any base
established there by Russia
While thus making absolutely
certain that the United States
bases are devoted solely to
peaceful, scientific purposes,
Russia-acting either through
one of her satellites or
through Red China-could
establish a missile base in the
Antarctic and we would
never know for certain be-
cause such bases would not
be subject to inspection.
BY all means let us not
overestimate the danger of
Communist domination of the
world.
But by the same token, let
us not underestimate the
danger so that we fall easy
prey to possible future Rus
sian duplicity.
Ernest Gruening,
Senator from Alaska.
Editors note: The Star
does not agree with Senator
Gruening that it's editoMal
was either incorrect or mis-
leading. When the issue of
a possible Red China base
in the Antarctic was raised
during the Senate debate on
the treaty. Senator Hicken-
looper of Iowa pointed out
that the treaty specifically
binds all signatories ito ex-
ert appropriate efforts con-
sistent with the Charter of
the United Nations to the
end that no one engages in
any activity in Antarctica
contrary to the principles or
purposes of the present
treaty" The Senator in
terpreted this as meaning no
nation, whether a signatory
to the treaty or not. Further
more, as the editorial stated,
the right of unilateral, un-
restricted overnight any,
where and at anytime, with
out the consent of other ma
tions, would be a guarantee
against impermissible activi-
ties by anyone. And, as was
pointed out on the Senate
floor, Red China could build
a base in Antarctica now
without fear of the treaty's
inspection safeguards. OBJ
viously such a base would be
easier to detect under an
open skies" inspection sys-
tenn than without it,