352 



remarkable event, unprecedented in international politics, is generally 

 agreed to have resulted directly from IGY activities in Antarctica. 

 Chapman, for example, stated that the IGY led to the drafting of the 

 Antarctic Treaty that aims to exclude military action from Ant- 

 arctica," 219 and Sullivan commented, "The stated objective of the 

 proposed treaty was to perpetuate the cooperation that had marked 

 the IGY in Antarctica." 220 Indeed, the IGY is mentioned twice in 

 the treaty itself : 



Convinced that the establishment of a firm foundation for the continuation 

 and development of such cooperation on the basis of freedom of scientific investi- 

 gation in Antarctica as applied during the International Geophysical Year 

 accords with the interests of science and the progress of all mankind [preamble]; 



Freedom of scientific investigation in Antarctica and cooperation toward that 

 end, as applied during the International Geophysical Year, shall continue, subject 

 to the provisions of the present treaty, [art. II). 221 



Antarctica, for many decades prior to the IGY, had been an object 

 of continued interest and investigation to many nations. Of these, 

 seven had established territorial claims upon the continent, some 

 of which overlapped. 222 As early as 1948 the United States, which 

 officially recognized no claims, had proposed an international solution 

 to other claimants, but without success. Similar efforts by India in 

 1956 before the United Nations General Assembly also met with 

 no success, ostensibly being shelved to avoid controversy during the 

 IGY; and discussions of the problem by Australia, New Zealand, 

 and the United Kingdom also led nowhere. Thus, throughout the 

 IGY the status of Antarctica was not only politically unresolved, 

 but remained an issue of political controversy. 



This controversy, by and large, did not significantly affect relation- 

 ships among scientists carrying out work in Antarctica during the 

 IGY. The general apolitical tone of this activity was set quite early 

 during the first IGY regional conference on the Antarctic held in 

 Paris during July 6-10, 1955. As noted by Sullivan, a somewhat 

 awkward situation existed at this meeting because both the Chilean 

 and Argentine delegations were headed by ambassadors rather than 

 by scientists. However, the forcefulness of the chairman of the meeting 

 "was unquestionably responsible for subduing the political contro- 

 versies that repeatedly seemed about to erupt." 223 Subsequent scienti- 

 fic activities in the Antarctic demonstrated convincingly that scien- 

 tists of various countries, including those having overlapping Antarctic 

 claims, could work peacefully together, relatively unaffected by the 

 unresolved political difficulties. That they could do so was due partly 

 to common scientific objectives and partly to the forbidding nature 

 of the area. As Sullivan commented: 



The stark, perilous environment of Antarctica had a remarkable effect in 

 submerging political differences. The expeditions there were bound together by 

 the presence of a common enemy. 224 



218 Chapman, "Earth and Beyond," p. 41. 



*>° Sullivan. "The TOY," p. 328. 



221 Department of State, Conference on Antarctica, pp. 61-62. 



232 The seven nations were Argentina, Australia, Chile, Fiance, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and 

 (unofficially) the United States. The overlapping claims were those of Argentina, Chile, and the United 

 Kingdom. 



223 Sullivan, "The fOY," p. 320. 



224 Sullivan, Assault, p. 413. 



