Diplomacy, Public Opinion and the Fractalization of the U.S. Antarctic

Diplomacy, Public Opinion and the Fractalization of the U.S. Antarctic

DIPLOMACY, PUBLIC OPINION AND THE "FRACTALIZATION" OF U.S. ANTARCTIC POLICY, 1946-1959 Jason Kendall Moore Master of Arts, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Illinois, United States -t· : ' - Completed in fulfillment of the requirements for a Doctorate of Philosophy, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia _.,., Declaration This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for a degree of diploma by the University or any other institution, except by way of background information and duly acknowledged in the thesis. To the best of my knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person except where due acknowledgement is made in the text. Some material published and researched by me has been included and duly acknowledged in the content of this thesis. These references include: Moore, Jason Kendall. "A ' Sort' of Self-Denial: United States Policy toward the Antarctic, 1950-1959." Polar Record 37, no. 200 (2001): 14-27. Moore, Jason Kendall. "A Typical Marriage: U.S.-British- Chilean Antarctic Relations, 1946-1949." In Leon Woppke, Consuelo, Mauricio Jara Fernandez et al. ;, Convergencia Antartica? Los Contextos de la Historia Antartica Chilena, 1939- 1949. Valparaiso, Chile: Editorial Puntangeles, 2005. Moore, Jason Kendall. "Alliance of Mistrust: The United States, Britain and Chile in the Quest for Antarctic Sovereignty, 1952- 1959." Estudios Norteamericanos 3, no. 3 (2004): 187-205. Moore, Jason Kendall. "Bungled Publicity: Little America, Big America and the Rationale forNon-Claimancy, 1946- 1961." Polar Record40, no. 212 (2004): 19-30. Moore, Jason Kendall. "Tethered to an Iceberg: United States Policy toward the Antarctic, 1939-1949." Polar Record35, no. 193 (1999): 125-34. Date 11 Authority of Access This thesis is not to be made available for loan or copying for two years following the date this statement was signed. Following that time the thesis may be made available for loan and limited copying in accordance with the Copyright Act 1968. Date 111 Abstract The many specialists who address the background of the Antarctic Treaty of 1959 concur that the United States and Soviet Union set aside their own disputes for the sake of an internationalization agreement which devoted the world's last continent to peaceful scientific cooperation. While this is true and must be regarded as a formidable achievement, the treaty gains further significance when evaluated in light of the Cold War tensions which bore upon it. This thesis maintains that the controversy surrounding Antarctica reflected the patterns which at a global level threatened to embroil the superpowers in full-scale conflict. It contains previously published research which analyzes U.S. Antarctic policy in detail, and herein provides the groundwork for establishing links between U.S.-Soviet, U.S.-British and U.S.-Chilean relations at large and their relations in the far south, as well as between the U.S. internationalization proposals and U.S. national security policies. The "fractalization" of U.S. Antarctic policy shifts emphasis from the policy itself to how Cold War diplomacy and public opinion bore upon it. Physical scientists regard objects as "fractal" when their structural complexity is maintained at all levels, as in snowflakes or electronic transmissions. This provides an ideal metaphor for the analytical framework adopted herein. IV Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible except for Consuelo Leon Woppke, who involved me with a series of research projects sponsored by the Antarctic Institute (INACH) of the Chilean Foreign Affairs Ministry and by the Chilean National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT). 1 This experience resulted in a series of publications which helped to distinguish my application to the Thomas Crawford Memorial Scholarship, University of Tasmania. I am grateful to Marcus Haward for helping to have secured my funding to attend conferences of the Chilean Association of North American Studies (ACHEN) and the Encounters oflbero-American Antarctic Historians (EHIA), as well as for his supervision of this project; and to H. Robert Hall for sharing his Australian archival materials and doctoral thesis with my Chilean colleagues. 1 The INACH projects were Convergencia y Divergencias de /as Conductas y Acciones de Chile y USA en Antartica entre 1939-1949 and Chile y Estados Unidos: Continuidad y Convergencia en sus Politicas Antarticas, 1949-1957. The CONICYT projects were Politica Antartica entre 1939-1956: lnjluencias, Divergencias y Conjluencias entre /as Posiciones de Gran Bretana, Estados Unidos y Chile and Potencias Anglo-Sajones y Politica Antartica Chilena en 1956-1961. v Preface In the footnotes and text the Department of State, Foreign Office, and Foreign Affairs Ministry are understood to be U.S., British and Chilean, respectively. Citations such as "Department of State to Embassy in Santiago" are understood as to the U.S. Embassy in Santiago; "Foreign Office to Embassy in Buenos Aires" as to the British Embassy in Buenos Aires; and "Embassy in Washington to Foreign Affairs Ministry" as from the Chilean Embassy in Washington. Exceptions are indicated, for example, "British Embassy in Washington to Department of State." References to the Secretary of State, Foreign Secretary, and Minister of Foreign Affairs-or Foreign Affairs Minister-are also understood to be U.S., British and Chilean, respectively. There are cases of overlapping titles, such as "Undersecretary of State," usually referring to the U.S. Undersecretary of State, but in one or more cases to the British Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as clarified by the organizational and archival references. The term "Under Foreign Secretary" is not used as it would be misrepresentative. Details are sometimes added for the sake of clarity. For example, "Mr. Leche to Mr. Bevin" becomes "Embassy in Santiago (Leche) to Foreign Secretary (Bevin)." As the latter terminology was originally used as frequently or more frequently than the former in the reviewed documents, it is deemed appropriate in all such cases. Last names are included in parentheses if originally used, and further identifying criteria if available. For example, "Embassy in London (Tibbetts) to Department of State, 16 July 1953, no. 324; Embassy in Santiago (Bowers) to Secretary of State, 31 March 1953, no. 410, control 10818, NARA, RG 59, 702.022." Numbers and control references, often a combination of letters and numbers, are listed after the dates. Vl NARA, RG and all other acronyms are explained in the following section. In the previous example, "Secretary of State (Dulles)" would be more accurate, but it was not originally qualified as such. While reference to "702.022/3- 315 3" would be more accurate, and was originally qualified as such, in relation to the second document, only "702.022" is used. It is the specific Department of State manuscript collection in which both documents were found; the suffix is only a numerical reference to the date. This style of reference is preferable as multiple documents are often included in the same footnote. When dates appear in parentheses, they have usually been derived from the filing protocol. In many cases multiple documents from different manuscript collections are included in the same footnote. For example, "Department of State, Division of European Affairs, Memorandum on Trusteeship Agreement for Antarctica, 1 March 1948; Secretary of State (Marshall) to Secretary of Defense (Forrestal), 10 June 1948; Secretary of State (Marshall) to Secretary ofDefense (Forrestal), 8 July 1948, NARA, RG 59, 800.014; Department of State, Report for National Security Council (NSC 21 ), 13 July 1948, NARA, RG 218, Records of Policy Planning Staff." The first three documents are from the same Department of State manuscript collection. The fourth document is from a Joint Chiefs of Staff manuscript collection, classified in reference to the Policy Planning Staff-as is another Department of State manuscript collection. The overlapping jurisdiction is explained in chapter six. If a fifth document were added from "NARA, RG 59, 702.022" or "PRO, FO 371," for example, it would be listed as such. Record groups and manuscript collections are not listed independently of their archival repository, as indicated by NARA, PRO and other acronyms explained in the following section. Vll The repetition of"Secretary of State (Marshall) to Secretary ofDefense (Forrestal)" is deemed appropriate as they refer to separate documents. They are not listed as "Secretary of State (Marshall) to Secretary ofDefense (Forrestal), 1 March 1948 and 10 June 1948" to preserve continuity of reference: each document is fully listed as it originally appeared-given the previous qualifications. If the second document had not used the last names, neither would the reference. Numbers and control references are generally applicable only to documents from embassies. Archival sources reveal inconsistencies which, aside from occasional misspellings, are left unmodified. While "Embassy in Santiago (Bowers)" appears to refer to "Ambassador in Santiago (Bowers)," it remains as originally used. Comm~ications between offices or divisions of the same organization are prefaced accordingly, for example, "Department of State, Office of American Republic Affairs to Division of River Plate Affairs." References such as "Department of State, Memorandum of Conversation, Office of American Republic Affairs et al." are

View Full Text

Details

  • File Type
    pdf
  • Upload Time
    -
  • Content Languages
    English
  • Upload User
    Anonymous/Not logged-in
  • File Pages
    374 Page
  • File Size
    -

Download

Channel Download Status
Express Download Enable

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

  • Not to be reproduced or distributed without explicit permission.
  • Not used for commercial purposes outside of approved use cases.
  • Not used to infringe on the rights of the original creators.
  • If you believe any content infringes your copyright, please contact us immediately.

Support

For help with questions, suggestions, or problems, please contact us