41. FURTHER COOPERATION FOR DEFENSE-THE "MIDCANADA" AND "DEW" LINES: Joint Statement by the United States and Canadian Governments, September 27, 19541 On April 8, 1954, the Governments of Canada and the United States issued a joint announcement, which, after referring to the construction of the Pinetree radar chain, announced plans for the establishment of a further radar system "generally to the north of the settled territory in Canada." 2 The Canadian Government subsequently decided that it would be appropriate, as a part of its contribution to the common defense requirements of the two countries, for Canada to undertake responsibility for financing, constructing, and operating this new system, which is generally referred to as the "Mid-Canada Line." During the time that plans for the Mid-Canada Line have been under development, studies have also been going on to determine the feasibility of providing even earlier warning of the approach of hostile aircraft. As a result of these studies, the Canadian and United States Governments have agreed in principle that there is a need for the establishment of a distant early warning line across the far northern part of North America and have directed that detailed planning for such a line should be initiated at once. The basis of participation by the two countries in the construction and operation of the line, and the division of costs, will be determined after the detailed plans have been considered and agreed. In developing the complete system for warning of the approach of hostile aircraft and for the control of interceptor forces, the two Governments have followed a policy of building outward from the likely target areas. Thus the first step, which has now been largely completed, was the construction of the main control and warning radar installations in the continental United States and the populated part of Canada. The second step, which is now under way, is the provision of the Mid-Canada Line. A third measure, the need for which has now been agreed upon between the two Governments, will be the provision of a distant early warning line across the most northerly practicable part of North America. Portions of the complete warning and control system in Canada will be extended to seaward on both flanks of the continent by the United States.3 The establishment of these North American defense installations is a costly and difficult task, which is being undertaken because our 1 Department of State Bulletin, Oct. 11, 1954, p. 539; also see ibid., Nov. 29, 1954, p. 813. 2 3 Supra. Arrangements concerning the Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line were further elaborated in an exchange of notes between the Canadian Embassy in Washington and the Department of State on May 5, 1955 (TIAS 3218; 6 UST 763). The United States assumed the responsibility for the construction of the DEW Line, and the Canadian Government announced its intention to participate in the project. 415900-57--94 security requires it and is being accomplished successfully because of the readiness of Canadians and Americans to work together in a com mon cause. Status of the Antarctic Region 42. MEMORANDUM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE, MARCH 30, 19561 1) The Governments of the United Kingdom, Argentina, Chile, France, Norway, New Zealand and Australia have already advanced formal claims to portions of the Antarctic. In fact, official claims advanced by other countries cover all of Antarctica except for that area lying between 90°E and 150°E. Those of the United Kingdom, Argentina and Chile overlap and have been the source of considerable controversy among those countries since the end of World War II. 2) The advancing of formal claims at some point is usually considered a prerequisite to establishing sovereignty over terra nullia. However, the significance of such a formal act with respect to virtually unoccupied and uninhabitable territory such as the Antarctic is not clear. It is also true that the customary rule that claims depend to a great extent on effective occupation may not apply in the same measure as in more temperate zones. 3) Claims alone do not convey title to territory, particularly in an area where another country may hold equal or superior rights. It will thus be seen that protection of United States interests involves more than the assertion of claims. 4) Over a long period of time the Antarctic has been, as you know, the scene of extensive American exploration. At the present time United States participation in the International Geophysical Year encompasses an extensive program of American exploration and scientific study. The United States Government has consistently and on all appropriate occasions reserved American rights derived from official and unofficial activity of this kind and we have made clear that we do not recognize any of the claims of other Governments. 5) As yet knowledge of the Antarctic Continent is insufficient to permit an informal decision as to what value United States sovereignty over parts of the continent would have. Traditionally the United States does not take lightly the obligation to protect areas under its sovereignty. Until more is known it may be questioned whether it is advisable to advance claims which would conflict with those of other friendly governments and which would involve very large ap 1 Memorandum prepared in answer to public inquiries. Not previously printed. propriations to establish and maintain. It is hoped, however, that information collected during the International Geophysical Year will perhaps assist in deciding on the present and potential value of various parts of the continent. 6) In view of all the considerations discussed above it is not considered advisable for the United States to advance an official claim at the present time. The various Government agencies concerned with the subject will, however, continue to take steps to insure that United States activities in the area support American interests. The United States will continue its past policy of reserving American rights and does not plan to recognize the claims of other Governments. It is believed that these courses of action will protect the national interest. We shall, however, follow developments carefully and take or recommend such steps, including the advancing of official claims, as are required to protect the national interest. Part IX WESTERN EUROPE A. GENERAL Basic United States Policy 1. ADDRESS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE, I am greatly honored by this opportunity to report to you and to the people of the United States on the recent meetings in Paris and London. I should like to begin by telling you of the strength which was given me in this series of meetings I am about to describe by the reports which kept coming into Paris and London of the successive steps taken by the Congress in the enactment of the Foreign Economic Assistance Act of 1950.3 The continuation by the Congress of the European Recovery Program for the third year, the inauguration of the Point 4 Program, and the approval of the other provisions of this great measure are fundamental to the program of action on which I wish to report. I would not wish you to expect a report of events which could be described as sensational. The significance of the discussions with Mr. Bevin and Mr. Schuman and of the meeting of the North Atlantic Council lies in the fact that they are working business meetings which are becoming a regular institution. In this aspect of the meetings, we see the outward sign of a comprehension which ran through every discussion and every resolution-that the North Atlantic community is emerging as a political reality of the greatest importance. This impression and one other should be underlined at the outset of this report. The other is a new vigor in European life and Euro 1 Delivered to the Members of the Senate and House of Representatives; Department of State Bulletin, June 12, 1950, pp. 931–936. 2 The only communication released in connection with Secretary Acheson's meeting in Paris with M. Schuman was the former's statement of May 8, 1950 (infra, p. 2365); for the two communiqués on the London meeting, see infra, docs. 5 and 6. For the NAC communiqué of May 19, see infra, pp. 1604-1606. 3 Act of June 5, 1950; 64 Stat. 198. See infra, pp. 3047-3054. 1432 pean leadership. Mr. Schuman's coal and steel proposals,' and the reception accorded them particularly in Germany, are one sign of this. The imminent solution of the problems surrounding the European Payments Union 2 is another. These two developments-the growing acceptance of the North Atlantic community as a community having common interests and facing common dangers and the renewed vitality and confidence in Europe-give warrant in saying that the meetings mark the beginning of something new, something which is full of hope and the promise of strength. The realization of this hope and this promise will depend in each country upon those in executive authority, upon the legislative bodies, and upon the peoples whom they serve. The fundamental purpose of these meetings was the same as the constant purpose of our foreign policy. That purpose is the preservation of peace; not the fragile temporary peace which comes from appeasement; not the hopeless peace of submission; but the peace which free peoples, sure of the rightness of their purpose, win and maintain by developing their economic and military strength through the processes of voluntary and continuing cooperation. It is from this strength that our confidence derives, from this cooperation that peace becomes secure. We have long hoped that all nations would cooperate for peace in the United Nations. The attitude of the Soviet Union has delayed the fulfillment of that hope, but it has not caused us, on our part, to slacken our efforts. It has made it necessary for us, in harmony with the Charter, to use means supplementary but not rival to the United Nations. The North Atlantic Treaty, like the Rio pact, is one of these means. THE NORTH ATLANTIC COMMUNITY 3 The meeting of the North Atlantic Council naturally dealt with only a part of the world problem. But that part is an important one. The North Atlantic community holds the world's greatest concentration of industrial and technical skills. It is the ancient home of freedom and the rights of man. These resources must be drawn on by the entire free world in order that it may continue to make steady progress in improving the welfare of its peoples. The continued strengthening of the North Atlantic community is thus not a selfish end in itself. The effort we devote to it will benefit free peoples everywhere, and, in our talks, we explored ways in which we can help to advance the security and welfare of many areas outside the Atlantic community. All of the meetings began with an analysis of the present world 1 Proposals of May 19, 1950; Department of State Bulletin, June 12, 1950, pp. 936-937. See agreement of Sept. 19, 1950; supra, pp. 1012-1037. 3 See communiqué of May 19, 1950; infra, pp. 1604-1606. |