Soviet Antarctic plans after the International Geophysical Year: changes in policy

Polar Record ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 244-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irina Gan
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Central Committee ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
The Political ◽  
Ussr Council ◽  
International Geophysical Year ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Antarctic Research ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
International Geophysical

ABSTRACTThe final months of the International Geophysical Year of 1957–1958 were a period when the political and scientific future of the Antarctic was being shaped, with many of the participating countries reassessing their policies regarding the South Polar region. This paper explores the thinking of both political and scientific figures in the USSR that helped mould Soviet Antarctic policy during this time and demonstrates that the two perspectives did not necessarily coincide. The political perspective is exemplified by the deputy chairman of the USSR council of ministers and member of the central committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Aleksei Kosygin, and the scientific perspective by the deputy director of the Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute, Mikhail Somov. The fact that there was interplay between both viewpoints when planning the Soviet post IGY Antarctic programmes shows that political considerations did not always prevail over the scientific, with national prestige being an area in which their interests overlapped. Ultimately, Somov was instrumental in reducing to some extent the effects of the Soviet government's attempts to curtail Soviet Antarctic research operations when it was reassessing its policy in the light of new international initiatives regarding future collaboration in the Antarctic.

International collaboration in Antarctica: the International Polar Years, the International Geophysical Year, and the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research

Polar Record ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 321-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin P. Summerhayes
Keyword(s):  
International Collaboration ◽  
Scientific Collaboration ◽  
Scientific Committee ◽  
International Scientific Collaboration ◽  
International Geophysical Year ◽  
Working Together ◽  
International Polar ◽  
Antarctic Research ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
International Geophysical

ABSTRACTAs the fourth International Polar Year (IPY) 2007–2008, gets into full swing it is timely to reflect on the history of development of international scientific collaboration in the IPYs since the first one in 1882–1883, including the third, which evolved into the International Geophysical Year (IGY) of 1957–1958. The success of international scientific collaboration in the IGY led the International Council for Science (ICSU), the body that managed the IGY, to create the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to carry forward the collaboration in Antarctic science that had begun during the IGY. This year, 2008, seems an appropriate time to undertake such an historical review, given that we are not only midway through the fourth IPY, but also that it is SCAR's 50th anniversary; the first SCAR meeting having been held in The Hague on 3–5 February 1958. Since SCAR's membership began with 12 member countries and 4 ICSU unions, membership has grown to 34 countries and 8 ICSU unions, with more expected to join at the 30th meeting of SCAR in Moscow in July 2008. Both SCAR's activities and those of the fourth IPY benefit from international collaboration not only between scientists, but also between the national Antarctic operations managers, working together through the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programmes (COMNAP), and national policy makers working together through the Antarctic Treaty mechanisms. Thanks to all their efforts, the IPY of 2007–2009 will leave behind a legacy of enhanced observing systems for documenting the status and change of all aspects of the Antarctic environment as the basis for improved forecasting of its future condition. SCAR expects to play a major role in the design of those systems and their use to improve scientific understanding of the place of the Antarctic in the global environmental system, and the pace and direction of change within that system.

Some reflections on the Antarctic Treaty

Polar Record ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-4 ◽  
Author(s):  
F.W.G. Baker
Keyword(s):  
50Th Anniversary ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
International Polar Year ◽  
International Geophysical Year ◽  
International Polar ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Major Increase ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
International Geophysical ◽  
Made In

2009 brings not only the 50th anniversary of the Antarctic Treaty but also the end of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) and of its extension into the period of International Geophysical Cooperation (IGC 1959). It is also the 133rd anniversary of K. Weyprecht's suggestion that initiated the impetus. As he noted, ‘if Polar Expeditions are looked upon merely as a sort of international steeple-chase . . . and their main object is to exceed by a few miles the latitude reached by a predecessor these mysteries (of Meteorology and Geomagnetism) will remain unsolved’ (Weyprecht 1875). Although he stressed the importance of observations in both the Arctic and Antarctic during the first International Polar Year (IPY) in 1882–1883 only two stations in the sub-Antarctic region, at Cap Horn and South Georgia, made such scientific recordings. In spite of the fact that several expeditions to the Antarctic had been made in the period between the first and the second IPY 1932–1933, no stations were created in Antarctica during that IPY. The major increase in scientific studies in Antarctica came with the third IPY, which became the IGY of 1957–1958.

scholarly journals The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 8-14
Author(s):  
Lars-Otto Reiersen ◽  
Ramon Guardans ◽  
Leiv K. Sydnes
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Cold War ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Scientific Collaboration ◽  
The Arctic ◽  
The Political ◽  
World War ◽  
Political Situation ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
The Cold War

AbstractAfter World War II, the Cold War generated significant barriers between the East and the West, and this affected all sorts of cooperation, including research and scientific collaboration. However, as the political situation in the Soviet Union started to change in the 1980s under the leadership of Mikael Gorbachev, the environment for international collaboration in many areas gradually improved.

Amongst the palm trees: ruminations on the 1959 Antarctic Treaty

Polar Record ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. J. Dodds
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
International Geophysical Year ◽  
Palm Trees ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
Antarctic Continent ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
International Geophysical

Surrounded by potted palm trees, the 12 delegations including the Soviet Union invited to participate by the United States government decided, over the course of six intense weeks, the legal, political and scientific future of the Antarctic continent and surrounding seas. Thanks in part to the neatly typed entries of Brian Roberts, the Foreign Office's polar advisor for many years; we have at least one source that vividly conveys (from the perspective of a British delegate of course) the febrile atmosphere surrounding the conference (see King and Savours 1995; Dodds 2008). Notwithstanding the achievements of the recently completed 1957–1958 International Geophysical Year and its extension the International Geophysical Co-operation (1959), there was no reason to presume that an Antarctic Treaty would be recognised as legitimate and sufficiently robust to accommodate all the parties concerned. Indeed, it is not uncommon to read in the reports prepared by the delegates for their domestic political leaders, a whole series of counter-factual possibilities if the negotiations failed to secure a modus vivendi for the polar region. We may not assume, therefore, that it was in any way inevitable that a treaty (lasting now for over fifty years) would have emerged when the delegates sat down to discuss the future of Antarctica in October 1959. The treaty was nearly not ratified in Argentina for example because of the anger felt by some political leaders about Article IV and what they considered the ‘giving away’ of Argentine sovereign rights.

scholarly journals Sixtieth anniversary of the International Geophysical Year (1957–2017) – contribution of the Soviet Union

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 157-171
Author(s):  
Yulia S. Lyubovtseva ◽  
Alexei D. Gvishiani ◽  
Anatoly A. Soloviev ◽  
Olga O. Samokhina ◽  
Roman I. Krasnoperov
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Geophysical Research ◽  
International Geophysical Year ◽  
Scientific Event ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
History Of ◽  
First Time ◽  
International Geophysical ◽  
Sixtieth Anniversary

Abstract. The International Geophysical Year (IGY) was the most significant international scientific event in geophysical sciences in the history of mankind. This was the largest international experiment that brought together about 300 000 scientists from 67 countries. Well-planned activity of national and international committees was organized for the first time. The history of the IGY organization and complex international experiments in planetary geophysics conducted within its program are discussed in this article. Special attention is given to the estimation of the significance of this project for developing worldwide geophysical research.

The political origins of the Antarctic Treaty

Polar Record ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rip Bulkeley
Keyword(s):  
Good Deal ◽  
The Political ◽  
International Geophysical Year ◽  
Creation Myth ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Private Citizens ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
International Geophysical

Like many great institutions, the Antarctic Treaty system has its own creation myth, according to which it was brought into being by the Antarctic science programme of the 1957–1958 International Geophysical Year (IGY). As myths are prone to do, this one combines both an important truth and a good deal of misinformation. After fifty years in which it has shamelessly flattered the earth scientists, who are understandably rather fond of it, and undervalued the many non-scientists who advocated the internationalisation of Antarctica from 1910 onwards, it is time to lay it to rest. But before summarising the intermeshing contributions of private citizens, diplomats and other officials, and scientists, we should first take note of a different factor altogether, political geography.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document