320.14/5–754
The Assistant Secretary of State for United
Nations Affairs (Key) to
the Chairman, United States Atomic Energy Commission
(Strauss)
confidential
[Washington,] May 7,
1954.
Dear Mr. Strauss: I
wish to call your attention to the fact that certain questions
concerning the effects of the recent thermonuclear weapons tests
conducted at the Pacific Proving Grounds in the Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands may be raised in the United Nations Trusteeship
Council in July when it examines the administration of the Trust
Territory. Normally the proceedings of the Council do not attract
much publicity. It is probable, however, that the USSR, and possibly one or two other
Members of the Council, such as India and Syria, will criticize the
United States for testing such destructive weapons in a trust
territory, in which event the press might give the matter
considerable attention.
The Trusteeship Council, which is composed of twelve members
(Australia, Belgium, China, El Salvador, France, Haiti, India, New
Zealand, Syria, United Kingdom, United States, and the USSR) conducts a detailed study
annually of developments in each trust territory. This annual
examination is a feature of the International Trusteeship System
established by Chapters XII and XIII of the United Nations Charter.
It was under the provisions of these Chapters and more specifically
the terms of the Trusteeship Agreement approved by the Security
Council on April 2, 1947 and by the President on July 18, 1947, that
the United States undertook the administration of the Trust
Territory.
The Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands differs from other trust
territories in that it has been designated a strategic area.
According to Article 83(1) of the Charter, the Security Council is
to exercise all functions of the United Nations relating to such
areas. However, the Security Council has, pursuant to section 3 of
that Article, availed itself of the assistance of the Trusteeship
Council in performing those functions of the United Nations under
the Trusteeship System relating to political, economic, social, and
educational matters in strategic areas. Thus, the Trusteeship
Council has a legitimate interest in the effects of the recent tests
on the manner in which the United States is carrying out its
international obligations with respect to the welfare of the
inhabitants of the Territory.
Under these circumstances it is desirable to anticipate as far as
possible questions that may arise at the Fourteenth Session of the
Trusteeship Council, which convenes on June 2, and to collect and
prepare material for use in answering and forestalling such
questions. In this way the United States Representative will be
better prepared to
[Page 1486]
allay
the possible concern of any members of the Trusteeship Council and
to minimize the propaganda advantages which the USSR may seek to derive from this
situation.
There is attached a list of questions suggestive of the type that may
be asked by Trusteeship Council members. The answers to come of
these questions can be found in your statement of March 31. I will
be grateful for any additional information or suggestions which
might assist the Department of State in its preparations for the
Fourteenth Session of the Trusteeship Council. Mr. Benjamin Gerig, Director of the
Office of Dependent Area Affairs in the Department is in charge of
these preparations, and will be glad to discuss the matter further
with your office.
Sincerely yours,
[Enclosure]
List of Possible Questions
Those questions marked by asterisks are wholly or partially
answered by materials available in the files of the Department
and in the statements made by Admiral
Strauss and Ambassador
Allison.
- 1.
- Why were areas within the Trust Territory chosen for
testing purposes?*1
- 2.
- Does the Administering Authority feel satisfied that there
will be no long-run effects on the inhabitants, either
physical or psychological, from these enormously destructive
devices?
- 3.
- Movement of people*
- (a)
- Were any inhabited areas in the estimated danger
zone? If so, what provision was made for the
evacuation of the inhabitants? Will any such
evacuation be temporary or permanent? In either
case, what arrangements have been made for the
welfare of the evacuees?
- (b)
- Did the actual danger area of any of the tests
extend to any inhabited area not within the
estimated danger area? If so, was it necessary to
evacuate any of them, temporarily or permanently?
What arrangements were made for the welfare of any
such evacuees?
- 4.
- Damage*
- (a)
- How much land was destroyed?
- (b)
- How much land was in any way damaged? What was the
extent and kind of damage?
- (c)
- What was the extent of sea area, including lagoons
and surrounding open sea, contaminated or otherwise
affected? What were the effects? How lasting are
they? Will any areas require decontamination? Is
there any way of doing this?
- (d)
- How many persons were injured? How many were
indigenous inhabitants? What steps were taken to
treat and otherwise assist them? What is their
present condition?
- 5.
- Compensation
- (a)
- Was the land area which was destroyed or rendered
useless of any agricultural or economic value and,
if so, does the Administering Authority plan to
compensate the owners or users?* How?
- (b)
- If there was damage to any property outside the
test area, are there any plans to compensate the
owners or users? How?
- (c)
- To the extent that marine life (an important
source of food) was contaminated, has any
compensation or assistance to the inhabitants
affected been undertaken or planned?
- (d)
- Was any compensation made for injuries sustained
by indigenous inhabitants?
- 6.
- What kind of advance notification was given? Was it
adequate to warn all shipping and aircraft which might enter
the area?
- 7.
- Is the Administering Authority contemplating further
H-bomb
experimentation in this area, and, if so, what steps are
contemplated to provide adequate safeguards for inhabitants
or other persons who might be affected by “fall out”
radioactive material at an even greater distance than
before?
It is possible that questions concerning the international
obligations of the United States may also be asked. The
Department of State is preparing answers to questions of this
type, of which the following are examples.
- 1.
- Is not the testing of such destructive devices
incompatible with the obligations of the United States under
the Trusteeship Agreement and the Charter?
- 2.
- In view of the fact that the Administering Authority is
not sovereign in the Trust Territory, by what legal right
may the Administering Authority destroy portions of such
territory?
- 3.
- Does the Administering Authority feel that it is justified
in experimenting in the Trust Territory with weapons which
it cannot control with any certainty?
- 4.
- What authority does the United States have for closing
large areas of the ocean for these tests?
- 5.
- Did any notification include the UN? Was any kind of UN approval deemed necessary, sought, or
obtained? Presuming there is a right to close large danger
areas of this kind, does this right include the right to
contaminate international waters and marine life?*