61 



Ambassador COLSON. No, clearly not, and if I gave that impres- 

 sion, I apologize. 



Mr. Underwood. Turning to some place a little bit warmer, I am 

 sure that in the course of your own work you have had perhaps the 

 opportunity to deal with the proposal by people in the Marshall Is- 

 lands to do some nuclear storage on Bikini Atoll. I am curious. 

 What has been the State Department's interaction with the Mar- 

 shall Islands on this issue? Is there an official position? Are steps 

 being actively taken to kind of dissuade them from this notion and 

 what is the status of that? 



I guess the logic of it is that they are going to store it on Bikini 

 because it is already contaminated. Is that technically seen as 

 land-based because of the possibility of seepage into the ocean? I 

 know that it is supposed to have a geological base of some 18,000 

 feet. 



Ambassador CoLSON. On the latter point, I think in the way we 

 categorize these issues, I think we would call that land-based. But 

 I am generally aware of the issue. This is something that we have 

 been deferring the technical issues to the U.S. Geological Survey 

 and other agencies of the Government that have much more capa- 

 bility to judge the feasibility of this. 



We have been also telling the Marshall Islands and the other 

 South Pacific countries that we would like to see a more clear 

 statement of the interests of the Pacific Island countries them- 

 selves in this project. It, as you know, is often the case that the 

 small island countries of the Pacific do stand together on issues, 

 whether it is fisheries or anything like this, and we think it is in- 

 cumbent on the Marshalls to try to make their case to their neigh- 

 bors before they really come to the United States Government ask- 

 ing for a blessing. 



We have withheld that blessing. We have withheld criticism of 

 it and we would like to see if they can develop some international 

 consensus within the region that this is the right and proper thing 

 to do before we take any sort of formal position on it. 



Mr. Underwood. Thank you. 



Mr. Weldon. Thank you, Mr. Underwood. 



Mr. Kennedy. 



Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



I just want to ask the Ambassador what you feel in terms of the 

 Arctic environmental protection strategy, you feel that this is the 

 best way to go forward, that it is already a working program to 

 bring into focus what the problem is and how to measure the prob- 

 lem, monitor it, and determine where the problems will be in the 

 future? Do you think that is the hook to hang ourselves on in terms 

 of the Arctic environment and what the former panel was testifying 

 to? Do you think that is the best? 



Ambassador COLSON. I think our general judgment is that the 

 Arctic environmental protection strategy is a viable international 

 cooperative mechanism through which we can accomplish the kinds 

 of assessment and monitoring programs and coordinate the pro- 

 grams that the United States does, that Russia does, that Norway 

 does, and the other Arctic countries do in the Arctic. We do not 

 need to duplicate efforts and the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment 

 Program helps us to avoid duplication. 



