+ SieVantaa Sin al hla i People ofEnewetak v. Laird (Remarks of Senator Jackson). Hence section 4332(2)(E) directs federal agencies to support, “where consistent with the foreign policy of the United States, ... initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximize international cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the quality of mankind's world environment . ..."’ Cooperation is pos- sible, according to Senator Jackson, ‘‘because the problems of the environment do not. for the most part, raise questions related to ideol- tartan, ogy, national security and the balance of worid power.” 115 Cong. Rec. at 40417 (1969). In view of this expressed concern with the global ramifications of federal actions, it is reasonable to conclude that the Congress intended NEPAto applyin all areas underits exclusive ad atten control. In areas like the Trust Territory there ee Ne is little, if any, need for concern about conflicts with United States foreign policy or the balance of world power. Although this court has been unable to discover any decisional law that is directly pertinent, there is a recent decision that appears to have accorded NEPA an even wider scope spsieh paendinddi Xd than that advocated byplaintiffs in this case. In Wilderness Society v. Morton, 4 E.R. 1101 (D.C. Cir. decided May 11, 1972), the “ - ea i htt ia el De a a ie fee tes r oe District of Columbia Court of Appeals allowed a Canadian environmental organization to intervene in litigation aimed at testing whetherthe Secretaryof the Interior had complied with the procedures of NEPA prior to deciding whether to issue a permit for the trans-Alaska pipeline. The Court was persuaded that existing plaintiff’s counsel would not be able to adequately represent the Canadian environment in the proceeding. Thus Wilderness Society seems to hold that NEPA provides foreign nationals with certain rights when their environment is endangered byfed- eral actions. Even if Wilderness Society is limited ordisavowed by subsequent decisions, the argument that Congress intended NEPA to applvto the Trust Territory rematns viable. Though the peoples of the Trust Territory do not have the status of United States citizens and are restdent outside the boundaries of the fifty states, they are subject to the authority of the United States. Unlike the Canadian citizens in Wia- derness Society, the peoples of the Trust Territory do not have an independent government which can move to protect them from United States actions that are thought to be harmful to their environment. And the present suit and previous history of Enewetak demonstrate that their status as residents of an area adminis- tered by the United States exposes them to many more federal actions than would otherwise be the case. Indeed; in the negotiation of the Trustee- =~ 4 ERC 1931 ship Agreement, the United States recognized that the Trust Territory occupies a spectal position vis-a-vis the United States. As originally proposed, the words “‘as an integral part of the United States’’ were to be included in the Trusteeship Agreement’s description of the powers to be exercised by the administering authority? Upon objection by the Soviet Union, the United States Representative made the following statement to the United Nations Security Council: ..- In employing the phrase ‘‘as an integral part of the United States, in article 3, my Government used the language of the original mandate and also the language used in stx of the agreements recently approved by the General Assembly. It does not mean the extension of United States sovereignty over the territory, but in fact it means precisely the opposite. There has, however, been some misunderstanding on this point and, for the sake of clarity, the United States Government is prepared to accept the amendment suggested by the Soviet Union, and to delete that phrase. In agreeing to this modification, my Government feels that for record purposes it should affirm that its authority in the trust territory is not to be considered as in any waylessened thereby. .My Government feels that tt has a duty towards the peoples of the trust territory to govern them unth no less consideration than it would govern any part of its souvreign lerri- tory. ft feels that the laws, customs andin- stitutions of the United States form a basis for the administration of the trust territory compatible with the spirit of the Charter. For administrate, legislative and jurtsdtctional convenience in carrying vut its duly towards the peoples of the trust territory, the United States intends to treat the trust territory as uf it were an integral part ofthe United States... . (Emphasis added). U.N. Security Council Off. Rec., | 16th Meeting, March 7, 1947, p. 473 quoted in | White- man, Digest of International Law at 778 (Released June, 1963). 2 Article 3 of the Frusteeship Agreement reads: The administering authority [the United States] shall have full powers of administration, legislation, and jurisdiction over the territory subject to the provisions of this agreement. and mavapplv to the trust territory, subject to any modifications which the administering authority may consider desirable, such of the laws of the United States as it may deem appropriate to local conditions and requirements. The words ‘tas an integral part of the United States” would have been inserted after the phrase “subject to the provisions of this agreement.’ See | Whiteman, Digest of International Law 777-778 (Released June, 1963).