Searching for Culpability in the Archives: Commonwealth Nuclear Test Veterans’ Claims for Compensation

Abstract

In the late 1950s, Commonwealth servicemen participated in a series of British nuclear bomb tests in the Pacific. Today these veterans claim to suffer multiple health problems from radiation exposure, and seek compensation from the British and New Zealand governments. In resisting the State's control of evidential archival documents, the veterans devalue State documents and contest the truth of military records, instead elevating personal and collective memories based on  notions of witnessing. Yet veterans do accept certain documents as legitimate bearers of historical truth if they emerge from the archives without the influence of powerful State agencies. From these “unfiltered” documents, test veterans create their own private archives which function as sites of memorialization, social legitimation and legal proof. Engaging with the work of Ann Stoler (Stoler, A. L. (2002), “Colonial archives and the arts of governance”, Archival Science, vol. 2, pp. 87–109; Stoler, A. L. (2009), Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, and Oxford), I argue that revealing State power requires understanding how groups outside the archives both subvert and mimic its documentary logic.

Keywords:

• Archives
• Nuclear Tests
• Military
• Memory
• The State

Notes

In Britain, the most commonly used and discussed archives are the Public Records Office. In New Zealand, the National Archives are most frequently consulted.

Personal correspondence with a New Zealand Defence Force historian.

The men's case was based on the perceived violation of several articles of the convention. Article 6 states that “everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” Article 8 states that “everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.” According to the court at the time, this article was interpreted to apply to the men because: “Where states engage in hazardous activities which might have hidden adverse consequences on the health of those involved. Article 8 requires that an effective and accessible procedure be established enabling such person to see relevant and appropriate information” (European Court of Human Rights 1998).

More specifically the rule states: (a) that it would be contrary to the public interest for the whole or part of the document to … be disclosed publicly or (b) that the whole or part of the document ought not, for reasons of security, to be disclosed in any manner whatsoever (Rule 6, as quoted in European Court of Human Rights 1998).

In one faded photocopied archival document provided to me by test veterans, the minutes of a meeting held by the Atomic Energy Research Establishment on the 15th of July, 1958 are recorded. The meeting was held “to discuss radiological safety precautions at Christmas Island”. Here an Air Commander objected to blood sampling being carried out on individual servicemen, arguing that “if the person was examined and found to be normal before posting to Christmas Island and who later developed leukaemia, it might be difficult to refute the allegations that this is due to rations received at Christmas Island.”