This Is Eco-Warfare

Official documents suggest the conclusion that the earthquakes in China and cyclone Nargis in Myanmar have been more than just a strange coincidence.

It´s the 10th of December in 1976..
The United Nations General Assembly adoptes the Convention on the prohibition of military or any hostile use of environmental modification techniques (ENMOD) by Resolution 31/72.

Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, andwishing to contribute to the cause of halting the arms race, and ofbringing about general and complete disarmament under strict andeffective international control, and of saving mankind from the dangerof using new means of warefare, ..

Recognizing that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment,..

Recognizing, however, that military or any other hostile use of suchtechniques could have effects extremely harmful to human welfare,
Desiring to prohibit effectively military or any other hostile use ofenvironmental modification techniques in order to eliminate the dangersto mankind from such use, and affirming their willingness to worktowards the achievement of this objective, ..
Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE I

1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage inmilitary or any other hostile use of environmental modificationtechniques having widespread, longlasting or severe effects as themeans of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party.

2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist,encourage or induce any State, group of States or internationalorganization to engage in activities contrary to the provisions ofparagraph 1 of this article.

ARTICLE II

As used in article I, the term “environmental modificationtechniques” refers to any technique for changing - through thedeliberate manipulation of natural processes - the dynamics,composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota,lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

..

Understanding relating to article II

It is the understanding of the Committee that the following examplesare illustrative of phenomena that could be caused by the use ofenvironmental modification techniques as defined in article II of theConvention:

earthquakes; tsunamis; an upset in theecological balance of a region; changes in weather patterns (clouds,precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms); changesin climate patterns; changes in ocean currents; changes in the state ofthe ozone layer; and changes in the state of the ionosphere.

April 28, in 1997, at 8:45 AM EDT.
DoD News Briefing by Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen.

Quotations of the keynote address at the Conference on Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy at the Georgia Center, Mahler Auditorium, University of Georgia, Athens.

..
Question: What does it mean that Clinton (inaudible) proliferation?

Cohen: To the extent that we see the level of communicationavailable today, the Internet and other types of interwovencommunicative skills and abilities, we’re going to see informationcontinue to spread as to how these weapons can be, in fact,manufactured in a home-grown laboratory, as such. So it’s a seriousproblem as far as living in the information age that people who areacquiring this kind of information will not act responsibly, but ratheract in a terrorist type of fashion.

We’ve seen by way of example of the World Trade Center theinternational aspects of international terrorism coming to our hometerritory. We’ve also seen domestic terrorism with the Oklahomabombing. So it’s a real threat that’s here today. It’s likely tointensify in the years to come as more and more groups have access tothis kind of information and the ability to produce them.

Question: How prepared is the U.S. Government to deal with (inaudible)?

Cohen: I think we have to really intensify our efforts. That’s thereason for the Nunn/Lugar II program. That’s the reason why it’s alocal responsibility, as such, but the Department of Defense is goingto be taking the lead as far as supervising the interagency workinggroups, and to make the assessments as to what needs to be done. Sowe’re going to identify those 120 cities and work with them veryclosely to make sure that they can prepare themselves for what islikely to be a threat well into the future.

Question: Let me ask you specifically about last week’s scare herein Washington, and what we might have learned from how prepared we areto deal with that (inaudible), at B’nai Brith.

Cohen: Well, it points out the nature of the threat. It turned outto be a false threat under the circumstances. But as we’ve learned inthe intelligence community, we had something called — and we have JamesWoolsey here to perhaps even address this question about phantom moles.The mere fear that there is a mole within an agency can set off a chainreaction and a hunt for that particular mole which can paralyze theagency for weeks and months and years even, in a search. The same thingis true about just the false scare of a threat of using some kind of achemical weapon or a biological one. There are some reports, forexample, that some countries have been trying to construct somethinglike an Ebola Virus, and that would be a very dangerous phenomenon, tosay the least. Alvin Toeffler has written about this in terms of somescientists in their laboratories trying to devise certain types ofpathogens that would be ethnic specific so that they could justeliminate certain ethnic groups and races; and others are designingsome sort of engineering, some sort of insects that can destroyspecific crops. Others are engaging even in an eco- type ofterrorism whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes,volcanoes remotely through the use of electromagnetic waves.

14th January in 1999:
The EU Parliament on the environment, security and foreign policy.

Draftsman: Mr Olsson, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection
(Hughes procedure)
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy
Rapporteur: Mrs Maj Britt Theorin.

At the sitting of 13 July 1995, the President ofParliament announced that he had referred the motion for a resolutiontabled pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure by Mrs Rehn Rouvaon the potential use of military-related resources for environmentalstrategies, (B4-0551/95), to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Securityand Defence Policy as the committee responsible and to the Committee onthe Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for its opinion..

The draft report was considered by the Committee on Foreign Affairs,Security and Defence Policy at its meetings of 5 February, 29 June, 21July, 3, 23 and 28 September, 13, 27 and 29 October 1998 and 4 and 5January 1999, and by the Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament atits meetings of 5 February and 3 and 23 September 1998.

At the last meeting the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security andDefence Policy adopted the motion for a resolution by 28 votes to nonewith one abstention.

The following took part in the vote: Spencer, chairman; Theorin,rapporteur; Aelvoet, AndréLéonard, Barón-Crespo, Bertens, Bianco,Burenstam Linder, Carnero González, Carrozzo (for Colajanni), Dillen,Dupuis, Gahrton, Goerens (for Cars), Graziani, Günther (for Gomolka),Lalumière, Lambrias, Pack (for Habsburg), Pettinari (for Imbenipursuant to Rule 138(2), Piha, Rinsche, Sakellariou, SalafrancaSánchez-Neyra, Schroedter (for M. Cohn-Bendit), Schwaiger (for MmeLenz), Speciale, Swoboda (for Mme Hoff), Tindemans, Titley and Truscott.

The opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection is attached..

The report was tabled on 14 January 1999.

Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the motion for a resolution tabled by Mrs RehnRouva on the potential use of military-related resources forenvironmental strategies (B4-0551/95).
..
- having regard to the hearing on HAARP and Non-lethal Weapons held bythe Foreign Affairs Subcommitee on Security and Disarmament in Brusselson 5 February 1998,
..

B. whereas, despite this complete transformation of the geostrategicsituation since the end of the Cold War, the risk of catastrophicdamage to the integrity and sustainability of the global environment,notably its bio-diversity, has not significantly diminished, whetherfrom the accidental or unauthorised firing of nuclear weapons or theauthorised use of nuclear weapons based on a perceived but unfoundedthreat of impending attack,
..
E. whereas threats to the environment, the flow of refugees, ethnic tension, terrorism and international crime are new and serious threats to security and that the ability to deal with various forms of conflict is increasing in importance as the security scene changes; whereas as some of the threats to security are non-military

..

S. whereas the common goal of restoring the world’s damagedecosystems cannot be achieved in isolation from the question of thefair exploitation of global resources and whereas there is a need tofacilitate international technical cooperation and encourage thetransfer of appropriate military-related technology,

T. whereas, despite the existing conventions, military research isongoing on environmental manipulation as a weapon, as demonstrated forexample by the Alaska-based HAARP system,

U. whereas the experience of the development and use of nuclearpower ‘for peaceful purposes` serves as a salutory warning as to howmilitary secrecy can prevent proper assessment and supervision of mixedcivilian/military technologies if transparency is in any waycompromised,

1. Calls on the Commission to present to the Council and theParliament a common strategy, as foreseen by the Amsterdam Treaty,which brings together the CFSP aspects of EU policy with its trade,aid, development and international environmental policies between 2000and 2010 so as to tackle the following individual issues and therelationships between them:
..
(d) Unemployment, underemployment and absolute poverty;

(e) Sustainable development and climate change;

(f) Deforestation, desertification and population growth;

(g) The link between all of the above and global warming and thehumanitarian and environmental impact of increasingly extreme weatherevents;

2. Notes that preventive environmental measures arean important instrument of security policy; calls, therefore, on theMember States to define environmental and health objectives as part of their long-term defence and security assessments, military research and action plans;

3. Recognises the important part played by the armed forces in a democratic society, their national defence role and the fact that peace-keeping and peace-making initiatives can make a substantial contribution to the prevention of environmental damage;
..
8. Calls on the military to end all activities which contribute todamaging the environment and health and to undertake all stepsnecessary to clean up and decontaminate the polluted areas;

Use of military resources for environmental purposes

9. Considers that the resources available to reverse or stem damageto the environment are inadequate to meet the global challenge;recommends therefore that the Member States seek to utilizemilitary-related resources for environmental protection by:

(a) introducing training for environmental defence troops with aview to establishing a coordinated European environmental protectionbrigade;

(b) listing their environmental needs and the military resourcesavailable for environmental purposes and using those resources in theirnational environmental planning;

(c) considering which of its military resources it can makeavailable to the United Nations or the European Union on a temporary,long-term or stand-by basis as an instrument for internationalcooperation in environmental disasters or crises;

(d) drawing up plans for creating national and European protectionteams using military personnel, equipment and facilities made availableunder the Partnership for Peace for use in environmental emergencies;

(e) incorporating objectives for environmental protection and sustainable development in its concepts of security;

(f) ensuring that its armed forces comply with specificenvironmental rules and that damage caused by them to the environmentin the past is made good;

(g) including environmental considerations in its military research and development programmes;

10. Urges the governments of the Member States, since practical experience in the field is limited, to:

(a) establish centres for the exchange of information on currentnational experience in environmental applications for militaryresources;
(b) facilitating the global dissemination of environmental dataincluding such data obtained by the use of military satellites andother information-gathering platforms;

11. Calls on the Member States to apply civil environmentallegislation to all military activities and for the military defencesector to assume responsibility for, and pay for the investigation,clean-up and decontamination of areas damaged by past militaryactivity, so that such areas can be returned to civil use, this isespecially important for the extensive chemical and conventionalmunition dumps along the coastlines of the EU;

12. Calls on all Member States to formulate environmental and healthobjectives and action plans so as to enhance the measures taken bytheir armed forces to protect the environment and health;

13. Calls on the governments of the Member States progressively toimprove the protection of the environment by the armed forces by meansof training and technical development and by giving all regular andconscript personnel basic training in environmental matters;

14. Calls on the European Union to unite around a new environmentalstrategy using military resources for the joint protection of theenvironment;

15. Considers that environmental strategies should be able toinclude monitoring the world environment, assessing the data thuscollected, coordinating scientific work and disseminating information,exploiting relevant data from national observation and monitoringsystems to give a continuous and comprehensive picture of the state ofthe environment;

..
21. Believes that the secrecy of military research must be resisted andthe right to openness and democratic scrutiny of military researchprojects be encouraged;
..
Legal aspects of military activities

26. Calls on the European Union to seek to have the new ‘non-lethal’weapons technology and the development of new arms strategies alsocovered and regulated by international conventions;

27. Considers HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) by virtue of its farreaching impact on the environment to be a global concernand calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to beexamined by an international independent body before any furtherresearch and testing; regrets the repeated refusal of the United StatesAdministration to send anyone in person to give evidence to the publichearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee intothe environmental and public risks connected with the high FrequencyActive Auroral Research Project (HAARP) programme currently beingfunded in Alaska;

28. Requests the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment(STOA) Panel to agree to examine the scientific and technical evidenceprovided in all existing research findings on HAARP to assess the exactnature and degree of risk that HAARP poses both to the local and global environment and to public health generally;

29. Calls on the Commission, in collaboration with the governmentsof Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Russian Federation, to examine theenvironmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme forArctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings;

30. Calls in particular for an international convention for a globalban on all research and development, whether military or civilian,which seeks to apply knowledge of the chemical, electrical, sound vibration or other functioning of the human brain to the development of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings, including a ban on any actual or possible deployment of such systems;
…
34. Calls on the Council, and the British and French governments in particular,to take the lead within the framework of the NPT and the Conference onDisarmament with regard to the further negotiations towards fullimplementation of the commitments on nuclear weapons reductions andelimination as rapidly as possible to a level where, in the interim,the global stock of remaining weapons poses no threat to the integrityand sustainability of the global environment;

B EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
..
The freeing-up of military resources has given the armed forces aunique opportunity and plenty of capacity to deal with the increasingnumber of environmental problems. The armed forces have a highlyefficient organisation and extensive technical resources which can beused for environment enhancement at no great cost by redeploying orrechannelling resources. The European Union can unite around a newenvironmental strategy in which military resources are used for jointprotection of the environment. The European Union can play an importantrole in furthering a joint global assumption of responsibility for theenvironment and at the same time promote peace and confidencebuildingmeasures.
..

The military are developing ever more powerful weapons which inflictwidespread and devastating damage on the environment. A modern warentails greater environmental destruction than any otherenvironment-destructive activity. Below is a description of someweapons systems which also have seriously damaging effects on theenvironment in peace time.
..
‘Non-lethal’ weapons
..
Both material and antipersonnel technologies have been developed. Oneexample is acoustic weapons which are capable of confusing anddisorientating and thereby neutralising an enemy by producing a lowlevel of sound, known as infra-sound. Other examples are adhesive foamand blinding lasers. Chemicals which discolour water can affect bothagriculture and the population. With the aid of electromagnetic beams it is possible to knock out the enemy’s computer, navigation and communication systems. Non-lethal weapons can also be usedagainst a country’s infrastructure and authorities, bring the railwaysystem to a standstill or cause chaos in a country’s financial world. What these weapons have in common is that they are intended to delay, obstruct and overcome a potential enemy at ’strategic level’.
..
Non-lethal weapons are used as an effective aid in modern warfare,either independently or in conjunction with conventional weapons. Forexample, the USA used radiofrequent weapons in the Gulf War to knock out Iraq’s energy system, despite not knowing the antipersonnel effects of RF weapons. Non-lethalweapons should, therefore, not be regarded as separate from a lethalsystem but rather as a component thereof. The development of non-lethalweapons increases both their options. The result is therefore greateruse of force rather than the opposite. ‘Non-lethal’ weapons do notresult in non-lethal conflicts.
..
HAARP - a weapons system which disrupts the climate

On 5 February 1998 Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security andDisarmament held a hearing the subject of which included HAARP. NATOand the US had been invited to send representatives, but chose not todo so. The Committee regrets the failure of the USA to send arepresentative to answer questions, or to use the opportunity tocomment on the material submitted.

HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) is runjointly by the US Air Force and Navy, in conjunction with theGeophysical Institute of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Similar experiments are also being conducted in Norway, probably in the Antarctic, as well as in the former Soviet Union. HAARP is a research project using a ground based apparatus, an array of antennae each powered by its own transmitter, to heat up portions of ionosphere with powerful radio beams. The energy generated heats up parts of the ionosphere; this results in holes in the ionosphere and produces artificial ‘lenses’.

HAARP can be used for many purposes. Enormous quantities of energycan be controlled by manipulating the electrical characteristics of theatmosphere. If used as a military weapon this can have a devastating impact on an enemy. HAARP can deliver millions of times more energy to a given area than any other conventional transmitter. The energy can also be aimed at a moving target which should constitute a potential anti-missile system.

The project would also allow better communications with submarines and manipulation of global weather patterns, but it is also possible to do the reverse, to disrupt communications. By manipulating the ionosphere one could block global communications while transmitting one’s own.Another application is earth-penetrating, tomography, x-raying theearth several kilometres deep, to detect oil and gas fields, orunderground military facilities. Over-the-horizon radar is anotherapplication, looking round the curvature of the earth for in-comingobjects.

From the 1950s the USA conducted explosions of nuclear material inthe Van Allen Belts to investigate the effect of the electro-magneticpulse generated by nuclear weapon explosions at these heights on radiocommunications and the operation of radar. This created new magneticradiation belts which covered nearly the whole earth. The electronstravelled along magnetic lines of force and created an artificialAurora Borealis above the North Pole. These military tests are liableto disrupt the Van Allen belt for a long period. The earth’s magneticfield could be disrupted over large areas, which would obstruct radiocommunications. According to US scientists it could takehundreds of years for the Van Allen belt to return to normal. HAARPcould result in changes in weather patterns. It could also influencewhole ecosystems, especially in the sensitive Antarctic regions.

Another damaging consequence of HAARP is the occurrence of holes in the ionosphere caused by the powerful radio beams.The ionosphere protects us from incoming cosmic radiation. The hope isthat the holes will fill again, but our experience of change in theozone layer points in the other direction. This means substantial holes in the ionosphere that protects us.

With its far-reaching impact on the environment HAARP is a matter ofglobal concern and we have to ask whether its advantages reallyoutweigh the risks. The environmental impact and the ethical aspectmust be closely examined before any further research and testing takesplace. HAARP is a project of which the public is almost completely unaware, and this needs to be remedied.

HAARP has links with 50 years of intensive space research formilitary purposes, including the Star Wars project, to control theupper atmosphere and communications. This kind of research has to beregarded as a serious threat to the environment, with an incalculableimpact on human life. Even now nobody knows what impact HAARP may have.We have to beat down the wall of secrecy around military research, andset up the right to openness and democratic scrutiny of militaryresearch projects, and parliamentary control.

A series of international treaties and conventions (the Convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques,the Antarctic Treaty, the Treaty on principles governing the activitiesof states in the exploration and use of outer space including the moonand other celestial bodies, and the UN Convention on the Law of theSea) casts considerable doubt on HAARP on legal as well as humanitarian and political grounds. The Antarctic Treaty lays down that the Antarctic may be used exclusively for peaceful purposes. This would mean that HAARP is a breach of international law.All the implications of the new weapons systems should be examined byindependent international bodies. Further international agreementsshould be sought to protect the environment from unnecessary destruction in war.

Repeat: “UNNECESSARY” destruction in war. “UNNECESSARY”.

If you´re at war: what´s unnecessary to win?

COMMENT AND ADDITIONAL FACTS

At first - as an quite old, simple example how weather manipulation causing severe damage kept hidden from public:
In 2001 official documents revealed,that the British Royal Air Force (RAF) and a team of internationalscientists caused a devastating flood in 1952 by experimenting withartificial rainmaking in southern Britain.

Now let´s go to far more serious issues.
According to media reports an “aftershock”

measuring 6.4 on the Richter scale shook Sichuanprovince on Sunday..The US Geological Survey, using a different scale,put the quake magnitude at 5.8.

Regarding the fact the major quake occured on May 12 this shook was, by defintion, not an “aftershock”.
Omori’s law, or more correctly the modified Omori’s law, defines

the rate of aftershocks decreases quickly with time. The rate of aftershocks is proportional to the inverse of time since the mainshock.Thus whatever the odds of an aftershock are on the first day, thesecond day will have 1/2 the odds of the first day and the tenth daywill have approximately 1/10th the odds of the first day.

Most people also do not know about the Richter magnitude scale.
If a quake is considered a 6.4 shook and another one a 5.8 we aretalking about a quake more than six times stronger than the other.

Although there are other definitions it is much more serious to call this simply a new quake in Sichuan province, where the nuclear power China stores a “vast arsenal of warheads” and “is also home to several reactors and two plutonium plants”, including “the country’s largest storage facility for nuclear warheads, hidden in underground bunkers, and Plant 821, a warhead assembly site that houses one of China’s largest reactors.”

There have been strange phenomenons before the earthquake on May 12, also recorded on video.

“..BE OF ANOTHER NATURE”

On January 19 in 2006 French President Jacque Chirac held a laterwidely known speech given on the atomic submarine base Ile-Longue offthe coast of Brittany.
It was reported by the the worldwide media as a warning to “terrorists” and a threat to Iran.
The “Washington Post” wrote:

President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France wasprepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors aterrorist attack against French interests. He said his country’snuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make atactical strike in retaliation for terrorism..

Chirac also said he has expanded the definition of “vital interests”— which fall under the protection of the nuclear weapons program — toinclude “strategic supplies” such as oil reserves and the “defense ofallies.”

The “Post” cited Chirac as followed:

“The leaders of states who would use terrorist meansagainst us, as well as those who would envision using . . . weapons ofmass destruction, must understand that they would lay themselves opento a firm and fitting response on our part,” Chirac said during a visitto a nuclear submarine base in Brittany. “This response could be aconventional one. It could also be of a different kind.“

Well, acctually there is another meaning in his original words (French transcript here).

Nuclear deterrence, I had stressed in the wake of September 11, 2001, is notintended to deter fanatical terrorists. However, the leaders of stateswho would use terrorist means against us, just as those who considerusing in one way or another, weapons of mass destruction, mustunderstand that this would expose them to a firm and adapted responseon our part. And this response could be conventional. It may also be ofanother nature.

(”Et cette réponse peut être conventionnelle. Elle peut aussi être d’une autre nature.”)

As a matter of fact, the French President - who survided an assassination attemptby a right-wing group on July 14 in 2002 - didn´t use the words“nuclear weapons” in this part of his speech. And it´s not even clearif he really meant Iran by that, also which country he said would fall under French protection as an “ally” at that time.

Well - Presidents go, friends come and weaponry stay.

The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other HostileUse of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD) of 1976 has beensigned by a lot of countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom.
It has not been signed by France and China, and others.

The long known but not publicly outspoken fact, proven by documents decades old, that there acctually is environmental technology which can be used for triggering “earthquakes;tsunamis; an upset in the ecological balance of a region; changes inweather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types andtornadic storms)” as mentioned in the UN Convention ENMOD must lead to a discussion, an indictment before the worldwide Court of Public Opinion.

The death of hundreds of thousands of people should at least causesustainable questions by journalists and citizens if no parliament orregular politician will take the case. There is no other option.

The 21st Century has new challenges, new dangers and new hopes forus all and the major battle has just begun. And because it has beenstarted, right now, there is no turning back.

Because the major battle of the future is the battle for truth.

And its most superior weapon is, indeed, a beautiful mind.