www.UfoQuest4Truth.com

UFO WAARNEMINGEN WEBSITE
Last additions
Plate-52.jpg
Anunnakie Landing Place for Spaceships at Baalbek, now Libanon.575 viewsThe only structure and place built before the Flood, the great Deluge; 10860 BC

www.sitchin.com
The quarry is in a valley, a couple of miles from the site of the ?ruins.? This means that in antiquity, someone had the capability and technology needed for quarrying, cutting and shaping colossal stone blocks in the quarry ? then lifting the stone blocks up and carrying them to the construction site, and there not just let go and drop the stone block, but place them precisely in the designated course. And there they have remained, intact and unshaken in spite of the passage of time and frequent earthquakes ? held together and in place without any mortar?

Built Before the Flood
Who was that ?someone?? What technology was used for the incredible feat? When and Why was it all done?

The Maronite Christians who for generations deemed themselves custodians of the site (before they were displaced by the Shiite Moslems) told legends of the ?giants? who had built the colossal platform. I found the answers in the ancient Sumerian texts, and related them in The Stairway to Heaven and The Wars of Gods and Men.

The great stone platform was indeed the first Landing Place of the Anunnaki gods on Earth, built by them before they established a proper spaceport. It was the only structure that had survived the Flood, and was used by Enki and Enlil as the post-Diluvial headquarters for the reconstruction of the devastated Earth.

It is the only structure on Earth from before the Flood.

ZECHARIA SITCHIN

? Z. Sltchin 2006

? Z. Sitchin
Reprinted with permission.





Dec 09, 2006
251106_164340[2].JPG
foto dec 2006 boven Amersfoort; Chemtrails effecten362 viewsDit is niet gewoon stof in de lucht zoals het KNMI aan Ufodewaarheid.com liet weten, maar bio-chemische rotzooi verspreid door de speciale Chemtrail-vliegtuigen.

Zie: b4-0551/95, Resolutie Europees Parlement over MilieuVeiligheid en Buitenlands Beleid, 28-1-1999.
Dec 08, 2006
251106_164250[1].JPG
NASA Confirms Weather-Shaping Chemtrails 194 viewswww.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg93668.html

NASA: S-L-O-W To Spit Out The Truth
by Lisa Guliani


In the June 17, 2002 issue of the American Free Press newspaper, a bold headline caught my attention: "NASA Confirms Weather-Shaping Chemtrails". What?? Could it be? Do I dare believe my eyes? NASA is confirming that chemtrails are real? Naturally, I had to read this article written by Mike Blair.

Dec 08, 2006
pyramid_mini.jpg
Zecharia Sichin: the 12th Planet160 viewswww.sitchin.comDec 03, 2006
ronufoban1.JPG
THE SUPERNATURAL ZONE194 viewswww.w5www.com/ufo.htmDec 03, 2006
ufoseek-logo.JPG
www.UfoSeek.com240 viewswww.UfoSeek.com/Government_Coverup/Chemtrails/index.htmlDec 03, 2006
PROJECPROVEjeff.JPG
PROJECT P.R.O.V.E. van Jeff Challender: Website over UFOs en Chemtrails377 viewsOct 21, 2006
MiG-chaseUFOCilinder.JPG
UFO-Cylinder Chased by Soviet MIG-21 Accelerates and Disappears164 viewsUfo-Cylinder impossible for MiG's to intercept, unknown to any military or scientific skill or technology we have now on Earth or secret military uav ufo space at high speed?

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5210326345538570434
Oct 15, 2006
MergedOrbsRussia.JPG
UFOs Merge during Russian MiG Chase Tags251 viewssecret aviation- military drones uav ufo space high speed aurora?Oct 10, 2006
orbsrussia.JPG
UFOs Merge during Russian MiG Chase Tags246 viewssecret military drones uav ufo space high speed aurora?
www.video.google.com/videplay?docid=-5210326345538570434
Oct 10, 2006
orbs911.JPG
orbs during 9-11542 views9-11: 'White Orb' coming out of the top of the 'North Tower' [see 6th second] disappearing soon after in the void, and Ufodewaarheid.com discovers some more [for example; 1min. 23s, 1:52, 2:10]. See and count 'White Orbs' for yourself in the Movie: WTC, Twin Towers, act of evil: www.video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-2100861103451155566&sourceid=zeitgeist (2:30)

Oct 10, 2006
twintowers.JPG
orbwar.com567 viewsOrbs, Ufo's or Chemtrailers during WTC Attacks? See: www.orbwar.com/wtc-chemtrails/htm

www.orbwar.com

Eye Witness of 9/11, Yogi Bhagavan Das tells his story. See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDx2nc9f92M (28min10sec)
Oct 07, 2006
Nikola Tesla.JPG
Nikola Tesla506 viewsThe Missing Secrets of Nikola Tesla: See the Movie: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTiiblwwLPk

Ralph Ring and Otis T. Carr: www.projectcamelot.net/ralph_ring.html

Otis T. Carr and the Tesla Saucers, by Doug Yurchey: www.world-mysteries.com/newgw/otis_carr_dy.htm

My flying machine will have neither wings nor propellers. You might see it on the ground and you would never guess that it was a flying machine. Yet it will be able to move at will through the air in any direction with perfect safety. Nicola Tesla

I do not think there is any thrill that can go through the human heart like that felt by the inventor as he sees some creation of the brain unfolding to success... Such emotions make a man forget food, sleep, friends, love, everything.?
Nikola Tesla quote

If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search.
I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.?
santiz Nikola Tesla quote

?My method is different. I do not rush into actual work. When I get a new idea, I start at once building it up in my imagination, and make improvements and operate the device in my mind. When I have gone so far as to embody everything in my invention, every possible improvement I can think of, and when I see no fault anywhere, I put into concrete form the final product of my brain.?
Nikola Tesla quote






Oct 07, 2006
chemssept.JPG
Chemtrailers boven Ijsselmeer September 2006290 viewsBurgerinitiatief Stop Chemtrails Nu!



Dit is een Burgerinitiatief om 40.000 handtekeningen te verzamelen om het sproeien van Chemtrails op de agenda van de samenleving en de Tweede Kamer te zetten.



Behalve in de rest van Europa en de VS wordt ook in Nederland gesproeid door vliegtuigen. Contrails blijven maximaal 20 minuten zichtbaar. Chemtrails waaieren uit en zijn lange tijd zichtbaar. De chemische stoffen zijn gevaarlijk voor de mens, flora en fauna. De eigenschap van deze stoffen om het optimaal functioneren van het bewustzijn van de mens te blokkeren, verstoren tevens de magnetische velden rondom de Aarde en zijn mede verantwoordelijk voor de uitzonderlijke weersveranderingen. De toename van bedreigende ziektes en aandoeningen aan long en luchtwegen, huidziektes, chronische vermoeidheid is voor het grootste deel te wijten aan het sproeien van barium, deeltjes aluminium en andere stoffen.



In 1995 zijn de eerste meldingen van dit fenomeen gedaan. De laatste maanden was het even rustig, maar het sproeien neemt weer toe. In Zwitserland stond er een berichtje over in de krant. In Nederland heeft nog geen enkele journalist er iets over durven publiceren. Sinds we dit initiatief startten in maart 2006, zijn er enkele cynische stukje verschenen in de krant, om het bestaan te ontkennen en het initiatief belachelijk te maken. Nu het sproeien weer toeneemt, is het zaak dit initiatief weer naar buiten te brengen. Het sproeien wordt gestuurd door onderdelen van geheime diensten. Waarom doet het Parlement en de Regering hieraan mee en steunt ze dit sproeien en verbiedt ze het niet onmiddellijk? Waarom heeft geen enkel lid van het Parlement tot nu toe Kamervragen aan de regering gesteld? Let op, dit is GEEN complot theorie! Google het woord Chemtrails maar eens! Voor meer informatie: [email protected]



We vragen je dit Burgerinitiatief te steunen door je handtekening te zetten!



Met 40.000 handtekeningen zorgen we ervoor dat het sproeien van Chemtrails besproken moet worden in de Tweede Kamer. Er zijn al aardig wat handtekeningen binnen, maar nog lang niet genoeg! Alleen al het lanceren van dit initiatief heeft de aandacht gevestigd op Chemtrails. Dus we hopen dat dit de druk weer opvoert om er NU mee te STOPPEN!



De kamerprocedure is dat burgerinitiatieven alleen rechtsgeldig zijn als alle formulieren met handtekening, worden aangeboden, dus een emailactie is helaas niet mogelijk!



Naam
Adres, postcode en woonplaats
Geboortedatum
Handtekening















Alleen kiesgerechtigden kunnen tekenen. Het is belangrijk alle gevraagde gegevens in te vullen, anders is je handtekening niet geldig!



We vragen je dit formulier uit te printen en in een gefrankeerde enveloppe te sturen aan:



Burgerinitiatief Stop Chemtrails Nu!

Rooilaan 140, 7876 GW Valthermond.



Oct 07, 2006
RUITEN.jpg
Laren [ChemWebs] 't Gooi172 viewsChemtrails in de vorm van RUITEN, boven Laren zomer 2006, "to control and to own the Weather and the people [Mind- and Mood Control]".Aug 25, 2006
ChemsII.jpg
133 viewsOur scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men.
Martin Luther King Jr., Strength to Love, 1963
Aug 24, 2006
Chemclouds3.jpg
Chemtrails; de Elektromagnetische Kooi om de Aarde164 viewsen H.A.A.R.P., ELF, Atmospheric heater - Ionicsphere pulsator. Zie officieel rapport Europees Parlement punt 27 elders in dit album waarin het HAARP programma het weer en klimaat werelddwijd ernstige schade hebben toe berokkend. Aug 24, 2006
ChemWebovertheHeads.jpg
Zeist Chemtrails 2006 zomer152 viewsAug 24, 2006
Chems4.jpg
159 viewsAssociate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.
George Washington

Aug 24, 2006
ChemWeb5.jpg
Zeist zomer 2006150 viewsFirearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.
George Washington
Aug 24, 2006
ChemWebs-I.jpg
Chemtrails Zeist zomer 2006145 viewsAug 24, 2006
ufodewaarheidBanner[1].jpg
Banner: WWW.UFODEWAARHEID.COM304 viewsFREE TO DOWNLOAD ON YOUR WEBSITE!
URL=http://www.UfoDeWaarheid.com
URL=http://www.UfoQuest4Truth.com
Jul 20, 2006
ufostore1~0.jpg
the UFOstore.com: UFO Videos, DVDs, Books, Gifts, and more..267 viewsSee: http://theUFOstore.comJul 08, 2006
shop.jpeg
Shop at the UFOstore.com206 viewshttp://theUFOstore.comJul 08, 2006
ufostore1.jpg
World's Largest Selection of UFO Videos, DVD's, and more! theUFOstore.com227 viewsSee: http://www.theUFOstore.comJul 07, 2006
ufomagban.JPG
Websites of Nancy Hayfield Birnes and William J. Birnes434 viewsUFO's: http://www.ufomag.com

-http://www.filamentbookclub.com
-www.contrailsmagazine.com
-www.shadowlawnpress.com
-www.thecarbonpapers.com
Jul 01, 2006
orbwarpuntcomsite.jpg
2 strange formations of Orbs traverse the skies of North-West Madrid, Spain. [Jan. 2006]290 viewswww.orbwar.com/large-video-clip-dual-formations-ufo-spheres-orb-satellites.htm

www.orbwar.com
Jun 15, 2006
UFO26.jpg
Uitvergroting Scoutship 26-10-2005 - Laren, Nederland1107 viewsUFOs using advanced gravity energy and Zero Point Energy?May 23, 2006
OrigineelUFO26.jpg
Originele foto Scoutship 26-10-2005 om 21.00u te Laren - Nederland - foto door: Marc van Druten1292 viewsDe Ufo, het rode bolletje dat uit het 'Moederschip' gedropt werd boven de Zuiderhei te Laren, bevindt zich linksbovenin op de foto!
Gefotografeerd door Marc met een mobiele telefoon NEC410i.
May 23, 2006
UFO261005.jpg
Uitvergroting UFO 26-1-2005, Laren - Nederland1126 viewsenlarge photo of the 2nd Scoutship that was dropped by the Mothership.May 23, 2006
RecentcollisionVEGA.jpg
"recent" collision near Wega...385 viewsDid a PlanetX or a Nibiru-like planet pass there also "recently"?
Vega, next to Draco, also known as Alpha Lyrae is 3 times the mass of our Sun, rises 56 min after sunset, 40 degrees North Lattitude in the constellation Lyra at only 25,3 light years away and [also] 500 million to 1 billion years young! IRAS 1983
Vega: "Phoenix", "the Falling Eagle", the Harp Star, in Akkadian: Tir-Anna, "Life of Heaven", Babylonian: Dilgan, "the Messenger of Light", in Sanskrit: Abhijit, "Victorious", in Assyrian Dayan, "Judge of Heaven" as having the highest seat therein, Lyre or Harp, in Arabic Vega is known as "Stone Eagle", in Chinese "She-niu", the Weaver. Christians saw Lyra as King Davids harp. In Holland's translation of Pliny it is the Harp star.
So already in Sumerian and Babylonian times Vega was well known!
In about 14.000 AD Vega will become Earth's North Star owing to the precession of the equinoxes.
Polaris is now our Pole Star, "the still point in the turning world".
The dust disk [asteroidbelt-about 3 times further away than our belt, for its Sun has also 3 times the mass of our Sun] at 60 to 90 AU recently detected and created by a large and relatively "recent" collision that have involved objects [at least] as big as the planet Pluto:
"Sattelites or moons of a larger planetX?"

More information is following...
May 23, 2006
Hsumchems.jpg
maart 2006 Hilversum302 viewsMay 14, 2006
BovenBaarn.jpg
Chemtrails boven Baarn 14 mei 2006263 views14 mei 2006 21.00u; Chemtrails boven Baarn-'t Gooi en heel Nederland...
Temperatuursdaling van 23gr. naar 5gr. Celsius zorgt voor een frisse avond en een weersschommeling..

Chemtrail Matrix, Wake up Call!: www.youtube.com/chemtrailmatrixwakeupcall
May 14, 2006
Climateundercontrole.jpg
188 viewsGovernment is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
George Washington
May 14, 2006
Gooi-Baarn.jpg
14 mei 2006 Baarn338 viewsMay 14, 2006
OGLE-Earthlikeplanets.jpg
Many Earthlike Planets...432 viewsPrecious detailed information about several indicated planets by Science as 'Earthlike':

1.Ogle-2005-BLG-390Lb at 25.000 lightyears in Sagittarius, the most Earthlike planet yet [since 11 july 2005] discovered, with a mass of 5.5 that of our Earth!
2. Near HD 98618 [Twin Sister of our Sun] at 126 lightyears. Twinlike solar system, 26.000 lightyears from the galactic centre, provides conditions for finding an 'Earthlike planet'.
3. Near the Sun-like [Lum. 0.93] star HD 70642 in the constellation of Puppis at 90 lightyears, a Jupiter-like planet in a 6 year orbit around its parent star, makes a second 'Home' or 'New Earth' a possibility.
4. Near 18 Scorpii, 4.2 billion years old at 46 lightyears away from Earth. (45.82 ly), visible in the night sky close to the Scorpion's left claw, provides the oppurtunity to find an 'Earthlike' planet in such a Twinlike solar system with a sunlike-star, close to ours, also 26.000 lightyears away from the galactic centre. 2 % of the stars in our galaxy are sun-like, that's a lot under many billion stars.
5. Mu ARAae is a star visible in the Southern constellation ARA [Altar] at 50 lightyears. In a discovery European astronomers have found one of the smallest planets known outside our solar system, a planet about 14 times the mass of our own Earth [a great Brother of our Earth], circling around a star much like the Sun. MSNBC, SpaceCom: Super Earth found circling nearby star. It could be a rocky planet with a thin atmosphere, a sort of "Super Earth", that completes its tight orbit in less than 10 days, compared with the 365 required for our Earth. Hot as in around 1.160 Fahrenheit [900 degrees Kelvin]. Mu Arae harbors two other planets. One is Jupiter-sized and takes 650 days to make its annual trip around the star. The other planet with 14 times the mass of Earth is a rocky planet, circling Mu Ara in size and brightness to our Sun, is about as heavy as Uranus, a world of gas and ice and the smallest giant planet in our solar system. Theorist say 14 Earth-masses is roughly the upper limit for a planet to remain rocky, however. And because this planet is so close to its host star, it likely had a much different formation history than Uranus. In our solar system, the four innermost planets are all rocky. Santos said life on this "Super Earth", is not likely. But he added, "one never knows".

6. 58 Eridani, only 400 million years old, visible in oktober-januari, in the constellation of Eridanus, remains at 44 lightyears [43.44 ly] and matches exceptionally close to our Sun in overall properties [like Zeta Tucanee and Alpha Mensae], but 58 is the most Twin-like and Sunlike in all aspects. Astronomers are hoping to find a rocky inner planet in the so called "habitable zone" (HZ) around 58.
Eridanus, the River, some relate it to the Eufraat and the Tigris, some to the Nile, wend its way South-West of Rigel (Beta Orionis).

7. EPSILON ERIDANI, about some 600 million years old, somewhere estimated between 500 and 1 billion years old at a distance of 10 lightyears [10.50 ly].
It is surrounded by a ring of dust (asteroidbelt?) at about the same distance as that of the KUIPER-belt from the Sun and this might indicate the presence of other unseen worlds/planets.
The density of the dust-belt in the Eridian system is the same as it would have been in our solar System about 4 billion years ago-about 600 million years after the Earth and other planets formed, toward the end of the period of the heavy bombardment [by the collision of Nibiru on Tiamat 3.9 billion years ago: see 'the Twelfth Planet, the Enuma Elish of Z. Sitchin]. This discovery adds to the growing body of evidence that planetary systems around other Stars are the rule rather than exception. Moreover Epsilon Eri provides a window into what conditions may have been like in the neighborhood of the Sun at a time when life was first beginning to emerge on the young Earth [just like ours 3.9 billion years ago].
In 2000, astronomers re-announced the discovery of a Jupiter-like planet around Epsilon Eri, with an orbit of 2502.1 days. In October 2002 morphological studies detected the dust-disk, and close to that one of the lowest mass extrasolar planets yet discovered, with a mass roughly one tenth that of Jupiter, it also has by far the longest orbit of any yet discovered [Nibiru is exceptional; 3600 years], with an orbital period of 280 years (Pluto has an orbit of 247 years).
The presence of Epsilon Eridani C was disclosed by researchers at the University of Rochester using a new technique that does not use direct light from the star, but rather light radiating from the dust-belt surrounding it.
Not all stars have large concentrations of dust, but those that do! like Epsilon Eridani, only at some 10,5 lightyears away, can display telltale patterns in their dust fields that may lead to planetary earth-(and who knows Nibiru/PlanetX-like) detection?
Distance Epsilon Eri: 10.50 lightyears
Spectral type: K2V
Apparent Magnitude: 3.72
Absolute Magnitude: 6.18
Luminosity: 0.3 (our Sun = 1)
Position: R.A. 3h 32m 56s, dec -9 degrees 27'30''

UfodeWaarheid-Discoveries, 9th April 2006

Apr 08, 2006
SuperEarths.jpg
Om de ster Mu Arae, bevindt zich 'een Grote Broer van onze Aarde' op maar 50 lichtjaar!232 viewsEn tevens een Jupiter-achtige planeet om de ster Mu Ara in 2000 gevonden.
In 2002 vind men een 2e Gasreus en in Juni 2004 een nieuwe Rotsachtige planeet vlak bij de Ster met een orbit die een jaar van 9,5 dag ver binnen die Mercurius om onze eigen zon beschrijft; met een massa van 14 keer die van onze Aarde, dus de grootte van onze planeet Uranus, maar rotsachtig en 'Aarde-Gelijkend', volgens de onderzoekers van 'het European Southern Observatory'. Dat laat nog maar een mogelijkheid over: een rotsachtige planeet met een dikke atmosfeer. Moeten we de exoplaneet rond Mu Arae misschien een 'Hete Aarde' noemen?
[Mu is in het sumerisch "Sky Chamber/UFO" en ARae is de naam van de godheid RA/Marduk.
M.a.w.: The Golden Sky Chamber of the god Amon RA]

ESO-Dossierkennislink.nl [26/8/2004]
Grote Broer van onze Aarde inzicht: Stenen bolster, hete pit.
Mu Arae is een sterretje in het Zuidelijke Sterrenbeeld ARA [Altaar] op 50 lichtjaren afstand.
Voor sterrenkundigen is de ster een driedubbel lot uit de loterij. In 2000 vonden sterrenkundigen een Jupiter-achtige planeet om de ster. In 2002 bevestigden ze het vermoeden dat er een 2e Gasreus in een wijdere baan om de ster heen draaide. En nu, in juni 2004, voerden onderzoekers van het European Southern Observatory metingen uit die een 3e exolaneet aantonen. Deze nieuwste aanwinst van Mu Arae is maar 14 keer zo zwaar als de Aarde, precies op de grens tussen de Super-Aarde en de mini-Gasreus. De planeet en de ster draaien gezamelijk om een gemeenschappelijk zwaartepunt als 2 stijldansers. Omdat de ster die veel op onze Zon lijkt zoveel zwaarder is dan de planeet, beweegt de planeet het hardst van de twee, maar de beweging van de ster, die periodiek en ritmisch in- en uitkrimpt, is toch vast te stellen.
Mu Arae beweegt afwisselend van de aarde! en er weer naartoe.
Uranus is met zijn 14,5 aardmassa's ongeveer zo zwaar als de nieuwe planeet rond Mu Arae. Maar de HARPS (=High Accuracy Radial Velocity Planet Searcher) onderzoekers denken dat de exoplaneet helemaal geen Gasreus is. De nieuwe planeet bevindt zich enorm dicht bij zijn zon-met een jaar van 9,5 dag ver binnen de baan die Mercurius om zijn eigen Zon beschrijft.
Dat laat nog maar een mogelijkheid over: een rotsachtige planeet met een dikke atmosfeer!
Moeten we de exoplaneet rond Mu Arae misschien een 'Hete Aarde' noemen?

9 April 2006
Apr 08, 2006
UFOPiramidCamcom.jpg
Ufo's, Silver Orbs near the tip of Khafre Piramid on March 23, 2006 at 14:34:04427 viewswww.pyramidcam.com/strange/strange.htmlApr 02, 2006
PlanetX.jpg
Photo concept of NASA of an 'Earthlike' extra solar planet399 views*The case of the 'Earthlike' Planet. [from Astronomical Scientific Sources, New York Times, British Scientific journal 'Nature' 2006 etc.]

An exciting planetary discovery, just reported, spilled over from Scientific issues to the general media.
The New York Times (25 Januari 2006) presented the news more preciously: SEARCH FINDS FAR OFF PLANET AKIN TO EARTH. The excitement stemmed from a report in the British scientific journal, called 'Nature' (the issue of 26 Januari 2006). A hint is that it therefore might harbor life.

The discovery, based on measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope, challenges scientists to rethink theories of how, when and where planets form, explained the science editor of the New York Times.

-ABC science Online Australia: Earth's twin found at heart of Milky Way.
-MSNBC: Scientist spot a new Earthlike planet.
-"This the most Earthlike Planet we have discovered to date, in terms of its mass and the distance from its parent star", he told BBC.

That life "happened" out there much before than on Earth- that is the shocking part of the new discovery...
It is in the same galaxy as Earth, the Milky Way, but is found closer to the galactic centre.
Astronomers say by the virtue of the ceaseless shifting of the billions of stars and a trick of Einsteinian physics, they have briefly GLIMPSED the most Earthlike planet [of rock and ice] yet to be discovered outside the solar system. If they ever glimpse it again, no one knows..

28 Januari 2006
Maggie McKee
Magazine Issue 2536
25 Januari 2006 New York Times: Scientist have briefly glimsed an 'Earthlike' planet OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb just 234 miles from its dim reddish star; in the constellation of Sagittarius, at some 22.000 lightyears away, with only 5,5 times the mass of Earth. "THIS IS THE MOST EARTHLIKE PLANET WE HAVE YET DISCOVERED TO DATE, IN TERMS WITH ITS MASS AND THE DISTANCE FROM ITS PARENTS STAR." In a cosmic eyeblink, it was the blip in the night that we have been waiting for said Jean Phlippe Beaulieu of the Institute of France of Astrophysics in Paris. To pick out the star they exploited the phenomenon called gravitational microlensing. When one star passes in front of another. This most 'Earthlike planet orbits its star every 10 years in 2.6 AU distance:

OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb:
Temperature: 53 Kelvin
Constellation: Sagittarius
Distance: 25.000 lightyears
Luminosity: 0.001 *Sun
Mass: 0.2 *Sun--5.5 times Earth.
So, the most Earthlike Planet is OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb yet to be Discovered..


Another 'Eartlike planet discovered? Urania Volkssterrenwacht in 2003, Noorderlichtvpro.nl: A 'Second Home', a 'New Earth' at 90 lightyears: an 'Earthlike' planet with a mass of 3 times that of Jupiter is at 467 million kilometers from the Sun-like star HD 70642 in the constellation of Puppis at 90 lightyears from our Earth.


And a third very Old 'ExtraSolar' planet as old as our Milky Way:
www.anoca.org/star/planet/methuselah_28planet_29.html says:
-Nicknamed Metuselah planet=PSR B1620-26c has a mass of 2 or 3 times that of Jupiter in the constellation of Scorpius and is about 12.7 billion years old, 3 times as old as Earth at 5.600 lightyears.


Extrasolar planets are one of current astronomy's holy grails and so the saying is there is a strong temptation to see them where one want to see them.
UfodeWaarheid.com does not but is just investigating the facts from different sources that all comes together. That's why we keep on wondering...also about how many 'Earthlike' Planets exist in our Milky Way..

*Because Red Dwarfs are the most common type of star in the Milky Way, this might mean that 'Earthlike' planets are ABUNDANT in our galaxy!*

29th of March, 2006



Mar 29, 2006
hstbovenaarde.jpg
De Hubble Space Telescope op 600km hoogte309 viewsDe kwestie van de 'Aarde-Gelijkende Planeet.

Een spannende planetaire ontdekking [met de Hubble Space Telescope], onlangs gerapporteerd, is vanuit wetenschappelijke publicaties naar de publieke media uitgelekt.
Radio en televisie stations deelden in hun voornaamste nieuws mede dat er "eenzelfde Planeet als de Aarde ontdekt is." De New York Times presenteerde het Nieuws wat preciezer: ZOEKTOCHT ONTDEKT VERWEGGELEGEN PLANEET VERWANT AAN DE AARDE.
De verwondering was afkomstig van een rapport uit het Britse wetenschappelijk journaal genaamd 'NATURE' (het geval van 26 januari 2006) waarin 73 astronomen in 3 teams werkende onthullen dat zij sinds 11 juli 2005 de baan volgen van een op "onze Aarde-Gelijkende" planeet die om een verafgelegen ster draait. Stilzwijgend wordt aangenomen of een hint is dat het daarom wel eens Leven kan bevatten...

[zie album 60 voor de volledige tekst]

Translated with permission, copyright Z. Sitchin December 30, 1983 Washington Post, Mystery Heavenly Body Orbiting Found by IRAS Infrared Telescope Sattelite, Large as Jupiter: www.planet-x.150m.com/washpost.html

Possibly as Large as Jupiter;
Mystery Heavenly Body Discovered




By Thomas O'Toole, Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, December 30, 1983 ; Page A1

A heavenly body possibly as large as the giant planet Jupiter and possibly so close to Earth
that it would be part of this solar system has been found in the direction of the constellation
Orion by an orbiting telescope aboard the U.S. infrared astronomical satellite.

So mysterious is the object that astronomers do not know if it is a planet, a giant comet, a
nearby "protostar" that never got hot enough to become a star, a distant galaxy so young that
it is still in the process of forming its first stars or a galaxy so shrouded in dust that none of the
light cast by its stars ever gets through.

"All I can tell you is that we don't know what it is," Dr. Gerry Neugebauer, IRAS chief
scientist for California's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and director of the Palomar Observatory
for the California Institute of Technology, said in an interview.

The most fascinating explanation of this mystery body, which is so cold it casts no light and
has never been seen by optical telescopes on Earth or in space, is that it is a giant gaseous
planet as large as Jupiter and as close to Earth as 50 trillion miles. While that may seem like a
great distance in earthbound terms, it is a stone's throw in cosmological terms, so close in fact
that it would be the nearest heavenly body to Earth beyond the outermost planet Pluto.

"If it is really that close, it would be a part of our solar system," said Dr. James Houck of
Cornell University's Center for Radio Physics and Space Research and a member of the
IRAS science team. "If it is that close, I don't know how the world's planetary scientists
would even begin to classify it."

The mystery body was seen twice by the infrared satellite as it scanned the northern sky from
last January to November, when the satellite ran out of the supercold helium that allowed its
telescope to see the coldest bodies in the heavens. The second observation took place six
months after the first and suggested the mystery body had not moved from its spot in the sky
near the western edge of the constellation Orion in that time.

"This suggests it's not a comet because a comet would not be as large as the one we've
observed and a comet would probably have moved," Houck said. "A planet may have moved
if it were as close as 50 trillion miles but it could still be a more distant planet and not have
moved in six months time."

Whatever it is, Houck said, the mystery body is so cold its temperature is no more than 40
degrees above "absolute" zero, which is 456 degrees Fahrenheit below zero. The telescope
aboard IRAS is cooled so low and is so sensitive it can "see" objects in the heavens that are
only 20 degrees above absolute zero.

When IRAS scientists first saw the mystery body and calculated that it could be as close as
50 trillion miles, there was some speculation that it might be moving toward Earth.

"It's not incoming mail," Cal Tech's Neugebauer said. "I want to douse that idea with as much
cold water as I can."

Then, what is it? What if it is as large as Jupiter and so close to the sun it would be part of the
solar system? Conceivably, it could be the 10th planet astronomers have searched for in vain.
It also might be a Jupiter-like star that started out to become a star eons ago but never got hot
enough like the sun to become a star.

While they cannot disprove that notion, Neugebauer and Houck are so bedeviled by it that
they do not want to accept it. Neugebauer and Houck "hope" the mystery body is a distant
galaxy either so young that its stars have not begun to shine or so surrounded by dust that its
starlight cannot penetrate the shroud.

"I believe it's one of these dark, young galaxies that we have never been able to observe
before," Neugebauer said.

"If it is, then it is a major step forward in our understanding of the size of the universe, how the
universe formed and how it continues to form as time goes on."

The next step in pinpointing what the mystery body is, Neuegebauer said, is to search for it
with the world's largest optical telescopes. Already, the 100-inch diameter telescope at Cerro
del Tololo in Chile has begun its search and the 200-inch telescope at Palomar Mountain in
California has earmarked several nights next year to look for it. If the body is close enough
and emits even a hint of light, the Palomar telescope should find it since the infrared satellite
has pinpointed its position.

(ITEM 123)December 31, 1983, Saturday, Final Edition
(ITEM 127)The distance from earth of a mysterious object in space was reported incorrectly
in some editions yesterday. The correct figure is 50 billion miles.

Articles appear as they were originally printed in The Washington Post and may not
include subsequent corrections.

Home
Mar 23, 2006
DNA.jpg
DNA389 views*Nederlands artikel van Zecharia Sitchin's 'Adam genes' vertaald uit het engels naar het nederlands door DossierX: over het ontstaan van de mens 300.000 jaar geleden en DNA op aarde..
Zie: www.dossierx.nl/index.php/content/view/425/28/

**Verre Ster bevat bouwstenen voor Leven, 21 dec. 2005

SRON en de Sterrenwacht Leiden ontdekken ondermeer de gassen acetyleen en waterstof cyanide rond de Ster IRS 46 in het Sterrenbeeld Slangendrager, op 375 miljoen lichtjaar van de Aarde, m.b.v. de ruimtetelescoop Spitzer van de NASA. Beide elementen zijn essentieel voor Leven. De elementen komen b.v. ook voor op planeten in ons eigen zonnestelsel, op de kometen en in andere uithoeken van het heelal.
"Het opwindende is dat we dit waarnemen in een gebied waar zich mogelijk Aardse planeten kunnen vormen", aldus onderzoekleider F. Lahuis. IRS is een jonge Ster met een massa die vergelijkbaar is met onze zon. Het gas dat is gevonden draait ook nog eens rond in een schijf van stof en andere gassen op ongeveer DEZELFDE AFSTAND als de Aarde tot onze zon!
UfodeWaarheid.com verwondert zich of DAAR wederom 'Aarde-Gelijkende' planeten zijn gevonden, nu dus OOK op 375 miljoen lichtjaren afstand EN EEN PLANETX OFTEWEL EEN NIBIRU-GELIJKENDE PLANEET om daar een 'AARDE-Gelijkende' planeet te bevruchten met DNA, en een ASTEROIDENGORDEL te creeeren.
Het kan waarschijnlijk niet anders...de kosmogonie, het 'Scheppingsepos' of 'Enuma Elish' lijkt een kosmisch veel voorkomend verschijnsel te zijn, met ontelbare PlanetX en 'Aarde-Gelijkende' planeten die DNA en intelligent leven bevatten in de oneindige kosmos.



***Telescoop fotografeert DNA-vormige nevel met een Dubbele Helix Structuur [17 maart 2006]
De Spitzer-telescoop van de NASA heeft een kosmische nevel gevonden die opvallend veel wegheeft van een DNA-streng, die zich uitstrekt over 80 lichtjaren in het Centrum van onze Melkweg!

Normaal gesproken zijn de nevels in de ruimte vormloze samenklonteringen van gassen en sterrenstof, maar in dit geval heeft de wolk een complexe structuur. Volgens astronomen is zoiets nog niet eerder waargenomen. In de nieuwste editie van het tijdschrift 'NATURE' wordt de nevel nauwkeurig beschreven. Het strekt zich uit over 80 lichtjaren in het CENTRUM van de MELKWEG! Een lichtjaar is 9460 miljard km [10 triljard kilometer]. De wolk ziet eruit als de 2 strengen die om elkaar heen draaien, en dat is precies hoe een DNA-molecuul er ook uitziet.

DUBBELE HELIX STRUCTUUR:
DNA vormt het basismateriaal in chromosomen, en heeft een molecuul dat eruit ziet als een wenteltrap, de zgn. Dubbele Helix-structuur. Hier wordt alle erfelijke informatie opgeslagen en doorgegeven. De 'strengen' in de ruimtenevel zijn volgens wetenschappers echter op een andere manier ontstaan. De astronomen vermoeden dat de dubbele-helix vorm is veroorzaakt door de gedraaide magnetische velden die zich in het centrum van het Melkwegstelsel bevinden. Die worden op hun beurt veroorzaakt door de zwarte gaten. Deze gaten zuigen alles op wat maar in hun pad komt, maar voordat iets naar binnen verdwijnt, draait het eerst om de rand van het gat heen. Dat heeft wellicht ook de gedraaide vorm van de nevel veroorzaakt. De Spitzer-telescoop heeft de vorm van de galactische nevel zo nauwkeurig vast weten te leggen, omdat de telescoop gebruik maakt van een infrarood techniek, waardoor objecten in de ruimte tot op grote afstand met een hoge resolutie kunnen worden weergegeven.



Mar 17, 2006
Fashioners.jpg
Fashioners of mankind 300.000 years ago386 viewsFrom the Claytablets also te be found in the Berlin Museum: Enki and Ninhursag fashioning the Adam.
See 'the Twelfth Planet' from Z.Sitchin.
Mar 17, 2006
foto_zecharia_sitchin[1].jpg
Zecharia Sitchin366 viewsVertaler van de Sumerische kleitabletten en de Ontdekker van NIBIRU, de Twaalfde Planeet.
PO. Box 577, New York, NY 10185
website: www.sitchin.com

www.wingeddisk.com/Nibiruinoursolarsystem

Dialogue in Bellaria



SITCHIN AND VATICAN THEOLOGIAN DISCUSS UFO's,
EXTRATERRESTRIALS, ANGELS, CREATION OF MAN

Report by Zecharia Sitchin



The death of Pope John Paul II has occasioned widespread discussions about his own stand and the Vatican's position regarding a variety of subjects, from purely theological to social issues. Completely lacking has been any reference to an issue of concern to many, and especially to those interested in the subjects of UFO's, Life on other planets, and Extraterrestrials in general, and in Zecharia Sitchin's writings in particular.

As it happened, it was exactly five years ago, in April 2000, that Zecharia engaged in a public discussion of those very issues with a leading theologian of the Vatican, Monsignor Corrado Balducci, during an international conference held in Bellaria (Bimini) in Italy. The historic dialogue was reported at the time on this official website of Zecharia Sitchin; hereunder is the full text of that report which speaks for itself.



In what must be a historic first, a high official of the Vatican and a Hebrew scholar discussed the issue of Extraterrestrials and the Creation of Man, and though different from each other in upbringing, background, religion and methodology, nevertheless arrived at common conclusions:

* Yes, Extraterrestrials can and do exist on other planets
* Yes, they can be more advanced than us
* Yes, materially, Man could have been fashioned from a pre-existing sentient being.



The Participants

The high Vatican official was Monsignor Corrado Balducci, a Catholic theologian with impressive credentials: A member of the Curia of the Roman Catholic Church, a Prelate of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples and the Propagation of the Faith, leading exorcist of the Archdiocese of Rome, a member of the Vatican's Beatification Committee, an expert on Demonology and the author of several books. Appointed in the Vatican to deal with the issue of UFO's and Extraterrestrials, he has made in recent years pronouncements indicating a tolerance of the subjects; but he has never before met and had a dialogue with a Hebrew scholar, and gone beyond prescribed formulations to include the touchy issue of the Creation of Man.

The Hebrew scholar was me -- Zecharia Sitchin: A researcher of ancient civilizations, a biblical archaeologist, a descendant of Abraham?

The Monsignor and I almost met for such a dialogue last December, but it did not come about. This time we were scheduled to meet in Bellaria, Italy, at a conference whose theme was ?The Mystery of Human Existence.? I arrived there with my wife and a score of fans from the USA, on March 31st, scheduled to address the audience of over a thousand the next day. The Monsignor was nowhere in sight; but he was there the next morning to hear my presentation. ?I drove the whole night from Rome to hear you,? he said.




Sitchin?s Presentation

My talk, ably translated by my Italian editor Tuvia Fogel, included a slide presentation that added a pictorial dimension to the evidence from ancient times in support of Sumerian texts, on which my eight books based the following conclusions:

We are not alone -- not just in the vast universe, but in our own solar system; There is one more planet in our solar system, orbiting beyond Pluto but nearing Earth periodically; Advanced "Extraterrestrials? -- the Sumerians called them Anunnaki, the Bible Nefilim -- started to visit our planet some 450,000 years ago; And, some 300,000 years ago, they engaged in genetic engineering to upgrade Earth's hominids and fashion Homo sapiens, the Adam. In that, they acted as Emissaries for the Universal Creator -- God.



The Dialogue

"We have much to talk about,? Msgr. Balducci said to me as he came forward to congratulate me on my presentation; "I have great esteem for your scholarship," he said.

We returned to the hotel for lunch. Our table was surrounded in a semi-circle by my American fans, intent on not missing a word of the forthcoming dialogue. In the hours-long session, Msgr. Balducci outlined the positions he was going to state, from a prepared text, in his talk the next day. While my approach was based on physical evidence, his was a purely Roman Catholic theological-philosophical one, seeking the spiritual aspects. Yet, our conclusions converged.



Msgr. Balducci's Positions

ON UFO's. "There must be something in it." The hundreds and thousands of eyewitness reports leave no room for denying that there is a measure of truth in them, even allowing for optical illusions, atmospheric phenomena and so on. As a Catholic theologian such witnessing cannot be dismissed. "Witnessing is one way of transmitting truth, and in the case of the Christian religion, we are talking about a Divine Revelation in which witnessing is crucial to the credibility of our faith.?

ON LIFE ON OTHER PLANETS: ?That life may exist on other planets is certainly possible... The Bible does not rule out that possibility. On the basis of scripture and on the basis of our knowledge of God's omnipotence, His wisdom being limitless, we must affirm that life on other planets is possible." Moreover, this is not only possible, but also credible and even probable. '"Cardinal Nicolo Cusano (1401-1464) wrote that there is not a single star in the sky about which we can rule out the existence of life, even if different from ours.?

ON INTELLIGENT EXTRATERRESTRIALS: "When I talk about Extraterrestrials, we must think of beings who are like us -- more probably, beings more advanced than us, in that their nature is an association of a material part and a spiritual part, a body and a soul, although in different proportions than human beings on Earth." Angels are beings who are purely spiritual, devoid of bodies, while we are made up of spirit and matter but still at a low level. "It is entirely credible that in the enormous distance between Angels and humans, there could be found some middle stage, that is beings with a body like ours but more elevated spiritually. If such intelligent beings really exist on other planets, only science will be able to prove; but in spite of what some people think, we would be in a position to reconcile their existence with the Redemption that Christ has brought us.?



The Anunnaki and the Creation of Man

Well then, I asked Msgr. Balducci, does it mean that my presentation was no great revelation to you? We appear to agree, I said, that more advanced extraterrestrials can exist, and I use science to evidence their coming to Earth ...I then quote the Sumerian texts that say that the Anunnaki (?Those who from heaven to Earth came?) genetically improved an existing being on Earth to create the being that the Bible calls Adam.

My conclusion regarding your presentation, Msgr. Balducci answered, is that more than anything else your whole approach is based on physical evidence, it concerns itself with matter, not with spirit. This is an important distinction, "because if this distinction is made, I can bring up the view of the great theologian, Professor Father Marakoff, who is still alive and is greatly respected by the Church. He formulated the hypothesis that when God created Man and put the soul into him, perhaps what is meant is not that Man was created from mud or lime, but from something pre-existing, even from a sentient being capable of feeling and perception. So the idea of taking a pre-man or hominid and creating someone who is aware of himself is something that Christianity is coming around to?The key is the distinction between the material body and the soul granted by God."



From Anunnaki to God

Yes, I responded to the Vatican theologian, in my writings I deal with the physical evidence; but already in my first book (The 12th Planet), the very last sentence of the last paragraph raises the question: If the Extraterrestrials "created" us, who created them on their planet?

From this my own thinking and the contents of my subsequent books evolved toward the spiritual or "divine" aspects. The Anunnaki, I have explained, were just emissaries (and that is what the Hebrew word Malachim, translated Angels, means). They thought that it was their decision to come here for selfish reasons and to fashion us because they needed workers; but in truth they only carried out the Almighty God's wishes and plans.

If such Extraterrestrials were so involved, Msgr. Balducci said, even by your own interpretation they had to do with Man's physics, body and rationality: but God alone had to do with the Soul!

My second book, that deals with Man's aspiration to ascend the heavens, is titled The Stairway to Heaven, I told Msgr, Balducci, "it seems to me that we are ascending the same stairway to heaven, though from different steps," I said.

We ended the dialogue as friends, determined to stay in touch and continue.



Reproduction is permitted if accompanied by the statement

? Z. Sitchin 2000
Reproduced by permission.

Mar 14, 2006
WebsiteSitchin~0.jpg
The Lost Book of Enki281 viewsVan de officiele website van Zecharia Sitchin

PO. Box 577, New York, NY 10185


De kwestie van de $(B!F(BAarde-Gelijkende$(B!G(B Planeet.

Een spannende planetaire ontdekking, onlangs gerapporteerd, is vanuit wetenschappelijke publicaties naar de publieke media uitgelekt.
Radio en televisie stations deelden in hun voornaamste nieuws mede dat er $(B!H(Beenzelfde Planeet als de Aarde ontdekt is.$(B!I(B De New York Times presenteerde het Nieuws wat preciezer: ZOEKTOCHT ONTDEKT VERWEGGELEGEN PLANEET VERWANT AAN DE AARDE.

De verwondering was afkomstig van een rapport uit het Britse wetenschappelijke journaal genaamd $(B!F(BNATURE$(B!G(B (het geval van 26 januari 2006) waarin 73 astronomen in 3 teams werkende onthullen dat zij sinds 11 juli 2005 de baan volgen van een op $(B!H(Bonze Aarde-Gelijkende$(B!I(B planeet die om een verafgelegen ster draait. Stilzwijgend aangenomen of een hint is dat het daarom wel eens Leven kan bevatten.

Al eeuwen lang wordt er door astronomen aangenomen dat ons zonnestelsel onder buitengewone omstandigheden is ontstaan waarbij de Aarde $(B!F(Bop het randje$(B!G(B terecht is gekomen in een $(B!H(BBewoonbare Zone$(B!I(B.
Het is nauwelijks een decennium geleden dat astronomen-aanvankelijk met ongeloof-begonnen te zoeken naar exo-planeten die een baan rond andere sterren maken; hoewel men tegenwoordig zelfs 170 van zulke planeten gevonden heeft, schijnen ze allen te groot te zijn en te dicht bij hun zonnen te staan om leven te kunnen bevatten (zoals algemeen beweerd wordt).

Hoewel het originele wetenschappelijke artikel en het daaropvolgende nieuws dit verklaren, zijn de laatste bevindingen anders: Daar is een planeet met een massa drie keer zo groot als de Aarde en die maar drie keer verder weg van haar zon staat als de Aarde t.o.v. onze zon; de ontdekte planeet-die een baan om een ster aflegt in onze eigen melkweg!-is dus op onze $(B!H(BAarde-Gelijkende$(B!I(B in vele opzichten.

ZOALS IK AL EERDER HEB GEZEGD$(B!D(B

Het Nieuws, bracht mij in een filosofische gemoedstoestand vol verwondering, dat kan ik mijn lezers vertellen.

Het is 30 jaren geleden (ja, dertig jaar!) sinds mijn eerste boek, $(B!F(BDe Twaalfde Planeet$(B!G(B, werd gepubliceerd. Daarin bracht ik het 6000 jaren oude scheppingsepos van de Sumeriers tot leven.

Zoals ik zei schreven zij dat $(B!F(Bspoedig nadat ons zonnestelsel zich begon te vormen, er een planeet uit een ander zonnestelsel dat het onze passeerde uitgeworpen werd, naar binnen werd gezogen en op een planeet botste die Tiamat heette, het opbrak en het in de Aarde en de asteroiden-gordel verdeelde, en zelf gevangen werd in een grote baan om onze zon om de Planeet Nibiru te worden. Hij leek zoveel op onze Aarde dat $(B!F(Bhet Levens-Zaad$(B!G(B dat daar begonnen was, overgedragen werd naar de Aarde tijdens de botsing.$(B!G(B

Destijds verafschuwde de gevestigde zienswijze het gedachtegoed van catastrofale hemelse gebeurtenissen (nu aanvaard).
De notie van planeten elders in de kosmos werd als onzin beschouwd (nu staan er 171 van zulke planeten genoteerd). Alles wat ik heb gezegd dat de Sumeriers al wisten is bewezen op waarheid.
En weet u wat? De massa van de pasontdekte planeet is gelijk aan de schatting voor Nibiru en zijn afstand tot haar zon is zowat dezelfde als Tiamat was$(B!D(B

Het blijft je verwonderen.

Zecharia Sitchin


Translated with Permission, Copyright Z. Sitchin
Mar 11, 2006
sumerianpictogrammen.jpg
Planetary Discoveries496 views--The New York Times in the journal of Science of 11 July 2003: Nicknamed 'Metuselah'-planet, the newly discovered planet is "almost three times as old as Earth", in the constellation of Scorpius, 5.600 lightyears away, with a mass of 2 or 3 times Jupiter.

--A Tiamat Discovered? A Second Home? A New Earth at 90 lightyears, announced by the British Astronomer Hugh Jones of the Liverpool John Moores University in 2003.
the Discovery of a Solar System similar to ours in the constellation of Puppis at 90 lightyears. "There in what is the CLOSEST resemblance to Earth's Solar System yet found! in outer space, a Jupiter-like planet with a mass of 2 or 3 times that of Jupiter circles a sun-like star HD 70642 in an orbit (of 6 years) that corresponds to one halfway between Mars and Jupiter in our own system. So the possibility of a second Earth in there remains. The Discovery was based on measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope!"

-The case of the 'Earthlike' Planet, the New York Times 25 januari 2006: 'Search Finds Far-Off Planet Akin to Earth'.
British Scientific Journal Nature issue of 26 January 2006 in which 73 astronomers of the US, UK and Australia disclosed the tracking since July 11, 2005- of an Earthlike Planet orbiting a distant Red Dwarf every 10 years [in the constellation of Sagittarius] at 21.000 lightyears, dubbed OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, is smaller than Neptune, has a temperature of - 220 gr. Celsius, with a mass of 5.5 times that of Earth! This is the most and smallest 'Earthlike' planet yet found by Astronomers, in a cosmic eye blink it was the blip in the night that we have been waiting for, Jean-Philippe Beaulieu of Astrophysics in Paris said. We have glimpsed it , but don't know if we will ever glimpse it again?
28 January 2006, Maggie Mc Kee, Magazine Issue 2536.

Red dwarfs are about one fifht as massive as our sun and up to 50 times fainter, and they are much cooler. But they are among the most common stars in the Universe.
So UfodeWaarheid.com assumes that there are many 'Earthlike' Planets in our Milky Way, our Galaxy and Universe. Scientists report already since 2005 that about half of our yet discovered star systems might harbour 'Earthlike' planets in the 'Goldilock' or 'Earthlike' zones, not too hot and not too cold, to contain water.






Mar 09, 2006
WebsiteSitchin.jpg
Website of Zecharia Sitchin302 viewswww.sitchin.comMar 09, 2006
ChemtrailCentralwebsite.jpg
440 viewshttp://www.chemtrailscentral.com/orbs.shtmlMar 09, 2006
Scott_sWeatherWarswebsite.jpg
Website of Scott Stevens480 viewswww.weatherwars.info/

The SHIFT: www.scottstevens.org
Mar 09, 2006
NASA1.jpg
The Secret NASA Transmissions290 viewsUFOs bewegen om de Tether STS-75...de UFOs rond deze satelliet kunnen volgens onderzoekers een diameter van 1 tot 3 mijlen hebben.

UFO ACTIVITY AROUND EARTH - See this footage: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWrP8mItgI&NR

UFOs ; Super advanced high QuantumTechnologies?!

Speed of Gravity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity
Mar 08, 2006
NASA2.jpg
NASA filming Ufos made of Super Technology, according some top-UFO-experts272 viewsUFOs, Super Secret QuantumTechnology: The Tether STS-75 Project NASA video:

See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbPR1yI3XSI

This video is the complete footage, showing the truth. An event of such magnitude and importance, and NASA didn't and is not tellling about it, even worse, they lied saying that the UFOs are debris, when it is clearly visible that some of the UFOs are passing behind the Tether Satellite which is miles long.
Mar 08, 2006
NASA3.jpg
UFOs - Super Technology301 viewsThese are no icecrystals, lightrelections of ice or snow....but UFOs, real and superfast, probably using advanced anti-gravity energie systems and ZPE.
UFO Secret NASA Project? Watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC7zw8aemlg&mode=related&search=
Mar 08, 2006
NASA4.jpg
UFOs in space272 viewsUFOs using advanced anti-Gravity energy, anti-matter reactors with element 115 and ZPE? UFO Activity Around Earth:

Watch: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXWrP8mItgI&NR

Test for Einstein's gravity speed theory: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2238452.stm


Mar 08, 2006
NASA5.jpg
UFOs intelligent, Super Technology336 viewsUFO, Never Doubt Again: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0jpUPLqLhA&feature=related

Footage filmed during NASA Space Shuttle STS-80 Mission.

Many camera's are filming the missions and all these video's, and communication between space & ground is being send to Houston (NASA) with satellite. In Canada there was a owner of a TV Station named: Martyn Stubbs, who could also receive the SAME NASA satellite video's, and he taped for more then 5 years all the mission's video's /communication that Houston was receiving. More of those footage is in the Documentaries: The Secret NASA Transmissions "the smoking gun" and "secret Space" dvd. (check Google.Video)
Mar 08, 2006
utrecht1.jpg
Chemtrails prov. Utrecht158 viewsMar 08, 2006
utrecht3.jpg
Chemtrails provincie Utrecht160 viewsMar 08, 2006
utrecht4.jpg
Chemtrails Boven Utrecht op 7 maart 2005223 viewsEnorme spinnenwebben in de lucht!Mar 08, 2006
utrecht5.jpg
Chemtrails Utrecht 7 maart 2005154 viewsGrote Spinnenwebben weven ze in de luchten.

Een Hopi Indianen profetie luidt: "Als De Grote Schoonmaak nadert, dan zullen er spinnenwebben aan de lucht geweven worden."
Volgens UfodeWaarheid.com ziet dat er naar uit als het zo doorgaat boven heel Nederland en overal ter wereld en alle grote streden en wij vragen ons werkelijk af waarom niemand dit opvalt???
Mar 08, 2006
utrecht6.jpg
de Chemtrailers in beeld - 7 maart 2006, 15.00u162 viewses - espa?ol






INFORME 140k 109k

14 de enero de 1999 PE 227.710/def. A4-0005/99

sobre medio ambiente, seguridad y pol?tica exterior
Ponente de opini?n: Sr. Olsson, Comisi?n de Medio Ambiente, Salud P?blica y Protecci?n del Consumidor
(Procedimiento "Hughes")
Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa
Ponente: Maj Britt Theorin


En la sesi?n del 13 de julio de 1995, el Presidente del Parlamento anunci? que hab?a remitido la propuesta de resoluci?n presentada por la Sra. Rehn Rouva, conforme al art?culo 45 del Reglamento, sobre la utilizaci?n potencial de recursos de car?cter militar para estrategias medioambientales, (B4-0551/98), a la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa, para examen del fondo, y, para opini?n, a la Comisi?n de Medio Ambiente, Salud P?blica y Protecci?n del Consumidor.
A. PROPUESTA DE RESOLUCI?N
B. EXPOSICI?N DE MOTIVOS
Anexo I
OPINI?N


En la sesi?n del 13 de julio de 1995, el Presidente del Parlamento anunci? que hab?a remitido la propuesta de resoluci?n presentada por la Sra. Rehn Rouva, conforme al art?culo 45 del Reglamento, sobre la utilizaci?n potencial de recursos de car?cter militar para estrategias medioambientales, (B4-0551/98), a la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa, para examen del fondo, y, para opini?n, a la Comisi?n de Medio Ambiente, Salud P?blica y Protecci?n del Consumidor.

En la reuni?n del 15 de noviembre de 1996 y tras la petici?n de la Conferencia de Presidentes de Comisi?n, el Presidente del Parlamento anunci? que la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa estaba autorizada a presentar un informe a este respecto.

En la reuni?n del 19 de noviembre de 1996, la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa design? ponente a la Sra. Maj Britt Theorin.

En la reuni?n del 19 de junio de 1998, el Presidente del Parlamento anunci? que este informe deb?a ser elaborado, de acuerdo al procedimiento Hughes, por la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa y por la Comisi?n de Medio Ambiente, Salud P?blica y Protecci?n del Consumidor.

En las reuniones de los d?as 5 de febrero de 1998, 29 de junio de 1998, 21 de julio de 1998, 3, 23 y 28 de septiembre de 1998, 13, 27 y 29 de octubre de 1998 y 4 y 5 de enero de 1999, la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa examin? el proyecto de informe, as? como la Subcomisi?n de Seguridad y Desarme en las reuniones de los d?as 5 de febrero de 1998 y 3 y 23 de septiembre de 1998.

En la ?ltima de estas reuniones, la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa aprob? la propuesta de resoluci?n por 28 votos a favor y 1 abstenci?n.

Estuvieron presentes en la votaci?n los diputados: Spencer, presidente; Theorin, ponente, Aelvoet, Andr?-L?onard, Bar?n Crespo, Bertens, Bianco, Burenstam Linder, Carnero Gonz?lez, Carrozzo (suplente de Colajanni), Dillen, Dupuis, Gahrton, Goerens (suplente de Cars), Graziani, G?nther (suplente de Gomolka), Lalumi?re, Lambrias, Pack (suplente de Habsburg-Lothringen), Pettinari (suplente de Imbeni, de conformidad con el apartado 2 del art?culo 138 del Reglamento), Piha, Rinsche, Sakellariou, Salafranca S?nchez-Neyra, Schroedter (suplente de Cohn-Bendit), Schwaiger (suplente de Lenz), Speciale, Swoboda (suplente de Hoff), Tindemans, Titley y Truscott.

La opini?n de la Comisi?n de Medio Ambiente, Salud P?blica y Protecci?n del Consumidor se adjunta al presente informe.

El informe se present? el 14 de enero de 1999.

El plazo de presentaci?n de enmiendas a este informe figurar? en el proyecto de orden del d?a del per?odo parcial de sesiones en que se examine.


A. PROPUESTA DE RESOLUCI?N

Resoluci?n sobre medio ambiente, seguridad y pol?tica exterior

El Parlamento Europeo,

- Vista la propuesta de resoluci?n presentada por la Sra. Rehn Rouva sobre la utilizaci?n potencial de recursos militares para las estrategias medioambientales (B4-0551/95),

- Visto el estudio de las Naciones Unidas "Registro de los usos potenciales de los recursos asignados a actividades militares para esfuerzos civiles de protecci?n del medio ambiente" (UN A46/364, 17 de septiembre 1991),

- Vista su resoluci?n de 17 de julio de 1995 sobre "Las minas antipersonal: un obst?culo mort?fero para el desarrollo"(1),

- Vistas sus anteriores resoluciones sobre ensayos nucleares y no proliferaci?n de armas nucleares, as? como el informe de la Comisi?n de Camberra de agosto de 1996 sobre la abolici?n de las armas nucleares,

- Vista la resoluci?n un?nime del Tribunal Internacional sobre la obligaci?n de los Estados en posesi?n de armas nucleares de negociar una prohibici?n de las armas nucleares (dictamen consultivo n? 96/22, de 8 de julio de 1996),

- Vista su resoluci?n de 19 de abril de 1996 sobre la propuesta de decisi?n del Consejo para la creaci?n de un programa de acciones comunitarias en favor de la protecci?n civil(2),

- Vistas sus anteriores resoluciones sobre las armas qu?micas,

- Vistos los resultados de las conferencias de las Naciones Unidos de Kyoto de 1997 y de R?o de Janeiro de 1992,

- Vista la audiencia sobre el programa HAARP y las armas no letales celebrada por la Subcomisi?n de Seguridad y Desarme de la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores en Bruselas el 5 de febrero de 1998,

- Visto el art?culo 148 de su Reglamento,

- Visto el informe de la Comisi?n de Asuntos Exteriores, Seguridad y Pol?tica de Defensa y la opini?n de la Comisi?n de Medio Ambiente, Salud P?blica y Protecci?n del Consumidor (A40005/99),

A. Constatando que el final de la guerra fr?a ha modificado sustancialmente la situaci?n geopol?tica en materia de seguridad y que la distensi?n militar ha dado lugar a un desarme considerable en el sector militar en general y en el sector de las armas nucleares en particular, lo que ha supuesto una considerable liberaci?n de recursos militares;

B. Considerando que, pese a esta transformaci?n total de la situaci?n geoestrat?gica desde el final de la guerra fr?a, no ha disminuido sensiblemente el riesgo de un atentado catastr?fico contra la integridad y durabilidad del medio ambiente global, en particular su biodiversidad, tanto en lo que se refiere a la activaci?n accidental o no autorizada de armas nucleares, como a la utilizaci?n autorizada de armas nucleares por miedo, aunque infundado, a una amenaza de ataque inminente,

C. Considerando que este riesgo podr?a reducirse considerablemente en un plazo muy corto de tiempo si todos los Estados que poseen un arsenal nuclear aplicaran r?pidamente las seis medidas incluidas en el informe de la Comisi?n de Camberra relativas, en particular, a la retirada de todas las armas nucleares del actual dispositivo de alerta roja y la transferencia progresiva de todas las armas a la reserva estrat?gica,

D. Considerando que el art?culo VI del Tratado sobre la no proliferaci?n de las armas nucleares (TNP) de 1968 compromete a todas las partes a "celebrar negociaciones de buena fe... sobre un tratado de desarme general y completo" y que los principios y objetivos adoptados en la Conferencia TNP de 1995 reiteraban que el objetivo ?ltimo del Tratado era la eliminaci?n completa de las armas nucleares,

E. Observando que las amenazas sobre el medio ambiente, los flujos de refugiados, los antagonismos ?tnicos, el terrorismo y la delincuencia internacional constituyen nuevas y graves amenazas para la seguridad y que, al cambiar la situaci?n de seguridad, cobra cada vez mayor importancia la capacidad de enfrentarse a distintas formas de conflictos y, dado que las amenazas para la seguridad son tambi?n de car?cter no militar, es importante que los recursos de car?cter militar se utilicen tambi?n para fines no militares;

F. Constatando que los recursos del planeta se est?n utilizando como si fueran inacabables y que esto ha producido una mayor frecuencia de cat?strofes naturales y medioambientales; constatando asimismo que esto estos problemas ecol?gicos locales y regionales pueden tener consecuencias importantes en las relaciones internacionales, y lamentando que esto no se haya reflejado m?s claramente en la pol?tica exterior, de seguridad y de defensa de los Estados miembros;

G. Considerando que los conflictos en el mundo son predominantemente conflictos dentro de los Estados en lugar de entre Estados, y que, cuando surgen conflictos entre Estados, ?stos est?n cada vez m?s relacionados con el acceso a recursos vitales b?sicos o su disponibilidad, especialmente agua, alimentos y combustible,

H. Considerando que el acceso a dichos recursos naturales vitales y su disponibilidad est?n intr?nsecamente relacionados, como causa y efecto, con la degradaci?n y contaminaci?n del medio ambiente, de lo que se deduce l?gicamente que la prevenci?n de conflictos debe centrarse m?s en estas cuestiones,

I. Considerando que la presi?n sobre la tierra, tanto f?rtil como habitable, que hist?ricamente ha sido una de las principales causas de tensi?n y conflictos, es cada vez m?s el resultado de la degradaci?n del medio ambiente, especialmente del cambio clim?tico y del consiguiente aumento de los niveles del mar,

J. Considerando que todos estos factores, que afectan sobre todo a las poblaciones m?s pobres y m?s vulnerables del mundo, producen un incremento constante de la incidencia de los denominados "refugiados medioambientales", lo que produce una presi?n directa en las pol?ticas de inmigraci?n y justicia de la UE, en la ayuda al desarrollo y en el gasto de ayuda humanitaria e, indirectamente, hace que aumenten los problemas de la UE en materia de seguridad en forma de inestabilidad regional en otras partes del mundo,

K. Considerando que, seg?n resultados detallados de la investigaci?n internacional filtrados y publicados por el Climate Institute de Washington, el n?mero de "refugiados medioambientales" es actualmente superior al n?mero de "refugiados tradicionales" (25 millones frente a 22 millones) y que se prev? que esta cifra se duplique para el a?o 2010 o que, en el peor de los casos, sea mucho mayor,

L. Considerando que la cuesti?n de los "refugiados medioambientales" es simplemente el s?ntoma de un desastre humanitario de una amplitud mucho mayor teniendo en cuenta que, seg?n la definici?n de las Naciones Unidas, 1.300 millones de personas viven en absoluta pobreza; que una cuarta parte de estas personas tratan de subsistir en zonas del mundo que son extremadamente vulnerables desde un punto de vista medioambiental y que son las que m?s contribuyen a problemas medioambientales globales como la deforestaci?n y la desertizaci?n,

M. Considerando que, desde el final de la Guerra Fr?a, la gesti?n de cuestiones globales se ha desprovisto de su aspecto ideol?gico previamente dominante y est? actualmente menos determinada por la cuesti?n del equilibrio militar pero que esto no se ha reflejado a?n en el sistema de gobernaci?n global de las Naciones Unidas mediante un mayor ?nfasis en la coherencia y efectividad de los componentes militar y no militar de la pol?tica de seguridad,

N. Considerando, no obstante, el ?nfasis en el hecho de que una parte cada vez mayor del trabajo de las Naciones Unidas sobre cuestiones pol?ticas y de seguridad es esencialmente no militar y se refiere especialmente a la relaci?n entre comercio, ayuda, medio ambiente y desarrollo sostenible,

O. Considerando que existe una urgente necesidad de movilizar recursos adecuados para hacer frente a los retos medioambientales y observando que los recursos disponibles para la protecci?n del medio ambiente son muy limitados, lo cual obliga a una nueva forma de pensar en lo que respecta a la utilizaci?n de los recursos existentes;

P. Observando que, a la vez que se liberan los recursos militares, se ofrece a los militares la oportunidad ?nica de contribuir con su enorme capacidad a los esfuerzos civiles para enfrentarse a los crecientes problemas medioambientales;

Q. Constatando que los recursos militares son recursos nacionales y que el desaf?o medioambiental es global; que, por consiguiente, existe la necesidad de encontrar formas de cooperaci?n internacional para la reasignaci?n y utilizaci?n de recursos militares en favor del medio ambiente;

R. Observando que los costes a corto plazo de la protecci?n del medio ambiente deben compararse con los costes a largo plazo que implicar?a la falta de acci?n en este ?mbito, y que existe una creciente necesidad de realizar un an?lisis de la relaci?n coste/beneficio de las distintas estrategias medioambientales, que deber?a incluir potenciales reasignaciones, reorientaciones y transferencias de recursos militares;

S. Considerando que el objetivo com?n de reparar el da?ado ecosistema terrestre no puede conseguirse sin tenerse en cuenta tambi?n la cuesti?n de una utilizaci?n justa de los recursos globales, y que existe la necesidad de facilitar la cooperaci?n t?cnica internacional y apoyar la transferencia de tecnolog?as militares adecuadas;

T. Considerando que, pese a los convenios existentes, la investigaci?n en el sector militar sigue basandose en la manipulaci?n medioambiental como arma, tal y como pone, por ejemplo, de manifiesto el sistema HAARP con base en Alaska,

U. Considerando que la experiencia adquirida con el desarrollo y la utilizaci?n de la energ?a nuclear "para fines pac?ficos" constituye una advertencia contra la invocaci?n del secreto militar para impedir una evaluaci?n y supervisi?n claras de las tecnolog?as combinadas civil/militar cuando la transparencia se encuentra, en cualquier caso, comprometida,

V. Considerando que la inquietud general sobre la degradaci?n ecol?gica y las crisis medioambientales exigen prioridades en la toma de decisiones nacionales y que el conjunto de las naciones debe reaccionar de forma eficaz ante las cat?strofes medioambientales.

1. Pide a la Comisi?n que presente al Consejo y al Parlamento una estrategia com?n tal como se prev? en el Tratado de Amsterdam, que a?ne los aspectos de la PESC en la pol?tica de la UE con el comercio, la ayuda al desarrollo y las pol?ticas internacionales en materia de medio ambiente entre los a?os 2000 y 2010 con el fin de hacer frente a las siguientes cuestiones y a su interrelaci?n:

a) producci?n agr?cola y alimentaria y degradaci?n del medio ambiente;

b) escasez de agua y suministro transfronterizo de agua;

c) deforestaci?n y restablecimiento de las cuencas carbon?feras;

d) desempleo, subempleo y pobreza absoluta;

e) desarrollo sostenible y cambio clim?tico;

f) deforestaci?n, desertizaci?n y aumento de la poblaci?n;

g) la relaci?n entre estas cuestiones con el calentamiento del planeta y el impacto humanitario y medioambiental de acontecimientos clim?ticos cada vez m?s extremos;

2. Constata que las acciones medioambientales preventivas son un instrumento importante de la pol?tica de seguridad; pide en consecuencia a los Estados miembros que establezcan objetivos medioambientales y sanitarios en sus evaluaciones, investigaci?n militar y planes de acci?n a largo plazo en el ?mbito de la defensa y de la seguridad;

3. Reconoce el importante papel del ej?rcito en la sociedad democr?tica y sus tareas en la defensa nacional, as? como el hecho de que las iniciativas destinadas a garantizar y fomentar la paz pueden contribuir de forma considerable a evitar los da?os en el medio ambiente;

4. Considera que las pruebas nucleares atmosf?ricas y subterr?neas han diseminado, como consecuencia de la lluvia radiactiva, importantes cantidades de cesio-137 radiactivo, estroncio 90 y otros is?topos cancer?genos en todo el planeta y han ocasionado importantes perjuicios medioambientales y para la salud en las zonas en que se han realizado las pruebas;

5. Considera que algunas partes del mundo se encuentran amenazadas por el almacenamiento y la inmersi?n incontrolados, inseguros y poco profesionales de los submarinos nucleares, as? como por su combustible radiactivo y las fugas de los reactores nucleares; considera que, a causa de ello, son muchas las posibilidades de que grandes regiones puedan verse pronto contaminadas por la radiaci?n;

6. Considera que todav?a se ha de encontrar una soluci?n adecuada al problema de las armas qu?micas y convencionales sumergidas despu?s de las dos guerras mundiales en numerosos puntos de los mares que rodean a Europa como una soluci?n "f?cil" para deshacerse de estas reservas, sin que nadie sepa todav?a hoy en d?a cu?les pueden ser las repercusiones ecol?gicas a largo plazo, en particular para la fauna marina y la vida costera;

7. Considera que la Uni?n Europea deber? contribuir a encontrar una soluci?n al problema de que, como consecuencia de las actuales guerras en regiones enteras de ?frica, se hayan arruinado estructuras agr?colas y humanas, con lo que las tierras est?n sufriendo ahora un desastre medioambiental, en particular a causa de la deforestaci?n y la erosi?n, con la consiguiente desertificaci?n;

8. Pide, en consecuencia, al ej?rcito que ponga fin a todas aquellas actividades que contribuyen a perjudicar el medio ambiente y la salud y que tomen todas las medidas necesarias para limpiar y descontaminar las zonas contaminadas;

Utilizaci?n de recursos militares con fines medioambientales

9. Considera que los recursos disponibles para restablecer y preservar el medio ambiente deteriorado no son suficientes para hacer frente a la amenaza ecol?gica mundial y, por consiguiente, pide a los Estados miembros que utilicen los recursos militares en favor del medio ambiente mediante la adopci?n de medidas destinadas a:

a) establecer una formaci?n de soldados del medio ambiente, con vistas a crear una brigada medioambiental coordinada a nivel europeo;

b) realizar un inventario de sus necesidades medioambientales y de los recursos militares disponibles para fines medioambientales y utilizar dichos recursos en los planes medioambientales nacionales;

c) examinar los recursos militares que se pueden poner a disposici?n de las Naciones Unidas

o de la Uni?n Europea, de forma puntual, a largo plazo o listos para intervenir en caso de necesidad, como instrumento de la cooperaci?n internacional ante cat?strofes o crisis medioambientales;

d) desarrollar planes para la creaci?n de grupos de protecci?n internacionales y europeos con utilizaci?n de personal, equipos e instalaciones del sector militar, que est?n disponibles en el marco de la Asociaci?n por la paz para su intervenci?n en situaciones de emergencia relacionadas con el medio ambiente;

e) integrar en su concepto de seguridad los objetivos de conservaci?n del medio ambiente y desarrollo sostenible;

f) garantizar que el sector militar respete determinadas normas medioambientales y se corrijan los efectos de los da?os medioambientales debidos a actividades militares;

g) tomar en consideraci?n el medio ambiente en sus programas militares de investigaci?n y desarrollo;

10. Pide a los Estados miembros de la Uni?n Europea que, dado que las experiencias pr?cticas en este ?mbito son limitadas:

a) establezcan centros de intercambio de informaci?n sobre experiencias nacionales de aplicaci?n medioambiental de recursos militares;

b) faciliten la divulgaci?n mundial de informaci?n medioambiental, incluyendo la informaci?n que se consigue a trav?s de sat?lites militares y otras plataformas de recogida de informaci?n;

11. Pide a los Estados miembros que apliquen a la actividad militar la legislaci?n medioambiental aplicable a la sociedad civil y que el sector militar se responsabilice y financie la investigaci?n, el saneamiento y descontaminaci?n de las zonas da?adas por anteriores actividades militares, de manera que dichas zonas puedan volver a ser utilizadas con fines civiles, lo cual es especialmente importante en lo que se refiere a los grandes dep?sitos de municiones qu?micas y convencionales a lo largo de las costas de la UE;

12. Pide a todos los Estados miembros que establezcan objetivos medioambientales y sanitarios y planes de acci?n para mejorar la protecci?n del medio ambiente y la salud en el ?mbito de sus fuerzas armadas respectivas;

13. Pide a los Gobiernos de los Estados miembros que mejoren la seguridad medioambiental en el ?mbito militar mediante la formaci?n, el desarrollo tecnol?gico y una formaci?n medioambiental b?sica de todo el personal militar y de remplazo;

14. Pide a la Uni?n Europea que una sus esfuerzos para establecer una nueva estrategia medioambiental en la que se utilicen recursos militares para una protecci?n del medio ambiente com?n;

15. Considera que las estrategias medioambientales deben incluir la vigilancia del medio ambiente mundial, la evaluaci?n de la informaci?n recogida, la coordinaci?n del trabajo cient?fico y la divulgaci?n de la informaci?n, aprovechando la informaci?n relevante de los sistemas de alerta y vigilancia nacionales, con el fin de disponer de una visi?n de conjunto permanente de la situaci?n medioambiental;

16. Subraya que la importante reducci?n de los gastos militares puede dar lugar a problemas regionales graves y pide a los Estados miembros que intensifiquen sus esfuerzos con vistas a reconvertir la producci?n y la tecnolog?a militar para fines civiles mediante programas nacionales e iniciativas comunitarias como el programa KONVER;

17. Subraya la importancia de reforzar el trabajo medioambiental preventivo con el fin de poder enfrentarse a las cat?strofes naturales y medioambientales;

18. Pide a la Comisi?n que elabore un estudio exhaustivo de las amenazas medioambientales para la seguridad en Europa y que elabore un "libro verde" sobre las repercusiones en el medio ambiente de la actividad militar;

19. Insta al Consejo a que intervenga en?rgicamente para que los EEUU, Rusia, India y China firmen sin demora el Convenio de Ottawa de 1997 sobre la prohibici?n y destrucci?n de minas antipersonas.

20. Considera que la UE debe ayudar en mayor medida a las v?ctimas de las minas, apoyar el desarrollo de tecnolog?as para la retirada de minas y acelerar el desarrollo de m?todos de retirada de minas;

21. Considera que debe lucharse contra el secreto que rodea la investigaci?n militar y que debe promoverse el derecho de transparencia y control democr?tico de los proyectos de investigaci?n militar;

22. Pide a los Estados miembros que desarrollen tecnolog?as limpias y ecol?gicas para la destrucci?n de armas;

23. Subraya que una de las amenazas medioambientales m?s graves en zonas pr?ximas a la UE es la falta de control de los residuos de la industria nuclear, de las existencias de armas biol?gicas y qu?micas, as? como el saneamiento de zonas en las que se han desarrollado actividades militares; subraya que es importante que los Estados miembros act?en en favor del refuerzo de la cooperaci?n internacional, por ejemplo en el marco de las Naciones Unidas

o de la Asociaci?n por la Paz, con vistas a destruir estas armas de una manera tan respetuosa con la protecci?n del medio ambiente como sea posible;

24. Considera que todas las negociaciones que se celebren en el futuro sobre la reducci?n y posible eliminaci?n de las armas nucleares deber?n basarse en los principios relativos a los compromisos contra?dos para una reducci?n mutua y equilibrada;

25. Considera que, dadas las circunstancias de especial dificultad que afectan a los pa?ses de la antigua Uni?n Sovi?tica, la amenaza al medio ambiente mundial y local planteada por la degradaci?n de las condiciones de las armas y materiales nucleares a?n en posesi?n de estos pa?ses hace m?s urgente la prioridad de alcanzar un acuerdo sobre la eliminaci?n progresiva de las armas nucleares;

Aspectos jur?dicos de la actividad militar

26. Pide a la Uni?n Europea que act?e de manera que las tecnolog?as de armas denominadas no letales y el desarrollo de nuevas estrategias de armas est?n cubiertas y reguladas por convenios internacionales;

27. Considera que el HAARP (Programa de Investigaci?n de Alta Frecuencia Auroral Activa) es un asunto de inter?s mundial debido a sus considerables repercusiones sobre el medio ambiente y exige que los aspectos jur?dicos, ecol?gicos y ?ticos sean investigados por un ?rgano internacional independiente antes de continuar la investigaci?n y los ensayos; lamenta que el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos se haya negado reiteradamente a enviar a un representante que preste declaraci?n, ante la audiencia p?blica o cualquier reuni?n posterior que celebre su comisi?n competente, sobre los riesgos medioambientales y para la poblaci?n del Programa de Investigaci?n de Alta Frecuencia Auroral Activa (HAARP) que se est? financiando en la actualidad en Alaska;

28. Pide que el grupo encargado de evaluar las opciones cient?ficas y tecnol?gicas (STOA) acepte examinar las pruebas cient?ficas y t?cnicas disponibles en todos las conclusiones de las investigaciones que se est?n llevando a cabo en la actualidad sobre el programa HAARP, con el objeto de evaluar la naturaleza exacta y el grado de riesgo de este programa para el medio ambiente local y mundial, as? como para la salud p?blica en general;

29. Pide a la Comisi?n que, en colaboraci?n con los Gobiernos de Suecia, Finlandia, Noruega y la Federaci?n Rusa, examine las repercusiones medioambientales y para la salud p?blica del programa HAARP para el Ant?rtico y que le informe de sus conclusiones;

30. Pide, en particular, que se celebre un convenio internacional para la prohibici?n global de toda la investigaci?n y desarrollo, ya sea militar o civil, que tenga como finalidad aplicar los conocimientos qu?micos, el?ctricos, de vibraci?n de sonido u otro tipo de funcionamiento del cerebro humano al desarrollo de armas que puedan permitir cualquier forma de manipulaci?n de seres humanos, incluyendo la prohibici?n de cualquier despliegue actual o posible de dichos sistemas;

31. Pide a la Uni?n Europea y a sus Estados miembros que se esfuercen por conseguir un acuerdo internacional para, en caso de guerra, proteger al medio ambiente de da?os innecesarios;

32. Pide a la Uni?n Europea y sus Estados miembros que act?en en favor del establecimiento de normas internacionales aplicables a la actividad militar en tiempo de paz en relaci?n con sus repercusiones sobre el medio ambiente;

33. Pide al Consejo de la UE que act?e en favor de la aplicaci?n de las propuestas de la Comisi?n de Camberra y del art?culo 6 del Acuerdo de no proliferaci?n sobre eliminaci?n de armas nucleares;

34. Pide al Consejo, y en particular a los Gobiernos del Reino Unido y de Francia, que tomen la iniciativa en el marco del TNP y de la Conferencia sobre Desarme de proseguir las negociaciones destinadas a lograr la plena aplicaci?n de los compromisos sobre reducci?n y eliminaci?n de armas nucleares lo m?s r?pidamente posible hasta un nivel provisional en el que las existencias mundiales de armas nucleares no planteen una amenaza a la integridad y sostenibilidad del medio ambiente mundial;

35. Pide a la Presidencia del Consejo, a la Comisi?n y a los Gobiernos de los Estados miembros que aboguen en favor del enfoque adoptado en esta resoluci?n en todas las pr?ximas reuniones de las Naciones Unidas que se celebren bajo los auspicios o en el marco del TNP, as? como de la Conferencia sobre desarme;

36. Pide a la Presidencia del Consejo y a la Comisi?n que, de conformidad con el art?culo J.7 del Tratado de la Uni?n Europea, informen sobre la posici?n de la Uni?n respecto a los puntos espec?ficos incluidos en la presente resoluci?n en el contexto de las pr?ximas sesiones de las Naciones Unidas, sus agencias y organismos, especialmente el Comit? preparatorio del TNP de 1999, la Conferencia sobre Desarme y otros foros internacionales relevantes;

37. Encarga a su Presidente que transmita la presente resoluci?n al Consejo, a la Comisi?n, a los Estados miembros y a las Naciones Unidas.

(1) () DO C 183 de 17.7.1995, p?g. 47 (A4-0149/95).
(2) () DO C 141 de 13.5.1996, p?g. 258 (A4-0100/96).




B. EXPOSICI?N DE MOTIVOS

Una defensa contra los peligros medioambientales

La situaci?n en materia de pol?tica de seguridad ha cambiado considerablemente en un tiempo relativamente corto. Hace menos de 10 a?os el tel?n de acero atravesaba una Europa saturada de armas nucleares. Actualmente, Europa se unifica y la Uni?n Europea se est? ampliando para incluir a los antiguos pa?ses del Pacto de Varsovia. La guerra fr?a ha terminado y una guerra generalizada en Europa parece hoy d?a imposible. Simult?neamente, surgen nuevos peligros. Los importantes flujos de refugiados, los antagonismos ?tnicos, el terrorismo y la delincuencia internacional son algunos ejemplos de las actuales amenazas a la seguridad. Otra grave amenaza la constituyen las cat?strofes naturales y los problemas medioambientales, causados por la propia naturaleza y por la manera en que los hombres utilizan los recursos naturales.

Una serie de cat?strofes ecol?gicas han situado a la humanidad ante nuevos problemas; el ?ltimo caso fue el accidente de la presa en Espa?a. La erosi?n de la tierra en Italia, los estragos causados por el fen?meno natural El Ni?o y el accidente nuclear de Chernobil son otros ejemplos actuales de las terribles consecuencias de las cat?strofes naturales y ecol?gicas. En algunas partes del mundo la sequ?a ha destruido las cosechas de varios a?os, con sus consecuencias de hambre y muerte de gran parte de la poblaci?n. La defensa de la humanidad ante estas cat?strofes es hoy en d?a muy d?bil.

Las cat?strofes naturales y ecol?gicas suponen una tragedia para las personas concretas y pueden tener consecuencias catastr?ficas para la sociedad y para todas las naciones. Los costes que este tipo de cat?strofes producen son considerables, tanto en t?rminos de vidas humanas como en recursos para restaurar los da?os materiales. Cada vez que ocurre una de estas cat?strofes resulta evidente que no existen suficientes recursos para detectarla y/o prevenirla. Los esfuerzos se realizan normalmente demasiado tarde. Por consiguiente, debe reforzarse el trabajo preventivo. El esfuerzo que se exige para ello es enorme y los recursos disponibles son muy limitados. Esto exige una nueva manera de pensar para utilizar los recursos disponibles, a la vez que se echa mano de nuevos recursos. Es evidente que una naci?n por s? misma no puede enfrentarse a las cat?strofes ecol?gicas y que los problemas medioambientales exigen que las naciones colaboren. Las amenazas son mundiales y la cooperaci?n internacional es fundamental.

Los problemas ecol?gicos locales y regionales pueden tener consecuencias importantes para las relaciones internacionales. La lluvia radiactiva, las inundaciones o la sequ?a no se detienen ante las fronteras nacionales. Los refugiados medioambientales cruzan las fronteras nacionales hacia naciones igual o m?s pobres. Estas nuevas causas de inestabilidad e inseguridad deben reflejarse en el contenido y la forma del modo en que las naciones crean y mantienen la paz y la seguridad. Dado que los problemas medioambientales y ecol?gicos constituyen graves amenazas para la paz y la seguridad, estos problemas deben reflejarse en la pol?tica exterior, de defensa y de seguridad. Existe la necesidad de analizar la manera en que los recursos militares pueden utilizarse contra esta creciente amenaza y para eliminar estas nuevas fuentes de inestabilidad e inseguridad. Existe una necesidad urgente de movilizar recursos para hacer frente al desaf?o medioambiental.

El cambio de la situaci?n en la pol?tica de seguridad ha dado como resultado la distensi?n militar, el desarme y medidas de confianza entre los antiguos enemigos EE.UU. y Rusia. Esto ha resultado en una reducci?n sustancial de fuerzas militares y en la disoluci?n de unidades militares y esto a su vez ha hecho que el material militar se haya convertido en superfluo. Especialmente Rusia y los EE.UU. han reducidos sustancialmente su defensa militar, pero tambi?n en Europa se han reducido los gastos militares (1).

La liberaci?n de recursos militares proporciona a los militares una oportunidad ?nica y una gran capacidad para enfrentarse a los crecientes problemas medioambientales. Los militares tienen una excelente organizaci?n y considerables recursos t?cnicos que pueden utilizarse sin grandes costes para fines de protecci?n del medio ambiente. Esto se puede conseguir mediante una reasignaci?n o transferencia de recursos. La Uni?n Europea puede unirse en torno a una nueva estrategia medioambiental en la que los recursos militares se utilicen en una defensa medioambiental com?n. La Uni?n Europea puede jugar un importante papel de promoci?n de una responsabilidad ecol?gica mundial y, al mismo tiempo, fomentar la paz y la confianza.

Los Estados miembros de la Uni?n Europea disponen de los requisitos t?cnicos y econ?micos para asumir una responsabilidad medioambiental considerable. Tambi?n saben lo que significar?a hacer caso omiso del desaf?o medioambiental. El deterioro ecol?gico influye en las condiciones de crecimiento y desarrollo econ?mico, pero, a pesar de ello, los gastos militares mundiales son de 3 a 5 veces superiores a los gastos de protecci?n del medio ambiente (2).

El sector militar en s? mismo constituye un importante factor de destrucci?n medioambiental. Por esta raz?n, deben asumir una especial responsabilidad con el medio ambiente.

Las modernas amenazas a la seguridad

Existe una conciencia internacional cada vez mayor sobre la importancia de los problemas medioambientales, como lo muestran las conferencias de seguimiento de las Naciones Unidas sobre el agua (Mar del Plata), la desertificaci?n (Nairobi), el medio ambiente y el desarrollo (R?o de Janeiro) y los cambios clim?ticos (Kyoto). Los problemas medioambientales pueden dar lugar a problemas tan graves que pueden poner en peligro la seguridad de las personas y de los Estados. Los problemas medioambientales tambi?n pueden tener consecuencias para las relaciones entre los Estados. El aire y el agua no se detienen ante las fronteras nacionales. Veamos algunos ejemplos concretos de amenazas medioambientales potenciales o existentes:

Recursos acu?feros limitados

A la vez que aumenta la poblaci?n mundial, aumenta tambi?n la demanda de agua limpia. El agua dulce es un recurso natural repartido muy desigualmente, menos de 10 pa?ses poseen el 60% de los recursos mundiales de agua dulce (3) y algunos Estados de Europa dependen de las importaciones de agua. En futuros conflictos, un ataque contra las fuentes de agua dulce puede ser no s?lo un objetivo en s? mismo sino tambi?n la causa de conflictos. Los conflictos sobre qui?n tiene derecho al agua pueden resultar en una mayor tensi?n internacional, as? como en conflictos locales y/o internacionales. Por ejemplo, las disputas sobre el r?o Indo podr?an desencadenar un conflicto armado en las tensas relaciones entre la India y el Pakist?n. La lista de potenciales conflictos causados por el agua puede hacerse muy larga. Se calcula que 300 r?os, lagos y fuentes de agua subterr?nea se encuentran en zonas fronterizas internacionales (4). En el Oriente Medio 9 de 14 pa?ses tienen escasez de agua y existe el peligro real de que los otros pa?ses puedan verse afectados (5). En 1995 una quinta parte de la poblaci?n mundial no ten?a acceso a agua limpia y se calcula que esta cifra aumentar? en el a?o 1995 (6).

Cambios clim?ticos

La temperatura de la Tierra ha aumentado 5? en este siglo debido a un aumento de las emisiones, sobre todo de di?xido de carbono (7). El calor tambi?n se ha hecho m?s intenso. Los investigadores han descubierto que la humedad del aire ha aumentado en un 10% en los ?ltimos 20 a?os. La mayor humedad del aire puede ser la causa de que en algunas zonas se produzcan tormentas cada vez m?s fuertes y con mayor frecuencia, a la vez que otras zonas se ven afectadas por la sequ?a. Se necesitar?n dos d?cadas de investigaci?n intensa sobre los cambios clim?ticos mundiales para poder tomar decisiones m?s concretas sobre las medidas que es necesario adoptar.

El Panel Intergubernamental sobre el cambio clim?tico (IPCC), una organizaci?n internacional con 2.000 de los m?s eminentes investigadores del mundo, prev? que las temperaturas de la tierra aumentar?n entre 1,5 y 4,5 grados y que el nivel del mar se habr? elevado en 50 cm para el a?o 2100 si las emisiones de di?xido de carbono contin?an como hasta ahora. Se calcula que un tercio de la poblaci?n mundial y algo m?s de un tercio de las infraestructuras se encuentran en las zonas costeras del mundo. Un aumento del nivel del mar sumergir?a extensas zonas y varios millones de personas estar?an afectadas por el hambre debido a la p?rdida de grandes extensiones agr?colas.

Estas y otras amenazas medioambientales pueden dar lugar a un ?xodo de refugiados. Cada vez en mayor medida los refugiados medioambientales est?n siendo objeto de la atenci?n internacional. Se calcula que 25 millones de personas son refugiados de la sequ?a, la erosi?n terrestre, la desertificaci?n y otros problemas medioambientales, frente a 22 millones de refugiados "tradicionales". Los refugiados medioambientales pueden, seg?n los expertos, ser la causa de una de las peores crisis humanitarias de nuestra ?poca (8). Estos refugiados sufren problemas sociales, pol?ticos y econ?micos que pueden dar lugar a conflictos y violencia. Debe reconocerse oficialmente a los refugiados medioambientales. Es necesaria una mayor cooperaci?n internacional para limitar estos problemas y una mayor ayuda a los pa?ses afectados y a sus habitantes.

Impacto militar sobre el medio ambiente en ?poca de guerra y de paz

La actividad militar es la causa de una considerable destrucci?n medioambiental en la sociedad. Las actividades militares tienen consecuencias muy negativas para el medio ambiente, tanto en tiempo de paz como en tiempo de guerra, tanto intencionalmente como de manera no deseada. La destrucci?n del medio ambiente ha sido desde la antig?edad un m?todo de guerra. La guerra tambi?n constituye la amenaza m?s grave para el medio ambiente. Un ejemplo actual son las devastadoras consecuencias de la guerra del Golfo, con cientos de pozos de petr?leo en llamas y grandes cantidades de sustancias t?xicas liberadas en la atm?sfera de forma incontrolada. Pasar? mucho tiempo hasta que se restablezca el medio ambiente. Algunos de los da?os pueden ser irreparables.

Los militares desarrollan armas cada vez m?s potentes que producen extensos y devastadores da?os en el medio ambiente. Una guerra moderna conlleva mayores da?os medioambientales que cualquier otra actividad perjudicial para el medio ambiente. A continuaci?n se describen algunos sistemas de armas que pueden tener consecuencias graves para el medio ambiente tambi?n en tiempo de paz.

Minas

Las minas son enormemente da?inas para el medio ambiente. Seg?n el programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente (PNUMA) las minas terrestres son unos de los restos de material de guerra m?s extendido y puede afectar al equilibrio ecol?gico. La colocaci?n de minas puede destruir extensas zonas, a menudo zonas agr?colas, que durante mucho tiempo ser?n inutilizables. Las minas constituyen el mayor obst?culo para el desarrollo en muchas de las zonas m?s pobres del mundo. Hay colocadas entre 80 y 110 millones de minas en 65 pa?ses, que pueden detonar d?cadas despu?s de su colocaci?n y la mayor?a de las v?ctimas son civiles, sobre todo ni?os. El levantamiento de minas es un proceso peligroso, lento y costoso. El desarrollo de nuevos m?todos de levantamiento de minas se est? produciendo muy lentamente y debe acelerarse.

Un dato positivo es que la Conferencia de Oslo de 1997 tuvo como resultado la prohibici?n sin excepci?n de todas las minas antipersonas, la obligaci?n de destruir las existencias de minas (9) en un plazo de 4 a?os y la concesi?n de mayor ayuda a los pa?ses afectados por las minas. Un gran n?mero de Estados firm? el Convenio de Ottawa de 1997, pero algunos Estados, entre los que se encuentran los EE.UU., Rusia, India y China, no lo han hecho. La Uni?n Europea debe actuar para que estos pa?ses se adhieran al acuerdo. La Uni?n Europea debe ayudar en mayor medida a las v?ctimas de las minas y apoyar el desarrollo de t?cnicas de levantamiento de minas.

Armas denominadas no letales(10)

Las denominadas armas no letales no son un nuevo tipo de armas sino que han existido en muchos a?os en forma de, por ejemplo, ca?ones de agua, balas de goma y gas lacrim?geno. Pero actualmente se han desarrollado t?cnicas m?s avanzadas que, a pesar de que pueden causar da?os graves e incluso la invalidez o la muerte, se denominan no letales.

Se han desarrollado tecnolog?as contra material y contra personas. Un ejemplo son las armas ac?sticas que, al producir un ruido de bajo nivel, pueden confundir y desorientar, y de esa manera neutralizar, al enemigo. Otros ejemplos son la espuma adhesiva y el l?ser cegador. Los productos qu?micos que decoloran el agua pueden afectar tanto a la agricultura como a la poblaci?n. Mediante rayos electromagn?ticos se pueden destruir los sistemas de informaci?n, navegaci?n y comunicaci?n del enemigo. Las denominadas amas no letales tambi?n pueden utilizarse contra las infraestructuras y las autoridades de un Estado, pueden destruir el sistema de ferrocarril o producir el caos en el sector financiero de un pa?s. La caracter?stica com?n de estas armas es que tienen como objetivo retrasar, obstruir y vencer a un potencial enemigo a "nivel estrat?gico"(11).

El hecho de que estos tipos de armas se conozcan con la denominaci?n com?n de no letales es gravemente enga?oso. La denominaci?n de "no letales" pretende presentar estas armas como m?s humanas que las armas convencionales -pero no hay armas humanas. La utilizaci?n de un tipo de armas constituye un peligro de da?os o muerte que es precisamente el objetivo de las armas. Las denominadas armas no letales se aplicar?an en los primeros momentos de un conflicto y pueden en s? mismas ser la causa del conflicto. El recurso a la violencia por parte de soldados y polic?as puede aumentar debido a que las armas se presentan como menos peligrosas. Existe el riesgo real de que estas armas reduzcan el umbral del recurso a la violencia para la soluci?n de conflictos.

El objetivo es neutralizar al enemigo sin sufrimientos prolongados y sin muertes. Pero c?mo y contra qui?n se utilizar?n las armas no letales es un aspecto importante para los efectos que puedan tener dichas armas. Un arma que puede neutralizar a un soldado puede herir e incluso matar a un ni?o o a una persona anciana. La distancia a la que se disparen y en qu? cantidad son otros factores que hay que tener en cuenta al calcular los efectos de las armas. Como punto de referencia se puede mencionar que las armas convencionales "s?lo" producen un 25% de muertes (12).

Las denominadas armas no letales se utilizan como medio efectivo en la guerra moderna, aisladamente o junto con las armas convencionales. Por ejemplo, los EE.UU. utilizaron armas de radiofrecuencia en la guerra del Golfo para destruir el sistema energ?tico de Iraq (13), a pesar de que no se conoc?an los efectos antipersonas de las armas de radiofrecuencia. Por lo tanto, las armas no letales no deben considerarse separadamente sino como un componente de un sistema letal. El desarrollo de las denominadas armas no letales ofrece un mayor n?mero de opciones en la guerra. El resultado es, por lo tanto, una mayor utilizaci?n de la fuerza en lugar de lo contrario. Las denominadas armas no letales no dan como resultado conflictos no letales.

A la vez que se desarrollan m?s tipos de armas no letales, aumenta el inter?s de los militares, la polic?a y el ?mbito pol?tico de probar la manera en que funcionan. Las armas no letales no deben utilizarse como un instrumento de interferencia y dominio pol?tico de los pa?ses del norte sobre los pa?ses del sur.

Hace falta una legislaci?n efectiva para las armas no letales. S?lo una peque?a parte de las armas y t?cnicas no letales pueden prohibirse en virtud de la interpretaci?n de normas de control de armas, por ejemplo la espuma adhesiva, que se utiliz? en Somalia y Bosnia. Algunos tipos de l?ser (el l?ser cegador) tambi?n se ha limitado en el Convenio sobre determinadas armas convencionales. Las toxinas biol?gicas (por ejemplo, la salmonela y otras bacterias) est?n prohibidas por el Convenio sobre armas biol?gicas. Algunas de estas armas tienen graves consecuencias para el medio ambiente. Por consiguiente la legislaci?n internacional debe reforzarse para regular las nuevas armas que siguen desarroll?ndose.

El proyecto Cyrus del Comit? de la Cruz Roja Internacional podr?a utilizarse a falta de otras normas internacionales adecuadas para las armas no letales. El proyecto Cyrus ha clasificado y establecido criterios m?s estrictos para las armas convencionales en lo que se refiere a mortalidad, invalidez, tratamiento necesario, transfusi?n de sangre, etc. La Uni?n Europea debe actuar de manera que los convenios internacionales regulen tambi?n las nuevas tecnolog?as de armas y el desarrollo de nuevas estrategias de armas.

Armas qu?micas

Las medidas de las Naciones Unidas destinadas a destruir las armas qu?micas y otros tipos de armas de destrucci?n masiva en Iraq ha producido una grave preocupaci?n sobre las repercusiones medioambientales de las actividades militares y ha subrayado la necesidad de buscar m?todos ecol?gicos para neutralizar las armas. El convenio sobre armas qu?micas (CWC) entr? en vigor en abril de 1997. El art?culo 1 obliga a los Estados que han ratificado el convenio a no desarrollar, producir o exportar armas qu?micas en ninguna circunstancia. Tambi?n obliga a no utilizar armas qu?micas y a destruir las armas qu?micas existentes. En virtud del art?culo 3, los Estados deber?n notificar, en un plazo de 30 d?as tras la entrada en vigor del convenio, informaci?n sobre la posesi?n de armas qu?micas y su localizaci?n, as? como presentar un plan para la destrucci?n de dichas armas. La destrucci?n debe comenzar con las existencias m?s antiguas. 165 Estados han firmado el convenio y 110 lo han ratificado. 26 Estados no han firmado el convenio, entre ellos algunos pa?ses importantes del Oriente Medio.

La destrucci?n de armas qu?micas ha dado lugar a una grave preocupaci?n por el medio ambiente - estas armas representan decenas de miles de toneladas de gas de mostaza, gas nervioso y otras sustancias qu?micas. Las armas qu?micas pueden destruirse mediante incineraci?n, pero muy pocos pa?ses tienen instalaciones adecuadas para ello. La neutralizaci?n de las armas qu?micas es un proceso caro, entre 3 y 10 veces m?s caro que el proceso de producci?n de dichas armas. Para que Rusia, que tiene existencias muy importantes, pueda hacerlo, es necesaria la ayuda econ?mica de otros pa?ses. En Kambarka, una ciudad rusa, se encuentran 6.000 toneladas de armas qu?micas almacenadas en construcciones de madera a 2 kil?metros de una zona muy poblada. El tratamiento de estas cantidades de sustancias peligrosas exige esfuerzos importantes y el proceso durar? algunos a?os. Existe un claro riesgo de que se produzcan accidentes o de que las armas caigan en poder de destinatarios no deseados.

Se ha confirmado que aproximadamente 150.000 toneladas de bombas, obuses y minas con armas qu?micas, principalmente gas de mostaza, fosgeno, tabun y ars?nico, se depositaron en Skagerack al final de la segunda guerra mundial. En el Mar B?ltico la cifra es de 40.000 toneladas. Muchos de los contenedores se encuentran completamente oxidados y las armas qu?micas est?n en contacto directo con el agua del mar. De todas formas, se ha decidido que deben permanecer en el fondo del mar ya que el riesgo de recuperarlas se considera a?n mayor.

Armas nucleares

Las repercusiones medioambientales de las armas nucleares podr?an ser enormes. Es probable que el efecto combinado de la lluvia radiactiva en extensas zonas, el deterioro de la capa de ozono por los ?xidos de nitr?geno de las explosiones nucleares y el cambio clim?tico producido por extensos y continuos incendios dar?a lugar a graves cat?strofes ecol?gicas en grandes zonas del planeta.

Los ensayos nucleares tienen tambi?n efectos perjudiciales sobre el medio ambiente. La cantidad total de radiactividad liberada a la atm?sfera en los ensayos atmosf?ricos se calcula entre 100 y 1.000 veces mayor que la producida en Chernobil (14). El acuerdo de 1963 entre los EE.UU., la URSS y el Reino Unido sobre prohibici?n parcial de ensayos nucleares proh?be los ensayos en la atm?sfera, en el espacio exterior y subacu?ticos, es decir todos los ensayos menos los subterr?neos.

Francia ha realizado 180 ensayos nucleares en el atol?n Mururoa en el Oc?ano Pac?fico desde 1966 con importantes repercusiones sobre el medio ambiente (15). Se ha encontrado una peligrosa cantidad de varios kilos de plutonio en el fondo de las lagunas en Mururoa y Fangataufa. Tambi?n se han esparcido part?culas de plutonio en la tierra de tres islas en las proximidades de Mururoa (16). La India y el Pakist?n tambi?n han realizado recientemente ensayos nucleares (17). Su desarrollo t?cnico no se considera lo suficientemente controlado, lo que supone que los ensayos nucleares pueden tener repercusiones medioambientales en zonas muy lejanas de estas regiones. Debe efectuarse inmediatamente una investigaci?n internacional independiente del impacto medioambiental en los lugares donde se realizaron los ensayos y en las zonas pr?ximas.

El plutonio es ciertamente la sustancia m?s peligrosa que se conoce. Muchos pa?ses poseen grandes cantidades de plutonio militar y pueden producirse armas nucleares de una forma relativamente simple a partir de plutonio "civil". Las instalaciones que actualmente tienen una funci?n civil pueden convertirse r?pidamente en f?bricas de armas. En la fabricaci?n del plutonio se producen grandes cantidades de residuos l?quidos altamente radiactivos. El tratamiento de los residuos radiactivos causa problemas enormes. La producci?n en gran escala de armas de destrucci?n masiva durante las ?ltimas d?cadas ha producido grandes cantidades de residuos. No existe ning?n m?todo adecuado conocido para almacenar los residuos radiactivos. Se almacenan normalmente en contenedores, pero grandes cantidades se liberan en la naturaleza. Los residuos radiactivos son extremadamente inflamables y pueden explotar si no est?n ventilados o refrigerados. En 1957 ocurri? un accidente en la planta nuclear Chelyabinsk-65 cerca de la ciudad de Kystym en los Urales. Un contenedor radiactivo explot? y los residuos radiactivos se extendieron en una zona de 1.000 Km2. Fue preciso evacuar a 10.000 personas. Cerca del lago Karachay, en las proximidades de Chelyabinsk-65, todav?a es posible recibir, situ?ndose simplemente en la orilla del lago, un nivel de radiactividad tal que produce la muerte instant?nea (18).

En la zona del B?ltico existen extensas ?reas contaminadas por antiguas actividades militares sovi?ticas. En Estonia, se encuentra el lago Sillanm?, tambi?n llamado el lago nuclear, que acoge residuos militares radiactivos equivalentes a miles de armas nucleares, el lago Sillanm? se encuentra a 100 metros del mar B?ltico. Cualquier vertido al mar B?ltico podr?a tener consecuencias devastadoras para el medio ambiente en toda la regi?n del B?ltico.

A finales de la d?cada de los ochenta Rusia dispon?a de m?s armas nucleares que todos los dem?s pa?ses juntos. En la pen?nsula de Kola y en Sevrodvinsk en Rusia se encuentra actualmente la mayor concentraci?n de reactores nucleares del mundo (240 unidades) (19). Grandes cantidades de residuos radiactivos y de submarinos nucleares se han almacenado en astilleros de la pen?nsula de Kola. Rusia y la flota rusa se encuentran en una situaci?n imposible para tratar los reactores fuera de servicio. No tienen posibilidades econ?micas para financiar un desmontaje seguro. Los bajos sueldos han tenido como consecuencia que el personal cualificado abandone los astilleros, lo que produce una gran escasez de personal cualificado.

Incluso en el centro de Mosc? se han encontrado 1.200 fuentes de envenenamiento radiactivo, incluyendo canteras de arena, refugios antia?reos, viviendas privadas, garajes e instalaciones deportivas (20). La posibilidad de que Rusia pueda liberarse de las armas nucleares, qu?micas y biol?gicas de los arsenales militares y de las sustancias de los institutos de investigaci?n o la industria no deben subestimarse. Es preocupante que no existan equipos adecuados para tratar los residuos de una forma que respete el medio ambiente. Tanto desde un punto de vista econ?mico como medioambiental cualquier accidente que pueda ocurrir podr?a tener repercusiones devastadoras. Cada a?o que pasa sin haber adoptado medidas suficientes hace que aumente el riesgo y la gravedad de un accidente.

Existe una propuesta concreta y realista para eliminar progresivamente las armas nucleares del mundo. La propuesta fue presentada en agosto de 1996 por el grupo de expertos independiente que constitu?a la Comisi?n de Camberra (21). En julio de 1996 el Tribunal Internacional de la Haya emiti? el dictamen un?nime de que el art?culo 6 del Tratado de no proliferaci?n obliga a los Estados nucleares a iniciar negociaciones sobre el desarme nuclear. El Tribunal tambi?n decidi? que la amenaza de la utilizaci?n de armas nucleares no era conforme con el Derecho internacional. La Uni?n Europea deber?a actuar en favor de la aplicaci?n de la propuesta de la Comisi?n de Camberra y del art?culo 6 del Tratado de no proliferaci?n.

HAARP - un sistema de armas destructor del clima

El 5 de febrero de 1998 la Subcomisi?n de Seguridad y Desarme del Parlamento Europeo celebr? una audiencia sobre, entre otras cosas, el HAARP. Se invit? a representantes de la OTAN y de los EE.UU., pero declinaron la invitaci?n.

La subcomisi?n lamenta que los EE.UU. no enviaran a un representante para responder a las preguntas o aprovechar la oportunidad de comentar el material presentado (22).

El HAARP (Programa de Investigaci?n de Alta Frecuencia Auroral Activa) es un proyecto que llevan a cabo conjuntamente la fuerza a?rea y la marina de los Estados Unidos, junto con el Instituto Geof?sico de la Universidad de Alaska, Fairbanks. Experimentos similares se est?n realizando tambi?n en Noruega, probablemente en el Ant?rtico, as? como en la antigua Uni?n Sovi?tica (23). El HAARP es un proyecto de investigaci?n que utiliza instalaciones terrestres y una red de antenas, cada una equipada con su propio transmisor, para calentar partes de la ionosfera (24) con potentes ondas de radio. La energ?a generada calienta partes de la ionosfera, lo que produce agujeros en la ionosfera y "lentes" artificiales.

El HAARP puede utilizarse para muchos fines. Mediante la manipulaci?n de las caracter?sticas el?ctricas de la ionosfera se puede controlar una gran cantidad de energ?a. Si se utiliza como arma militar, esta energ?a puede tener un impacto devastador sobre el enemigo. El HAARP puede enviar muchos millones m?s de energ?a que cualquier otro transmisor convencional. La energ?a tambi?n puede dirigirse a un blanco m?vil, lo que podr?a constituir un potencial sistema antimisiles.

El proyecto permite tambi?n una mejor comunicaci?n con submarinos y la manipulaci?n de condiciones clim?ticas globales. Ahora bien, tambi?n es posible hacer lo contrario e interferir las comunicaciones. Mediante la manipulaci?n de la ionosfera se pueden bloquear las comunicaciones globales a la vez que se transmiten las propias. Otra aplicaci?n es la penetraci?n de la tierra (tomograf?a) con rayos X a una profundidad de varios kil?metros para detectar campos de petr?leo y gas o instalaciones militares subterr?neas. Otra aplicaci?n es el radar sobre el horizonte, y definir objetivos a larga distancia. De esta manera, se puede detectar la aproximaci?n de objetos m?s all? del horizonte. Desde la d?cada de los cincuenta los EE.UU. han realizado explosiones de material nuclear en los cinturones Van Allen (25) para investigar el efecto de las explosiones nucleares a esa altura sobre las comunicaciones de radio y la operaci?n del radar gracias al pulso electromagn?tico que desprende una explosi?n. Estas explosiones crearon nuevos cinturones de radiaci?n magn?tica que cubrieron pr?cticamente todo el planeta. Los electrones se movieron en l?neas magn?ticas y crearon una Aurora Boreal artificial sobre el Polo Norte. Con estos ensayos militares se corre el peligro de destruir gravemente el cintur?n Van Allen durante mucho tiempo. El campo magn?tico de la tierra puede destruirse sobre grandes extensiones e impedir las comunicaciones por radio. Seg?n cient?ficos norteamericanos. Pueden pasar muchos a?os antes de que el cintur?n Van Allen se estabilice de nuevo. El proyecto HAARP puede resultar en cambios de la situaci?n clim?tica. Tambi?n puede influir en el ecosistema, especialmente en la regi?n sensible del Ant?rtico.

Otra consecuencia grave de HAARP son los agujeros de la ionosfera causados por las potentes ondas de radio. La ionosfera nos protege de la radiaci?n c?smica. Se espera que los agujeros se cierren de nuevo, pero la experiencia con la capa de ozono hace pensar lo contrario. Esto quiere decir que hay agujeros considerables en la ionosfera que nos protege.

Debido a sus considerables efectos sobre el medio ambiente, HAARP es un asunto de inter?s mundial y debe cuestionarse si las ventajas de este sistema realmente son superiores a los riesgos. Hay que investigar los efectos ecol?gicos y ?ticos antes de proseguir con la investigaci?n y los ensayos. HAARP es un proyecto casi desconocido y es importante que la opini?n p?blica sepa de qu? se trata.

El HAARP est? vinculado a 50 a?os de investigaci?n espacial intensiva de marcado car?cter militar, incluyendo el proyecto "guerra de las estrellas", para controlar la alta atm?sfera y las comunicaciones. Este tipo de proyectos deben considerarse como una grave amenaza para el medio ambiente, con un impacto incalculable sobre la vida humana. Incluso ahora, nadie sabe el impacto que podr? tener el proyecto HAARP. Debemos luchar contra el secreto en la investigaci?n militar. Hay que fomentar la transparencia y el acceso democr?tico a los proyectos de investigaci?n militar y el control parlamentario de los mismos.

Una serie de leyes internacionales (el Convenio sobre la prohibici?n de la utilizaci?n militar o de cualquier utilizaci?n hostil de las t?cnicas de modificaci?n el medio ambiente, el Tratado Ant?rtico, el Tratado sobre los principios que rigen las actividades de los Estados en la exploraci?n y utilizaci?n del espacio exterior, incluyendo la luna y otros cuerpos celestes, as? como el Convenio de las Naciones Unidas sobre la ley del mar) ponen en duda no s?lo la base humanitaria y pol?tica del proyecto HAARP sino tambi?n su base jur?dica. El Tratado Ant?rtico dispone que el Ant?rtico debe utilizarse exclusivamente para fines pac?ficos (26). Esto significa que el proyecto HAARP infringe el Derecho internacional. Todas las implicaciones de los nuevos sistemas de armas deben ser investigadas por ?rganos internacionales independientes. Deben elaborarse tambi?n nuevos acuerdos internacionales para proteger al medio ambiente de su destrucci?n innecesaria en tiempo de guerra.

Impacto de las actividades militares sobre el medio ambiente

No s?lo los sistemas de armas sino todas las actividades militares tienen en general consecuencias sobre el medio ambiente, incluso los ejercicios que se realizan en tiempo de paz. Ahora bien, cuando se debate la destrucci?n medioambiental no se menciona en general el papel de los militares, sino que se critica ?nicamente el impacto sobre el medio ambiente de la sociedad civil. Hay por lo menos dos explicaciones de esto (27). Las actividades militares son m?s dif?ciles de discutir debido al secreto que las rodea y es dif?cil enfrentar las m?s altas prioridades nacionales, la seguridad y la defensa, con el medio ambiente. Hoy en d?a, cuando las cat?strofes naturales y medioambientales constituyen una grave amenaza a la seguridad, este argumento se ha vuelto m?s dudoso.

Las fuerzas armadas se esfuerzan en tiempo de paz por prepararse para situaciones de guerra de la manera m?s realista posible. Por ello, realizan sus maniobras en condiciones similares a las condiciones de guerra, lo que implica una enorme presi?n sobre el medio ambiente. Un ejemplo de ello es la retirada de las tropas sovi?ticas y las bases militares abandonadas en la Europa Central y Oriental, que han dejado una profunda huella en el medio ambiente local. Los ejercicios militares implican da?os generalizados al paisaje y a la vida animal. Los ejercicios con tropas someten extensas ?reas de tierra a una destrucci?n medioambiental generalizada. Los campos de ejercicio de la artiller?a y de misiles t?cticos exigen extensas ?reas para fines militares. De la misma manera, la producci?n de municiones y la industria de fabricaci?n de equipos militares causan considerables problemas medioambientales.

Las fuerzas armadas son responsables de la emisi?n de gases que afectan al clima, principalmente di?xido de carbono, pero tambi?n la incineraci?n de combustibles f?siles y las emisiones de freones, que destruyen la capa de ozono (28). El consumo de queroseno es una de las principales fuentes de emisi?n de sustancias acidificantes como los ?xidos de nitr?geno y el ?xido de azufre. Las fuerzas armadas representan una gran parte de todo el consumo de queroseno y producen una gran parte de todas las emisiones de aviones (29). Los aviones que vuelan a gran altitud, as? como los misiles, causan un impacto especialmente perjudicial sobre el medio ambiente, tanto en forma de ruido como de emisiones de combustible. Todos los misiles que utilizan combustible s?lido emiten grandes cantidades de ?cido clorh?drico y cada vuelo de una nave espacial inyecta aproximadamente 75 toneladas de clorina, que destruye el ozono; de la misma manera, el ruido causado por los ejercicios militares en los que se utiliza munici?n de gran calibre puede tambi?n destruir el medio ambiente.

Los ejercicios de tiro contaminan la naturaleza con metales. A menudo se utilizan grandes cantidades de munici?n de peque?o calibre que contiene plomo y se dispersan en la naturaleza grandes cantidades de este metal. Por desgracia, no existe una investigaci?n exhaustiva sobre el consumo de metales.

Las consecuencias en forma de problemas medioambientales causados por el desarme es un fen?meno que s?lo se ha observado recientemente. Cada a?o, se destruyen, principalmente de forma industrial, grandes cantidades de explosivos. La munici?n que, por distintas razones, no puede destruirse de esta manera, debe hacerse explotar. Evidentemente, el desarme es necesario y positivo pero debe efectuarse de una forma que respete el medio ambiente. Deben desarrollarse tecnolog?as limpias para la destrucci?n de armas.

Algunas naciones ya han empezado a aprovechar la oportunidad de utilizar recursos militares para restaurar el medio ambiente destruido por las fuerzas armadas. Todos los sectores de la sociedad deben responsabilizarse del medio ambiente y el sector militar no debe ser una excepci?n. Como en otros sectores de la sociedad, las cuestiones medioambientales deben ser parte integral de las actividades de las fuerzas armadas y deben incluirse en los procesos presupuestario y de toma de decisiones. En mayo de 1993, el programa de las Naciones Unidas para el medio ambiente (PNUMA) instaba a los gobiernos nacionales a establecer leyes nacionales para el sector militar, "aplicaci?n de normas medioambientales a las actividades militares". Finlandia, por ejemplo, ha elaborado un "Libro Verde" para regular el impacto de las actividades militares en el medio ambiente. Lo mismo ha hecho Suecia (30). En junio de 19996, Suecia elabor? tambi?n, junto con los EE.UU., directrices medioambientales para las actividades medioambientales (31). Las fuerzas armadas deben establecer objetivos medioambientales y proponer medidas para contribuir a la reducci?n del impacto sobre el medio ambiente de conformidad con la Agenda 21 y la Declaraci?n de R?o (32). Tambi?n deben presentar informes en los que se definan los factores que afectan al medio ambiente dentro de las fuerzas armadas. Antes de comenzar nuevos proyectos y de adquirir material para uso militar o civil deben realizarse evaluaciones de su impacto ambiental. Cada gobierno debe realizar un inventario de sus necesidades medioambientales y definir los recursos militares que est?n disponibles para fines medioambientales, elaborar planes medioambientales nacionales e informar de su experiencia a un ?rgano adecuado en la Uni?n Europea y de las Naciones Unidas.

Todo el personal militar, incluyendo el personal de reemplazo, debe recibir una formaci?n b?sica en materia de medio ambiente. Las fuerzas armadas de los Estados Unidos han avanzado mucho
Mar 08, 2006
zeist1.jpg
Chemtrails Zeist 2006160 viewsen - English






RAPPORT 155k 116k

14 janvier 1999 PE 227.710/d?f. A4-0005/99

sur l'environnement, la s?curit? et la politique ?trang?re
Rapporteur pour avis ( Proc?dure "Hughes"):
Mr Olsson, commission de l'environnement, de la sant? publique et de la protection des consommateurs
Commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense
Rapporteur: Mme Maj Britt Theorin


Au cours de la s?ance du 13 juillet 1995, le Pr?sident du Parlement a annonc? qu'il avait renvoy? la proposition de r?solution d?pos?e, conform?ment ? l'article 45 du r?glement, par Mme Rehn sur l'utilisation potentielle des ressources ? caract?re militaire pour les strat?gies environnementales, (B4-0551/95) ? la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense, pour examen au fond, et ? la commission de l'environnement, de la sant? publique et de la protection des consommateurs, pour avis.
A. PROPOSITION DE R?SOLUTION
B. EXPOS? DES MOTIFS
Annexe 1
AVIS


Au cours de la s?ance du 13 juillet 1995, le Pr?sident du Parlement a annonc? qu'il avait renvoy? la proposition de r?solution d?pos?e, conform?ment ? l'article 45 du r?glement, par Mme Rehn sur l'utilisation potentielle des ressources ? caract?re militaire pour les strat?gies environnementales, (B4-0551/95) ? la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense, pour examen au fond, et ? la commission de l'environnement, de la sant? publique et de la protection des consommateurs, pour avis.

Suite ? la demande de la Conf?rence des pr?sidents des commissions, le Pr?sident du Parlement a annonc? au cours de la s?ance du 15 novembre 1996 que la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense ?tait autoris?e ? pr?senter un rapport sur ce sujet.

Au cours de sa r?union du 19 novembre 1996,la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense a nomm? Mme Maj Britt Theorin rapporteur.

Au cours de la s?ance du 19 juin 1998, le Pr?sident du Parlement a annonc? que ce rapport devait ?tre ?labor?, conform?ment ? la proc?dure Hughes, par la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense et par la commission de l'environnement, de la sant? publique et de la protection des consommateurs.

Le projet de rapport a ?t? examin? par la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense lors de ses r?unions des 5 f?vrier 1998, 29 juin 1998, 21 juillet 1998, 3, 23 et 28 septembre 1998, 13, 27 et 29 octobre 1998 et 4/5 janvier 1999, ainsi que par la sous-commission de la s?curit? et du d?sarmement lors de ses r?unions des 5 f?vrier 1998, 3 et 23 septembre 1998.

Au cours de la derni?re de ses r?unions, la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense a adopt? la proposition de r?solution par 28 voix et 1 abstention.

?taient pr?sents au moment du vote les d?put?s Spencer, pr?sident; Theorin, rappporteur; Aelvoet, Andr?-L?onard, Bar?n-Crespo, Bertens, Bianco, Burenstam Linder, Carnero Gonz?lez, Carrozzo (suppl?ant M. Colajanni), Dillen, Dupuis, Gahrton, Goerens (suppl?ant M. Cars), Graziani, G?nther (suppl?ant M. Gomolka), Lalumi?re, Lambrias, Pack (suppl?ant M. Habsburg), Pettinari (suppl?ant M. Imbeni conform?ment ? l'article 138, paragraphe 2, du r?glement), Piha, Rinsche, Sakellariou, Salafranca S?nchez-Neyra, Schroedter (suppl?ant M. Cohn-Bendit), Schwaiger (suppl?ant Mme Lenz), Speciale, Swoboda (suppl?ant Mme Hoff), Tindemans, Titley et Truscott.

L'avis de la commission de l'environnement, de la sant? publique et de la protection des consommateurs est joint au pr?sent rapport.

Le rapport a ?t? d?pos? le 14 janvier 1999.

Le d?lai de d?p?t des amendements sera indiqu? dans le projet d'ordre du jour de la p?riode de session au cours de laquelle le rapport sera examin?.


A. PROPOSITION DE R?SOLUTION

R?solution sur l'environnement, la s?curit? et la politique ?trang?re: strat?gie en vue de l'utilisation de ressources militaires ? des fins environnementales

Le Parlement europ?en,

- vu la proposition de r?solution d?pos?e par Mme Rehn sur l'utilisation potentielle des ressources ? caract?re militaire pour les strat?gies environnementales (B4-0551/95),

- vu l'?tude des Nations unies "Charting potential uses of resources allocated to military activities for civilian endeavours to protect the environment", (UN A-46/364, 17 septembre 1991),

- vu sa r?solution du 17 juillet 1995 sur "les mines terrestres antipersonnel: un obstacle meurtrier au d?veloppement"(1),

- vu ses r?solutions pr?c?dentes sur la non-prolif?ration des armes nucl?aires et les essais nucl?aires et sur le rapport de la commission de Canberra d'ao?t 1996 concernant l'abolition des armes nucl?aires,

- vu la d?cision unanime de la Cour internationale de justice concernant l'obligation qui incombe aux ?tats nucl?aires de conclure un accord sur l'interdiction des armes nucl?aires (avis consultatif nΊ 96/22 du 8 juillet 1996),

- vu sa r?solution du 19 avril 1996 sur la proposition de d?cision du Conseil instituant un programme d'action communautaire en faveur de la protection civile(2),

- vu ses r?solutions pr?c?dentes sur les armes chimiques,

- vu les r?sultats des conf?rences des Nations unies de Kyoto en 1997 et de Rio de Janeiro en 1992,

- vu l'audition sur le projet HAARP et les armes non l?tales convoqu?e ? Bruxelles, le 5 f?vrier 1998, par la sous-commission "s?curit? et d?sarmement" de la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense,

- vu l'article 148 du r?glement,

- vu le rapport de la commission des affaires ?trang?res, de la s?curit? et de la politique de d?fense et l'avis de la commission de l'environnement, de la sant? publique et de la protection des consommateurs (A4-0005/99),

. constatant que la fin de la guerre froide a profond?ment modifi? la situation g?opolitique sur le plan de la s?curit? et que, dans le domaine militaire, la d?tente a conduit ? un d?sarmement g?n?ral et, en particulier, ? une limitation des armements nucl?aires, ce qui a permis de lib?rer d'?normes ressources militaires,

B. consid?rant qu'en d?pit de ce bouleversement total de la situation g?ostrat?gique depuis la fin de la guerre froide, le risque d'une atteinte d?sastreuse ? l'int?grit? et ? la durabilit? de l'environnement global n'a pas sensiblement diminu?, tant sur le plan des tirs d'armes nucl?aires accidentels ou non autoris?s que sur celui de l'utilisation licite d'armes nucl?aires dans la crainte infond?e d'une attaque imminente,

C. consid?rant qu'il serait possible de limiter consid?rablement ce risque en tr?s peu de temps si tous les ?tats poss?dant un arsenal nucl?aire mettaient en oeuvre rapidement les six mesures pr?vues par le rapport de la Commission de Canberra, en particulier s'ils retiraient toutes les armes nucl?aires du dispositif d'alerte rouge et transf?raient progressivement toutes les armes dans la r?serve strat?gique,

D. consid?rant que l'article VI du trait? de non-prolif?ration des armes nucl?aires (TNP) de 1968 invite toutes les parties signataires ? s'engager ? "continuer ? n?gocier de bonne foi ... un trait? sur un d?sarmement g?n?ral et complet" et notant que les principes et les objectifs adopt?s lors de la Conf?rence de 1995 sur la non-prolif?ration des armes nucl?aires r?affirmaient que l'objectif ultime du trait? ?tait l'abolition compl?te des armes nucl?aires,

E. notant que les menaces sur l'environnement, l'affluence de r?fugi?s, les conflits ethniques, le terrorisme et le crime international constituent de nouvelles menaces tr?s graves contre la s?curit? et que la facult? de g?rer diff?rentes formes de conflit prend de l'importance ? mesure que se modifie le contexte de la s?curit?, et consid?rant qu'il est important que les ressources affect?es au secteur militaire servent ?galement ? des fins non militaires puisque certaines menaces contre la s?curit? ne sont pas de nature militaire,

F. constatant que l'exploitation outranci?re des ressources de la plan?te est responsable de la fr?quence accrue ? laquelle surviennent les catastrophes naturelles et environnementales, notant que des probl?mes ?cologiques locaux et r?gionaux de cette nature peuvent avoir des incidences consid?rables sur les relations internationales et d?plorant que les ?tats membres n'en aient pas davantage tenu compte dans la mise en oeuvre de leur politique ?trang?re, de s?curit? et de d?fense,

G. consid?rant que, dans le monde, les conflits se d?roulent essentiellement ? un niveau intra?tatique plut?t qu'? un niveau inter?tatique et que, lorsqu'?clatent des conflits inter?tatiques, ces derniers concernent de plus en plus l'acc?s aux ressources vitales ou leur disponibilit?, en particulier l'eau, la nourriture et les combustibles,

H. consid?rant que l'acc?s ? ces ressources naturelles vitales et leur disponibilit? sont ?troitement li?s ? la d?t?rioration et ? la pollution de l'environnement, en ce qui concerne la cause aussi bien que l'effet, et que la pr?vention des conflits doit donc de plus en plus ?tre ax?e sur ces questions,

I. consid?rant que les pressions qui s'exercent sur les terres - ? des fins d'exploitation aussi bien que d'habitation - et qui ont toujours constitu? une des principales causes de tensions et de conflits, sont de plus en plus souvent imputables ? la d?gradation de l'environnement, en particulier les changements climatiques et l'?l?vation du niveau des mers qui en r?sulte,

J. consid?rant que l'ensemble de ces facteurs, qui affectent avant tout les populations les plus pauvres et les plus vuln?rables de la terre, favorisent de plus en plus l'apparition de r?fugi?s dits "environnementaux", ce qui fait na?tre une pression directe sur les politiques de l'immigration et de la justice de l'Union europ?enne (UE), sur l'aide au d?veloppement et sur les ressources affect?es ? l'aide humanitaire, tout en accroissent indirectement les probl?mes de s?curit? de l'UE du fait de l'existence de foyers d'instabilit? r?gionale dans d'autres parties du monde,

K. consid?rant que, selon les r?sultats d'une recherche internationale d?taill?e men?e ? bien et publi?e par le Climate Institute de Washington, le nombre de "r?fugi?s environnementaux" d?passe maintenant celui des "r?fugi?s traditionnels" (25 millions contre 22 millions) et devrait doubler d'ici 2010, voire davantage dans la pire des hypoth?ses,

L. consid?rant que la question des "r?fugi?s environnementaux" n'est que le sympt?me d'un d?sastre humanitaire d'une ampleur beaucoup plus grande, sachant que 1,3 milliard de personnes vivent dans la pauvret? absolue selon la d?finition des Nations unies; que plus d'un quart de ces personnes tentent de subsister dans des r?gions du monde extr?mement vuln?rables sur le plan environnemental o? elles constituent le facteur essentiel de probl?mes environnementaux plan?taires comme la d?forestation et la d?sertification,

M. consid?rant que, depuis la fin de la guerre froide, bien que le contexte id?ologique qui pr?dominait auparavant ait largement disparu de la gestion des questions globales et que cette derni?re d?pende beaucoup moins de la question de l'?quilibre militaire, il n'en reste pas moins que cette situation devrait encore se refl?ter dans le syst?me de gestion globale des Nations unies en mettant l'accent sur la coh?rence et l'efficacit? des ?l?ments ? la fois militaires et non militaires de la politique de s?curit?,

N. consid?rant n?anmoins qu'une part croissante des travaux des Nations unies dans le domaine des questions de politique et de s?curit? globale est essentiellement d'ordre non militaire et porte avant tout sur les relations entre le commerce, l'aide, l'environnement et un d?veloppement durable,

O. constatant qu'il y a lieu de mobiliser d'urgence des ressources appropri?es afin de relever les d?fis environnementaux et notant que les ressources disponibles en mati?re de protection de l'environnement sont tr?s limit?es, ce qui implique une nouvelle conception de l'utilisation des ressources d?j? existantes,

P. notant que les forces arm?es ont une opportunit? unique et une capacit? ?norme de soutenir les efforts du secteur civil en vue de ma?triser les probl?mes environnementaux accrus ? mesure que les ressources militaires sont lib?r?es,

Q. constatant que les ressources militaires rel?vent du domaine national, alors que les d?fis environnementaux ont un caract?re global et que, d?s lors, il y a lieu de poser les jalons d'une coop?ration internationale en mati?re de transfert et d'utilisation des ressources militaires ? la fin de prot?ger l'environnement,

R. consid?rant que les co?ts ? court terme de la protection de l'environnement doivent ?tre ?valu?s par rapport aux co?ts ? long terme de l'inertie dans ce domaine et constatant que s'affirme la n?cessit? de proc?der ? une analyse du rapport co?t-efficacit? de diff?rentes strat?gies environnementales englobant les transferts ?ventuels, le r?am?nagement et le red?ploiement des ressources li?es au secteur militaire,

S. constatant qu'il ne sera pas possible de r?aliser l'objectif commun de l'assainissement des ?cosyst?mes endommag?s de la plan?te sans veiller ? l'exploitation ?quitable des ressources mondiales; qu'il est n?cessaire de faciliter la coop?ration technique internationale et de promouvoir le transfert de technologies militaires appropri?es,

T. consid?rant que la recherche militaire porte actuellement sur la manipulation de l'environnement ? des fins militaires, et ce en d?pit des conventions existantes; c'est le cas, par exemple, du syst?me HAARP bas? en Alaska,

U. consid?rant que l'exp?rience acquise dans le domaine du d?veloppement et de l'utilisation de l'?nergie nucl?aire ? des fins pacifiques constitue une mise en garde salutaire contre l'invocation du secret militaire pour emp?cher une ?valuation correcte et un contr?le des technologies relevant ? la fois des domaines civil et militaire puisque la transparence est de toute fa?on compromise,

V. consid?rant que la crainte g?n?rale d'un d?clin ?cologique et d'une crise environnementale doit inciter les ?tats ? fixer des priorit?s dans leur processus de d?cision et encourager les nations ? r?agir conjointement et efficacement ? l'?gard des catastrophes environnementales,

1. invite la Commission ? pr?senter au Conseil et au Parlement une strat?gie commune telle que pr?vue dans le trait? d'Amsterdam qui, d'ici 2000 ? 2010, ?tablisse les liens entre les aspects de la politique de l'UE li?s ? la politique ?trang?re et de s?curit? commune (PESC) et ses politiques dans les domaines du commerce, de l'aide, du d?veloppement et de l'environnement au plan international, de mani?re ? aborder les questions suivantes et ? examiner leur interaction:

a) la production agricole et alimentaire et la d?t?rioration de l'environnement,

b) la p?nurie d'eau et l'approvisionnement transfrontalier en eau,

c) la d?forestation et le r?tablissement des mines de charbon,

d) le ch?mage, le sous-emploi et la pauvret? absolue,

e) le d?veloppement durable et les changements climatiques,

f) la d?forestation, la d?sertification et la croissance de la population,

g) l'interaction entre l'ensemble des facteurs susmentionn?s et le r?chauffement de la plan?te, de m?me que l'impact de l'augmentation des ?v?nements climatiques extr?mes sur l'homme et l'environnement;

2. constate que les actions environnementales pr?ventives repr?sentent un instrument important sur le plan de la politique de s?curit?; invite, par cons?quent, les ?tats membres ? introduire des objectifs environnementaux et sanitaires dans leurs ?valuations, leur recherche militaire et leurs plans d'action ? long terme dans les domaines de la d?fense et de la s?curit?;

3. reconna?t le r?le important que joue l'arm?e dans la soci?t? d?mocratique et ses t?ches pour la d?fense du territoire, de m?me que le fait que des initiatives visant ? garantir et ? r?tablir la paix peuvent dans une large mesure contribuer ? ?viter les pr?judices environnementaux;

4. constate que les essais nucl?aires atmosph?riques et souterrains comportent des retomb?es radioactives qui ont entra?n? la dispersion d'?normes quantit?s de c?sium 137 radioactif, de strontium 90 et d'autres isotopes canc?rig?nes sur l'ensemble de la plan?te, et qu'ils ont ?t? terriblement pr?judiciables ? l'environnement et ? la sant? dans les zones d'essai;

5. consid?re que plusieurs r?gions du monde sont menac?es par le stockage et l'immersion incontr?l?s, dangereux et inappropri?s de sous-marins nucl?aires et de b?timents de surface, avec leur combustible nucl?aire et leurs r?acteurs nucl?aires fissur?s, vu qu'il est hautement probable que de vastes r?gions pourraient ?tre rapidement contamin?es par les radiations qui s'en d?gagent;

6. note qu'il s'agit encore et toujours de r?soudre le probl?me des armes chimiques et conventionnelles immerg?es ? de multiples endroits dans les mers europ?ennes apr?s les deux guerres mondiales, l'immersion ?tant une solution de facilit? pour se d?barrasser de ces stocks; constate que personne ne sait ? ce jour quelle peut en ?tre l'incidence sur l'environnement ? long terme, notamment sur les poissons et la vie baln?aire;

7. consid?re que l'UE devra apporter sa contribution au r?glement du probl?me; constate que la guerre qui continue de ravager des r?gions enti?res d'Afrique a d?truit les structures sociales et agricoles et qu'un d?sastre environnemental frappe ? pr?sent les terres du fait de la d?sertification r?sultant de la d?forestation et de l'?rosion;

8. demande ? l'arm?e de mettre un terme aux activit?s qui contribuent ? la d?t?rioration de l'environnement et de la sant?, et de prendre toute mesure qui s'impose afin de nettoyer et d'assainir les zones pollu?es;

S'agissant de l'affectation de ressources militaires ? des fins environnementales,

9. consid?re que les ressources disponibles pour assainir et sauver l'environnement ravag? sont insuffisantes pour relever les d?fis ?cologiques globaux; demande en cons?quence que les ?tats membres s'engagnt ? affecter des ressources militaires ? la protection de l'environnement par le biais de:

a) l'introduction d'une formation de soldats de l'environnement dans le but de cr?er une brigade europ?enne commune de protection de l'environnement,

b) l'?valuation de leurs besoins environnementaux et des ressources militaires pouvant ?tre affect?es ? l'environnement, et l'utilisation de ces ressources dans leurs programmes nationaux de protection de l'environnement,

c) l'?valuation des ressources militaires pouvant ?tre mises ? la disposition des Nations unies ou de l'UE ? titre provisoire, ? long terme ou en cas de besoin, en tant qu'instrument de coop?ration internationale dans le cas de d?sastres ou de crises ?cologiques,

d) le d?veloppement de programmes en vue de la cr?ation d'unit?s de protection internationales et europ?ennes utilisant du personnel, des ?quipements et des installations militaires mises ? leur disposition au titre du partenariat pour la paix en cas de situation de crise environnementale,

e) l'introduction des objectifs du d?veloppement durable respectueux de l'environnement dans leur concept de s?curit?,

f) la garantie que les forces arm?es respectent les r?gles environnementales ?tablies et que les d?g?ts ant?rieurs caus?s par celles-ci ? l'environnement seront r?par?s,

g) l'introduction de consid?rations environnementales dans leurs programmes militaires de recherche et de d?veloppement;

10. au regard de l'exp?rience concr?te lacunaire dans ce domaine, prie instamment les gouvernements des ?tats membres:

a) de cr?er des centres pour l'?change d'informations concernant l'exp?rience acquise sur le plan national dans le domaine de l'affectation de ressources militaires ? la protection de l'environnement,

b) de faciliter la diffusion globale de donn?es environnementales, en ce compris celles fournies par leurs satellites militaires ou obtenues par le biais d'autres plates-formes de collecte d'informations,

11. invite les ?tats membres ? appliquer la l?gislation environnementale en vigueur pour la soci?t? civile ? l'ensemble de l'activit? militaire et ? faire en sorte que le secteur militaire se charge et assume le co?t de l'examen et de l'assainissement des zones endommag?es du fait d'activit?s militaires ant?rieures de mani?re ? pouvoir les r?affecter ? des fins civiles; une telle d?marche rev?t une importance particuli?re pour les vastes entrep?ts de munitions chimiques et conventionnelles le long des c?tes de l'UE;

12. invite l'ensemble des ?tats membres ? fixer des objectifs environnementaux et sanitaires ainsi que des plans d'action visant ? am?liorer la protection de l'environnement et de la sant? au sein de leurs forces arm?es respectives;

13. prie instamment les gouvernements des ?tats membres d'am?liorer progressivement la protection de l'environnement dans le secteur militaire par le biais de la formation, du d?veloppement technique et d'une initiation fondamentale de l'ensemble du personnel des forces arm?es et de tous les appel?s ? la connaissance de l'environnement;

14. demande ? l'UE d'unir ses efforts autour d'une nouvelle strat?gie de l'environnement visant ? affecter les ressources militaires ? la protection commune de l'environnement;

15. consid?re que les strat?gies environnementales devraient comporter le contr?le de l'environnement de la terre, l'?valuation des donn?es collect?es, la coordination des activit?s scientifiques, la diffusion de l'information et l'exploitation des donn?es pertinentes fournies par les syst?mes d'observation et de contr?le nationaux afin d'?tablir un bilan continu et exhaustif de l'?tat de l'environnement;

16. souligne que l'importante r?duction des d?penses militaires peut conduire ? d'importantes crises au plan r?gional et invite de ce fait les ?tats membres ? accro?tre leurs efforts de conversion de la production et de la technologie militaires en faveur de produits et d'applications civiles gr?ce ? des programmes nationaux et ? des initiatives communautaires comme le programme KONVER;

17. souligne l'importance d'un renforcement des activit?s environnementales pr?ventives afin de pouvoir lutter contre les catastrophes environnementales et naturelles;

18. prie instamment la Commission d'examiner en profondeur les menaces sur l'environnement r?sultant de la politique de s?curit? en Europe et de r?diger un "livre vert" sur les activit?s militaires ? incidences environnementales;

19. invite le Conseil ? accro?tre ses efforts pour que les ?tats-Unis, la Russie, l'Inde et la Chine signent l'accord conclu ? Ottawa en 1997 sur l'interdiction des mines anti-personnel;

20. consid?re que l'UE devrait renforcer ses mesures de soutien aux victimes de mines terrestres et encourager le d?veloppement de techniques de d?minage; est d'avis que le d?veloppement desdites techniques doit ?tre acc?l?r?;

21. consid?re qu'il y a lieu de d?noncer la politique du secret en mati?re de recherche militaire et qu'il faut privil?gier le droit ? l'information et au contr?le d?mocratique des projets de recherche militaire;

22. prie instamment les ?tats membres de d?velopper des technologies de destruction d'armes compatibles avec l'environnement;

23. souligne qu'une des menaces environnementales les plus graves qui existent ? proximit? de l'UE est le manque de contr?le des d?chets de l'industrie nucl?aire et des stocks d'armes biologiques et chimiques, de m?me que l'absence de mesures d'assainissement ? l'issue d'activit?s militaires; souligne qu'il importe que les ?tats membres oeuvrent en faveur d'un renforcement de la coop?ration internationale, par exemple dans le cadre des Nations unies ou du Partenariat pour la paix, de mani?re ? ce que ces armes soient d?truites d'une mani?re aussi compatible que possible avec la protection de l'environnement;

24. est d'avis que toutes les n?gociations futures sur la limitation et l'abolition ?ventuelle des armements nucl?aires devront tendre ? la r?duction mutuelle et ?quilibr?e des stocks d'armes;

25. estime, compte tenu de la situation particuli?rement difficile des pays de l'ancienne Union sovi?tique, que la menace que la d?t?rioration de l'?tat des armes et des mat?riaux nucl?aires encore d?tenus par ces pays repr?sente pour l'environnement aux niveaux tant global que local rend encore plus urgente la conclusion d'un accord sur la poursuite de l'?limination progressive des armes nucl?aires;

S'agissant des aspects l?gaux des activit?s militaires

26. demande ? l'Union europ?enne de faire en sorte que les nouvelles techniques d'armes dites nonl?tales et le d?veloppement de nouvelles strat?gies d'armements soient ?galement couverts et r?gis par des conventions internationales;

27. consid?re que le projet HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project), en raison de son impact g?n?ral sur l'environnement, pose des probl?mes globaux et demande que ses implications juridiques, ?cologiques et ?thiques soient examin?es par un organe international ind?pendant avant la poursuite des travaux de recherche et la r?alisation d'essais; d?plore que le gouvernement des ?tats-Unis ait ? maintes reprises refus? d'envoyer un repr?sentant pour apporter un t?moignage sur les risques que comporte pour l'environnement et la population le projet HAARP financ? actuellement en Alaska, durant l'audition publique ou ? l'occasion d'une r?union subs?quente de sa commission comp?tente;

28. demande ? l'organe charg? de l'?valuation des choix scientifiques et technologiques (STOA) d'accepter d'examiner les preuves scientifiques et techniques fournies par tous les r?sultats existants de la recherche sur le programme HAARP aux fins d'?valuer la nature et l'ampleur exactes du danger que HAARP repr?sente pour l'environnement local et global et pour la sant? publique en g?n?ral;

29. invite la Commission ? examiner les incidences sur l'environnement et la sant? publique du programme HAARP pour l'Antarctique, en coop?ration avec les gouvernements de Su?de, de Finlande, de Norv?ge et de la F?d?ration de Russie, et ? faire rapport au Parlement sur le r?sultat de ses investigations;

30. demande en particulier que soit ?tabli un accord international visant ? interdire au niveau global tout projet de recherche et de d?veloppement, tant militaire que civil, qui cherche ? appliquer la connaissance des processus du fonctionnement du cerveau humain dans les domaines chimique, ?lectrique, des ondes sonores ou autres au d?veloppement d'armes, ce qui pourrait ouvrir la porte ? toute forme de manipulation de l'homme; un tel accord devrait ?galement interdire toute possibilit? d'utilisation r?elle ou potentielle de tels syst?mes;

31. demande ? l'UE et ? ses ?tats membres d'oeuvrer ? la conclusion de trait?s internationaux visant ? prot?ger l'environnement contre des destructions inutiles en cas de conflit;

32. demande ? l'UE et ? ses ?tats membres de veiller ? ce que les incidences environnementales des activit?s des forces arm?es en temps de paix soient ?galement soumises ? des normes internationales;

33. demande au Conseil des ministres de l'UE de prendre une part active ? la mise en oeuvre des propositions de la Commission de Canberra et de l'article VI du TNP;

34. invite le Conseil et les gouvernements britannique et fran?ais en particulier, ? prendre la t?te dans le contexte du TNP et de la conf?rence sur le d?sarmement en ce qui concerne la poursuite de n?gociations relatives ? la pleine application des engagements pris quant ? la r?duction des armes nucl?aires et ? un d?sarmement aussi rapide que possible, de fa?on ? atteindre un niveau o?, provisoirement, le stock global des armes encore existantes ne constitue plus une menace pour l'int?grit? et la durabilit? de l'environnement global;

35. invite la pr?sidence du Conseil, la Commission et les gouvernements des ?tats membres ? d?fendre la position adopt?e dans la pr?sente r?solution dans le contexte de toutes les prochaines r?unions des Nations unies plac?es sous les auspices du TNP ou en rapport avec celui-ci, et de la Conf?rence sur le d?sarmement;

36. invite la pr?sidence du Conseil et de la Commission, conform?ment ? l'article J.7 du trait? sur l'Union europ?enne, ? lui faire rapport sur la position de l'Union concernant les points sp?cifiques contenus dans la pr?sente r?solution, notamment dans le contexte des prochaines r?unions des Nations unies, de ses agences et de ses organes, en particulier celles de la commission pr?paratoire du TNP de 1999, de la conf?rence sur le d?sarmement et tous les autres forums internationaux comp?tents;

37. charge son Pr?sident de transmettre la pr?sente r?solution au Conseil, ? la Commission, aux ?tats membres de l'Union europ?enne et aux Nations unies.

(1) () JO C 183 du 17.7.1995, p. 47 ( A4-0149/95).
(2) () JO C 141 du 13.5.1996, p. 258 (A4-0100/96).




B. EXPOS? DES MOTIFS

Des forces arm?es luttant contre les menaces sur l'environnement

En mati?re de politique de s?curit?, la situation a consid?rablement ?volu? depuis quelque temps. Il y a un peu moins de dix ann?es, un rideau de fer se dressait au centre d'une Europe dot?e d'armements nucl?aires. ? pr?sent l'Europe s'unifie. L'Union europ?enne envisage un ?largissement vers d'anciens pays du Pacte de Varsovie. L'?re de la guerre froide est r?volue et il semble aujourd'hui impossible qu'un conflit majeur puisse ?clater en Europe. Parall?lement ? cette ?volution, l'?norme affluence de r?fugi?s, les conflits ethniques, le terrorisme et le crime international constituent autant de nouveaux dangers venant menacer la s?curit? quotidienne. Les catastrophes naturelles et les probl?mes environnementaux, qu'ils aient une cause naturelle, ou qu'ils d?coulent de l'exploitation des ressources de la terre par l'homme font peser une autre menace tout aussi grave.

Une s?rie de catastrophes naturelles a plac? l'humanit? devant de nouveaux probl?mes. La derni?re en date est la rupture d'une digue en Espagne. L'?rosion des terres en Italie, les ravages caus?s par le ph?nom?ne naturel El Ni?o et l'accident nucl?aire de Tchernobyl sont autant de ph?nom?nes et d'accidents ayant provoqu? des catastrophes naturelles et environnementales. Dans certaines parties du monde, la s?cheresse peut interdire toute possibilit? de moisson durant des ann?es, de sorte qu'une grande partie de la population souffre de la famine qui, souvent, conduit ? la mort. Face ? ces catastrophes, l'homme ne peut que constater son impuissance.

Les catastrophes environnementales et naturelles constituent une trag?die pour chaque individu et peuvent avoir des cons?quences d?sastreuses pour la soci?t? et la nation tout enti?re. Leur co?t est ?norme, aussi bien en termes de pertes en vies humaines qu'en termes de d?penses li?es ? la r?paration des d?g?ts mat?riels. Lorsqu'elles surviennent, force est de constater que la d?tection et/ou la pr?vention n'avaient pas ?t? dot?es de ressources suffisantes. De surcro?t, les mesures entreprises sont, souvent, trop tardives. Il faut renforcer les mesures de pr?vention, ce qui n?cessite des investissements ?normes. Mais les ressources sont tr?s limit?es. En cons?quence, il faut repenser l'utilisation des ressources disponibles tout en favorisant l'?mergence de nouvelles ressources. Il est ?vident qu'une nation ne peut mener une lutte isol?e contre les catastrophes naturelles car les probl?mes environnementaux impliquent une coop?ration internationale. Les menaces sont de nature globale et la coop?ration internationale est indispensable.

Les probl?mes ?cologiques locaux et r?gionaux peuvent avoir des incidences ?normes sur les relations internationales. Les retomb?es radioactives, les inondations et la s?cheresse ne respectent pas les fronti?res internationales. Les r?fugi?s fuyant les catastrophes environnementales traversent des fronti?res pour se rendre dans des pays aussi pauvres, voire plus pauvres que le leur. Ces nouvelles causes d'instabilit? et d'ins?curit? doivent ?tre reproduites dans le contenu et la nature des m?thodes utilis?es par les Nations pour le maintien et l'?tablissement de la paix et de la s?curit?. Puisque les probl?mes environnementaux et ?cologiques menacent s?rieusement la paix et la s?curit?, ils devront ?galement sous-tendre la politique ?trang?re, de d?fense et de s?curit?. Il faut analyser comment utiliser les ressources militaires pour s'attaquer ? cette menace accrue sur la s?curit? et annihiler ces nouvelles sources d'instabilit? et d'inqui?tude. Ces ressources doivent ?tre mobilis?es d'urgence afin de relever les d?fis environnementaux.

En mati?re de politique de s?curit?, la nouvelle donne a men? ? la d?tente militaire, au d?sarmement et ? des mesures visant ? instaurer la confiance entre les anciens ennemis que sont les ?tats-Unis et la Russie, ce qui a conduit ? une amputation consid?rable du budget de la d?fense, ? une r?duction des effectifs et ? la mise au rebus de mat?riel militaire.

La d?fense a surtout fait l'objet de mesures de restriction en Russie et aux ?tats-Unis, l'Europe a embo?t? le pas en r?duisant ses d?penses militaires(1).

? mesure que les ressources militaires sont d?gag?es, les forces arm?es disposent d'une opportunit? unique de s'attaquer aux probl?mes environnementaux croissants puisque leur potentiel est ?norme. L'arm?e est une organisation bien entra?n?e dot?e de moyens techniques complets pouvant ?tre utilis?s pour atteindre des objectifs environnementaux sans que cela entra?ne des co?ts ?lev?s. Il suffit de r?affecter ou de red?ployer des ressources. L'union europ?enne peut regrouper ses efforts autour d'une nouvelle strat?gie environnementale visant ? affecter les ressources militaires ? un objectif commun de protection de l'environnement. L'Union europ?enne peut initier la prise de conscience ?cologique commune et globale, et, par la m?me occasion, favoriser les efforts de paix et d'instauration de la confiance.

Les ?tats membres disposent ? la fois des atouts techniques et ?conomiques pour adopter une attitude totalement responsable ? l'?gard de l'environnement. Ils savent aussi quelles seraient les cons?quences d'un refus de relever les d?fis environnementaux. La d?gradation ?cologique influence les conditions de la croissance et du d?veloppement ?conomique, mais il n'emp?che que les d?penses militaires de par le monde sont trois ? cinq fois plus importantes que les sommes consacr?es ? la protection de l'environnement(2).

Le secteur de la d?fense en soi d?grade ?norm?ment l'environnement, ce qui devrait inciter les militaires ? adopter une attitude nettement plus responsable en la mati?re.

Menaces modernes sur la s?curit?

Le monde international prend de plus en plus conscience de l'ampleur des probl?mes environnementaux. En t?moignent les conf?rences de suivi des Nations unies sur l'eau (Mar del Plata), la d?sertification (Nairobi), l'environnement et le d?veloppement (Rio de Janeiro) et le changement climatique (Kyoto). Les probl?mes environnementaux peuvent g?n?rer des probl?mes tellement graves qu'ils sont susceptibles de menacer aussi bien la s?curit? des hommes que celle des ?tats. Ils peuvent aussi avoir une incidence sur les relations internationales des ?tats. L'air et l'eau ne connaissent pas de fronti?res internationales. Voici des exemples concrets de menaces potentielles ou existantes sur l'environnement:

Ressources hydrauliques limit?es

La demande d'eau propre augmente au diapason de la croissance de la population mondiale. La r?partition de l'eau douce naturelle est tr?s d?s?quilibr?e. Moins de 10 pays poss?dent 60 % de la totalit? des ressources d'eau douce de la plan?te(3). D'ailleurs, plusieurs pays d'Europe doivent importer de l'eau. Dor?navant, les attaques contre les sources d'eau potable ne constitueront plus un objectif en soi, mais bien un motif de conflit. Les conflits en mati?re de droit d'acc?s ? l'eau peuvent renforcer la tension internationale et locale et/ou d?boucher sur des conflits mondiaux. Par exemple, dans le cas de l'Inde et du Pakistan dont les relations sont tendues, des litiges ayant trait au fleuve Indus pourraient entra?ner un conflit arm?. Si l'on ?tablissait une liste des conflits potentiels li?s ? la ma?trise de l'eau douce, celle-ci serait longue. Quelque 300 fleuves, lacs et sources souterraines sont situ?s dans des zones frontali?res(4). Au Moyen-Orient, neuf pays sur 14 souffrent d'une p?nurie d'eau, mais il y a de fortes chances que les autres pays soient eux aussi un jour expos?s ? ce risque(5). En 1995, 1/5e de la population mondiale n'avait pas acc?s ? l'eau potable. Selon les estimations, la proportion sera de 2/3 en 2025(6).

Changement climatique

L'accroissement des ?missions, notamment des ?missions de dioxyde de carbone(7) a entra?n? une augmentation de la temp?rature moyenne de la plan?te de l'ordre de 5Ί durant le si?cle pr?sent. La chaleur a ?galement ?t? plus intense. Des chercheurs ont d?couvert que l'humidit? de l'air avait augment? de 10 % au cours des vingt derni?res ann?es. Dans certaines r?gions, cette humidit? accrue peut d?clencher des temp?tes plus violentes et plus fr?quentes, tandis que d'autres r?gions souffrent de la s?cheresse. Vingt ann?es de recherche intensive sur le changement climatique global seront peut-?tre n?cessaires avant de prendre une d?cision quant aux mesures qui s'imposent.

Selon les pr?visions du groupe intergouvernemental pour l'?tude du changement climatique (IPCC), une organisation internationale regroupant 2000 des meilleurs chercheurs mondiaux, la temp?rature de la plan?te augmentera de 1,5 ? 4,5 Ί et le niveau de la mer montera de 50 cm d'ici ? 2100 si les ?missions de dioxyde de carbone se maintiennent au niveau actuel. Les statistiques r?v?lent qu'un tiers de la population mondiale et un tiers des infrastructures sont regroup?s dans les r?gions c?ti?res. Une mont?e du niveau de la mer entra?nerait l'inondation de gigantesques r?gions. Des millions de personnes pourraient alors souffrir de la famine suite ? la perte de vastes zones agricoles.

Ce risque ainsi que d'autres peuvent entra?ner des exodes. Les r?fugi?s fuyant les catastrophes environnementales deviennent une pr?occupation majeure pour les ?tats du monde. Quelque 25 millions d'?tres humains ont ?t? chass?s par la s?cheresse, l'?rosion des terres, la d?sertification et d'autres probl?mes environnementaux, tandis que les r?fugi?s "traditionnels" repr?sentent environ 22 millions de personnes. Selon certains experts, les r?fugi?s de l'environnement peuvent provoquer "une des plus graves crises de notre ?poque"(8). Ils sont confront?s ? des probl?mes socio-politiques et ?conomiques pouvant d?clencher des conflits et des explosions de violence. Il faut leur accorder un statut officiel. Il faut s'attaquer au prob?me par le biais d'une coop?ration internationale renforc?e et augmenter l'aide aux pays menac?s et ? leurs habitants.

Impact environnemental des forces arm?es en temps de guerre et en temps de paix

Les forces arm?es sont un important facteur de d?gradation ?cologique. Leurs activit?s ont des incidences n?gatives ?normes sur l'environnement, aussi bien en temps de paix qu'en temps de guerre (certaines sont intentionnelles, d'autres involontaires). Depuis l'antiquit?, la destruction de l'environnement est une m?thode de guerre classique. D'ailleurs c'est la guerre qui nuit le plus ? l'environnement. En t?moignent les cons?quences terribles de la guerre du golfe o? des centaines de puits de p?trole ont ?t? la proie des flammes et o? des quantit?s de substances toxiques ont ?t? rejet?es dans l'atmosph?re de mani?re incontr?l?e. Il faudra du temps ? l'environnement pour s'en remettre. Certaines d?gradations peuvent ?tre irr?m?diables.

Les militaires d?veloppent des armes toujours plus puissantes provoquant des destructions sur une grande ?chelle. Sur le plan de l'environnement, une guerre moderne est plus destructrice que toute autre activit? polluante. Certains syst?mes d'armement, d?crits ci-dessous, sont ?galement susceptibles de d?grader gravement l'environnement en temps de paix.

Mines

Les mines d?truisent ?norm?ment l'environnement. Selon le PNUE (Programme des Nations unies pour l'environnement), les mines terrestres constituent l'arme la plus r?pandue que les guerres laissent derri?re elles; elles peuvent influencer l'?quilibre ?cologique. Le minage d?truit de vastes zones, souvent dans des r?gions agricoles qui deviennent inutilisables pendant longtemps. Les mines constituent l'obstacle majeur au d?veloppement dans de nombreux pays parmi les plus pauvres de la plan?te. 80 ? 110 millions de mines ont ?t? pos?es dans 65 pays. Elles peuvent exploser plusieurs dizaines d'ann?es plus tard, faisant surtout des victimes parmi la population civile, en particulier les enfants. La neutralisation des mines est un processus extr?mement dangereux, lent et co?teux. Le d?veloppement de nouvelles m?thodes de d?minage progresse trop lentement. Il faut acc?l?rer le processus.

Il faut se f?liciter que la conf?rence d'Oslo ait abouti en 1997 ? l'interdiction, sans exception, de toutes les mines antipersonnel, ? l'obligation de d?truire tous les stocks(9) de mines dans un d?lai de quatre ann?es et au renforcement de l'aide aux pays concern?s par ce fl?au. La Convention a ?t? sign?e ? Ottawa en 1997 par un grand nombre d'?tats, ? l'exception toutefois des ?tats-Unis, de la Russie, de l'Inde, de la Chine et d'autres ?tats qui ont pr?f?r? s'abstenir. L'Union europ?enne doit oeuvrer ? l'adh?sion imm?diate de ces pays ? l'accord. L'UE doit renforcer son aide aux victimes des mines et soutenir le d?veloppement de techniques de d?minage.

Armes non-l?tales(10)

Les armes dites non-l?tales ne sont pas un nouveau type d'armes. Elles existent depuis de nombreuses ann?es sous la forme, par exemple, de canons ? eau, de balles en caoutchouc et de gaz lacrymog?ne. Toutefois, les techniques deviennent de plus en plus sophistiqu?es. Elles sont appel?es non-l?tales bien qu'elles puissent faire beaucoup de d?g?ts, voire entra?ner l'invalidit? ou la mort.

Les armes technologiques mises au point peuvent ?tre dirig?es contres des objectifs mat?riels et humains. Citons, ? titre d'exemple, les armes acoustiques ? infrasons, des sons de basse fr?quence permettant de semer la confusion dans les rangs de l'ennemi, de le d?sorienter et, partant, de le neutraliser. La mousse paralysante et les lasers aveuglants sont d'autres exemples au m?me titre que certains produits chimiques qui, colorant l'eau, peuvent avoir un effet n?faste sur l'agriculture et mettre la population en danger. Les rayonnements ?lectromagn?tiques peuvent ?tre utilis?s pour neutraliser les syst?mes de donn?es, de navigation et de communication. Les armes dites non-l?tales peuvent aussi ?tre utilis?es contre les infrastructures et les administrations publiques, neutraliser le r?seau ferroviaire et jeter dans le chaos le syst?me financier d'un pays. Ces armes(11) pr?sentent des aspects communs: elles sont con?ues pour retarder, bloquer et vaincre un adversaire potentiel "sur le plan strat?gique".

Classer toutes ces armes sous la d?nomination commune et fallacieuse d'armes non-l?tales cr?e un grave malentendu. La d?nomination "non-l?tale" signifie que ces armes sont plus humaines que les armes conventionnelles. Or, il n'existe pas d'armes humaines. Tout type d'arme est susceptible de causer des d?g?ts ou de tuer, ce qui est pr?cis?ment sa raison d'?tre. En r?gle g?n?rale, les armes nonl?tales seront utilis?es durant la phase initiale d'un conflit; elles peuvent d'ailleurs constituer l'?l?ment d?clencheur du conflit. Les soldats et les policiers sont peut-?tre devenus plus violents parce que ces armes sont r?put?es moins dangereuses. Le danger majeur est que celles-ci risquent d'abaisser le seuil d'utilisation de la violence pour le r?glement des conflits.

L'objectif est de neutraliser l'ennemi sans lui infliger de longues souffrances et sans causer la mort. Le probl?me est de savoir comment et contre qui utiliser ces armes, car leurs cons?quences sont un aspect important. Une arme pouvant neutraliser un soldat est susceptible de blesser ou de tuer un enfant ou une personne ?g?e. La distance de tir et le nombre de tirs sont autant de facteurs dont il faut tenir compte pour ?valuer l'impact de l'arme. ? titre de comparaison, les armes conventionnelles n'entra?nent la mort "que" dans 25 cas sur 100(12).

Les armes non-l?tales constituent un auxiliaire efficace dans les guerres modernes, qu'elles soient utilis?es s?par?ment ou en m?me temps que des armes conventionnelles. Durant la guerre du Golfe, les ?tats-Unis ont utilis? des armes ? fr?quence radio pour neutraliser le syst?me d'approvisionnement en ?nergie de l'Irak(13), alors que l'on ignorait tout de leurs effets antipersonnel. Ces armes ne constituent donc pas une cat?gorie s?par?e, mais sont une composante d'un syst?me con?u pour tuer.

Le d?veloppement des armes non-l?tales ?largit les options guerri?res. Il en r?sulte une propension accrue ? utiliser la force et non l'inverse. Les armes non-l?tales n'entra?nent pas de conflits ? "z?ro perte".

L'int?r?t que les milieux militaires policiers et politiques portent ? l'essai de ces armes cro?t au rythme de leur diversification. Il ne s'agit pas que des pays du Nord les utilisent comme instrument d'immixtion politique ou de domination contre des pays du Sud.

Ces armes ne sont soumises ? aucune l?gislation efficace. Seule l'interpr?tation de diff?rentes dispositions en mati?re de contr?le des armements permet d'interdire un petit nombre d'armes et de techniques non-l?tales, par exemple, la mousse paralysante (utilis?e en Somalie et en Bosnie). La convention concernant l'utilisation de certaines armes conventionnelles a ?galement limit? l'utilisation de certains types de laser (aveuglant). La convention concernant l'utilisation des armes biologiques interdit le recours aux produits biologiques toxiques (salmonelles et autres bact?ries). Certaines d'entre elles peuvent ?tre d?sastreuses pour l'environnement. En cons?quence, il faut renforcer le droit international afin de r?glementer les armes nouvelles dont le d?veloppement se poursuit en permanence.

Le "projet Cyrus" du Comit? de la Croix Rouge internationale devrait s'appliquer aux armes nonl?tales en l'absence d'autres normes internationales fiables. Ce projet a class? les armes conventionnelles et ?tabli des crit?res en termes de mortalit?, d'invalidit?, de n?cessit? de traitement, de transfusion sanguine, etc. L'Union europ?enne doit faire en sorte que les nouvelles techniques d'armes et le d?veloppement de nouvelles strat?gies d'armement soient, elles aussi, couvertes et r?gies par des conventions internationales.

Armes chimiques

L'action des Nations unies en vue de la destruction des armes chimiques et d'autres armes de destruction massive en Irak a suscit? de graves pr?occupations quant aux incidences environnementales des activit?s militaires et a renforc? la n?cessit? de mettre au point des m?thodes de neutralisation pr?sentant des garanties de s?curit? sur le plan ?cologique. ? l'article 1 de la convention sur l'interdiction des armes chimiques (CWC), entr?e en vigueur en avril 1997, les ?tats parties ? la convention s'engagent ? ne jamais d?velopper, produire ou exporter des armes chimiques quelles que soient les circonstances, ? ne jamais faire usage d'armes chimiques et ? d?truire les armes chimiques courantes. L'article 3 dispose que trente jours apr?s l'entr?e en vigueur de la convention, les ?tats communiquent des informations sur les armes chimiques dont ils disposent, l'endroit o? celles-ci sont entrepos?es et pr?sentent un programme en vue de leur destruction. Les stocks les plus anciens devront ?tre d?truits d'abord. 165 ?tats ont sign? la convention et 110 ont ratifi? celle-ci. 26 ?tats n'ont pas sign? la convention, notamment plusieurs pays importants du Proche-Orient.

La destruction des armes chimiques comporte des aspects tr?s pr?occupants pour l'environnement - elles contiennent des dizaines de milliers de tonnes de gaz moutarde, de gaz neurotoxiques et d'autres produits chimiques. Elles peuvent ?tre d?truites par incin?ration, mais tr?s peu de pays disposent d'installations appropri?es. La neutralisation des armes chimiques est un processus on?reux, trois voire dix fois plus co?teux que leur production. Pour ?tre en mesure de d?truire ses ?normes stocks, la Russie devra recevoir une aide ?conomique d'autres pays. ? Kambarka, une ville de Russie, 6 000 tonnes d'armes chimiques sont entrepos?es dans des abris en bois ? deux kilom?tres d'une agglom?ration. Le traitement de grandes quantit?s de produits dangereux n?cessite des investissements consid?rables. Leur destruction s'?talera sur des ann?es. Il y a ? la fois un risque d'accident et de voir les armes tomber entre de mauvaises mains.

Il a ?t? confirm? que quelque 150 000 tonnes de bombes, d'obus et de mines contenant des armes chimiques, surtout du gaz moutarde, du phosg?ne, du tabun et de l'arsenic ont ?t? immerg?s dans le Skagerack ? la fin de la seconde guerre mondiale. 40 000 tonnes gisent au fond de la Baltique. Bon nombre de conteneurs ont ?t? rong?s par la rouille et les produits chimiques sont en contact direct avec l'eau de la mer. D?cision a ?t? prise de les laisser sur les fonds marins car le risque de perte massive de produit en cas de r?cup?ration est, proportionnellement, beaucoup plus ?lev?.

L'arme nucl?aire

Les cons?quences environnementales d'une guerre nucl?aire seraient ?normes. Il est probable que les effets combin?s des retomb?es radioactives sur une vaste zone, du trou d'ozone cr?? par le dioxyde d'azote lib?r? par les explosions nucl?aires et les modifications climatiques d?clench?es par de gigantesques incendies de longue dur?e entra?neraient des catastrophes environnementales.

Les effets n?fastes des essais nucl?aires sont eux aussi ?vidents. Selon les estimations, la quantit? totale de d?chets radioactifs lib?r?s dans l'atmosph?re durant les essais nucl?aires atmosph?riques est de 100 ? 1 000 fois plus importante que les retomb?es radioactives d?coulant de l'accident de Tchernobyl(14). L'accord partiel sur la limitation des essais nucl?aires conclu en 1963 entre les ?tatsUnis, l'Union sovi?tique et la Grande-Bretagne interdit les essais nucl?aires dans l'atmosph?re dans l'espace et sous l'eau, en l'occurrence dans tous les ?l?ments ? l'exception de la terre.

Depuis 1966, la France a proc?d? ? plus de 180 essais nucl?aire sur l'atoll de Mururoa dans le Pacifique, essais dont les incidences environnementales ont ?t? consid?rables(15). Plusieurs kilos de plutonium dangereux ont ?t? d?couverts dans les couches s?dimentaires des lagons des atolls de Mururoa et de Fangataufa. Des particules de plutonium se sont ?galement r?pandues sur le sol de trois ?les pr?s de Mururoa(16). L'Inde et le Pakistan, viennent d'effectuer des essais nucl?aires(17). Sur le plan technique, ces essais ne semblent pas encore suffisamment contr?l?s, ce qui signifie que leur impact environnemental d?passe largement la r?gion. Une commission d'enqu?te internationale ind?pendante devrait ?tre charg?e sur-le-champ d'examiner les effets environnementaux sur les lieux d'explosion et leurs environs.

Le plutonium est la substance la plus dangereuse que l'on connaisse. Beaucoup de pays d?tiennent d'?normes quantit?s de plutonium militaire. De surcro?t, il est relativement facile de produire des armes nucl?aires au moyen de plutonium "civil". Les installations ? vocation civile peuvent ?tre r?am?nag?es en peu de temps en vue de la production d'armes. La production de plutonium entra?ne une quantit? ?norme de d?chets hautement radioactifs. Le traitement de ces d?chets pose des probl?mes consid?rables.

La fabrication g?n?ralis?e d'armes de destruction massive durant ces derni?res d?cennies a produit des quantit?s ?normes de d?chets. Aucune m?thode n'est efficace lorsqu'il s'agit de stocker des d?chets radioactifs. Ceux-ci sont g?n?ralement plac?s dans des conteneurs, mais des quantit?s ?normes sont aussi d?vers?es dans la nature. Le d?chet radioactif est facilement inflammable et peut exploser en l'absence de ventilation ou de refroidissement. Un accident s'est produit en 1957 ? la centrale nucl?aire de Chelyabinsk-65 pr?s de la ville de Kystym dans l'Oural: un r?servoir rempli de d?chets radioactifs avait explos? et des d?chets s'?taient r?pandus sur une ?tendue de 1 000 km2. 10 000 personnes ont d? ?tre ?vacu?es. Aujourd'hui, au bord du lac Karachay, pr?s de Chelyabinsk-65, la radioactivit? est encore tellement puissante qu'elle peut entra?ner une mort instantan?e(18). Dans la r?gion de la mer Baltique, de vastes zones ont ?t? pollu?es par les activit?s de l'arm?e sovi?tique. En Estonie, le lac Sillanm?, aussi appel? "lac atomique" contient des d?chets radioactifs d'origine militaire, l'?quivalent de milliers d'armes nucl?aires. 100 m s?parent le lac Sillanm? de la Baltique. Toute contamination de la Baltique aurait des cons?quences d?sastreuses pour l'environnement dans toute la r?gion.

? la fin des ann?es 80, la Russie poss?dait plus de sous-marins nucl?aires que tous les autres pays du monde r?unis. La presqu'?le de Kola et Sevrodvinsk, en Russie, abritent aujourd'hui la plus forte concentration de r?acteurs nucl?aires (240)(19) au monde. Des quantit?s ?normes de d?chets radioactifs et d'innombrables sous-marins ? propulsion nucl?aire gisent dans les chantiers navals de Kola. La Russie et sa flotte sont confront?es ? un probl?me insoluble: la gestion des r?acteurs mis au rebut. Sur le plan ?conomique, elles n'ont pas les moyens de financer un d?montage pr?sentant toutes les garanties de s?curit?. La m?diocrit? des salaires a provoqu? l'exode des ?l?ments qualifi?s, de sorte que le personnel des chantiers manque cruellement de comp?tence.

En plein centre de Moscou, ont ?t? d?couvertes 1 200 sources de contamination radioactive, notamment des tas de sable, des abris, des appartements priv?s, des garages et des terrains de sport(20). En Russie, la possibilit? de se procurer des armes nucl?aires, chimiques et biologiques provenant d'entrep?ts militaires ou des substances issues d'instituts de recherche ou de l'industrie ne doit pas ?tre sous-estim?e.

L'absence d'installations appropri?es permettant de traiter les d?chets sans nuire ? l'environnement se fait fortement sentir. Les cons?quences d'un accident pourraient ?tre d?sastreuses, ? la fois pour l'?conomie et l'environnement. Les risques et l'ampleur d'un accident s?rieux ne font que cro?tre ? mesure que les ann?es se succ?dent sans que soient prises des mesures ad?quates.

Il existe une proposition concr?te et r?aliste en vue de la destruction progressive de l'arsenal nucl?aire de la plan?te. Cette proposition a ?t? pr?sent?e en ao?t 1996 par le groupe d'experts ind?pendant qui constituait la commission de Canberra(21). En juillet 1996, la Cour internationale de La Haye proclamait dans un arr?t unanime que l'article 6 du trait? sur la non-prolif?ration des armes nucl?aires obligeait les ?tats nucl?aires ? engager des n?gociations sur le d?sarmement nucl?aire. La Cour de justice a ?galement proclam? que toute menace d'utiliser les armes nucl?aires ou l'utilisation de cellesci ?tait incompatible avec le droit international. L'Union europ?enne doit prendre une part active ? la mise en oeuvre de la proposition de la commission de Canberra et de l'article 6 du trait? sur la nonprolif?ration des armes nucl?aires.

HAARP - Un syst?me d'armement modifiant le climat

Le 5 f?vrier 1998, la sous-commission s?curit? et d?sarmement du Parlement a proc?d? ? une audition portant notamment sur HAARP. Des repr?sentants de l'OTAN et des ?tats-Unis avaient ?t? convi?s ? la r?union. Ils ont toutefois choisi de ne pas venir. La sous-commission a d?plor? que les ?tats-Unis n'aient envoy? aucun repr?sentant ? l'audition et qu'ils n'aient pas saisi l'opportunit? de faire des commentaires sur le mat?riel pr?sent?(22).

HAARP est un programme de recherche sur le rayonnement ? haute fr?quence (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project). Il est conduit conjointement par l'arm?e de l'air et la marine des ?tats-Unis et par l'Institut de g?ophysique de l'universit? d'Alaska ? Fairbanks. Des tentatives analogues ont lieu en Norv?ge, dans l'Antarctique, mais aussi dans l'ex-Union sovi?tique(23). HAARP est un projet de recherche utilisant un ?quipement terrestre, un r?seau d'antennes. Chacune est aliment?e par son propre ?metteur pour r?chauffer des parties de l'ionosph?re(24) au moyen d'ondes radio puissantes. L'?nergie ainsi g?n?r?e r?chauffe certaines parties de l'ionosph?re, ce qui cr?e des trous dans l'ionosph?re et des "lentilles" artificielles.

HAARP peut avoir de multiples applications. La manipulation des particularit?s ?lectriques de l'atmosph?re permet de contr?ler des ?nergies gigantesques. Utilis?e ? des fins militaires contre un ennemi, cette technique peut avoir des cons?quences terribles. HAARP permet d'envoyer ? un endroit d?termin? des millions de fois plus d'?nergie que tout autre ?metteur traditionnel. L'?nergie peut aussi ?tre dirig?e contre un objectif mobile, notamment contre des missiles ennemis.

Le projet am?liore la communication avec les sous-marins et permet de manipuler les conditions m?t?orologiques mondiales. Mais l'inverse, perturber les communications, est ?galement possible. En manipulant l'ionosph?re, on peut bloquer la communication globale tout en conservant ses propres possibilit?s de communications. La radiographie de la terre sur une profondeur de plusieurs kilom?tres (tomographie terrestre p?n?trante) ? la fin de d?couvrir les champs de p?trole et de gaz, mais aussi les ?quipements militaires sous-terrains, et le radar transhorizon qui identifie des objects ? grande distance au-del? de la ligne d'horizon sont d'autres applications du syst?me HAARP.

Depuis les ann?es 50, les ?tats-Unis proc?dent ? des explosions nucl?aires dans les ceintures de Van Allen(25) afin d'examiner les effets des impulsions ?lectromagn?tiques qu'elles d?clenchent sur les communications radio et le fonctionnement des ?quipements radars. Ces explosions ont g?n?r? de nouvelles ceintures de rayonnement magn?tique qui ont pratiquement entour? la terre tout enti?re. Les ?lectrons se d?pla?aient le long de lignes de champs magn?tiques et cr?aient une aurore bor?ale artificielle au-dessus du p?le nord. Ces essais militaires risquent de perturber ? long terme les ceintures de Van Allen. Le champ magn?tique terrestre pourrait s'?tendre sur de vastes zones et emp?cher toute communication radio. Certaines scientifiques am?ricains estiment qu'il faudra plusieurs centaines d'ann?es avant que les ceintures de Van Allen retrouvent leur ?tat initial. HAARP peut bouleverser les conditions climatiques. Tout l'?cosyst?me peut ?tre menac?, en particulier dans l'Antarctique o? il est fragile.

Les trous dans l'ionosph?re caus?s par les ondes radio puissantes qui y sont envoy?es constituent un autre effet tr?s grave d'HAARP. L'ionosph?re est notre bouclier contre le rayonnement cosmique. L'on esp?re que ces trous se refermeront, mais l'exp?rience acquise suite ? la modification de la couche d'ozone donne ? penser le contraire. Le bouclier de l'ionosph?re est fortement perc? ? plusieurs endroits.

En raison de l'ampleur de ces incidences sur l'environnement, HAARP constitue un probl?me global et il faudrait ?valuer si les avantages que procure ce syst?me compensent les risques encourus. Ses incidences ?cologiques et ?thiques doivent ?tre ?valu?es avant la poursuite des travaux de recherche et la r?alisation d'essais. L'opinion publique ignore pratiquement tout du projet HAARP et il est important qu'elle soit mise au courant.

HAARP est li? ? la recherche spatiale intensive men?e depuis 50 ans ? des fins clairement militaires, par exemple en tant qu'?l?ment de la "guerre des ?toiles" en vue du contr?le de la haute atmosph?re et des communications. Ces travaux de recherche doivent ?tre consid?r?s comme extr?mement n?fastes pour l'environnement et la vie humaine. Personne ne sa?t avec certitude ce que peuvent ?tre les effets de HAARP. Il faut lutter contre la politique du secret en mati?re de recherche militaire. Il faut promouvoir le droit ? l'information et au contr?le d?mocratique des projets de recherche militaire ainsi que le contr?le parlementaire.

Une s?rie d'accords internationaux ("la convention sur l'interdiction d'utiliser ? des fins militaires ou ? d'autres fins hostiles des processus modifiant l'environnement, le trait? sur l'Antarctique, l'accord ?tablissant les principes des activit?s des ?tats en mati?re de recherche spatiale, en ce compris la lune et d'autres corps spatiaux ainsi que la convention des Nations unies sur le droit maritime) font que HAARP est un projet hautement contestable non seulement sur les plans humain et politique mais aussi du point de vue l?gal. En vertu du trait? sur l'Antarctique, l'Antarctique ne peut ?tre utilis?e qu'? des fins pacifiques(26), ce qui signifie que HAARP enfreint le droit international. Tous les effets des nouveaux syst?mes d'armement doivent ?tre ?valu?s par des organes internationaux ind?pendants. Il faut encourager la conclusion d'autres accords internationaux afin de prot?ger l'environnement contre toute destruction inutile en temps de guerre.

Incidences des activit?s militaires sur l'environnement

Outre le syst?me d'armement militaire, toutes les activit?s militaires, m?me les manoeuvres en temps de paix ont, d'une mani?re ou d'une autre, des effets n?fastes sur l'environnement. Toutefois, lorsqu'il est question de d?vastation de l'environnement, le r?le de l'arm?e n'est, g?n?ralement, pas ?voqu?; c'est la soci?t? civile qui est la cible de toutes les critiques. Il y a au moins deux explications ? cela(27). Parce qu'elles sont plac?es sous le sceau du secret, les activit?s militaires ne sont pratiquement jamais cit?es, et il est difficile d'opposer le facteur environnement ? l'int?r?t supr?me d'un pays, ? savoir sa s?curit? et sa d?fense.? pr?sent que les catastrophes environnementales et naturelles constituent une menace majeure sur la s?curit?, cet argument devient plus discutable.

L'arm?e se pr?pare dans des conditions les plus r?alistes possibles aux t?ches qui seraient les siennes en cas de conflit. C'est pourquoi ses manoeuvres se d?roulent dans des conditions proches d'une guerre r?elle, ce qui occasionne de graves d?vastations de l'environnement. En t?moignent le retrait des troupes sovi?tiques et les bases militaires abandonn?es par celles-ci en Europe centrale et orientale qui ont fortement endommag? l'environnement local. Les manoeuvres militaires saccagent les sites et d?truisent la vie animale. Elles d?vastent consid?rablement l'environnement de vastes r?gions rurales. La superficie des terrains d'entra?nement pour les tirs d'artillerie et de missiles tactiques augmente. M?me la production d'?quipements militaires et l'industrie fabriquant les produits militaires entra?nent de graves nuisances.

Les militaires sont responsables des ?missions de plusieurs gaz influen?ant le climat, surtout le dioxyde de carbone, mais aussi de l'incin?ration de combustibles fossiles et de l'?mission de CFC qui entra?nent un amincissement de la couche d'ozone(28). Les combustibles utilis?s par les avions ?mettent des substances acides telles que le dioxyde de carbone et l'oxyde de soufre. L'arm?e consomme ?norm?ment de carburant et est responsable d'une large part de la totalit? de la pollution d?coulant des avions(29). Les avions volant ? haute altitude et les missiles sont particuli?rement polluants, tant en termes de nuisances sonores qu'en termes d'?missions. Les gaz d'?missions de tous les missiles utilisant un combustible solide contiennent d'?normes quantit?s d'acide chlorhydrique; chaque vol de la navette spatiale ?met quelque 75 tonnes de chlore qui ira d?truire la couche d'ozone. Le bruit r?sultant de l'utilisation de munitions de gros calibre durant les manoeuvres militaires peut aussi avoir des effets n?faste sur l'environnement.

Les exercices de tirs sont polluants car des ?clats m?talliques sont projet?s dans la nature et d'?normes quantit?s de plomb se r?pandent dans l'environnement suite ? l'utilisation de quantit?s ?normes de munitions de petit calibre contenant du plomb. L'on ne peut que d?plorer l'absence d'informations exhaustives quant ? l'utilisation de m?taux.

L'int?r?t port? aux cons?quences environnementales du d?sarmement est r?cent. Des quantit?s consid?rables de substances explosives sont d?truites chaque ann?e, la plupart de mani?re industrielle. Certains types de munitions, pour diverses raisons, ne
Mar 08, 2006
zeist2.jpg
Chemtrails Zeist 4 maart 2005 omstreeks 16.40u154 viewshttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+RE..

en - English






REPORT 163k 104k

14 January 1999 PE 227.710/fin. A4-0005/99

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 of Parliament announced that he had referred the motion for a resolution tabled pursuant to Rule 45 of the Rules of Procedure by Mrs Rehn Rouva on the potential use of military-related resources for environmental strategies, (B4-0551/95), to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy as the committee responsible and to the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection for its opinion.
A MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
B EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
Annex 1
OPINION


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

At the request of the Conference of Committee Chairmen, the President, at the sitting of 15 November 1996, announced that the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy had been authorised to submit a report on the matter.

At its meeting of 19 November 1996 the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy appointed Mrs Maj Britt Theorin rapporteur.

At the sitting of 19 June 1998 the President of Parliament announced that this report would be drawn up, pursuant to the Hughes Procedure, by the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy and the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection.

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

At the last meeting the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy adopted the motion for a resolution by 28 votes to none with one abstention.

The following took part in the vote: Spencer, chairman; Theorin, rapporteur; Aelvoet, Andr?L?onard, Bar?n-Crespo, Bertens, Bianco, Burenstam Linder, Carnero Gonz?lez, Carrozzo (for Colajanni), Dillen, Dupuis, Gahrton, Goerens (for Cars), Graziani, G?nther (for Gomolka), Lalumi?re, Lambrias, Pack (for Habsburg), Pettinari (for Imbeni pursuant to Rule 138(2), Piha, Rinsche, Sakellariou, Salafranca S?nchez-Neyra, Schroedter (for M. Cohn-Bendit), Schwaiger (for Mme Lenz), 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.

The deadline for tabling amendments will be indicated in the draft agenda for the relevant partsession.


A MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the motion for a resolution tabled by Mrs Rehn Rouva on the potential use of military-related resources for environmental strategies (B4-0551/95).

- having regard to the UN study 'Charting potential uses of resources allocated to military activities for civilian endeavours to protect the environment', UN (A46/364, 17 September 1991),

- having regard to its resolution of 17 July 1995 on anti-personnel landmines; a murderous impediment to development (A4-0149/95),

- having regard to its previous resolutions on non-proliferation and the testing of nuclear weapons and the Canberra Commission report of August 1996 on the abolition of nuclear weapons,

- having regard to the International Court's unanimous ruling on the obligation of the nuclear weapon states to negotiate for a ban on nuclear weapons (Advisory Opinion No. 96/22 of 8 July 1996),

- having regard to its resolution of 19 April 1996 on the proposal for a Council Decision establishing a Community action programme in the field of civil protection (A4-0100/96),

- having regard to its past resolutions on chemical weapons,

- having regard to the outcome of the UN Conferences in Kyoto in 1997 and Rio de Janeiro in 1992,

- having regard to the hearing on HAARP and Non-lethal Weapons held by the Foreign Affairs Subcommitee on Security and Disarmament in Brussels on 5 February 1998,

- having regard to Rule 148,

- having regard to the report of Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy and the opinion of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection (A4-0005/99),

A. whereas the end of the Cold War has radically changed the security situation in the world and that the relaxation of military tension has resulted in comprehensive disarmament in the military field in general and in nuclear weapons in particular, releasing substantial military resources,

B. whereas, despite this complete transformation of the geostrategic situation since the end of the Cold War, the risk of catastrophic damage to the integrity and sustainability of the global environment, notably its bio-diversity, has not significantly diminished, whether from the accidental or unauthorised firing of nuclear weapons or the authorised use of nuclear weapons based on a perceived but unfounded threat of impending attack,

C. whereas this risk could be very considerably reduced within a very short timeframe by the rapid implementation by all nuclear weapons states of the six steps contained in the Canberra Commission"s report concerning, in particular the removal of all nuclear weapons from the present "hair trigger alert? readiness and the progressive transfer of all weapons into strategic reserve,

D. whereas Article VI of the 1968 Treaty on the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) commits all of its parties to undertake "to pursue negotiations in good faith on a treaty on general and complete disarmament? and the Principles and Objectives adopted at the 1995 NPT Conference reaffirmed that the Treaty"s ultimate goal was the complete elimination of nuclear weapons,

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 it is important that resources allocated to military activities are also used for non-military purposes,

F. whereas the world's resources are being exploited as if they were inexhaustible, which has led to increasingly frequent natural and environmental disasters; whereas such local and regional ecological problems may have considerable impact on international relations; regretting that this has not been more clearly reflected in national foreign, security and defence policies,

G. whereas conflicts throughout the world are predominantly at an intra-state rather than interstate level and, where inter-state conflicts do arise, they are increasingly concerned with access to or the availability of basic vital resources, especially water, food and fuel,

H. whereas the access to and availability of such vital natural resources are inherently connected to environmental degradation and pollution, by both cause and effect, whereas it follows logically therefore that conflict prevention must increasingly focus on these issues,

I. whereas the pressure on land, both fertile and habitable, historically a major cause of tension and conflict, is increasingly caused by environmental degradation, notably climate change and the consequent rise in sea levels,

J. whereas all those factors, which affect the poorest and most vulnerable populations of the world most of all, are constantly increasing the incidence of so-called 'environmental refugees', resulting both in direct pressure on EU immigration and justice policies, on development assistance and spending on humanitarian aid and, indirectly, in increased security problems for the EU in the form of regional instability in other parts of the world,

K. whereas, according to detailed international research collated and published by the Climate Institute in Washington, the number of 'environmental refugees' now exceeds the number of 'traditional refugees' (25 m compared with 22 m) and whereas this figure is expected to double by 2010 and could well rise by substantially more on a worst-case basis,

L. whereas the issue of 'environmental refugees' is merely a symptom of a humanitarian disaster on a much more massive scale in terms of the 1.3 billion people who live in absolute poverty according to the UN definition; whereas over one quarter of these people try to subsist in areas of the world that are extremely vulnerable environmentally and are the main contributors to global environmental problems such as deforestation and desertification,

M. whereas, since the end of the Cold War, although the management of global issues has been largely stripped of the previously dominant ideological context and is now much less determined by the question of military balance, this has yet to be reflected in the UN"s system of global governance by emphasising the coherence and effectiveness of both military and non-military components of security policy,

N. whereas, nonetheless, the emphasis of a growing proportion of the UN"s work on global political and security issues is essentially non-military, and notably related to the relationship between trade, aid, the environment and sustainable development,

O. whereas there is an urgent need to mobilise adequate resources to meet the environmental challenge and whereas very limited resources are available for environmental protection, for which reason a reappraisal of the use of existing resources is called for,

P. whereas as military resources have been released the armed forces have had a unique opportunity and ample capacity to support the civilian efforts to cope with the increasing environmental problems,

Q. whereas military-related resources are by their nature national assets while the environmental challenge is global; whereas ways must therefore be found for international cooperation in the transfer and use of military resources for environmental protection,

R. whereas the short-term costs of environmental protection have to be seen in the light of the long-term cost of doing nothing in this field, and whereas there is an increasing need for a cost benefit analysis of various environmental strategies which should cover possible transfers, reorientation and redeployment of military-related resources,

S. whereas the common goal of restoring the world's damaged ecosystems cannot be achieved in isolation from the question of the fair exploitation of global resources and whereas there is a need to facilitate international technical cooperation and encourage the transfer of appropriate military-related technology,

T. whereas, despite the existing conventions, military research is ongoing on environmental manipulation as a weapon, as demonstrated for example by the Alaska-based HAARP system,

U. whereas the experience of the development and use of nuclear power 'for peaceful purposes" serves as a salutory warning as to how military secrecy can prevent proper assessment and supervision of mixed civilian/military technologies if transparency is in any way compromised,

V. whereas the general disquiet over ecological decline and environmental crises requires the setting of priorities in the national decision-making process and that the individual countries must pool their efforts in response to environmental disasters,

1. Calls on the Commission to present to the Council and the Parliament 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 2000 and 2010 so as to tackle the following individual issues and the relationships between them:

(a) Agricultural and food production and environmental degradation;

(b) Water shortages and transfrontier water supply;

(c) Deforestation and restoring carbon sinks;

(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 the humanitarian and environmental impact of increasingly extreme weather events;

2. Notes that preventive environmental measures are an important instrument of security policy; calls, therefore, on the Member 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;

4. Considers that atmospheric and underground nuclear tests have as a result of nuclear radiation fall-out distributed large quantities of radioactive cesium 137, strontium 90 and other cancer inducing isotopes over the whole planet and have caused considerable environmental and health damage in the test areas;

5. Considers that several parts of the world are threatened by the uncontrolled, unsafe and unprofessional storage and dumping of nuclear submarines and surface-vessels, as well as their radioactive fuel and leaking nuclear reactors, considering the high possibility that as a result large regions might soon start to be polluted by the radiation;

6. Considers that still an appropriate solution has to be found to deal with the chemical and conventional weapons which have been dumped after both World Wars in many places in the seas around Europe as an 'easy" solution to get rid of these stocks and that up to today nobody knows what might be the ecological results in the long run, in particular for the fish and for beach-life;

7. Considers that the European Union will have to contribute to find a solution for the problem that, as result of ongoing warfare in whole regions of Africa, human and agricultural structures have been ruined and therefore the lands are now subject to environmental disaster in particular by deforestation and erosion leading to desertification;

8. Calls on the military to end all activities which contribute to damaging the environment and health and to undertake all steps necessary 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 damage to the environment are inadequate to meet the global challenge; recommends therefore that the Member States seek to utilize military-related resources for environmental protection by:

(a) introducing training for environmental defence troops with a view to establishing a coordinated European environmental protection brigade;

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

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

(d) drawing up plans for creating national and European protection teams using military personnel, equipment and facilities made available under 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 specific environmental rules and that damage caused by them to the environment in 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 current national experience in environmental applications for military resources;

(b) facilitating the global dissemination of environmental data including such data obtained by the use of military satellites and other information-gathering platforms;

11. Calls on the Member States to apply civil environmental legislation to all military activities and for the military defence sector to assume responsibility for, and pay for the investigation, clean-up and decontamination of areas damaged by past military activity, so that such areas can be returned to civil use, this is especially important for the extensive chemical and conventional munition dumps along the coastlines of the EU;

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

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

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

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

16. Notes that the drastic fall in military expenditure could result in substantial problems in certain regions and calls on the Member States to step up their efforts to convert military production facilities and technologies to produce civil goods, and for civil applications, using national programmes and Community initiatives such as the KONVER programme;

17. Stresses the importance of stepping up preventive environmental work with a view to combating environmental and natural disasters;

18. Calls on the Commission to conduct a detailed study of security-related threats to the environment in Europe and to draw up a Green Paper on military activities affecting the environment;

19. Calls on the Council to do more to ensure that the USA, Russia, India and China sign the 1997 Ottawa Treaty, banning anti-personnel mines, without delay;

20. Believes that the EU should do more to help the victims of landmines and to support the development of mine clearance techniques, and that the development of mine clearance methods should be accelerated;

21. Believes that the secrecy of military research must be resisted and the right to openness and democratic scrutiny of military research projects be encouraged;

22. Calls on the Member States to develop environmentally-sound technology for the destruction of weapons;

23. Notes that one of the potentially most serious threats that exist on the EU's doorstep lies in the inadequate monitoring of waste from nuclear arms processing and of biological and chemical weapons stores and in the need for decontamination following military activity; stresses that it is important that the Member States actively promote increased international cooperation, for instance within the UN and the Partnership for Peace, with the aim of destroying such weapons in as environment-friendly way as possible;

24. Takes the view that all further negotiations on the reduction and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons must be based on the principles of mutual and balanced reductions commitments;

25. Takes the view that, given the particularly difficult circumstances afflicting the countries of the former Soviet Union, the threat to the global as well as local environment posed by the degradation of the condition of nuclear weapons and materials still held in those countries makes it an even more urgent priority to reach agreement on the further progressive elimination of nuclear weapons;

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 also covered 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 concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing; regrets the repeated refusal of the United States Administration to send anyone in person to give evidence to the public hearing or any subsequent meeting held by its competent committee into the environmental and public risks connected with the high Frequency Active Auroral Research Project (HAARP) programme currently being funded in Alaska;

28. Requests the Scientific and Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Panel to agree to examine the scientific and technical evidence provided in all existing research findings on HAARP to assess the exact nature 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 governments of Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Russian Federation, to examine the environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings;

30. Calls in particular for an international convention for a global ban 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;

31. Calls on the European Union and its Member States to work for the establishment of international treaties to protect the environment from unnecessary destruction in the event of war;

32. Calls on the European Union and its Member States to work towards the establishment of international standards for the environmental impact of peacetime military activities;

33. Calls on the Council to play an active part in the implementation of the proposals of the Canberra Commission and Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty on nuclear disarmament;

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 on Disarmament with regard to the further negotiations towards full implementation of the commitments on nuclear weapons reductions and elimination as rapidly as possible to a level where, in the interim, the global stock of remaining weapons poses no threat to the integrity and sustainability of the global environment;

35. Calls on the Presidency of the Council, the Commission and the governments of the Member States to advocate the approach taken in this resolution in all further United Nations meetings held under the auspices of or in relation to the NPT and the Conference on Disarmament;

36. Calls on the Presidency of the Council and the Commission, in accordance with Article J.7 of the Treaty on European Union, to report to it on the Union"s position concerning the specific points contained in this Resolution within the context of forthcoming meetings of the United Nations, its agencies and bodies, notably the 1999 Preparatory Committee of the NPT, the Conference on Disarmament and all other relevant international fora;

37. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the Member States of the European Union and to the United Nations.


B EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

A defence against environmental threats

The security scenario has undergone considerable change in a relatively short period of time. It is less than 10 years since the Iron Curtain divided a nuclear Europe in half. Europe is now uniting as the European Union enlarges to include former Warsaw Pact countries. The Cold War has ended and a major war in Europe would now seem impossible. At the same time new threats are emerging. Massive displacement of refugees, ethnic conflicts, terrorism and international crime are just some examples of current threats to security. Another serious threat is posed by natural disasters and environmental problems caused by nature itself and the human race's methods of exploiting the earth's resources.

A number of environmental catastrophes have brought the human race new problems, the latest of these being the dam disaster in Spain. The landslides in Italy, the devastation wrought by El Ni?o and the Chernobyl nuclear accident are other contemporary examples of the devastating consequences of natural and environmental disasters. In certain parts of the world, drought can wipe out several years' harvests bringing starvation, and in many cases death, to much of the population. Mankind's defences against these disasters look very fragile at the present time.

Environmental and natural disasters have tragic consequences for individuals and may have catastrophic repercussions for societies and entire nations. The cost of this type of disaster is huge both in terms of the lives they claim and the cost of repairing the material damage. When such disasters occur, it is obvious that there have not been sufficient resources to detect and/prevent them. The efforts that are made are often far too late. Preventive work must therefore be strengthened. The investment required for this is enormous but the available resources are very limited. A new approach is required to exploit the available resources, while new resources are developed at the same time. It is obvious that a nation alone cannot protect itself against environmental disasters; environmental problems call for international cooperation. The threatening scenarios are global and international cooperation is fundamental.

Local and regional ecological problems can have considerable implications for international relations. Radioactive fallout, floods and drought are not held in check by national frontiers. Environmental refugees cross national boundaries to equally poor or even poorer nations. These new causes of instability and insecurity must be reflected in the content and form of how nations create and maintain peace and security. Since environmental and ecological problems constitute serious threats to peace and security, this fact must also be reflected in foreign, defence and security policy. There is a need to analyse how military resources can be used against this growing threat to security and to eliminate these new sources of instability and unrest. There is an urgent need to mobilise resources to meet the environmental challenge.

The change in the security situation has resulted in military d?tente, disarmament and confidencebuilding measures between the former enemies, the USA and Russia. This has led to intensive scaling down of military forces, units have been disbanded and military equipment has, therefore, become superfluous. Russia and the USA, above all, have radically reduced their armed forces though military expenditure has also fallen in Europe(1).

The freeing-up of military resources has given the armed forces a unique opportunity and plenty of capacity to deal with the increasing number of environmental problems. The armed forces have a highly efficient organisation and extensive technical resources which can be used for environment enhancement at no great cost by redeploying or rechannelling resources. The European Union can unite around a new environmental strategy in which military resources are used for joint protection of the environment. The European Union can play an important role in furthering a joint global assumption of responsibility for the environment and at the same time promote peace and confidencebuilding measures.

The Member States of the European Union have both the technical and economic wherewithal to take wide-ranging responsibility for the environment. They are also aware of the implications of ignoring the environmental challenge. The destruction of the environment affects the underlying conditions determining growth and economic development but despite that, military expenditure worldwide is three to five times greater than spending on the environment.(2)

The armed forces themselves caused enormous damage to the environment and should, therefore, also take considerably more responsibility for the environment.

Modern security threats

There is a growing international awareness of the extent of environmental problems. This is illustrated in particular by the UN follow-up conferences on water (Mar del Plata), desertification (Nairobi), the environment and development (Rio de Janeiro) and climate change (Kyoto). Environmental problems can lead to such serious difficulties that they endanger the security of both individuals and countries. Environmental problems may also have repercussions in terms of a country's international relations. Air and water know no national boundaries. Specific examples of potential or already-existing environmental threats are:

Limited water resources

As the world's population increases, so does demand for clean water. Fresh water is a very unevenly distributed natural resource, fewer than 10 countries possess 60% of the total fresh water resources on earth(3) and several countries in Europe are dependent on imports of water. In future conflicts, attacks on sources of fresh water may not only be an objective per se but may also be the cause of conflict. Conflicts over water rights may result in increased international tension and local and/or international conflicts. For example, disputes over the river Indus could trigger an armed conflict in the tense relations between India and Pakistan. There is a long list of potential conflicts over fresh water. An estimated 300 rivers, lakes and sources of ground water are located in international border areas.(4) In the Middle East, nine of 14 countries have a shortage of water resources and there is a great risk that the others will also be affected.(5) In 1995, a fifth of the earth's population had no access to clean water and it is estimated that the figure will rise to two thirds by the year 2025.(6)

Climate change

Through an increase in carbon dioxide(7) and other emissions, the average temperature on earth has risen by five degrees this century. The heat has also become more intense. Research has found that humidity has risen by 10% over the last 20 years. The increase in humidity can cause stronger and more frequent storms in certain regions at the same time as others are stricken by drought. Up to two decades of intensive research into global climate change may be needed before more detailed decisions can be taken as to which measures should be adopted.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an international organisation comprising 2000 of the world's most eminent researchers, predicts that the earth's temperature will rise by 1.5 - 4.5 degrees and that sea level will have risen by 50 cm by the year 2100 if carbon dioxide emissions continue at present levels. It is estimated that up to 1/3 of the world's population and over 1/3 of its infrastructure are located in coastal areas. A rise in sea level would submerge large areas of land and several million people would be affected by famine owing to the loss of extensive areas of agriculture.

These and other environmental threats may give rise to an exodus of refugees. Environmental refugees are increasingly attracting international attention. An estimated 25 million people are refugees from drought, soil erosion, and other environmental problems, which may be compared with approximately 22 million 'traditional' refugees. Experts claim that environmental refugees may cause 'one of the worst humanitarian crises of our time'.(8)

They suffer from social, political and economic problems that may result in conflicts and violence. Environmental refugees must be given official recognition. There is a need for greater international cooperation to curtail these problems and more aid to the countries affected and their inhabitants.

Military impact on the environment in war and peace

Military activity is responsible for widespread environmental destruction in society. Military activities have a wide-ranging negative impact on the environment, in peace and in war, both intentionally and as an unintentional consequence. Destroying the environment has been an established method of waging war since ancient times. War is also far and away the most serious threat to the environment. A topical example is the devastating consequences of the Gulf War with hundreds of oil wells on fire and large quantities of toxic substances rising uncontrolled into the atmosphere. It will take a long time for the environment to recover. Some damage may be irreparable.

The military are developing ever more powerful weapons which inflict widespread and devastating damage on the environment. A modern war entails greater environmental destruction than any other environment-destructive activity. Below is a description of some weapons systems which also have seriously damaging effects on the environment in peace time.

Mines

Mines are enormously damaging to the environment. According to the UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), landmines are one of the most widespread items of material war debris and may affect the ecological balance. Mine-laying destroys large areas, often agricultural, which are rendered unusable far into the future. Mines are the greatest obstacle to development in many of the poorest regions of the world. 80-110 million mines are deployed in 65 countries throughout the world. They can detonate several decades after being laid and the majority of those who fall victim to them are civilians, above all children. Mine clearance is a very dangerous, time-consuming and costly process. The development of new mine-clearance methods is progressing far too slowly and must be stepped up.

One positive achievement is that the 1997 Oslo Conference agreed that all antipersonnel mines should be banned without exception, that stocks of mines should be destroyed within four years and that countries affected by mines should be given more aid. A large number of countries signed the 1997 Ottawa Convention but several countries, including the USA, Russia, India and China have not done so. The European Union must work to persuade these countries to become parties to the agreement immediately. The EU should do more to assist the victims of mines and to support the development of mine-clearance techniques.

'Non-lethal' weapons(9)

So-called 'non-lethal' weapons are not a new type of weapon but have existed for many years in such forms as water cannons, rubber bullets and tear gas. However, at the present time, more and more advanced weapon techniques have been developed which are labelled non-lethal despite the fact that they can cause extensive damage and even result in invalidity or death.

Both material and antipersonnel technologies have been developed. One example is acoustic weapons which are capable of confusing and disorientating and thereby neutralising an enemy by producing a low level of sound, known as infra-sound. Other examples are adhesive foam and blinding lasers. Chemicals which discolour water can affect both agriculture 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 used against a country's infrastructure and authorities, bring the railway system 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'.(10)

The fact that these different types of weapon are all categorised as non-lethal is seriously misleading and deluding. The term 'non-lethal' is intended to portray these weapons as more humane than conventional weapons - but there are no humane weapons. The use of any type of weapon involves a risk of injury or death, which is of course the purpose of weapons. 'Non-lethal' weapons tend to be used at an early stage of a conflict and may actually serve as a catalyst for the conflict. The use of violence by soldiers and police may increase because the weapons appear to be less dangerous. The inherent risk is that these weapons reduce the threshold for the use of violence to settle conflicts.

The aim is to neutralise the enemy without sustained suffering and without fatalities. But how and against whom 'non-lethal' weapons are used is an important consideration in terms of the implications of these weapons. A weapon that can render a soldier harmless, may injure or even kill a child or an elderly person. The distance from which they are fired and in what quantity are other factors with a bearing on the effects of the weapon. By way of comparison, conventional weapons result in 'only' 25% mortality.(11)

Non-lethal weapons are used as an effective aid in modern warfare, either independently or in conjunction with conventional weapons. For example, the USA used radiofrequent weapons in the Gulf War to knock out Iraq's energy system(12), despite not knowing the antipersonnel effects of RF weapons. Non-lethal weapons should, therefore, not be regarded as separate from a lethal system but rather as a component thereof. The development of non-lethal weapons increases both their options. The result is therefore greater use of force rather than the opposite. 'Non-lethal' weapons do not result in non-lethal conflicts.

As a wider range of non-lethal weapons are developed, the military, police and politicians become more and more interested in testing how they work. Non-lethal weapons must not be used as an instrument of political interference and dominance of the northern over the southern countries.

There is no effective legislation governing non-lethal weapons. Only a small number of non-lethal weapons and techniques can be banned through the interpretation of various arms control regulations, e.g. adhesive foam (which was used in Somalia and Bosnia). Certain types of laser (which blind people) have also been restricted in the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Biological toxins (e.g. salmonella and other bacteria) are banned by the Biological Weapons Convention. Several of these weapons may have serious environmental implications. International law must therefore be strengthened to regulate the new weapons which are under constant development.

The International Red Cross Committee's Cyrus project could be used in the absence of other reliable international standards for non-lethal weapons. The Cyrus project has classified and established criteria for conventional weapons in relation to mortality, invalidity, necessary treatment, blood supply, etc. The European Union should pursue a policy to extend international conventions to cover new weapons technologies and the development of new arms strategies.

Chemical weapons

The United Nations' commitment to destroying chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has resulted in serious concern about the environmental impact of military activities and has strengthened the need to seek out ecologically sound methods of disarming weapons. The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) entered into force in April 1997. Under the terms of Article 1, the states which have ratified the Convention undertake never and under no circumstances to develop, produce or export chemical weapons. They also undertake never to use chemical weapons and to destroy already existing chemical weapons. Under Article 3, states shall, no later than 30 days after the Convention enters into force, notify whether they possess chemical weapons and their location and submit a plan for destruction of those weapons. Destruction should begin with the oldest stocks. 165 states have signed the Convention and 110 have ratified it. 26 states have not signed the CWC, including some important countries in the Middle East.

The destruction of chemical weapons is a cause for serious concern over the environment - they include tens of thousands of tonnes of mustard gas, nerve gas and other chemical substances. Chemical weapons can be destroyed by incineration but very few countries have suitable facilities to do this. To disarm chemical weapons is expensive, three to ten times more expensive than to produce them. If Russia, which has very large stocks, is to be able to do so, it needs financial aid from other countries. In Kambarka, a town in Russia, there are 6000 tonnes of chemical weapons stored in wooden sheds 2 km from a densely populated area. Handling the considerable quantities of hazardous substances calls for a substantial input of resources and they will take a considerable number of years to destroy. There is a clear risk of accidents and of weapons falling into the wrong hands.

It has been confirmed that approximately 150 000 tonnes of bombs, artillery shells and mines filled with chemical weapons, chiefly mustard gas, phosgene, tabun and arsenic-based weapons were dumped in the Skaggerak at the end of the Second World War. The corresponding figure for the Baltic is 40 000 tonnes. Many of the containers have rusted through and the chemical weapons are in direct contact with the sea water. It has nevertheless been decided that they should remain on the seabed for the time being as the risk of extensive leakage during salvage is considered to be appreciably greater.

Nuclear weapons

The environmental impact of a nuclear war would be enormous. It is likely that the combined effects of radioactive fall-out over large areas, the depletion of the ozone layer through nitrogen oxides, from nuclear explosions and climate change caused by widespread and sustained fires would cause largescale environmental disasters over large areas of the globe.

Test explosions also have manifestly destructive effects on the environment. The total quantity of radioactive fall-out emitted into the atmosphere by atmospheric tests is estimated to be between 100 and 1000 times greater than that discharged by the Chernobyl disaster.(13) The 1963 partial test ban treaty between the USA, the USSR and the UK bans nuclear testing in the atmosphere, outer space and under water, i.e. in all environments except under ground.

France has carried out more than 180 nuclear test explosions at the Mururoa atoll in the Pacific Ocean since 1966 with significant impact on the environment.(14) Several kilos of hazardous plutonium have been recovered from the sediment at the bottom of the lagoons at the Mururoa and Fangataufa atolls. Plutonium particles have also been spread across the land on three islands in the vicinity of Mururoa.(15) India and Pakistan have also recently carried out test explosions.(16) Their technical development is not considered to be sufficiently controlled, which means that these nuclear tests may have an impact on the environment far beyond the region itself. An independent international investigation into the environmental impact at the test locations and their surroundings should be carried out immediately.

Plutonium is the absolutely most hazardous substance known to man. Many countries possess large quantities of military plutonium and nuclear weapons can be produced relatively simply from 'civilian' plutonium. Facilities which at present have a civilian function can be converted within a short space of time to produce weapons. When plutonium is manufactured, a large quantity of highly radioactive liquid waste is produced. The handling of nuclear waste causes immense problems. The large-scale production of weapons of mass destruction which has taken place during recent decades has produced large quantities of waste. There is no known serviceable method of storing radioactive waste. It is usually stored in tanks, but large quantities have been discharged directly into the environment. This radioactive waste is extremely flammable and may explode if it is not ventilated or cooled. In 1957 an accident occurred at the Chelyabinsk-65 nuclear plant close by the town of Kystym in the Ural mountains, a radioactive tank exploded and radioactive waste dispersed over an area of 1000 square kilometres. 10 000 people had to be evacuated. At Lake Karachai near Chelyabinsk-65, it is still possible, merely by standing at the edge of the lake, to absorb so much radioactive radiation as to die on the spot.(17) In the Baltic states there are large areas which are polluted by previous Soviet military activities. In Estonia, Lake Sillanm?, also known as the 'atomic lake', contains radioactive military waste equivalent to thousands of atomic weapons. Sillanm? is 100 metres from the Baltic Sea. Any leak into the Baltic would have devastating repercussions for the environment in the entire Baltic Sea region.

At the end of the 1980s, Russia had more nuclear submarines than all other countries in the world together. The Kola Peninsula and Sevrodvinsk in Russia currently have the largest concentration of nuclear reactors in the world (240 units).(18) Large quantities of radioactive waste and nuclearpowered submarines have been stored at the shipyards on the Kola Peninsula. Russia and the Russian fleet are in an impossible position to deal with the scrapped reactors. They have no financial resources to pay for safe decommissioning. Low wages have resulted in highly qualified staff leaving the shipyards, which has led to a severe shortage of skills.

Even in central Moscow, 1200 sources of radioactive poisoning have been found, including in sandpits, air-raid shelters, private flats, garages and sports facilities.(19) The possibility of coming across nuclear weapons, chemical and biological weapons from military stores and substances from research institutions or industry in Russia must not be underestimated.

It is of serious concern that there is no adequate equipment to dispose of the waste in an environmentally safe manner. Both from an economic and an environmental point of view, any accident that may occur would have devastating repercussions. With every year that passes without sufficient measures being taken, the risk and scale of a serious accident increase.

A practical and realistic proposal for a method of phasing out the world's nuclear weapons does, in fact, exist. The proposal was presented in August 1996 by the independent group of experts making up the Canberra Commission.(20) In July 1996, the International Court at The Hague delivered a unanimous opinion to the effect that Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty commits nuclear states to initiate negotiations on nuclear disarmament. The Court also ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons was not consistent with international law. The European Union should actively work towards the implementation of the Canberra Commission's proposal and Article 6 of the NonProliferation Treaty.

HAARP - a weapons system which disrupts the climate

On 5 February 1998 Parliament's Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament held a hearing the subject of which included HAARP. NATO and the US had been invited to send representatives, but chose not to do so. The Committee regrets the failure of the USA to send a representative to answer questions, or to use the opportunity to comment on the material submitted.(21)

HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) is run jointly by the US Air Force and Navy, in conjunction with the Geophysical 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.(22) 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.(23) 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 energy can be controlled by manipulating the electrical characteristics of the atmosphere. 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 the earth several kilometres deep, to detect oil and gas fields, or underground military facilities. Over-the-horizon radar is another application, looking round the curvature of the earth for in-coming objects.

From the 1950s the USA conducted explosions of nuclear material in the Van Allen Belts(24) to investigate the effect of the electro-magnetic pulse generated by nuclear weapon explosions at these heights on radio communications and the operation of radar. This created new magnetic radiation belts which covered nearly the whole earth. The electrons travelled along magnetic lines of force and created an artificial Aurora Borealis above the North Pole. These military tests are liable to disrupt the Van Allen belt for a long period. The earth's magnetic field could be disrupted over large areas, which would obstruct radio communications. According to US scientists it could take hundreds of years for the Van Allen belt to return to normal. HAARP could result in changes in weather patterns. It could also influence whole 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 is that the holes will fill again, but our experience of change in the ozone 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 of global concern and we have to ask whether its advantages really outweigh the risks. The environmental impact and the ethical aspect must be closely examined before any further research and testing takes place. 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 for military purposes, including the Star Wars project, to control the upper atmosphere and communications. This kind of research has to be regarded as a serious threat to the environment, with an incalculable impact on human life. Even now nobody knows what impact HAARP may have. We have to beat down the wall of secrecy around military research, and set up the right to openness and democratic scrutiny of military research 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 activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space including the moon and other celestial bodies, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) 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.(25) This would mean that HAARP is a breach of international law. All the implications of the new weapons systems should be examined by independent international bodies. Further international agreements should be sought to protect the environment from unnecessary destruction in war.

Impact of military activities on the environment

Not only military weapons systems but, by and large, all military activities, including peace-time exercises, have some form of environmental impact. However, when environmental destruction has been discussed, the role of the military has not in general been touched upon, only the impact of civilian society on the environment has been criticised. There are at least two explanations for this.(26) Owing to its secrecy, military activity is more difficult to discuss and it is difficult to set the nation's top priority - its security and defence - against the environment. At the present time, however, when environmental and natural disasters constitute a serious threat to security, these arguments are more dubious. The armed forces endeavour to prepare themselves in peace time for operations in war in as realistic conditions as possible. They therefore carry out their exercises under warlike conditions, which involves subjecting the environment to great stress. This is illustrated, for instance, by the withdrawal of Soviet troops and the abandoned military bases in Eastern and Central Europe which have left deep scars on the local environment. Military exercises entail widespread damage to the landscape and animal life. Troop exercises subject large tracts of land to extensive environmental destruction. Test sites for artillery and tactical missiles tend to require larger surfaces for military purposes. Likewise, production of munitions and the industry that manufactures military equipment cause widespread environmental problems.

The military is responsible for emissions of several gases affecting the climate, primarily carbon dioxide, but also incineration of fossil fuels and emissions of freons, which results in the depletion of the ozone layer.(27) Consumption of aviation fuel is a major source of emissions of acidifying substances such as nitrogen oxides and sulphur oxide. The armed forces account for much of all consumption of aviation fuel and are responsible for a very large proportion of all aviation emissions.(28) High-flying planes and rockets have a particularly damaging impact on the environment, both in the form of noise and fuel emissions. All rockets using solid fuel emit large quantities of hydrochloric acid in their exhaust emissions and every flight of a space shuttle injects around 75 tonnes of ozone-destroying chlorine. Likewise, noise from military exercises using heavy calibre ammunition may bring about environmental disruption.

Metal pollution is dispersed into the environment through shooting practice; often large quantities of small calibre ammunition containing lead is used and large quantities of lead are dispersed into the environment. Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive information about consumption of metals.

Consequences in the form of environmental problems caused by disarmament is only a recently observed phenomenon. Every year, large quantities of explosive substances are destroyed, mostly through industrial processes. Some ammunition cannot be destroyed in this way for various reasons but must be detonated. Obviously, scaling down is a necessary and positive process but it must be carried out in environmentally acceptable ways. Environmentally sound technology must be developed for the purpose of destroying weapons.

Several nations have already begun to exploit the opportunities for using military-related resources to restore the environment destroyed by the armed forces. All other sectors in society have to take responsibility for the environment and the military sector should also do so. As in other sectors of society, environmental issues must form an integral part of the armed forces' activities and be incorporated in the decision-making and budgetary processes.

In May 1993, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) took a decision - 'application of environmental norms to military establishments' - to encourage national governments to enact national laws for the military sector. Finland, for example, has drawn up a green paper to regulate the impact of military activities on the environment. Sweden has followed suit.(29) In June 1996 Sweden, in conjunction with the USA, also drew up environmental guidelines for military activities.(30) The military should establish environmental targets and proposals for measures to help reduce the impact on the environment in accordance with Agenda 21 and the Rio Declaration.(31) They should also submit reports identifying factors affecting the environment within the armed forces. Environmental impact assessments must be drawn up before new projects commence and when procuring material for civilian and military use.

Every government should take stock of its environmental requirements and identify the military resources which are available for environmental purposes, draw up national environment plans and report their experience to an appropriate body within the European Union and the United Nations.

All military personnel, including conscripts, should receive basic training in environmental matters. The US armed forces are considered to be quite advanced in this respect, particularly in terms of equipment, but also in regard to training. The European Union should cooperate and exchange experience in this sector with the USA to a greater extent.

Strategies for using military resources for environment-enhancing purposes

Prevention of environmental crises requires infrastructure, organisation and increased resources. These are available in the armed forces. Many resources within the military sector could be used to protect, improve and restore the environment. Essentially, this would be based on two stages: a stocktaking stage to assess the suitability of the military resources and a political action plan to guarantee their availability.

Obviously, military-related resources vary a great deal from one country to another but they comprise skilled personnel, engineers, sophisticated hi-tech equipment, organisational ability and military research and development. In many ways, the military sector is in a unique position to strengthen international civilian capacity to implement environmental strategies. Military personnel are wellequipped to intervene in the event of disasters. As distinct from civilian forces, the military are trained to carry out missions under extreme conditions. They can also be called out in the event of environmental accidents and to clear up and destroy high-grade toxic, radioactive and other hazardous substances.

The armed forces also possess a great quantity of information which can help in detecting changes in the atmosphere, the sea and in the earth's surface and thereby provide an early warning and forestall environmental disasters. Military satellites, aeroplanes, surface vessels and submarines are capable of collecting further information on climate changes and on currents and temperature changes in the sea. Radar, which was developed for military purposes, can be used for environmental objectives. Infrared radar can detect temperature changes in the earth's surface. For example, American military satellites have been used to establish the number of whales, classify them and save them.

Environmental problems are global in nature and international cooperation is therefore crucial to prevent future environmental disasters. Joint international work can also serve a 'dual' purpose; it can build confidence for the very reason that it is carried out jointly - countries assist each other. It can also enable countries to shoulder a reasonable amount of responsibility for the environment in proportion to their strength.(32) Some important areas for joint undertakings might be technology transfer, joint training and education.

Environmental strategies might comprise monitoring the earth's environment, evaluating the data collected, coordinating scientific work and disseminating information. As a special form of international aid, national resources should be made available to the EU and the UN so that they may be used on request by a country stricken by an environmental disaster. Environmental strategies must also include a global stocktaking of resources suitable for environmental protection.

A disaster force composed of both civilian and military personnel could be set up for deployment in emergency situations. Taking part in international peace-keeping and humanitarian missions is already an important task for the military. However, a distinction must be made between such missions within national boundaries and within another state's jurisdiction. Lessons can be learned from UN experiences in this respect and, clearly, exercises or deployment on the territory of another nation must take place in accordance with international laws. We should consider which resources can be made available to the UN or the European Union, temporarily, long-term or on a standby basis as instruments for joint cooperation in the event of environmental disasters and environmental crises.

Military bilateral and multilateral cooperation has increased tremendously. Within NATO, a DanishGerman-Polish force is being developed which it will also be possible to use for civilian disaster aid, in addition to having traditional tasks. It is expected to be operational by spring 1999.

Technological resources within the military establishment

The military sectors of the EU Member States tend to be research and development-intensive. In the case of the major military powers, technological capacity is not only extensive but has also largely remained unaffected by budget cutbacks in comparison with conventional weapons. The process of developing new sophisticated weapons is ongoing. The military sector will probably be a leading consumer of advanced technology in the immediate future.

Most modern technologies are double-edged, i.e. they can be used both for military and civilian purposes. This means that military-related technologies can be transferred to the civilian sector without expensive modifications. However, it must be borne in mind that the highly complicated military systems which are based on advanced technologies are not designed for environmental purposes but require certain adjustments.

The technological capacity of military organisations in most developing countries is not a match for the environmental problems they face. The CIS and African countries have tremendous shortages of technology and environmental know-how. In an international perspective, therefore, transfer of technology and know-how is an extremely important task for the military.

Collection of environmental data and observations can be facilitated by the use of vessels, aeroplanes and spacecraft to identify and trace environmental abuse such as the dumping of waste and oil or natural hazards such as forest fires.

Another possible application of military-related resources is to use military capacity to monitor activities which are potentially damaging to the environment. Military resources can also be used to monitor agriculture, drought, afforestation and other forms of land conservation. Other areas of application might be as aid in developing countries, e.g. in the form of transport and disaster work, liming of lakes and forest with the aid of military aircraft and vessels but also combating of oil discharges and research and development resources for global environment work.

Military personnel on environment duty - an example

The Swedish Parliament decided on 13 December 1996 to make environmental protection a special part of its defence policy and, in the long-term, to train 10 000 conscripts per year with
Mar 08, 2006
zeist3.jpg
Chemtrails Boven Zeist op 4 maart 2005201 viewsDit zijn allemaal CHEMTRAILS! Er is op deze foto geen enkele natuurlijke echte wolk te zien, het zijn louter Afvalsporen uit stealth-jets...

HAARP - een wapensysteem dat het klimaat ontregelt
Op 5 februari 1998 organiseerde de Subcommissie veiligheid en ontwapening van het Europees
Parlement een hoorzitting over o.a. HAARP. Vertegenwoordigers van de NAVO en de VS waren
uitgenodigd, maar zij verkozen niet deel te nemen. De Commissie betreurt dat de VS niemand
stuurde om vragen te beantwoorden en geen gebruik maakte van de mogelijkheid het gepresenteerde
materiaal van een toelichting te voorzien(24).
HAARP; programma voor het onderzoek van hoogfrequente straling (High Frequency Active
Auroral Research Project) wordt gezamenlijk uitgevoerd door de Amerikaanse luchtmacht en
marine, in samenwerking met het Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
Soortgelijke proeven worden eveneens uitgevoerd door Noorwegen, waarschijnlijk op de Zuidpool,
maar ook in de voormalige Sovjetunie(25). HAARP is een onderzoeksproject in het kader waarvan
met uitrusting op de grond, een net van antennes die ieder hun energie ontvangen van een eigen
zender, delen van ionosfeer worden opgewarmd(26) met krachtige radiogolven. De gegenereerde
energie warmt bepaalde delen van de ionosfeer op met het gevolg dat er in de ionosfeer eveneens
gaten vallen en kunstmatige lenzen ontstaan.
HAARP kan voor vele doelen worden ingezet. Door de elektrische eigenschappen in de atmosfeer
te manipuleren kunnen enorme krachten worden gestuurd. Indien dit wordt gebruikt als wapen
kunnen de gevolgen voor de vijand verwoestend zijn. Door middel van HAARP kan miljoenen
malen meer energie naar een exacte plaats worden gedirigeerd dan met iedere andere traditionele
zender. De energie kan eveneens worden gericht tegen een bewegend doel, hetgeen nuttig kan zijn
bij de bestrijding van vijandelijke raketten.
DOC_NE\RR\370\370003 - 20 - PE 227.710/def.
Het project maakt het eveneens mogelijk beter met onderzee?rs te communiceren en de
weersomstandigheden op de wereld te manipuleren. Ook het tegenovergestelde is echter mogelijk,
namelijk het storen van de communicatie. Door de ionosfeer te be?nvloeden kan de mondiale
communicatie worden gestoord, terwijl tegelijkertijd de mededeling van de gebruiker doorkomt. Een
andere toepassing van het systeem is het maken van r?ntgenfoto's van de aarde tot op enkele
kilometers diepte (via aarddoordringende tomografie) om aardolie- en gasvelden te lokaliseren, maar
eveneens onderaardse militaire uitrusting. Radar die over de horizon heen kan kijken en objecten op
lange afstand kan defini?ren, is een verdere toepassing van het HAARP-systeem. Op deze manier
kunnen naderende objecten worden opgezocht achter de kromming van het aardoppervlak.
Sinds het begin van de jaren '50 heeft de VS in de Van Allen-gordels kernmateriaal tot ontploffing
gebracht om te onderzoeken welke gevolgen kernontploffingen op zo grote hoogte wegens de
elektromagnetische pulsen die tijdens de explosie ontstaan, hadden voor de doorgifte van
radiosignalen en voor de werking van radar. Zo ontstonden nieuwe magnetische stralingsgordels die
vrijwel de hele aarde omvatten. De elektronen bewogen zich langs magnetische-veldlijnen en
veroorzaakten boven de Noordpool een kunstmatig noorderlicht. Het gevaar bestaat dat de Van
Allen-gordel ten gevolge van deze militaire tests langdurig ernstig ontregeld wordt. Het magnetisch
veld van de aard kan over grote gebieden worden gestoord waardoor radiocommunicatie onmogelijk
wordt. Volgens Amerikaanse wetenschappers kan het honderden jaren duren voordat de Van Allengordel
weer gestabiliseerd is. HAARP kan veranderingen in weerpatronen met zich meebrengen. Het
kan eveneens van invloed zijn op het hele ecosysteem, met name in de gevoelige Zuidpool-regio.
Een bijkomend ernstig gevolg van HAARP zijn de gaten in de ionosfeer die worden veroorzaakt
door de krachtige radiostralen die worden uitgezonden. De ionosfeer beschermt ons tegen kosmische
straling van buiten. Gehoopt wordt dat de gaten zich weer vullen, maar de ervaringen met
veranderingen van de ozonlaag wijzen in tegengestelde richting. Dit betekent dat de beschermende
ionosfeer grote gaten vertoont.
Door de enorme gevolgen voor het milieu is HAARP een mondiaal probleem en het is te betwijfelen
of de voordelen van deze systemen werkelijk opwegen tegen de gevaren. De ecologische en ethische
gevolgen moeten diepgaand worden onderzocht voordat verder onderzoek en proeven worden
uitgevoerd. HAARP is bij de publieke opinie vrijwel geheel onbekend en het is van belang dat het
algemene besef inzake dit project wordt verruimd.
HAARP is gekoppeld aan vijftig jaar intensief ruimte-onderzoek van duidelijk militaire aard, o.a.
in het kader van "Star Wars", met de bedoeling de bovenste lagen van de atmosfeer en de
communicaties te beheersen. Dit soort onderzoek moet als een ernstige verstoring van het milieu
worden beschouwd, die eventueel onvermoede gevolgen voor het menselijk leven kan hebben.
Niemand weet momenteel zeker welke gevolgen HAARP met zich mee kan brengen. De cultuur van
geheimzinnigheid in verband met militair onderzoek moet worden bestreden. Het recht op
openbaarheid en democratische controle van militaire onderzoeksprojecten en van parlementair
onderzoek moet worden bevorderd.
Tegen het licht van een reeks internationale wetten (Verdrag inzake het verbod van militair of ieder
ander vijandelijk gebruik van technieken om het milieu te veranderen, het Zuidpool-verdrag, het
Verdrag houdende beginselen voor het gedrag van de landen bij het onderzoek van de ruimte, met
inbegrip van de maan en andere hemellichamen, en het VN-verdrag inzake zeewetgeving) komt
HAARP naar voren als zeer twijfelachtig, niet alleen vanuit menselijk en politiek standpunt, maar
ook vanuit juridische optiek. Volgens het Zuidpool-verdrag mag de Zuidpool uitsluitend worden
(27) Artikel 1, Zuidpool-verdrag.
(28) Openbare onderzoeken van de overheid, SOU 1992: 104, blz. 54.
(29) Defensie en milieu, FM sectorieel verslag voor 1995, blz. 8.
(30) Alleen al het Zweedse leger produceert ieder jaar 866.199 ton koolstofdioxide, ibid blz. 60.
DOC_NE\RR\370\370003 - 21 - PE 227.710/def.
gebruikt voor vreedzame doelen(27). Dit betekent dat HAARP een overtreding van het volkerenrecht
is. Alle gevolgen van de nieuwe wapensystemen moeten door onafhankelijke internationale
instanties worden onderzocht. Er moeten aanvullende internationale overeenkomsten worden
opgesteld om het milieu tijdens oorlogen te beschermen tegen onnodige aantasting.
Invloed van militaire activiteiten op het milieu
Niet alleen de wapensystemen van de strijdkrachten, maar in het algemeen alle militaire activiteiten
hebben op de een of andere manier gevolgen voor het milieu, zelfs oefeningen die in vredestijd
worden gehouden. Wanneer wordt gesproken over milieuvernietiging wordt in het algemeen niet
ingegaan op de rol van de strijdkrachten, er is uitsluitend kritiek geweest op de invloed die de
burgermaatschappij heeft op het milieu. Hiervoor zijn ten minste twee verklaringen(28). Militaire
activiteiten zijn wegens de geheimhouding moeilijker bespreekbaar en het valt niet mee het hoogste
belang van de staat, te weten de veiligheid en verdediging, af te zetten tegen het milieu. Nu milieuen
natuurrampen een ernstige bedreiging van de veiligheid vormen, lijken deze argumenten echter
dubieuzer.
Het defensie-apparaat probeert zich in vredestijd in zo realistisch mogelijke omstandigheden voor
te bereiden op zijn oorlogstaken. Het voert zijn oefeningen dan ook uit onder oorlogsachtige
omstandigheden, hetgeen betekent dat het milieu ernstig wordt belast. Dit wordt bijvoorbeeld
aangetoond door de terugtrekking van de Sovjettroepen en de verlaten militaire bases in Oost- en
Midden-Europa, die diepe sporen hebben achtergelaten in het milieu ter plaatse. Militaire oefeningen
brengen enorme schade met zich mee voor landschap en fauna. Manoeuvres veroorzaken in grote
gebieden enorme schade aan het milieu. Testzones voor artillerie en tactische projectielen vergen
steeds grotere oppervlakten voor militaire doeleinden. Ook de productie van oorlogstuig en de
militaire industrie veroorzaakt op grote schaal milieuproblemen.
Defensie veroorzaakt de uitworp van een aantal broeikasgassen, met name kooldioxide, maar
eveneens de verbranding van fossiele brandstoffen en de uitstoot van freonen, die ertoe leiden dat
de ozonlaag dunner wordt(29). De consumptie van vliegtuigbrandstoffen is een omvangrijke bron van
de uitworp van verzurende stoffen zoals stikstofoxiden en zwaveloxide. Defensie neemt een groot
deel van het totale verbruik van vliegtuigbrandstoffen voor haar rekening en is verantwoordelijk voor
een zeer groot deel van de totale uitworp door vliegtuigen(30). Een bijzonder schadelijke invloed op
het milieu hebben hoogvliegende vliegtuigen en raketten, door het lawaai dat ze produceren en door
de lozing van vliegtuigbrandstof. Alle raketten met vaste-brandstofaandrijving produceren grote
hoeveelheden zoutzuur in de uitlaatgassen en iedere vlucht met het ruimteveer brengt circa 75 ton
ozonvernietigend chloor in de dampkring. Ook het lawaai van militaire oefeningen met groot kaliber
munitie kan leiden tot verstoringen van het milieu.
Verontreiniging met metalen treedt in de natuur op tijdens schietoefeningen, veelal worden grote
hoeveelheden loodhoudende munitie van klein kaliber gebruikt en grote hoeveelheden lood worden
in de natuur verspreid. Helaas ontbreken globale gegevens over het gebruik van metalen.
Pas onlangs is gewezen op de milieuproblemen die ontwapening met zich meebrengt. Ieder jaar
worden grote hoeveelheden explosieven vernietigd, hoofdzakelijk via industri?le methoden.
Sommige munitie kan om diverse redenen niet op deze manier worden vernietigd, maar moet tot
(31) Handboek milieu ten behoeve van Defensie.
(32) "Environmental Guidelines for the Military Sector" met steun van het NAVO-comit? Challenges of Modern
Society.
(33) Agenda 21 en de Verklaring van Rio zijn concrete resultaten van de VN-conferentie over milieu en
ontwikkeling die in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro is gehouden.
DOC_NE\RR\370\370003 - 22 - PE 227.710/def.
ontploffing worden gebracht. Uiteraard is deze geleidelijke vernietiging noodzakelijk en positief,
maar deze activiteiten moeten in milieutechnisch aanvaardbare vormen worden gegoten. Er moet
een milieutechnisch gezonde technologie worden ontwikkeld voor de vernietiging van wapens.
Diverse landen benutten reeds de mogelijkheden militaire kredieten te gebruiken voor het herstel van
door de strijdkrachten beschadigd milieu. Alle andere maatschappelijke sectoren moeten hun
verantwoordelijkheid voor het milieu aanvaarden en hetzelfde moet ook voor de militaire sector
gelden. Milieuproblemen moeten, evenals in de andere maatschappelijke sectoren, onlosmakelijk
deel vormen van de activiteiten van het defensie-apparaat en zij moeten tijdens de besluitvormingsen
begrotingsprocedure in overweging worden genomen. In mei 1993 besloot UNEP (United Nations
Environment Programme), het milieu-orgaan van de Verenigde Naties, de nationale regeringen te
verzoeken nationale wetten aan te nemen voor de militaire sector, "Application of Environmental
Norms to Military Establishments". O.a. Finland heeft een "Groenboek" opgesteld om de invloed
van militaire activiteiten op het milieu te reglementeren. Hetzelfde heeft ook Zweden gedaan (31).
Eveneens heeft Zweden in juni 1996 met de VS milieurichtsnoeren opgesteld voor de activiteiten
van de strijdkrachten(32). Defensie moet milieudoelen stellen en maatregelen voorstellen om ertoe
bij te dragen dat het milieu in mindere mate wordt aangetast, overeenkomstig Agenda 21 en de
"Verklaring van Rio"(33). Zij dient eveneens verslagen op te stellen waarin wordt bepaald welke
invloed Defensie heeft op het milieu. Milieu-effectrapportages moeten worden opgesteld voordat
met nieuwe projecten wordt begonnen en wanneer materieel wordt aangeschaft voor civiel of militair
gebruik.
Iedere regering moet een inventaris opstellen van haar milieu-eisen en de militaire middelen bepalen
die beschikbaar zijn voor milieudoelen, nationale milieuprogramma?s opstellen en de ervaringen
rapporteren aan het bevoegde orgaan in de Europese Unie en de Verenigde Naties.
Alle militair personeel en ook de dienstplichtigen moeten fundamentele instructie in milieukennis
krijgen. Er wordt van uitgegaan dat de Amerikaanse strijdkrachten op milieugebied ver gevorderd
zijn, met name in de sector materieel, maar ook qua opleiding. De Europese Unie moet nauwer
samenwerken met de VS en ervaringen in deze sector uitwisselen.
Strategie?n om militaire middelen in te zetten ter bescherming van het milieu
Voorkoming van milieucrises vergt infrastructuur, organisatie en meer middelen. Deze zijn in de
strijdkrachten beschikbaar. Tal van middelen die thans tot de militaire sector behoren, kunnen
worden gebruikt ter bescherming, verbetering en herstel van het milieu. Dit verloopt in essentie via
twee stappen: een inventarisatiefase, waarin wordt vastgesteld in hoeverre de militaire middelen
inzetbaar zijn en een politiek actieprogramma ter waarborging van hun beschikbaarheid.
De militaire middelen verschillen uiteraard aanzienlijk per land, maar zij omvatten goed opgeleid
personeel, technici, geavanceerde technologische uitrusting, organisatievermogen en militair
onderzoek en ontwikkeling. De militaire sector bekleedt in tal van opzichten een unieke positie
wanneer het aankomt op vergroting van het vermogen van de internationale burgermaatschappij om
milieustrategie?n uit te voeren. Militair personeel is uitstekend toegerust om in rampsituaties in actie
te komen. De strijdkrachten zijn, in tegenstelling tot burgerorganisaties, opgeleid, om onder extreme
(34) Charting potential uses of resources allocated to military activities for civilian endeavours to protect the
environment, UN: A46/364 1991.
DOC_NE\RR\370\370003 - 23 - PE 227.710/def.
omstandigheden taken uit te voeren. Zij kunnen eveneens worden ingezet voor interventies bij
milieu-ongelukken en voor de behandeling en vernietiging van uiterst giftige, radioactieve en andere
gevaarlijke stoffen.
Defensie beschikt eveneens over een grote hoeveelheid gegevens die kunnen bijdragen tot de
opsporing van veranderingen in de atmosfeer, in de zee en op het aardoppervlak, om aldus vooraf
te waarschuwen tegen milieurampen en deze te voorkomen. Militaire satellieten, vliegtuigen,
oppervlakteschepen en onderzee?rs zijn in staat aanvullende informatie te verzamelen over
klimaatveranderingen en over stromingen en temperatuurveranderingen in de zee. Voor militaire
doelen ontwikkelde radar kan worden ingezet voor milieudoelen. Infraroodradar kan
temperatuurveranderingen aan het aardoppervlak ontdekken. Amerikaanse militaire satellieten zijn
bijvoorbeeld gebruikt om het aantal walvissen vast te stellen, en om deze dieren te categoriseren en
te redden.
De milieuproblemen zijn mondiaal van aard en internationale samenwerking is dan ook van
doorslaggevende betekenis om in de toekomst milieurampen te voorkomen. Gemeenschappelijke
internationale actie kan ook een dubbel doel dienen; zij kan vertrouwen scheppen, juist vanwege haar
gemeenschappelijke aard; men helpt elkaar. Deze actie kan landen er eveneens van overtuigen een
redelijk deel van de milieuverantwoordelijkheid op zich te nemen, in verhouding tot hun
vermogen(34). Belangrijke sectoren voor gezamenlijke maatregelen kunnen zijn de overdracht van
technologie, gezamenlijke opleiding en instructie.
Milieustrategie?n moeten de bewaking van het milieu op aarde, de evaluatie van verzamelde
gegevens, de co?rdinatie van de wetenschappelijke werkzaamheden en de verspreiding van
informatie omvatten. Als bijzondere vorm van internationale hulp moeten nationale middelen ter
beschikking worden gesteld van EU en Verenigde Naties, zodat deze, indien nodig, ter beschikking
kunnen worden gesteld van een door een milieuramp getroffen land. In het kader van de
milieustrategie?n moet eveneens een mondiale inventaris worden opgesteld van middelen die
geschikt zijn voor de bescherming van het milieu.
Een uit civiel en militair personeel samengestelde rampeneenheid kan worden opgericht om in
noodgevallen te worden ingezet. Reeds thans is het een belangrijke taak van de strijdkrachten deel
te nemen aan internationale vredesbevorderende en humanitaire acties. Er moet echter verschil
worden gemaakt tussen dergelijke taken binnen de nationale grenzen en in de jurisdictie van een
ander land. In dit verband kan lering worden getrokken uit de ervaringen van de VN en uiteraard
dienen oefeningen en interventies op het grondgebied van een ander land te geschieden
overeenkomstig internationale wetten. Onderzocht moet worden welke middelen, als instrument voor
samenwerking in geval van milieurampen en -crises incidenteel, op lange termijn of op stand bybasis
ter beschikking kunnen worden gesteld van de VN of de Europese Unie.
De bi- en multilaterale militaire samenwerking is fors toegenomen. In het kader van de NAVO wordt
een Deens-Duits-Poolse eenheid opgezet die naast traditionele taken ook kan worden ingezet voor
civiele rampenhulp. In het voorjaar van 1999 zal deze eenheid naar verwachting operatief zijn.
Technologische middelen in het militaire establishment
De militaire sectoren van de lidstaten van de Europese Unie zijn vaak onderzoeks- en
ontwikkelingsintensief. De grote militaire mogendheden beschikken niet alleen over een enorme
(35) Voorstel 1995/96:12 Dienstplicht in vernieuwing.
(36) Opleiding van civieldienstplichtigen in milieudienst en Opleiding van milieudienstplichtigen, milieubrigade
Bor?s.
(37) Het opleidingsvoorstel is gebaseerd op het regiment in Bor?s, maar kan ook worden toegepast op andere
eenheden.
DOC_NE\RR\370\370003 - 24 - PE 227.710/def.
technologische capaciteit, maar deze is bovendien, in tegenstelling tot conventionele wapens, niet
het slachtoffer geworden van bezuinigingen. De ontwikkeling van nieuwe, verfijnde wapens gaat
door. De militaire sector zal op korte termijn vermoedelijk een van de belangrijkste consumenten
van geavanceerde technologie worden.
De meeste moderne technologie?n zijn duaal, d.w.z. ze kunnen worden gebruikt voor militaire en
civiele doelen. Dit houdt in dat militaire technologie?n zonder kostbare wijzigingen kunnen worden
overgebracht naar de civiele sector. Er zij echter op gewezen dat de uiterst gecompliceerde militaire
systemen, die gebaseerd zijn op geavanceerde technologie?n, niet zijn gebouwd voor milieudoelen,
maar bepaalde aanpassingen vergen.
De technologische capaciteit van de militaire organisatie in de meeste ontwikkelingslanden is niet
voldoende om het hoofd te bieden aan de milieuproblemen waarmee deze worden geconfronteerd.
De landen in het Gemenebest van Onafhankelijke Staten en de landen in Afrika vertonen een enorm
gebrek aan technologie en kennis omtrent het milieu. Vanuit internationaal standpunt is de
overdracht van technologie en kennis dan ook een uiterst belangrijke taak voor Defensie.
De verzameling van milieugegevens en waarnemingen kan worden vergemakkelijkt door de inzet
van schepen, vliegtuigen en ruimtevaartuigen om milieuvergrijpen zoals het storten van afval en het
lozen van olie, of natuurlijke gevaren zoals bosbranden, te ontdekken en op te sporen.
Een andere mogelijke toepassing van militaire middelen is het gebruik van militair vermogen om
bedrijvigheid die schadelijk kan zijn voor het milieu in het oog te houden. Militaire middelen kunnen
eveneens worden gebruikt om landbouw, droogte, bosaanplant en grondgebruik in het oog te houden.
Andere toepassingsgebieden kunnen zijn hulpacties in ontwikkelingslanden o.a. in de vorm van
vervoer en inzet bij rampen, het storten van kalk in zee?n en bossen met behulp van militaire
vliegtuigen en vaartuigen, maar eveneens de bestrijding van olielozingen en onderzoeks- en
ontwikkelingsmiddelen ten behoeve van algemene milieu-acties.
Soldaten in dienst van het milieu - een voorbeeld
Op 13 december 1996 besloot de Zweedse Rijksdag tot een speciale investering voor milieubeheer
binnen Defensie, en tot de uiteindelijke opleiding van tienduizend dienstplichtigen per jaar in het
kader van de bescherming van de burgerbevolking(35). Het besluit is tot nu toe nog niet uitgevoerd,
maar het diende als uitgangspunt voor een voorstel van een groep officieren(36). Het voorstel werd
op een hoorzitting van de Subcommissie veiligheid en ontwapening van het Europees Parlement op
19 mei 1998 gepresenteerd. Hieronder volgt een korte samenvatting(37).
De opleiding tot milieubeschermingssoldaat in het kader van de basisopleiding voor dienstplichtigen
is volstrekt mogelijk en eveneens noodzakelijk om de middelen en de capaciteit te krijgen die nodig
zijn voor de aanpak van milieuproblemen. De opzet van een dienstplichtopleiding in milieudienst
benut aanzienlijke maatschappelijke middelen en zorgt voor een nieuwe bron van internationale
milieu-investeringen.
DOC_NE\RR\370\370003 - 25 - PE 227.710/def.
De opleiding van milieusoldaten kan gebeuren in samenwerking met de diverse instanties van
Defensie, gemeenten, provinciale besturen, universiteiten en hogescholen, maar eveneens
milieu-organisaties, bedrijfsleven (b.vj. petrochemische industrie, energie-industrie,
winningsindustrie en andere verwerkende industrie?n) en internationale partners.
De milieudienstplichtigen moeten in eerste instantie worden opgeleid voor de bedreiging van het
milieu die in oorlogstijd toeneemt, maar eveneens om in vrede en oorlogstijd te worden ingezet als
reddings- en opruimeenheden. Uiteindelijk worden volgens het voorstel zes compagnie?n per
milieubrigade opgeleid in twee lichtingen, d.w.z in totaal 12 compagnie?n per brigade per jaar. De
opleiding is in handen van een opleidingsleider, een hoofd verkenning en informatie en een
commandant. Deze personen geven leiding aan zes milieucompagnie?n die bestaan uit een
compagniescommandant, een milieutechnicus, een compagnietechnicus, een adjudant en 12
opleiders. De milieutechnicus onderhoudt nauwe contacten met de BB, maar eveneens met
onderzoekers. Ter ondersteuning van hun werkzaamheden beschikken ze over een intendancedienst,
een kantine en milieudienstplichtigen en gewone dienstplichtigen. In eerste instantie ontvangen de
groepshoofden een opleiding als leider, en een zekere fundamentele opleiding op het gebied van
milieubescherming.
In de eerste fase van de opleiding moeten de soldaten een fundamentele gevechts- en
milieubeschermingsopleiding krijgen waarbij de nadruk valt op de gevechtsopleiding en de
lichamelijke training. Daarop volgen milieu-opleiding en materiaalinstructie, die zijn ingesteld op
de respectieve posities van de soldaten. De eindfase van de opleiding wordt gebruikt voor
gereserveerde, d.w.z. geplande milieu-acties. Tijdens de basisopleiding kunnen
milieudienstplichtigen niet alleen worden ingezet voor geplande milieu-acties, maar bij acute
milieurampen kunnen zij hulp verlenen in geval van bosbranden, sneeuwstormen,
aardverschuivingen en dergelijke. Als een milieubrigade bestaan had, was het mogelijk geweest snel
en doelmatig op te treden bij de overstromingen in Polen, Tsjechi? en Duitsland in 1997, de
dijkdoorbraak in Spanje en de aardverschuiving in Itali? in 1998.
Na de basisopleiding moet het opgeleide personeel in vredestijd en in oorlog vijf jaar lang binnen
24 tot 48 uur mobilisabel zijn ingeval van milieurampen of andere noodsituaties. Dit kan wettelijk
verplicht worden gesteld of op vrijwillige basis geschieden.
In operatief verband is de milieubeschermingscompagnie een mobiele eenheid met als voornaamste
taak binnen en buiten de nationale grenzen Zweedse gemeenten te saneren en de door andere landen
geuite saneringswensen uit te voeren. (Alleen al in Zweden bevinden zich 10.000 "milieubommen"
van verschillende aard die moeten worden gesaneerd.) De compagnie vervult haar taken zelfstandig
of in samenwerking met andere compagnie?n en eenheden van de BB, onder leiding van de BB en/of
van de gemeente die de opdracht verstrekt. Doordat zij beschikt over eigen vervoer kan de
compagnie bij nationale acties binnen drie etmalen worden herverdeeld over diverse taken.
Evenals het geval is bij VN-vredestaken, kunnen milieubeschermingssoldaten in internationaal
verband en op basis van vrijwilligheid dienst doen.
DOC_NE\RR\370\370003 - 26 - PE 227.710/def.
BIJLAGE
19 mei 1995 B4-0551/95
ONTWERPRESOLUTIE
ingediend overeenkomstig artikel 45 van het Reglement
door Elisabeth Rehn
over de mogelijke aanwending van voor militaire doeleinden bedoelde middelen ten behoeve van
milieustrategie?n,
opgenomen bij besluit van de Commissie buitenlandse zaken, veiligheids- en defensiebeleid
Het Europees Parlement,
A. overwegende dat de huidige internationale ecologische en milieuproblemen worden gekenmerkt
door nieuwe bronnen van onzekerheid en conflicten,
B. overwegende dat deze veranderingen dienen te worden weerspiegeld in de inhoud en vorm van
maatregelen waarmee veiligheid kan worden gecre?erd en gehandhaafd, met andere woorden
in veiligheids- en defensiebeleid,
C. rekening houdend met de noodzaak van een herschikking van de doelen en middelen voor deze
beleidsterreinen,
D. overwegende dat het voor een dergelijk initiatief noodzakelijk is toereikende middelen vrij te
maken, teneinde de uitdagingen van de milieubescherming op doeltreffende wijze te kunnen
aangaan en rekening houdend met het unieke potentieel van militaire inrichtingen voor de
uitbreiding van de mogelijkheden om dit doel te bereiken,
E. overwegende dat het initiatief tot integratie van voor militaire doeleinden bedoelde middelen
in milieustrategie?n voor de Europese Unie een kans zou zijn om een voortrekkersrol te
vervullen op het gebied van nieuwe en vreedzame middelen,
F. overwegende dat de kosten van de tenuitvoerlegging van deze strategie?n in de komende tien
jaar kunnen oplopen tot 774 miljard dollar en dat daaruit blijkt dat samenwerking noodzakelijk
is,
G. overwegende dat er een nieuw scala van tot dusver niet onderzochte mogelijkheden is ontstaan
als gevolg van de nieuwe internationale situatie, de politieke ontspanning en de militaire
de?scalatie,
1. stelt voor een Europees actieplan op te stellen voor de integratie van voor militaire doeleinden
bedoelde middelen in milieustrategie?n.
(38) Bron: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). IN 1988 bedroegen de wereldwijde militaire
uitgaven rond 1066 miljard dollar, in 1997 schatte SIPRI de uitgaven op ca. 704 miljard dollar.
DOC_NE\RR\370\370003 - 27 - PE 227.710/def.
26 november 1998
ADVIES
(artikel 147 van het Reglement)
aan de Commissie buitenlandse zaken, veiligheids- en defensiebeleid
inzake milieu, veiligheid en buitenlands beleid (verslag-Theorin)
Commissie milieubeheer en volksgezondheid en consumentenbescherming
Rapporteur voor advies: Karl-Erik Olsson
PROCEDURE
De Commissie milieubeheer, volksgezondheid en consumentenbescherming benoemde op haar
vergadering van 20 juli 1998 de heer Olsson tot rapporteur voor advies.
Zij behandelde het ontwerpadvies op haar vergaderingen van 12 oktober en 25 november 1998.
Op laatstgenoemde vergadering hechtte zij met 26 stemmen voor en 2 tegen bij 1 onthouding haar
goedkeuring aan de conclusies ervan.
Aan de stemming namen deel: de leden Collins, voorzitter; Dybkj?r, ondervoorzitter; Olsson,
rapporteur voor advies; d'Aboville, Blokland, Bowe, Breyer, Cabrol, Correia, Eisma, Estevan Bolea
(verving B?b?ar), Flemming, Florenz, Gonz?lez ?lvarez, Graenitz, Hulth?n, Kuhn, Lange (verving
D?ez De Rivera Icaza), Leopardi, McKenna, Oomen-Ruijten, Pimenta (verving Burtone), Pollack,
Roth-Behrendt, Tamino, Trakatellis, Valverde L?pez, Virgin en White.
1. INLEIDING
De ineenstorting van de Sovjet-Unie, het einde van de Koude Oorlog en de daaropvolgende
ontwapening hebben ertoe geleid dat de wereldwijde militaire uitgaven sinds 1988 met 34% zijn
gedaald(38). Hierdoor zijn omvangrijke middelen vrijgekomen; tegelijkertijd vormen factoren als
bevoorradingscrises, milieuproblemen, migratie, nationalisme, etnische conflicten en
grensoverschrijdende criminaliteit in toenemende mate een bedreiging van de internationale
stabiliteit. Andere factoren die een rol spelen bij de ontwikkeling van de veiligheid op lange termijn
zijn bijvoorbeeld de vernietiging van het milieu en gebrek aan drinkwater en voedsel.
Dit betekent dat milieu-overwegingen in alle opzichten moeten worden ge?ntegreerd in het
veiligheidsbeleid en dat milieu-investeringen een belangrijke rol spelen in het streven naar stabiele
veiligheid in de toekomst.
DOC_NE\RR\370\370003 - 28 - PE 227.710/def.
2. ALGEMENE OPMERKINGEN
Er is vandaag de dag geen sprake van een rechtstreekse militaire bedreiging van Europa en de kans
op een grootschalige oorlog is vrijwel nihil. Tegelijkertijd zijn er evenwel andere, niet-militaire
bedreigingen ontstaan, zoals de aanhoudende vernietiging van het milieu. Tekort aan drinkwater,
woestijnvorming, klimaatverandering en ongevallen in chemische bedrijven en kerncentrales vormen
een re?el gevaar voor de internationale veiligheid. De rechten op de slinkende natuurlijke
rijkdommen zijn niet langer voornamelijk een instrument van het marktbeleid, maar vaak zelf de
oorzaak van internationale conflicten.
Het begrip Europese veiligheid en defensie moet dan ook in die zin worden verruimd dat in grote
mate rekening wordt gehouden met factoren die het milieu bedreigen. De militaire sector kan met
zijn middelen en bekwaamheden bijdragen tot verbetering van de milieubescherming, bijvoorbeeld
via satellietbewaking, sanering na ongevallen in industriebedrijven en kerncentrales en acties bij
natuurrampen. Uw rapporteur is van oordeel dat op de nieuwe bedreigingen vooral moet worden
gereageerd met een verschuiving van de begrotingsmiddelen van defensie-activiteiten naar
milieumaatregelen onder niet-militair beheer, zoals preventieve milieu-acties, sanering van bodem
en water, meer reddingsoperaties en rampenbestrijding, alsmede internationale milieuhulp.
Defensie-activiteiten en de wapenindustrie hebben een uiterst negatieve invloed op het milieu; zo
leiden militaire transporten bijvoorbeeld tot uitstoot van broeikasgassen en verzurende stoffen, en
valt grote schade aan de biologische diversiteit te constateren op militaire oefenterreinen, die dan
ook eerst moeten worden gesaneerd voordat zij voor civiele doeleinden kunnen worden gebruikt.
Ondanks hun invloed op het milieu vallen defensie-activiteiten van oudsher niet onder de
milieuwetgeving van de burgermaatschappij. Gezien de steeds grotere druk op het milieu zou ook
de landsverdediging de bestaande milieuwetgeving moeten naleven, en aansprakelijk moeten worden
gesteld voor de sanering van gebieden die schade hebben opgelopen door vroegere militaire
activiteiten. Defensie kan ook een milieuvriendelijker gezicht krijgen door milieudoelstellingen te
defini?ren en het eigen personeel een milieu-opleiding te geven.
Een van de wellicht grootste milieuproblemen die uit de wereldwijde ontwapening voortvloeien is
het gebrek aan controle op afval van vroegere kernwapenactiviteiten en opslagplaatsen voor
biologische en chemische wapens. Het is vaak duurder dergelijke wapens te vernietigen dan ze te
produceren. Voor chemische wapens bedraagt de prijs van vernietiging bijvoorbeeld het tienvoudige
van de productieprijs.
De chaotische economische situatie in Rusland en de voormalige Sovjetrepublieken heeft geleid tot
een gebrek aan controle op overtollige wapens en de opslag hiervan, alsmede tot vertraging bij de
vernietiging van deze wapens. Uw rapporteur dringt dan ook bij de lidstaten aan op intensievere
internationale samenwerking, bijvoorbeeld in het kader van de Verenigde Naties of het Partnerschap
voor vrede, met het doel deze wapens op een zo milieuvriendelijk mogelijke wijze te vernietigen.
Aangezien de defensie-industrie in de meeste lidstaten van de EU in bepaalde regio's geconcentreerd
is, kan de lopende ontwapening tot aanzienlijke regionale crises leiden. De EU en de lidstaten
moeten daarom alles in het werk stellen om de militaire productie en techniek te doen overschakelen
op civiele producten en toepassingen, met behulp van zowel nationale als door de EU gefinancierde
programma's.
DOC_NE\RR\370\370003 - 29 - PE 227.710/def.
3. CONCLUSIES
De Commissie milieubeheer, volksgezondheid en consumentenbescherming verzoekt de ten
principale bevoegde Commissie buitenlandse zaken, veiligheids- en defensiebeleid de volgende
conclusies in haar verslag op te nemen:
A. overwegende dat conflicten in de wereld vaker nationaal dan internationaal van aard zijn en dat
de internationale conflicten die zich voordoen in toenemende mate draaien om de toegang tot
of de beschikbaarheid van vitale hulpbronnen, met name water, voedsel en brandstof,
B. overwegende dat de toegang tot en beschikbaarheid van deze essenti?le natuurlijke hulpbronnen
samenhangen met de achteruitgang en vervuiling van het milieu en er zowel de oorzaak als het
gevolg van zijn, en overwegende dat hieruit logischerwijze voortvloeit dat conflictpreventie
zich in toenemende mate op deze kwesties dient te richten,
C. overwegende dat de druk op vruchtbaar en bewoonbaar land, die altijd een belangrijke oorzaak
van spanningen en conflicten is geweest, in toenemende mate wordt veroorzaakt door de
achteruitgang van het milieu, en in het bijzonder door klimaatverandering en de stijging van
de zeespiegel die daar het gevolg van is,
D. overwegende dat al deze factoren, die vooral de armste en kwetsbaarste volkeren van de wereld
treffen, leiden tot een toename van het aantal "milieuvluchtelingen", hetgeen zowel een
rechtstreekse druk uitoefent op het communautaire immigratie- en justiti?le beleid, op
ontwikkelingshulp en op uitgaven aan humanitaire hulp als een indirecte druk in de vorm van
verhoogde veiligheidsproblemen voor de EU veroorzaakt door de regionale instabiliteit in
andere delen van de wereld,
E. overwegende dat volgens diepgaand internationaal onderzoek dat is bijeengebracht en
gepubliceerd door het Climate Institute te Washington het aantal "milieuvluchtelingen"
momenteel het aantal "traditionele vluchtelingen" overtreft (25 miljoen tegen 22 miljoen), en
dat dit aantal tegen 2010 naar verwachting zal zijn verdubbeld en in het ergste geval nog veel
hoger kan zijn,
F. overwegende dat de kwestie van "milieuvluchtelingen" slechts een symptoom is van een
humanitaire ramp van veel grotere omvang die de 1,3 miljoen mensen betreft die volgens de
definitie van de VN in absolute armoede leven; overwegende dat ruim een kwart van deze
mensen poogt te overleven in gebieden met een uiterst kwetsbaar milieu en de belangrijkste
oorzaak zijn van wereldwijde milieuproblemen zoals ontbossing en woestijnvorming,
G. overwegende dat sinds het einde van de Koude Oorlog de aanpak van wereldwijde problemen
voor het grootste deel is ontdaan van de eerdere dominant aanwezige ideologische context en
nu veel minder wordt gekarakteriseerd door het streven naar een militair evenwicht, maar dat
dit feit nog tot uiting moet komen in het stelsel van de VN voor een wereldwijd bestuur door
de samenhang en doeltreffendheid van zowel de militaire als de niet-militaire componenten van
het veiligheidsbeleid te benadrukken,
H. overwegende dat echter de uitbreiding van activiteiten van de VN op het gebied van politieke
en veiligheidskwesties vooral niet-militair van aard is en met name te maken heeft met het
verband tussen handel, hulp, milieu en duurzame ontwikkeling,
1. verzoekt de Commissie aan de Raad en het Parlement een gezamenlijke strategie voor te
stellen, zoals voorzien in het Verdrag van Amsterdam, waarin de GBVB-component van het
DOC_NE\RR\370\370003 - 30 - PE 227.710/def.
beleid van de EU wordt gecombineerd met het communautaire beleid op het gebied van handel,
hulp, ontwikkelingssamenwerking en internationale milieukwesties voor de periode 2000-2010,
teneinde de volgende kwesties en de verbanden daartussen aan te pakken:
a) landbouw- en voedselproductie en de achteruitgang van het milieu;
b) watertekorten en grensoverschrijdende watervoorziening;
c) ontbossing en het herstel van koolstofputten;
d) werkloosheid, onvolledige werkgelegenheid en absolute armoede;
e) duurzame ontwikkeling en klimaatverandering;
f) ontbossing, woestijnvorming en bevolkingsgroei;
g) het verband tussen bovengenoemde punten met de opwarming van de aarde en de
humanitaire en ecologische gevolgen van steeds vaker voorkomende klimatologische
rampen;
2. is van mening dat de gezamenlijke strategie van de EU elk van bovengenoemde factoren dient
te benaderen in de context van de afzonderlijke of gezamenlijke bijdrage ervan aan de
internationale criminaliteit, met name drugssmokkel, de groeiende immigratiedruk op de EU
en de gevolgen voor het communautaire buitenlands, ontwikkelings- en veiligheidsbeleid tegen
de achtergrond van de gevolgen voor de regionale stabiliteit en ontwikkeling;
3. stelt vast dat milieuproblemen vandaag de dag de grootste bedreiging van de mensheid vormen
en dat het huidige vijandbeeld bestaat uit klassieke markconflicten, en zelfs niet-militaire
bedreigingen zoals bevoorradingscrises en milieuproblemen omvat;
4. stelt vast dat preventieve milieumaatregelen een belangrijk instrument van het veiligheidsbeleid
zijn; dringt er daarom bij de lidstaten op aan in hun lange-termijnoverwegingen en -plannen op
het gebied van defensie en veiligheid en in hun militaire onderzoek doelstellingen op het gebied
van milieu en volksgezondheid op te nemen;
5. erkent de belangrijke rol die het leger speelt in de democratische samenleving, de taken van het
leger voor de verdediging van het land en het feit dat initiatieven voor vredeshandhaving en
vredestichting een wezenlijke bijdrage kunnen leveren aan het voorkomen van schade aan het
milieu;
6. dringt er bij de lidstaten op aan de voor de burgermaatschappij geldende milieuwetgeving ook
op alle militaire activiteiten toe te passen en defensie aansprakelijk te stellen voor het
onderzoeken, opruimen en saneren van gebieden die schade hebben opgelopen als gevolg van
vroegere militaire activiteiten, zodat deze gebieden opnieuw voor civiele doeleinden kunnen
worden gebruikt; wijst erop dat dit met name van belang is met betrekking tot de omvangrijke
stortplaatsen voor chemische en conventionele munitie langs de kusten van de EU;
7. dringt er bij alle lidstaten op aan doelstellingen op het gebied van milieu en volksgezondheid
te formuleren en plannen uit te werken voor de verbetering van activiteiten ten behoeve van het
milieu en de volksgezondheid binnen de strijdkrachten van ieder land;
8. stelt vast dat de wereldwijde veiligheidssituatie drastisch is veranderd als gevolg van het einde
van de Koude Oorlog en de gedaalde behoefte aan militaire middelen; dringt bij de lidstaten
aan op een radicale verschuiving van de begrotingsmiddelen van de militaire sector, onder
andere voor direct of indirect militair onderzoek, naar andere sectoren, zoals reddingsoperaties,
rampenbestrijding, water- en bodemsanering en preventieve maatregelen ter bescherming van
het milieu en de bevolking en op de oprichting in de militaire sector van speciale milieueenheden
die snel kunnen worden ingezet bij rampen;
DOC_NE\RR\370\370003 - 31 - PE 227.710/def.
9. acht het gebruik van radioactieve energiebronnen (RTG?s) in ruimtevaartuigen voor zowel
militaire als civiele ruimtevaartprogramma?s (zoals de ruimtesonde Cassini die de aarde volgend
jaar rakelings zal passeren) en de nog altijd voortdurende ontwikkeling van "star wars"-
systemen een grote bedreiging voor het milieu, en roept op tot het onmiddellijk stopzetten van
dergelijke activiteiten, aangezien het nu voor bijna alle ruimtevluchten mogelijk is
zonnepanelen te ontwikkelen als alternatieven voor RTG?s;
10. stelt vast dat een van de wellicht grootste bedreigingen van het milieu in de nabijheid van de
EU het gebrek aan controle op afval van vroegere kernwapenactiviteiten en opslagplaatsen voor
biologische en chemische wapens is, alsmede de ontbrekende sanering na militaire activiteiten;
wijst erop hoe belangrijk het is dat de lidstaten naar intensievere internationale samenwerking
streven, bijvoorbeeld in het kader van de VN of het Partnerschap voor vrede, met het doel
dergelijke wapens op een zo milieuvriendelijk mogelijke wijze te vernietigen;
11. ziet het systeem van het Amerikaanse leger voor manipulatie van de ionosfeer, HAARP, dat
in Alaska is opgesteld in het kader van de ontwikkeling en opstelling van elektromagnetische
wapensystemen voor zowel externe als interne veiligheidsdoeleinden, als een van de ernstigste
nieuwe militaire bedreigingen voor het wereldklimaat en de volksgezondheid, aangezien het
ontworpen is om het uiterst gevoelige en energierijke deel van de biosfeer voor militaire
doeleinden te manipuleren, terwijl nog niet alle effecten daarvan duidelijk zijn, en verzoekt de
Commissie, de Raad en de lidstaten er bij de regeringen van de VS, Rusland en alle andere
landen die zich met dergelijke activiteiten bezighouden op aan te dringen hiermee te stoppen
en zich in te spannen voor een wereldwijd verdrag om dergelijk wapentuig te verbieden;
12. roept in het bijzonder op tot het sluiten van een internationaal verdrag voor een wereldwijd
verbod op onderzoek en ontwikkeling, zowel in de militaire als in de civiele sector, die erop
gericht is om kennis omtrent de werking van de menselijke hersenen op basis van chemische
of elektrische processen, geluidstrillingen of anderszins in te zetten voor de ontwikkeling van
wapens die het mogelijk maken om mensen op enigerlei wijze te manipuleren, met inbegrip van
een verbod op alle eventuele huidige of toekomstige toepassingen van dergelijke systemen;
13. is gezien het bovenstaande van mening dat de bedreiging voor het wereldmilieu die wordt
gevormd door het bestaan en het mogelijke onvoorziene of onbevoegde gebruik van
kernwapens momenteel veel groter is dan enige denkbare bedreiging voor de verdediging en
veiligheid van de vijf offici?le kernwapenlanden zoals gedefinieerd door het Verdrag inzake
de niet-verspreiding van kernwapens (NPT), ter afwering waarvan dergelijke wapens
oorspronkelijk zijn ontworpen en opgesteld;
14. is van mening dat gezien de uiterst moeilijke omstandigheden waar de landen van de
voormalige Sovjet-Unie mee te kampen hebben de bedreiging voor zowel het wereldwijde als
het plaatselijke milieu die wordt gevormd door de verslechterende toestand van kernwapens en
nucleair materiaal in deze landen reden te meer is om zo snel mogelijk een verdrag te sluiten
inzake de verdere stapsgewijze vernietiging van kernwapens;
15. verzoekt de Raad en in het bijzonder de Britse en Franse regeringen om het voortouw te nemen
binnen het kader van het NPT en de Ontwapeningsconferentie met betrekking tot verdere
onderhandelingen inzake het volledig naleven van toezeggingen betreffende de vermindering
en afschaffing van kernwapens op zo kort mogelijke termijn, teneinde een niveau te bereiken
waarbij de wereldwijde voorraad overblijvende kernwapens voorlopig geen bedreiging meer
vormt voor de toestand en duurzaamheid van het wereldmilieu;
DOC_NE\RR\370\370003 - 32 - PE 227.710/def.
16. stelt vast dat aanzienlijk gedaalde defensie-uitgaven tot ernstige regionale problemen kunnen
leiden en dringt er bij de lidstaten op aan zich nog meer in te zetten voor herori?ntatie van de
militaire productie en techniek op civiele producten en toepassingen, met behulp van zowel
nationale programma's als communautaire initiatieven zoals het KONVER-programma;
17. verzoekt het Voorzitterschap van de Raad en de Commissie om overeenkomstig artikel J.7 van
het Verdrag betreffende de Europese Unie verslag uit te brengen aan het Europees Parlement
over de positie van de Unie met betrekking tot de punten die in deze resolutie naar voren zijn
gebracht in het kader van de komende vergaderingen van de Verenigde Naties en van de
agentschappen en organen van de VN, met name de NPT-voorbereidingscommissie 1999, de
Ontwapeningsconferentie en alle andere relevante internationale fora;
18. verzoekt de Raad er intensiever voor te ijveren dat de VS, Rusland, India en China de
overeenkomst van Ottawa van 1997 inzake het verbod op anti-personenmijnen onverwijld
ondertekenen.

Mar 08, 2006
3ChemsCloudseeding.jpg
28- februari 2006 omstreeks 16.23u244 views3 Chemtrails in de lucht die langzaam in de wolken oplossen.
Gefotografeerd door UfodeWaarheid.com
Dit album is het BEWIJS hoe de zgn. Vliegtuigsporen bewust en Scalar worden uitgezet en hoe ze oplossen in de Wolken..

Voor meer waardevolle informatie over Chemtrail-Scalar-Cloudseeding:
Zie: www.weatherwars.info/chemtrails.htm
Feb 28, 2006
Cloudseeding.jpg
28-8-2006 16.20u174 viewsWelsbach Seeding Patent For global Warming: www.willthomas.net/Chemtrails/welsbach-seeding.pdfFeb 28, 2006
Cloudseeding2.jpg
28-2-2006 om 16.24u148 viewsChemtrails Smoking Gun: www.lightwatcher.com/chemtrails/smoking_gun.htmlFeb 28, 2006
Cloudseeding4.jpg
28-2-2006 om 16.17u144 viewsDe 2e Chemtrail begint ook al op te lossen een minuutje later..maar het 3e Vliegtuig is al Onderweg, naar DEZELFDE LOKATIE..Feb 28, 2006
Cloudseeding5Chems.jpg
28-2-2006 om 16.18u126 viewswww.bariumblues.com/index.htmFeb 28, 2006
Cloudseeding7.jpg
28-2-2006 om 16.15u137 viewsChemtrails Baarn - the Netherlands, June 2nd, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5BQHe2ak4o

The International Space Station (ISS) March 17th, 2009 - Baarn, The Netherlands: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVC3ERtZxSk

CHEMTRAILS! BAARN - SOEST - AMERSFOORT, NEDERLAND - 22 APRIL 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCjtu-wC1og
Feb 28, 2006
Hagelstorm28-2-2005.jpg
UfodeWaarheid.com in Hagelstorm op 28-2-2006 om 14.24u te Eemdijk-Bunschoten.168 viewsFeb 28, 2006
Hagelstorm28-2-05-14.24u.jpg
UfodeWaarheid.com in Hagelstorm135 viewsOmstreeks 14.20u op 28 februari 2006 kwam UfodeWaarheid.com plotseling ineens toevallig zomaar in een Hagelstorm terecht...tussen Eemdijk en Bunschoten.
Geniet van de foto's!
Feb 28, 2006
Cloudseeding8.jpg
28-2-2006 om 16.16u206 viewsVoor meer chemtrail-info zie: www.chemtrails.startspot.nlFeb 28, 2006
SunWeb1~0.jpg
192 viewsBurgerinitiatief Stop Chemtrails Nu!



Dit is een Burgerinitiatief om 40.000 handtekeningen te verzamelen om het sproeien van Chemtrails op de agenda van de samenleving en de Tweede Kamer te zetten.



Behalve in de rest van Europa en de VS wordt ook in Nederland gesproeid door vliegtuigen. Contrails blijven maximaal 20 minuten zichtbaar. Chemtrails waaieren uit en zijn lange tijd zichtbaar. De chemische stoffen zijn gevaarlijk voor de mens, flora en fauna. De eigenschap van deze stoffen om het optimaal functioneren van het bewustzijn van de mens te blokkeren, verstoren tevens de magnetische velden rondom de Aarde en zijn mede verantwoordelijk voor de uitzonderlijke weersveranderingen. De toename van bedreigende ziektes en aandoeningen aan long en luchtwegen, huidziektes, chronische vermoeidheid is voor het grootste deel te wijten aan het sproeien van barium, deeltjes aluminium en andere stoffen.



In 1995 zijn de eerste meldingen van dit fenomeen gedaan. De laatste maanden was het even rustig, maar het sproeien neemt weer toe. In Zwitserland stond er een berichtje over in de krant. In Nederland heeft nog geen enkele journalist er iets over durven publiceren. Sinds we dit initiatief startten in maart 2006, zijn er enkele cynische stukje verschenen in de krant, om het bestaan te ontkennen en het initiatief belachelijk te maken. Nu het sproeien weer toeneemt, is het zaak dit initiatief weer naar buiten te brengen. Het sproeien wordt gestuurd door onderdelen van geheime diensten. Waarom doet het Parlement en de Regering hieraan mee en steunt ze dit sproeien en verbiedt ze het niet onmiddellijk? Waarom heeft geen enkel lid van het Parlement tot nu toe Kamervragen aan de regering gesteld? Let op, dit is GEEN complot theorie! Google het woord Chemtrails maar eens! Voor meer informatie: [email protected]



We vragen je dit Burgerinitiatief te steunen door je handtekening te zetten!



Met 40.000 handtekeningen zorgen we ervoor dat het sproeien van Chemtrails besproken moet worden in de Tweede Kamer. Er zijn al aardig wat handtekeningen binnen, maar nog lang niet genoeg! Alleen al het lanceren van dit initiatief heeft de aandacht gevestigd op Chemtrails. Dus we hopen dat dit de druk weer opvoert om er NU mee te STOPPEN!



De kamerprocedure is dat burgerinitiatieven alleen rechtsgeldig zijn als alle formulieren met handtekening, worden aangeboden, dus een emailactie is helaas niet mogelijk!



Naam
Adres, postcode en woonplaats
Geboortedatum
Handtekening















Alleen kiesgerechtigden kunnen tekenen. Het is belangrijk alle gevraagde gegevens in te vullen, anders is je handtekening niet geldig!



We vragen je dit formulier uit te printen en in een gefrankeerde enveloppe te sturen aan:



Burgerinitiatief Stop Chemtrails Nu!

Rooilaan 140, 7876 GW Valthermond.



Feb 28, 2006
SunWebChems2~0.jpg
History of weather control139 viewswww.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_control

History of weather control

Witches concoct a brew to summon a hailstorm.Some American Indians had rituals which they believed could induce rain. The Finnish people, on the other hand, were believed by others to be able to control weather. As a result, Vikings refused to take Finns on their oceangoing raids. Remnants of this superstition lasted into the twentieth century, with some ship crews being reluctant to accept Finnish sailors. The early modern era saw people observe that during battles the firing of cannons and other firearms often initiated precipitation. Magical and religious practices to control the weather are attested in a variety of cultures. In Greek mythology, Iphigenia was sacrificed as a human sacrifice to appease the wrath of the goddess Artemis, who had caused the Achaean fleet to be becalmed at Aulis at the beginning of the Trojan War. In Homer's Odyssey, Aeolus, keeper of the winds, bestowed Odysseus and his crew with a gift of the four winds in a bag. However, the sailors open the bag while Odysseus slept, looking for booty, and as a result are blown off course by the resulting gale.[1] In ancient Rome, the lapis manalis was a sacred stone kept outside the walls of Rome in a temple of Mars. When Rome suffered from drought, the stone was dragged into the city.[2] The Berwick witches of Scotland were found guilty of using black magic to summon storms to murder King James VI of Scotland by seeking to sink the ship upon which he travelled.[3] Scandinavian witches allegedly claimed to sell the wind in bags or magically confined into wooden staves; they sold the bags to seamen who could release them when becalmed.[4] In various towns of Navarre, prayers petitioned Saint Peter to grant rain in time of drought. If the rain was not forthcoming, the statue of St Peter was removed from the church and tossed into a river.[5]

Perhaps the first example of practical weather control is the lightning rod. In the 1950s, computer scientist John von Neumann, an early theorizer on weather control, surmised that if Earth were to enter another Ice Age, a preventative solution would be to dump dirt (or spray soot from cropdusting planes) on the surface of the planet's glaciers. He noted that this would significantly change their reflectivity (albedo), and thus increase the solar energy retained by the planet. Such a strategy would require repeated applications, as storms would cover some portion of the soot with new snow until their frequency and range abated. The theoretical efficacy of von Neumann's proposal remains to be examined. Wilhelm Reich performed cloudbusting experiments in the 1950s to 1960s, the results of which are controversial. Dr Walter Russell wrote of weather control in Atomic Suicide 1956. Jack Toyer 1970s building a rainmaker Palmers Island near Grafton using Mirror Solar radiations Electromagnetic Static charge and infra red frequencies of Light to induce weather in regional areas within Australia interviewed by Mike Willise and George Negus in 1980s continued work by remainder man Peter Stevens 1980s through 2000s


[edit] Cloud seeding for rain
Cloud seeding is a common technique intended to trigger rain, but evidence on its effectiveness is mixed. Critics generally contend that claimed successes occur in conditions which were going to rain anyway. It is used in several different countries, including the United States, the People's Republic of China, and Russia. In the People's Republic of China there is a perceived dependency upon it in dry regions, which believe they are increasing annual rainfall by firing silver iodide rockets into the sky where rain is desired. In the United States, dry ice or silver iodide may be injected into a cloud by aircraft, or from the ground, in an attempt to increase rainfall; some companies are dedicated to this form of weather modification.


[edit] Storm prevention
Project Stormfury was an attempt to weaken tropical cyclones by flying aircraft into storms and seeding the eyewall with silver iodide. The project was run by the United States Government from 1962 to 1983. A similar project using soot was run in 1958, with inconclusive results.[6] Various methods have been proposed to reduce the harmful effects of hurricanes. Moshe Alamaro of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology[7] proposed using barges with upward-pointing jet engines to trigger smaller storms to disrupt the progress of an incoming hurricane; critics doubt the jets would be powerful enough to make any noticeable difference.[6]

Alexandre Chorin of the University of California at Berkeley proposed dropping large amounts of environmentally friendly oils on the sea surface to prevent droplet formation.[8] Experiments by Kerry Emanuel[9] of MIT in 2002 suggested that hurricane-force winds would disrupt the oil slick, making it ineffective.[10] Other scientists disputed the factual basis of the theoretical mechanism assumed by this approach.[11] The Florida company Dyn-O-Mat proposes the use of a product it has developed, called Dyn-O-Gel, to reduce the strength of hurricanes. The substance is a powder which reportedly has the ability to absorb 1,500 times its own weight in water. The theory is that it is dropped into clouds to remove their moisture. When the gel reaches the ocean surface, it is reportedly dissolved. The company has tested the substance on a thunderstorm, but there has not been any scientific consensus established as to its effectiveness.[12] Hail cannons are used by some farmers in an attempt to ward off hail, but there is no reliable scientific evidence to confirm or deny their effectiveness. Another new anti-hurricane technology [1] is a method for the reduction of tropical cyclones? destructive force - pumping sea water and diffused in the wind at the bottom of such tropical cyclone in its eyewall.


[edit] Ionospheric experiments
HIPAS has several diverse experimental facilities: a 1-megawatt rf transmitter to produce ELF/VLF (Extremely Low Frequency and Very Low Frequency) electromagnetic (EM) generation by the absorption of radio frequency (rf) power in the arctic ionosphere including ion cyclotron excitation; a 100 kW rf plasma torch used in research on the destruction of hazardous waste; a 2.7 m liquid mirror telescope used with one of several lasers for ionospheric stimulation and measurement; an Incoherent Scatter Radar (a new project using 88 ft. diameter antenna at NOAA Gilmore Creek site 34 km SW of HIPAS as the receiving antenna with the transmitter at HIPAS). HIPAS is in the process of adding a very high power (terawatt) laser (recently obtained from LLNL) to perform laser breakdown experiments in the ionosphere. Two Diesel electric generators (1500 HP 4160 V, 3-phase, 1.2 MVA each) are used to power the experiments. There are a number of computers (PC's ) on site, and a high-speed data line to UAF is available. While these experiments are useful in measuring the properties of the ionosphere, they produce insufficient amounts of energy to modify it in any significant way.

Atmospheric Ionization Research Association Incorporated in 2007 in Australia began reworking Jack Toyers machine principals (http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-9102682294862253229) with operations in regional Queensland Chincilla 2006, Kilcoy 2006, Dalby 2007, Sapphire 2007, Calliope 2007. New South Wales Casino 2006-2008,Lismore 2006-2008 Bourke 2007. Arizona Phoenix 2007-2008, Death Valley 2007 December 2007 dedication to Jack Toyer,Lao and Dr Walter Russells work in Virginia at Swannonoa Palace estate operating in USA , Mobile to travel to sites with a great deal of Success within the Target Area's this Science Phenomena of Rain from Blue Skies and Many other Videos on Google(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-8sVWfmWb8)


[edit] Weather control and law
This article or section deals primarily with the United States and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.


[edit] 1977 Environmental Modification Convention
Main article: Environmental Modification Convention
Weather control, as well as "weather tampering", for hostile or military purposes is expressly forbidden dating from at least December 10, 1976, when the "United Nations General Assembly Resolution 31/72, TIAS 9614 Convention[13] on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques" was adopted. The Convention was: Signed in Geneva May 18, 1977; Entered into force October 5, 1978; Ratification by U.S. President December 13, 1979; U.S. ratification deposited at New York January 17, 1980.[14]


[edit] 2005 U.S. Senate Bill 517 and U.S. House Bill 2995
U.S. Senate Bill 517[15] and U.S. House Bill 2995[16] were two laws proposed in 2005 that would have allowed experimental weather modification by artificial methods, established a Weather Modification Operations and Research Board, and implemented a national weather modification policy. Neither ever became law.


[edit] Future aspirations
Climatologist Ross Hoffman has simulated hurricane control based on selective heating and cooling (or prevention of evaporation).[17] Futurist John Smart has discussed the potential for weather control via space-based solar power networks. One proposal involves the gentle heating via microwave of portions of large hurricanes. Such chaotic systems may be susceptible to "side steering" with a few degrees of increased temperature/pressure at critical points. A sufficient network might keep the largest and most potentially damaging hurricanes from landfall, at the request of host nations. Blizzards, monsoons, and other extreme weather are also potential candidates for space-based amelioration.[citations needed] If large-scale weather control were to become feasible, potential implications may include:

Unintended side effects, especially given the chaotic nature of weather development
Damage to existing ecosystems
Health risks to humans
Equipment malfunction or accidents
Non-democratic control or use as a weapon
For the 2008 Olympics, the Chinese have set aside 30 airplanes, 4,000 rocket launchers, and 7,000 anti-aircraft guns to stop rain. The Chinese plan to shoot various chemicals into any threatening clouds to shrink rain drops before they reach the stadium.[18]


[edit] Weather control in popular culture
In popular culture, weather control technology can be encountered in the realms of public speculation, science fiction, and fantasy. The concept of weather control is often portrayed as a part of terraforming.


[edit] Film and television

[edit] Star Trek
In the Star Trek universe, most advanced planets and colonies utilize weather control, often referred to as weather modification grids or weather modification nets. A small, but long-established TNG-era (ca 2369) colony was a weather control facility for approximately a hundred years. Most advanced civilizations apparently employ weather control standard equipment.
Weather control technology in 2270s required special facilities, modern TNG- and DS9-era technology consists of multiple mid-size devices positioned strategically, networked and controlled from more-or-less arbitrary places.
For example, the planet Risa has its climate controlled to be a tropical paradise. Perhaps one of the few modern exceptions of planets apparently without weather control technology is Ferenginar with continuous rain. (It could be the weather control is set for never ending rain, or is expensive to maintain.)

[edit] Other films or shows
In the SciFi Channel Original Series, Stargate SG1, Episode 214, "Touchstone", aired on October 30, 1998, the Stargate SG1 team discovers a weather control device on an alien planet, which is subsequently stolen and brought to earth, where experimenting with it wreaked havoc with the local weather. The device was later recaptured and returned to its original planet which had suffered phenominal storms since it had been stolen.
In the Disney Channel Original Movie, The Ultimate Christmas Present, two girls find a weather machine and make it snow in Los Angeles.
In the live action Justice League of America film, the villain is a terrorist who has a weather control device.
In Aliens, a colony sent to LV-426 by the Company utilized a fusion-powered terraforming atmosphere processor. In the first film, the planet's climate was not yet suitable for human life.
In the 1987 Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon series, the episode "Hot Rodding Teenagers from Dimension X" includes Stone Warriors using a "weather satellite", with one difference: while other weather satellite gives weather prognosis, this one "makes weather". The "weather satellite" creates a storm to level New York City, but the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles destroy it. The episode "Take Me to Your Leader" of the same series include Krang and the Shredder using a machine to reduce the Sun, creating cold weather on the Earth.
Storm (played by Halle Berry), a member of the X-Men, can control the weather with her mind.
In Superman III, Gus Gorman (Richard Pryor) changes the weather by hacking into a weather satellite.
In a Family Guy episode, Stewie builds a machine that can control the weather using only a satellite dish and a See 'n Say.
In the film The Avengers Sir August de Wynter (Sean Connery) creates a satellite capable of controlling the weather.
Our Man Flint is a 1966 sci-fi action film which stars James Coburn as Derek Flint where a trio of mad scientists attempt to blackmail the world with a weather-control machine.
Kaij?t? no kessen: Gojira no musuko is a 1967 film from Japan. Scientists, on a tropical island, conduct weather control experiments then encounter gigantic praying mantises and a giant spider that attack the son of Godzilla. Godzilla arrives and saves his offspring.
The cartoon miniseries G.I. Joe: The Revenge of Cobra, showed the terrorist group Cobra in possession of a device called the Weather Dominator.

[edit] Computer games
In Master Of Orion, it is possible to build a weather control building to change the planet's environment.
In Command & Conquer: Red Alert 2, the Allies can build the weather controller device superweapon, and direct thunderstorms to strike a selected location of the map every 10 game minutes.
In Phantasy Star II, a weather, irrigation and dam control system known as Climatrol has been constructed by Mother Brain to make the barren planet Motavia habitable for Palman occupation.
In the forthcoming game Spore by Will Wright, players will be able to use a spacecraft to modify planetary atmospheres - creating volcanoes to generate carbon dioxide, seeding plant life to create breathable air, or even using a "Genesis device" to make a planet habitable in one go.[19]

[edit] Prose
Ben Bova's "The Weathermakers" is the story of a government agency that controls the weather.
Sydney Sheldon's "Are You Afraid of the Dark" is the story of a think tank that builds technology powerful enough to create hurricanes, tornadoes, and tsunamis.
In Michael Crichton's "State of Fear," ecoterrorists plan to create a tsunami, calve an iceberg, and induce flash flooding and hurricanes.
In Normand Lester?s science Thriller Verglas, the 1998 icestorm that struck the Montr?al area is an experiment by the Pentagon in the development of a climatic weapon that went wrong. The book speculate that ULF waves generated by a transmitter at Siple Station, a US base in Antarctica, caused the icestorm by affecting the ionosphere over Qu?bec.
In Lois Lowry's "The Giver," the government controls the weather and keeps it from snowing, and confine rain to the farmland.
In the book series Weather Warden by Rachel Caine, the Wardens are an association of people who have the ability to control the elements - earth, fire and weather. They manipulate these elements to stop natural disasters from devastating mankind. The main character herself is a Weather Warden, so weather manipulation plays a large role throughout the series.
In Roger Zelazny's The Chronicles of Amber an openly known quality of the Jewel of Judgment is the ability to control the local weather.
In Frank Herbert's Dune series, weather control is widespread, and is achieved with specialized satellites in orbit around a planet.

[edit] Music
cloudbusting by Kate Bush

[edit] Other fictional weather controllers
DC Comics villain Weather Wizard could control the weather with a special kind of technology in the shape of a wand.
Marvel Comics heroes Thor and Storm could control weather; the former because he is the Norse god of thunder, the latter because she is a mutant whose powers specifically center around weather control.
Digimon character Wizardmon could manipulate thunderstorms.
When the Muppet Count von Count of Sesame Street laughs, it often invokes thunder.
In some of the Asterix comics, when the village bard Cacofonix sings, it starts to rain.

[edit] Conspiracy theories
Conspiracy theorists have suggested that certain governments use or seek to use weather control as a weapon (eg via HAARP and/or chemtrails), but such allegations have not been proven. At a counterterrorism conference in 1997, United States Secretary of Defense William Cohen referred to the writings of futurist Alvin Toffler, specifically regarding concerns about "eco-terrorism" and intentionally caused natural disasters.[20]


[edit] See also
High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP)
Weather Modification Operations and Research Board
Global warming
Weather forecasting
Hail cannon
Operation Popeye
Beijing Weather Modification Office
Space Preservation Act
Bernard Eastlund

[edit] References
^ Homer, The Odyssey, book 10.
^ Sir James Frazer, The Golden Bough, ch. 5 (abridged edition), "The Magical Control of Rain"
^ Smout, T. C. A History of the Scottish People 1560-1830, pp 184 - 192
^ Adam of Bremen and Ole Worm are quoted as maintaining this in Grillot de Givry's Witchcraft, Magic and Alchemy (Frederick Publications, 1954).
^ Frazer, supra.
^ a b http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn7995.html - Alamaro proposal and energy critique
^ Moshe Alamaro's brief bio
^ http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7726 - Chorin proposal
^ Kerry Emanuel's Homepage
^ Could humans tackle hurricanes? - earth - 14 September 2005 - New Scientist Environment
^ Oil on troubled waters may stop hurricanes - earth - 25 July 2005 - New Scientist
^ Anti-hurricane invention worth pursuing. Murdock, Deroy. Scripps Howard News Service. 22 Oct 2005.
^ Environmental Modification Convention
^ "Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques", United States Department of State. Retrieved on 2007-09-28.
^ S. 517 [109th]: Weather Modification Research and Development Policy Authorization Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)
^ H.R. 2995 [109th]: Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us)
^ Hoffman, R, "Controlling Hurricanes," Scientific American, Oct 2004.
^ Demick, Barbara, "China plans to halt rain for Olympics," Los Angeles Times, January 2008.
^ "Terraforming". SporeNormous (2008). Retrieved on 2008-07-04.
^ COHEN ADDRESS 4/28 AT CONFERENCE ON TERRORISM Terrorism, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and U.S. Strategy Sam Nunn Policy Forum April 28, 1997 University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia

[edit] External articles and further reading

[edit] General information
Weather Modification Association Perhaps the largest commercial overhead organization for weather modification research and application.
Golden Dome construction Hundreds of advanced practitioners of Transcendental Meditation put their attention on favorable weather conditions during construction of the Golden Dome during the winter of 1980.
The Testimony of Dr. Tom DeFelice (Past President, Weather Modification Association) in support of Weather Modification Operations and Research Board
109th Congress S. 517: Weather Modification Research and Technology Transfer Authorization Act of 2005
Article Montana restricts spraying to a window of months and requires materials and employee lists
US Navy Some work is done by The United States Navy using ELF: Simulations of ELF radiation generated by heating the high-latitude D- region. (This work is supported by the Office of Naval Research and, in part, by a grant of HPC time from the DoD High Performance Computing Center at the Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground)
HARRP
"The Weather Modification Operations and Research Board (passed Oct.2005) - in corporate cooperation with BAE Systems (HAARP apparatus & facility owner) and Raytheon Corporation (HAARP patent owner)
"NOAA?S NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE AWARDS $300 MILLION AWIPS CONTRACT TO RAYTHEON"
"Raytheon Aircraft Company (Owner of HAARP patents, and, NOAA-funded aerosol weather modification/AESA radar weather weapons)"
"BAE Systems (program and apparatus-owner of the HAARP facility, Railgun technology, electromagnetic armor, and, a sub-corporation partner with Raytheon via British Aerospace Corporation
"General Dynamics Robotics (owned by Raytheon Corp) - military contractor/manufacturer of Unmanned Autonomous Vehicles (UAV) aircraft designed for "all-weather," computer-controlled weapons defense progams
"HAARP Completed! - news compilation
"President Bush's National Response Plan"
"Boeing, Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, and Raytheon to create B2B exchange for the aerospace and defense industry, powered by Microsoft"
Weathermodification.org
North American Interstate Weather Modification Council
Iceflares.com
The Gateway Arch as a weather control device
William Cohen Address of 4/28/1997 where he mentioned the possibility of "eco-terrorism" including weather control.
Scientific American Magazine (October 2004 Issue) Controlling Hurricanes
Weather control video's and info
Eastlund Scientific Enterprises The established corporation of Bernard Eastlund, the inventor of the fusion torch, patents used for the HAARP, and the weather-modifying "Thunderstorm Solar-Powered Satellite" system.
Whitehouse.gov The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" of 2007, in which "The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for ensuring constitutional government" (powers of legislative and judiciary branches aside) during any sort of catastrophic emergency in the USA.

[edit] Patents
Original
Process for weather control, H. M. Brandau, U.S. Patent 2,756,097
Weather control by artificial means, Heinz W. Kasemir, U.S. Patent 3,284,005
Cloud formation and subsequent moisture precipitation, U.S. Patent 3,409,220
System and method for irradiation of planet surface areas, Aurthur G. Buckingham, U.S. Patent 3,564,253
Weather modification method, Knollenberg, U.S. Patent 3,613,992
Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process, Consiglio Nazionale delle Richerche, U.S. Patent 3,630,950
Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere, J. Eastlund, U.S. Patent 4,686,605
Method and composition for precipitation of atmospheric water, Slavko Mentus, U.S. Patent 5,360,162
Use of artificial satellites in earth orbits adaptively to modify the effect that solar radiation would otherwise have on earth's weather, Franklin Y. K. Chen, U.S. Patent 5,762,298
Weather modification by artificial satellites, Franklin Y. K. Chen, U.S. Patent 5,984,239
Reissue
Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process, Consiglio Nazionale delle Richerche, U.S. Patent RE29,142
[show]v ? d ? eGlobal warming and climate change

Feb 28, 2006
chemsHilversum24-01-06.jpg
Chemtrails Boven Hilversum566 viewsOp 24 februari 2006 hangen erover heel Hilversum de hele middag Chemtrailsporen in de lucht.
Dit blijkt 's avonds om 18.00u door te lopen tot Paleis Soestdijk. Zie de andere foto's in dit album 55 en zie ook album 9 op pagina 1.

Feb 28, 2006
PaleisChems3~0.jpg
Chemtrails Paleis Soestdijk op 24-2-2006 om 18.00u179 viewsOp alle foto's is geen wolkje te zien: Dit zijn allemaal chemische sporen van de vliegtuigen.

Who's Spraying Our Skies? Chemtrails on June 2nd, 2009 over Baarn, the Netherlands, filmed by Marc van Druten- UfoQuest4Truth.com: http://www.ufodewaarheid.com/movie/MOV00347.3GP
Feb 28, 2006
SUNWEBCHEMS4~0.jpg
184 views2012 Return of the Nephilim: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qo3JhD87Vto&NR=1

Chemtrails Baarn - the Netherlands, June 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5BQHe2ak4o
Feb 28, 2006
SoestdijkChems5~0.jpg
NASA Confirms Weather-Shaping Chemtrails are Real237 viewswww.mail.archive.com/WeatherShapingChemtrailsarereal

NASA: S-L-O-W To Spit Out The Truth
by Lisa Guliani


In the June 17, 2002 issue of the American Free Press newspaper, a bold headline caught my attention: "NASA Confirms Weather-Shaping Chemtrails". What?? Could it be? Do I dare believe my eyes? NASA is confirming that chemtrails are real? Naturally, I had to read this article written by Mike Blair.

You betcha, the good ole boys at NASA are FINALLY admitting what many of us already know and have been saying for quite some time - that chemtrails are not only REAL, but are also wreaking their deleterious effects on weather conditions. Well, whaddaya know? It must be a holiday or something. Gee, maybe if they REALLY try, they will even come across with the truth about HAARP someday in this lifetime. I can only dream.

If we assume the "glass-is-half-full" attitude, we might say that this sloooow admission is "progress" since governmental agencies have notoriously denied the existence of chemtrails despite Representative Dennis Kucinich legitimizing them in House Resolution 2977 as a form of "exotic weaponry" back in October, 2001. Sometimes I think if Jesus came down off the cross and declared that chemtrails are real, there would still be some moron to argue with Him about it. Duh.

The American Free Press article further states that NASA researchers (in all their wisdom, I'm sure) have even "concluded that this POLLUTION can create cirrus clouds." Did you read that, folks? NASA called chemtrails POLLUTION. Ahhh, maybe next time they'll grow a ball and call it just what it is - POISON. Moreover, NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia went on to say that these artificially created cirrus clouds "have an impact on climate because they spread over large areas and effectively trap sunlight". Woohoo!! NASA began this latest bit of "research" after the events of 9/11/2001, so ten months of "study" and NASA has managed to officially connect the first dot or two. Bravo, fellas. It's nice to see ya catching up with the rest of us - finally.

Blair's article continues on to say NASA "came to its startling conclusions while conducting research while all NON-MILITARY aircraft were grounded" in the initial days following the events of September 11th. First of all, "startling conclusions?" Why is NASA startled at all? NASA has known about chemtrails all along. After all, isn't it NASA that obtained and holds the U.S. patent numbered 3813875? Why, YES, it is!!! Gee, maybe they forgot or something, ya think? They procured this patent in 1974. It is linked with a program that utilizes BARIUM for the purpose of creating ion clouds in our atmosphere. Fancy that. But NASA is "startled" to conclude that chemtrails are affecting our climate, eh?

According to AFP, Patrick Minnis, a senior researcher at Langley, stated that the man-made "cirrus clouds are already having an impact on climate, increasing temperatures on regional levels as much as two to five percent." Hmmm ... I wonder how long it will take my chemtrail debunker knuckledraggers to smear and eat their own? Think they'll be calling Minnis a kooky conspiracy theorist anytime soon? We'll see, won't we?

Feb 28, 2006
SUNWEBCHEMTRAILS7~0.jpg
End Of Days138 viewsIndigenous Native American Prophecy (Elders Speak part 1): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7cylfQtkDg
Feb 28, 2006
SUNWEB8~0.jpg
Patently Obvious; A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies 175 viewswww.seektress.com/patlist.htm

1225521 - May 8, 1917 - Protection From Poisonous Gas in Warfare
Referenced in 4704942 - Charged aerosol
"A method of defending against a warfare cloud of toxic aerosol utilizes
a charged defensive aerosol which is sprayed into the cloud.
The defensive aerosol is made of a defensive agent
which may be chemically or biologically active."

Patently Obvious
A Partial History of Aerosol and Weather Related Technologies


July 30, 2003
Lorie Kramer [email protected]



1225521 - May 8, 1917 - Protection From Poisonous Gas in Warfare
Referenced in 4704942 - Charged aerosol
"A method of defending against a warfare cloud of toxic aerosol utilizes
a charged defensive aerosol which is sprayed into the cloud.
The defensive aerosol is made of a defensive agent
which may be chemically or biologically active."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




1302332 - April 29, 1919 -Toy Machine Gun - F.V. Du Pont
Referenced in - 4141274 which is for a smoke generator,
which evolved into the particle and aerosol devices in use today.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The history of interest in aerosol and weather related technologies and devices is evident when a list of related patents is compiled and examined, even a partial list.

The following patents are all verifiable, along with additional information that can be found by reading the referrenced patents included in the documentation. Patent information can be found by visiting the

United States Patent and Trademark Office
and
Free Patents Online


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1338343 - April 27, 1920 - Process And Apparatus For The Production of Intense Artificial Clouds, Fogs, or Mists
1619183 - March 1, 1927 - Process of Producing Smoke Clouds From Moving Aircraft
1631753 - June 7, 1927 - Electric Heater - Referenced in 3990987
1665267 - April 10, 1928 - Process of Producing Artificial Fogs
1892132 - December 27, 1932 - Atomizing Attachment For Airplane Engine Exhausts
1928963 - October 3, 1933 - Electrical System And Method
1957075 - May 1, 1934 - Airplane Spray Equipment
2097581 - November 2, 1937 - Electric Stream Generator - Referenced in 3990987
2409201 - October 15, 1946 - Smoke Producing Mixture
2476171 - July 18, 1945 - Smoke Screen Generator




2480967 - September 6, 1949 - Aerial Discharge Device
2550324 - April 24, 1951 - Process For Controlling Weather
2510867 - October 9, 1951 - Method of Crystal Formation and Precipitation
2582678 - June 15, 1952 - Material Disseminating Apparatus For Airplanes
2591988 - April 8, 1952 - Production of TiO2 Pigments - Referenced in 3899144
2614083 - October 14, 1952 - Metal Chloride Screening Smoke Mixture
2633455 - March 31, 1953 - Smoke Generator
2688069 - August 31, 1954 - Steam Generator - Referenced in 3990987
2721495 - October 25, 1955 - Method And Apparatus For Detecting Minute Crystal Forming Particles Suspended in a Gaseous Atmosphere
2730402 - January 10, 1956 - Controllable Dispersal Device
2801322 - July 30, 1957 - Decomposition Chamber for Monopropellant Fuel - Referenced in 3990987
2881335 - April 7, 1959 - Generation of Electrical Fields
2908442 - October 13, 1959 - Method For Dispersing Natural Atmospheric Fogs And Clouds
2986360 - May 30, 1962 - Aerial Insecticide Dusting Device
2963975 - December 13, 1960 - Cloud Seeding Carbon Dioxide Bullet
3126155 - March 24, 1964 - Silver Iodide Cloud Seeding Generator - Referenced in 3990987
3127107 - March 31, 1964 - Generation of Ice-Nucleating Crystals
3131131 - April 28, 1964 - Electrostatic Mixing in Microbial Conversions




3174150 - March 16, 1965 - Self-Focusing Antenna System

3234357 - February 8, 1966 - Electrically Heated Smoke Producing Device
3274035 - September 20, 1966 - Metallic Composition For Production of Hydroscopic Smoke
3300721 - January 24, 1967 - Means For Communication Through a Layer of Ionized Gases
3313487 - April 11, 1967 - Cloud Seeding Apparatus
3338476 - August 29, 1967 - Heating Device For Use With Aerosol Containers - Referenced in 3990987
3410489 - November 12, 1968 - Automatically Adjustable Airfoil Spray System With Pump
3429507 - February 25, 1969 - Rainmaker
3432208 - November 7, 1967 - Fluidized Particle Dispenser
3441214 - April 29, 1969 - Method And Apparatus For Seeding Clouds
3445844 - May 20, 1969 - Trapped Electromagnetic Radiation Communications System
3456880 - July 22, 1969 - Method Of Producing Precipitation From The Atmosphere
3518670 June 30, 1970 - Artificial Ion Cloud
3534906 - October 20, 1970 - Control of Atmospheric Particles
3545677 - December 8, 1970 - Method of Cloud Seeding
3564253 - February 16, 1971 - System And Method For Irradiation Of Planet Surface Areas
3587966 - June 28, 1971 - Freezing Nucleation
3601312 - August 24, 1971 - Methods of Increasing The Likelihood oF Precipatation By The Artificial Introduction Of Sea Water Vapor Into The Atmosphere Winward Of An Air Lift Region
3608810 - September 28, 1971 - Methods of Treating Atmospheric Conditions
3608820 - September 20, 1971 - Treatment of Atmospheric Conditions by Intermittent Dispensing of Materials Therein
3613992 - October 19, 1971 - Weather Modification Method
3630950 - December 28, 1971 - Combustible Compositions For Generating Aerosols, Particularly Suitable For Cloud Modification And Weather Control And Aerosolization Process
USRE29142 - This patent is a reissue of patent US3630950 - Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process
3659785 - December 8, 1971 - Weather Modification Utilizing Microencapsulated Material
3666176 - March 3, 1972 - Solar Temperature Inversion Device
3677840 - July 18, 1972 - Pyrotechnics Comprising Oxide of Silver For Weather Modification Use
3722183 - March 27, 1973 - Device For Clearing Impurities From The Atmosphere
3769107 - October 30, 1973 - Pyrotechnic Composition For Generating Lead Based Smoke
3784099 - January 8, 1974 - Air Pollution Control Method
3785557 - January 15, 1974 - Cloud Seeding System
3795626 - March 5, 1974 - Weather Modification Process
3808595 - April 30, 1974 - Chaff Dispensing System
3813875 - June 4, 1974 - Rocket Having Barium Release System to Create Ion Clouds In The Upper Atmopsphere
3835059 - September 10, 1974 - Methods of Generating Ice Nuclei Smoke Particles For Weather Modification And Apparatus Therefore
3835293 - September 10, 1974 - Electrical Heating Aparatus For Generating Super Heated Vapors - Referenced in 3990987
3877642 - April 15, 1975 - Freezing Nucleant
3882393 - May 6, 1975 - Communications System Utilizing Modulation of The Characteristic Polarization of The Ionosphere
3896993 - July 29, 1975 - Process For Local Modification of Fog And Clouds For Triggering Their Precipitation And For Hindering The Development of Hail Producing Clouds
3899129 - August 12, 1975 - Apparatus for generating ice nuclei smoke particles for weather modification
3899144 - August 12, 1975 - Powder contrail generation
3940059 - February 24, 1976 - Method For Fog Dispersion
3940060 - February 24, 1976 - Vortex Ring Generator
3990987 - November 9, 1976 - Smoke generator
3992628 - November 16, 1976 - Countermeasure system for laser radiation
3994437 - November 30, 1976 - Broadcast dissemination of trace quantities of biologically active chemicals
4042196 - August 16, 1977 - Method and apparatus for triggering a substantial change in earth characteristics and measuring earth changes
RE29,142 - February 22, 1977 - Reissue of: 03630950 - Combustible compositions for generating aerosols, particularly suitable for cloud modification and weather control and aerosolization process
4035726 - July 12, 1977 - Method of controlling and/or improving high-latitude and other communications or radio wave surveillance systems by partial control of radio wave et al
4096005 - June 20, 1978 - Pyrotechnic Cloud Seeding Composition
4129252 - December 12, 1978 - Method and apparatus for production of seeding materials
4141274 - February 27, 1979 - Weather modification automatic cartridge dispenser
4167008 - September 4, 1979 - Fluid bed chaff dispenser
4347284 - August 31, 1982 - White cover sheet material capable of reflecting ultraviolet rays
4362271 - December 7, 1982 - Procedure for the artificial modification of atmospheric precipitation as well as compounds with a dimethyl sulfoxide base for use in carrying out said procedure
4402480 - September 6, 1983 - Atmosphere modification satellite
4412654 - November 1, 1983 - Laminar microjet atomizer and method of aerial spraying of liquids
4415265 - November 15, 1983 - Method and apparatus for aerosol particle absorption spectroscopy
4470544 - September 11, 1984 - Method of and Means for weather modification
4475927 - October 9, 1984 - Bipolar Fog Abatement System
4600147 - July 15, 1986 - Liquid propane generator for cloud seeding apparatus
4633714 - January 6, 1987 - Aerosol particle charge and size analyzer
4643355 - February 17, 1987 - Method and apparatus for modification of climatic conditions
4653690 - March 31, 1987 - Method of producing cumulus clouds
4684063 - August 4, 1987 - Particulates generation and removal
4686605 - August 11, 1987 - Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere
4704942 - November 10, 1987 - Charged Aerosol
4712155 - December 8, 1987 - Method and apparatus for creating an artificial electron cyclotron heating region of plasma
4744919 - May 17, 1988 - Method of dispersing particulate aerosol tracer
4766725 - August 30, 1988 - Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
4829838 - May 16, 1989 - Method and apparatus for the measurement of the size of particles entrained in a gas
4836086 - June 6, 1989 - Apparatus and method for the mixing and diffusion of warm and cold air for dissolving fog
4873928 - October 17, 1989 - Nuclear-sized explosions without radiation
4948257 - August 14, 1990 - Laser optical measuring device and method for stabilizing fringe pattern spacing
4948050 - August 14, 1990 - Liquid atomizing apparatus for aerial spraying
4999637 - March 12, 1991 - Creation of artificial ionization clouds above the earth
5003186 - March 26, 1991 - Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming
5005355 - April 9, 1991 - Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
5038664 - August 13, 1991 - Method for producing a shell of relativistic particles at an altitude above the earths surface
5041760 - August 20, 1991 - Method and apparatus for generating and utilizing a compound plasma configuration
5041834 - August 20, 1991 - Artificial ionospheric mirror composed of a plasma layer which can be tilted
5056357 - October 15, 1991- Acoustic method for measuring properties of a mobile medium
5059909 - October 22, 1991 - Determination of particle size and electrical charge
5104069 - April 14, 1992 - Apparatus and method for ejecting matter from an aircraft
5110502 - May 5, 1992 - Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
5156802 - October 20, 1992 - Inspection of fuel particles with acoustics
5174498 - December 29, 1992 - Cloud Seeding
5148173 - September 15, 1992 - Millimeter wave screening cloud and method
5245290 - September 14, 1993 - Device for determining the size and charge of colloidal particles by measuring electroacoustic effect
5286979 - February 15, 1994 - Process for absorbing ultraviolet radiation using dispersed melanin
5296910 - March 22, 1994 - Method and apparatus for particle analysis
5327222 - July 5, 1994 - Displacement information detecting apparatus
5357865 - October 25, 1994 - Method of cloud seeding
5360162 - November 1, 1994 - Method and composition for precipitation of atmospheric water
5383024 - January 17, 1995 - Optical wet steam monitor
5425413 - June 20, 1995 - Method to hinder the formation and to break-up overhead atmospheric inversions, enhance ground level air circulation and improve urban air quality
5434667 - July 18, 1995 - Characterization of particles by modulated dynamic light scattering
5441200 - August 15, 1995 - Tropical cyclone disruption
5486900 - January 23, 1996 - Measuring device for amount of charge of toner and image forming apparatus having the measuring device
5556029 - September 17, 1996 - Method of hydrometeor dissipation (clouds)
5628455 - May 13, 1997 - Method and apparatus for modification of supercooled fog
5631414 - May 20, 1997 - Method and device for remote diagnostics of ocean-atmosphere system state
5639441 - June 17, 1997 - Methods for fine particle formation
5762298 - June 9, 1998 - Use of artificial satellites in earth orbits adaptively to modify the effect that solar radiation would otherwise have on earth's weather
5912396 - June 15, 1999 - System and method for remediation of selected atmospheric conditions
5922976 - July 13, 1999 - Method of measuring aerosol particles using automated mobility-classified aerosol detector
5949001 - September 7, 1999 - Method for aerodynamic particle size analysis
5984239 - November 16, 1999 - Weather modification by artificial satellite
6025402 - February 15, 2000 - Chemical composition for effectuating a reduction of visibility obscuration, and a detoxifixation of fumes and chemical fogs in spaces of fire origin
6030506 - February 29, 2000 - Preparation of independently generated highly reactive chemical species
6034073 - March 7, 2000 - Solvent detergent emulsions having antiviral activity
6045089 - April 4, 2000 - Solar-powered airplane
6056203 - May 2, 2000 - Method and apparatus for modifying supercooled clouds
6110590 - August 29, 2000 - Synthetically spun silk nanofibers and a process for making the same
6263744 - July 24, 2001 - Automated mobility-classified-aerosol detector
6281972 - August 28, 2001 - Method and apparatus for measuring particle-size distribution
6315213 - November 13, 2001 - Method of modifying weather
6382526 - May 7, 2002 - Process and apparatus for the production of nanofibers
6408704 - June 25, 2002 - Aerodynamic particle size analysis method and apparatus
6412416 - July 2, 2002 - Propellant-based aerosol generation devices and method
6520425 - February 18, 2003 - Process and apparatus for the production of nanofibers
6539812 - April 1, 2003 - System for measuring the flow-rate of a gas by means of ultrasound
6553849 - April 29, 2003 - Electrodynamic particle size analyzer
6569393 - May 27, 2003 - Method and device for cleaning the atmosphere






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Chem Trail Tracking USA
Cliford Carnicom - Aerosol Crimes & Cover-up Documented
Rense.com Chemtrail Datapage




Feb 28, 2006
SUNWEB9~0.jpg
Beijing Weather Modification Office142 viewswww.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Weather_Modification_Office

Help us improve Wikipedia by supporting it financially.
Beijing Weather Modification Office
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Beijing Weather Modification Office
Traditional Chinese: 北京市人工影響天氣辦公室
Simplified Chinese: 北京市人工影响天气办公室
[show]Transliterations
Mandarin
- Hanyu Pinyin: Běijīngsh? R?ngōng Y?ngxiăng Tiānq? B?ngōngsh?

The Beijing Weather Modification Office is a unit of the Beijing Meteorological Bureau tasked with weather control in Beijing and its surrounding areas, including parts of Hebei and Inner Mongolia.[1][2][3] The Beijing Weather Modification Office form a part of China's nationwide weather control effort, believed to be the world's largest; it employs 37,000 peasants nationwide, who seed clouds by firing rockets and shells loaded with silver iodide into them.[4] According to Zhang Qiang, head of the Office, cloud seeding increased precipitation in Beijing by about one-eighth in 2004; nationwide, similar efforts are believed to have added 7.4 trillion cubic feet of rain between 1995 and 2003.[5]

The work of the Office is largely aimed at hailstorm prevention or making rain to end droughts; they have also induced precipitation for purposes of firefighting or counteracting the effect of severe dust storms, as they did in the aftermath of one storm in April 2006 which dropped 300,000 tonnes of dust and sand on the city and was believed to have been the largest in five years.[2][6] Their technology was also used to create snow on New Year's Day in 1997.[7] Other proposed future uses for induced precipitation include lowering temperatures in summer, in hopes of reducing electricity consumption.[5] More prominently, they have also been enlisted by the Chinese government to attempt to ensure that the 2008 Summer Olympics are free of rain, by breaking up clouds headed towards the capital and forcing them to drop rain on outlying areas instead.[4]


[edit] References
^ "Weather modification". Beijing Meteorological Bureau. Retrieved on 2007-11-15.
^ a b "北京市气象台今年首发雷雨大风蓝色预警 (Beijing Meteorological Bureau issues blue thunderstorm warning for first time this year)" (in Chinese), People's Daily (2006-06-26). Retrieved on 2007-11-15.
^ Chen, Jieqiong (2007-08-15). "08奥运天气控制系统大揭秘 控制天气全凭高科技 (08 Olympics weather control system unveiled; controls the weather with advanced technology)", China Radio International. Retrieved on 2007-11-15.
^ a b MacLeod, Calum (2006-06-29). "China rolls out the big guns, aiming for a dry Olympics", USA Today. Retrieved on 2007-11-15.
^ a b Ruwitch, John (2004-07-27). "China Seeders Train Sights on Soggy Skies", Reuters. Retrieved on 2007-11-19.
^ "China says it made rain to wash off sand", MSNBC News (2006-05-06). Retrieved on 2007-11-15.
^ "Need More Snow? Beijing Weather Wizards Deliver", The Deseret News (1997-01-16). Retrieved on 2007-11-19.
This China-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_Weather_Modification_Office"
Categories: Beijing | Government agencies | Weather modification | China stubs
ViewsArticle Discussion Edit this page History Personal toolsLog in / create account Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Search
Interaction
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact Wikipedia
Donate to Wikipedia
Help
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Printable version
Permanent link
Cite this page

This page was last modified on 1 March 2008, at 05:40. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.)
Wikipedia? is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.
Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers
Feb 28, 2006
SUNWEBCHEMTRAILS10~0.jpg
Chemtrails Paleis Soestdijk t/m Hilversum op 24-2-2005158 viewsChemtrails Baarn - the Netherlands, June 2nd, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5BQHe2ak4o

The International Space Station (ISS) March 17th, 2009 - Baarn, The Netherlands: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVC3ERtZxSk

CHEMTRAILS! BAARN - SOEST - AMERSFOORT, NEDERLAND - 22 APRIL 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCjtu-wC1og

IN THE END OF DAYS - THE EXCELLENT DRUM OF GOLDEN LIGHT WILL SHINE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g_2M_J2d0c
Feb 28, 2006
PaleisChems3.jpg
Paleis Soestdijk, Narwaershof, Nardinclant, Godelinde ...24 januari 2006 om 17.58u468 viewsEen flinke chemtrail na een middagje trailen daar, de lucht onderin zijn geen wolken; dit is louter luchtvervuiling van de Chem-en contrails, er zit geen natuurlijk wolkje tussen!!!
UfodeWaarheid.com heeft gecheckt dat het die middag helemaal doorliep tot en met Hilversum, overal Chemtrails in de lucht, speciaal helemaal boven heel Hilversum.

Zie: www.wereldgeheimen.nl/het_gevaar_in_de_lucht.htm

De vliegtuigen sprayen Foray48B (BTK/Chemical Formula over ons uit. Het is een gevaar voor de chemtrails natuur, gewassen, water, dieren, kortom doordringt alles, ook de huid en longen.

Hierdoor ontstaan symptomen als een voortdurende lopende neus, verkoudheid, droge keel, ademmoeilijkheden, verkleving van longblaasjes, desori?ntatie, brandend gevoel van de huid, allergie?n, oogklachten en andere infecties.

Foray 48B bevat onder anderen sodium hydroxide, fosfor acid, sulfuric acid, method paraben, titanium, aluminium, barium, calcium en magnesium.

Vooral kinderen en ouderen zijn gevoelig, maar dat wil niet zeggen dat mensen in de leeftijd ertussen geen gevaar lopen. Het tast het immuunsysteem aan. Het is een plan om met een sluipend chemische cocktail de mensen ongezonder en kwetsbaar te maken om ze beter te kunnen beheersen.

Al jaren wordt in de USA de lucht bedorven. Vliegtuigen zijn dagelijks actief, vaak twee keer per dag, waardoor verontruste mensen daar al eens met verbazing de vraag hebben gesteld 'waar halen ze in godsnaam al die vliegtuigen vandaan?' en 'wat is het belang dat ze zoveel vliegtuigen er voor inzetten?' Wereldwijd worden de chemtrails nu gebruikt. Het loopt parallel met de ontwikkelingen van de Nieuwe Wereld Orde en de economische en militaire globalisering.

De militaire organisatie HAARP http://www.earthpulse.com/haarp is al jarenlang bezig met het beheersen van het weer en het manipuleren van elektromagnetische velden.

De chemtrails passen in dit kader. Verontrust zijn al verscheidene onderzoek- en actiegroepen- en websites in de VS, onder wie Cherokee Indianen. Ze zijn bezig de bevolking op de gevaren van chemtrails te wijzen
Feb 24, 2006
PaleisSoestdijk_HilversumChems6.jpg
Paleis Soestdijk - 24 februari 2006 17.59u417 viewsKate Bush, Cloudbusting: www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRHA9W-zExQ&feature=relatedFeb 24, 2006
SoestdijkChems5.jpg
Paleis Soestdijk, Narwaershof356 viewsChemtrails boven het Paleis op 24 februari om 18.00u, de plek waar Venus en de Zon in het westen ondergaan.
Standaard wordt op deze plek een SUNWEB gechemtraild, iedere dag als het redelijk goed weer lijkt.
Dan wordt de Zon verdubbeld en versluierd met afval, ook bij het Paleis.
De luchtverontreiniging trekt vanaf het Paleis helemaal door naar Hilversum dat die dag eveneens helemaal vol zat met Chemtrailsporen, geen enkel wolkje aan de lucht ook daar, allemaal vliegtuig afvalsporen en chemicalien.
Feb 24, 2006
SunWeb1.jpg
Paleis Soestdijk417 viewsChemtrailing standard routine exercices above and behind the former Queens Palace.
At 24th of februari 2006 at 6 pm.
Feb 24, 2006
SUNWEB8.jpg
Paleis Soestdijk381 viewsChemtrails, not a single cloud, all the way from Soestdijk till entire Hilversum, in the late afternoon at the 24th of februari 2006. Routine flights to create SUNWEB-chems.
Also our Queens Palace is not spared this grief.
Feb 24, 2006
SUNWEB9.jpg
Paleis Soestdijk375 viewsChemtrails routine flights at 24th of februari at 6 PM in the late afternoon always before Sunset to create SunWebChemclouds.Feb 24, 2006
SunWebChems2.jpg
Paleis Soestdijk377 viewsChemtrails om 18.00u op 24 februari 2006

Feb 24, 2006
SUNWEBCHEMS4.jpg
Paleis Soestdijk - Chemtrail standard flights above the Queens Palace, usually before Sunset, at the 24th of februari 2006 at 5.59 PM389 viewsPlanet X Nibiru: www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8eZ2A8D5rQ&NR=1(1:00)Feb 24, 2006
SUNWEBCHEMTRAILS7.jpg
Paleis Soestdijk 24 februari 2006 om 18.01438 viewswww.earthpulse.com/src/subcategory.asp?catid=1&subcatid=1

Background of the HAARP Project
Prepared by Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., GNSH

Military interest in space became intense during and after World War II because of the introduction of rocket science, the companion to nuclear technology. The early versions include the buzz bomb and guided missiles. They were thought of as potential carriers of both nuclear and conventional bombs.

Rocket technology and nuclear weapon technology developed simultaneously between 1945 and 1963. During this time of intensive atmospheric nuclear testing, explosions at various levels above and below the surface of the earth were attempted. Some of the now familiar descriptions of the earth's protective atmosphere, such as the existence of the Van Allen belts, were based on information gained through stratospheric and ionospheric experimentation.

The earth's atmosphere consists of the troposphere, from sea level to about 16 km above the earth's surface; the stratosphere (which contains the ozone level) which extends from about the 16 to 48 km above the earth; and the ionosphere which extends from 48 km to over 50,000 km above the surface of the earth.

The earth's protective atmosphere or "skin" extends beyond 3,200 km above sea level to the large magnetic fields, called the Van Allen Belts, which can capture the charged particles sprayed through the cosmos by the solar and galactic winds. These belts were discovered in 1958 during the first weeks of the operation of America's first satellite, Explorer I. They appear to contain charged particles trapped in the earth's gravity and magnetic fields. Primary galactic cosmic rays enter the solar system from interstellar space, and are made up of protons with energies above 100 MeV, extending up to astronomically high energies. They make up about 100 percent of the high energy rays. Solar rays are generally of lower energy, below 20 MeV (which is still high energy in earth terms). These high energy particles are affected by the earth's magnetic field and by geomagnetic latitude (distance above or below the geomagnetic equator). The flux density of low energy protons at the top of the atmosphere is normally greater at the poles than at the equator. The density also varies with solar activity, being at a minimum when solar flares are at a minimum.

The Van Allen belts capture charged particles (protons, electrons and alpha particles) and these spiral along the magnetic force lines toward the polar regions where the force lines converge. They are reflected back and forth between the magnetic force lines near the poles. The lower Van Allen Belt is about 7700 km above the earth's surface, and the outer Van Allen Belt is about 51,500 km above the surface. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Van Allen belts are most intense along the equator, and effectively absent over the poles. They dip to 400 km over the South Atlantic Ocean, and are about 1,000 km high over the Central Pacific Ocean. In the lower Van Allen Belt, the proton intensity is about 20,000 particles with energy above 30 MeV per second per square centimeter. Electrons reach a maximum energy of 1 MeV, and their intensity has a maximum of 100 million per second per square centimeter. In the outer Belt, proton energy averages only 1 MeV. For compar-ison, most charged particles discharged in a nuclear explosion range between 0.3 and 3 MeV, while diagnostic medical X-ray has peak voltage around 0.5 MeV.

Project Argus (1958)
Between August and September 1958, the US Navy exploded three fission type nuclear bombs 480 km above the South Atlantic Ocean, in the part of the lower Van Allen Belt closest to the earth's surface. In addition, two hydrogen bombs were detonated 160 km over Johnston Island in the Pacific. The military called this "the biggest scientific experiment ever undertaken." It was designed by the US Department of Defense and the US Atomic Energy Commission, under the code name Project Argus. The purpose appears to be to assess the impact of high altitude nuclear explosions on radio transmission and radar operations because of the electromagnetic pulse (EMP), and to increase understanding of the geomagnetic field and the behavior of the charged particles in it.

This gigantic experiment created new (inner) magnetic radiation belts encompassing almost the whole earth, and injected sufficient electrons and other energetic particles into the ionosphere to cause world wide effects. The electrons traveled back and forth along magnetic force lines, causing an artificial "aurora" when striking the atmosphere near the North Pole.

The US Military planned to create a "telecommunications shield" in the ionosphere, reported in 13-20 August 1961, Keesings Historisch Archief (K.H.A.). This shield would be created "in the ionosphere at 3,000 km height, by bringing into orbit 350,000 million copper needles, each 2-4 cm long [total weight 16 kg], forming a belt 10 km thick and 40 km wide, the needles spaced about 100 m apart." This was designed to replace the ionosphere "because telecommunications are impaired by magnetic storms and solar flares." The US planned to add to the number of copper needles if the experiment proved to be successful. This plan was strongly opposed by the Intentional Union of Astronomers.

Project Starfish (1962)
On July 9, 1962, the US began a further series of experiments with the ionosphere. From their description: "one kiloton device, at a height of 60 km and one megaton and one multi-megaton, at several hundred kilometers height" (K.H.A., 29 June 1962). These tests seriously disturbed the lower Van Allen Belt, substantially altering its shape and intensity. "In this experiment the inner Van Allen Belt will be practically destroyed for a period of time; particles from the Belt will be transported to the atmosphere. It is anticipated that the earth's magnetic field will be disturbed over long distances for several hours, preventing radio communication. The explosion in the inner radiation belt will create an artificial dome of polar light that will be visible from Los Angeles" (K.H.A. 11 May 1962). A Fijian Sailor, present at this nuclear explosion, told me that the whole sky was on fire and he thought it would be the end of the world. This was the experiment which called forth the strong protest of the Queen's Astronomer, Sir Martin Ryle in the UK.

"The ionosphere [according to the under-standing at that time] that part of the atmosphere between 65 and 80 km and 280- 320 km height, will be disrupted by mechanical forces caused by the pressure wave following the explosion. At the same time, large quantities of ionizing radiation will be released, further ionizing the gaseous components of the atmosphere at this height. This ionization effect is strengthened by the radiation from the fission products... The lower Van Allen Belt, consisting of charged particles that move along the geomagnetic field lines... will similarly be disrupted. As a result of the explosion, this field will be locally destroyed, while countless new electrons will be introduced into the lower belt" (K.H.A. 11 May 1962). "On 19 July... NASA announced that as a consequence of the high altitude nuclear test of July 9, a new radiation belt had been formed, stretching from a height of about 400 km to 1600 km; it can be seen as a temporary extension of the lower Van Allen Belt" (K.H.A. 5 August 1962).

As explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica: "... Starfish made a much wider belt [than Project Argus] that extends from low altitude out past L=3 [i.e. three earth radiuses or about 13,000 km above the surface of the earth]." Later in 1962, the USSR undertook similar planetary experiments, creating three new radiation belts between 7,000 and 13,000 km above the earth. According to the Encyclopedia, the electron fluxes in the lower Van Allen Belt have changed markedly since the 1962 high- altitude nuclear explosions by the US and USSR, never returning to their former state. According to American scientists, it could take many hundreds of years for the Van Allen Belts to destabilize at their normal levels. (Research done by: Nigel Harle, Borderland Archives, Cortenbachstraat 32, 6136 CH Sittard, Netherlands.)

SPS: Solar Power Satellite Project (1968)
In 1968 the US military proposed Solar Powered Satellites in geostationary orbit some 40,000 km above the earth, which would intercept solar radiation using solar cells on satellites and transmit it via a microwave beam to receiving antennas, called rectennas, on earth. The US Congress mandated the Department of Energy and NASA to prepare an Environmental Impact Assessment on this project, to be completed by June 1980, and costing $25 Million. This project was designed to construct 60 Solar Powered Satellites over a thirty year period at a cost between $500 and $800 thousand million (in 1968 dollars), providing 100 percent of the US energy needs in the year 2025 at a cost of $3000 per kW. At that time, the project cost was two to three times larger than the whole Department of Energy budget, and the projected cost of the electricity was well above the cost of most conventional energy sources. The rectenna sites on earth were expected to take up to 145 square kilometers of land, and would preclude habitation by any humans, animals or even vegetation. Each Satellite was to be the size of Manhattan Island.

Saturn V Rocket (1975)
Due to a malfunction, the Saturn V Rocket burned unusually high in the atmosphere, above 300 km. This burn produced "a large ionospheric hole" (Mendillo, M. Et al., Science p. 187, 343, 1975). The disturbance reduced the total electron content more than 60% over an area 1,000 km in radius, and lasted for several hours. It prevented all telecommunications over a large area of the Atlantic Ocean. The phenomenon was apparently caused by a reaction between the exhaust gases and ionospheric oxygen ions. The reaction emitted a 6300 A airglow. Between 1975 and 1981 NASA and the US Military began to design ways to test this new phenomena through deliberate experimentation with the ionosphere.

SPS Military Implications (1978)
Early review of the Solar Powered Satellite Project began in around 1978, and I was on the review panel. Although this was proposed as an energy program, it had significant military implications. One of the most significant, first pointed out by Michael J. Ozeroff, was the possibility of developing a satellite-borne beam weapon for anti-ballistic missile (ABM) use. The satellites were to be in geosynchronous orbits, each providing an excellent vantage point from which an entire hemisphere can be surveyed continuously. It was speculated that a high-energy laser beam could function as a thermal weapon to disable or destroy enemy missiles. There was some discussion of electron weapon beams, through the use of a laser beam to preheat a path for the following electron beam.

The SPS was also described as a psychological and anti- personnel weapon, which could be directed toward an enemy. If the main microwave beam was redirected away from its rectenna, toward enemy personnel, it could use an infrared radiation wave- length (invisible) as an anti-personnel weapon. It might also be possible to transmit high enough energy to ignite combustible materials. Laser beam power relays could be made from the SPS satellite to other satellites or platforms, for example aircraft, for military purposes. One application might be a laser powered turbofan engine which would receive the laser beam directly in its combustion chamber, producing the required high temperature gas for its cruising operation. This would allow unlimited on-station cruise time. As a psychological weapon, the SPS was capable of causing general panic

The SPS would be able to transmit power to remote military operations anywhere needed on earth. The manned platform of the SPS would provide surveillance and early warning capability, and ELF linkage to submarines. It would also provide the capability of jamming enemy communications. The potential for jamming and creating communications is significant. The SPS was also capable of causing physical changes in the ionosphere

President Carter approved the SPS Project and gave it a go- ahead, in spite of the reservation which many reviewers, myself included, expressed. Fortunately, it was so expensive, exceeding the entire Department of Energy budget, that funding was denied by the Congress. I approached the United Nations Committee on Disarmament on this project, but was told that as long as the program was called Solar Energy by the United States, it could not be considered a weapons project. The same project resurfaced in the US under President Reagan. He moved it to the much larger budget of the Department of Defense and called it Star Wars. Since this is more recent history, I will not discuss the debate which raged over this phase of the plan.

By 1978, it was apparent to the US Military that communications in a nuclear hostile environment would not be possible using traditional methods of radio and television technology (Jane's Military Communications 1978). By 1982, GTE Sylvania (Needham Heights, Massachusetts) had developed a command control electronic sub-system for the US Air Force's Ground Launch Cruise Missiles (GLCM) that would enable military commanders to monitor and control the missile prior to launch both in hostile and non-hostile environments. The system contains six radio subsystems, created with visible light using a dark beam (not visible) and is resistant to the disruptions experienced by radio and television. Dark beams contribute to the formation of energetic plasma in the atmosphere. This plasma can become visible as smog or fog. Some has a different charge than the sun's energy, and accumulates in places where the sun's energy is absent, like the polar regions in the winter. When the polar spring occurs, the sun appears and repels this plasma, contributing to holes in the ozone layer. This military system is called: Ground Wave Emergency Network (GWEN). (See The SECOMII Communication System, by Wayne Olsen, SAND 78- 0391,Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 1978.) This innovative emergency radio system was apparently never implemented in Europe, and exists only in North America.

Orbit Maneuvering System (1981)
Part of the plan to build the SPS space platforms was the demand for reusable space shuttles, since they could not afford to keep discarding rockets. The NASA Spacelab 3 Mission of the Space Shuttle made, in 1981, "a series of passes over a network of five ground based observatories" in order to study what happened to the ionosphere when the Shuttle injected gases into it from the Orbit Maneuvering System (OMS). They discovered that they could "induce ionospheric holes" and began to experiment with holes made in the daytime, or at night over Millstone, Connecticut, and Arecibo, Puerto Rico. They experimented with the effects of "artificially induced ionospheric depletions on very low frequency wave lengths, on equatorial plasma instabilities, and on low frequency radio astronomical observations over Roberval, Quebec, Kwajelein, in the Marshall Islands and Hobart, Tasmania" (Advanced Space Research, Vo1.8, No. 1, 1988).

Innovative Shuttle Experiments (1985)
An innovative use of the Space Shuttle to perform space physics experiments in earth orbit was launched, using the OMS injections of gases to "cause a sudden depletion in the local plasma concentration, the creation of a so called ionospheric hole." This artificially induced plasma depletion can then be used to investigate other space phenomena, such as the growth of the plasma instabilities or the modification of radio propagation paths. The 47 second OMS burn of July 29, 1985, produced the largest and most long-lived ionospheric hole to date, dumping some 830 kg of exhaust into the ionosphere at sunset. A 6 second, 68 km OMS release above Connecticut in August 1985, produced an airglow which covered over 400,000 square km.

During the 1980's, rocket launches globally numbered about 500 to 600 a year, peaking at 1500 in 1989. There were many more during the Gulf War. The Shuttle is the largest of the solid fuel rockets, with twin 45 meter boosters. All solid fuel rockets release large amounts of hydrochloric acid in their exhaust, each Shuttle flight injecting about 75 tons of ozone destroying chlorine into the stratosphere. Those launched since 1992 inject even more ozone-destroying chlorine, about 187 tons, into the stratosphere (which contains the ozone layer).

Mighty Oaks (1986)
In April 1986, just before the Chernobyl disaster, the US had a failed hydrogen test at the Nevada Test Site called Mighty Oaks. This test, conducted far underground, consisted of a hydrogen bomb explosion in one chamber, with a leaded steel door to the chamber, two meters thick, closing within milliseconds of the blast. The door was to allow only the first radioactive beam to escape into the "control room" in which expensive instrumentation was located. The radiation was to be captured as a weapon beam. The door failed to close as quickly as planned, causing the radioactive gases and debris to fill the control room, destroying millions of dollars worth of equipment. The experiment was part of a program to develop X-ray and particle beam weapons. The radioactive releases from Mighty Oaks were vented, under a "licensed venting" and were likely responsible for many of the North American nuclear fallout reports in May 1986, which were attributed to the Chernobyl disaster.

Desert Storm (1991)
According to Defense News, April 13 - 19, 1992, the US deployed an electromagnetic pulse weapon (EMP) in Desert Storm, designed to mimic the flash of electricity from a nuclear bomb. The Sandia National Laboratory had built a 23,000 square meter laboratory on the Kirkland Air Force Base, 1989, to house the Hermes II electron beam generator capable of producing 20 Trillion Watt pulses lasting 20 billionths to 25 billionths of a second. This X-ray simulator is called a Particle Beam Fusion Accelerator. A stream of electrons hitting a metal plate can produce a pulsed X-ray or gamma ray. Hermes II had produced electron beams since 1974. These devises were apparently tested during the Gulf War, although detailed information on them is sparse.

High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, HAARP (1993)
The HAARP Program is jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy, and is based in Gakona, Alaska. It is designed to "understand, simulate and control ionospheric processes that might alter the performance of communication and surveillance systems." The HAARP system intends to beam 3.6 Gigawatts of effective radiated power of high frequency radio energy into the ionosphere in order to:

Generate extremely low frequency (ELF) waves for communicating with submerged submarines
Conduct geophysical probes to identify and characterize natural ionospheric processes so that techniques can be developed to mitigate or control them
Generate ionospheric lenses to focus large amounts of high frequency energy, thus providing a means of triggering ionospheric processes that potentially could be exploited for Department of Defense purposes,
Electron acceleration for infrared (IR) and other optical emissions which could be used to control radio wave propagation properties
Generate geomagnetic field aligned ionization to control the reflection/scattering properties of radio waves,
Use oblique heating to produce effects on radio wave propagation, thus broadening the potential military applications of ionospheric enhancement technology.
Poker Flat Rocket Launch (1968 to Present)
The Poker Flat Research Range is located about 50 km North of Fairbanks, Alaska, and it was established in 1968. It is operated by the Geophysical Institute with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, under NASA contract. About 250 major rocket launches have taken place from this site, and in 1994, a 16 meter long rocket was launched to help NASA "understand chemical reactions in the atmosphere associated with global climate change." Similar experiments, but using Chemical Release Modules (CRM), have been launched from Churchill, Manitoba. In 1980, Brian Whelan's "Project Waterhole" disrupted an aurora borealis, bringing it to a temporary halt. In February 1983, the chemical released into the ionosphere caused an aurora borealis over Churchill. In March 1989, two Black Brant X's and two Nike Orion rockets were launched over Canada, releasing barium at high altitudes and creating artificial clouds. These Churchill artificial clouds were observed from as far away as Los Alamos, New Mexico.

The US Navy has also been carrying on High Power Auroral Stimulation (HIPAS) research in Alaska. Through a series of wires and a 15 meter antenna, they have beamed high intensity signals into the upper atmosphere, generating a controlled disturbance in the ionosphere. As early as 1992, the Navy talked of creating 10 kilometer long antennas in the sky to generate extremely low frequency (ELF) waves needed for communicating with submarines. Another purpose of these experiments is to study the Aurora Borealis, called by some an outdoor plasma lab for studying the principles of fusion. Shuttle flights are now able to generate auroras with an electron beam. On November 10, 1991, and aurora borealis appeared in the Texas sky for the first time ever recorded, and it was seen by people as far away as Ohio and Utah, Nebraska and Missouri. The sky contained "Christmas colors" and various scientists were quick to blame it on solar activity. However, when pressed most would admit that the ionosphere must have been weakened at the time, so that the electrically charged particle hitting the earth's atmosphere created the highly visible light called airglow. These charged particles are normally pulled northwards by the earth's magnetic forces, to the magnetic north pole. The Northern Lights, as the aurora borealis is called, normally occurs in the vortex at the pole where the energetic particles, directed by the magnetic force lines, are directed.

Conclusions
It would be rash to assume that HAARP is an isolated experiment which would not be expanded. It is related to fifty years of intensive and increasingly destructive programs to understand and control the upper atmosphere.

It would be rash not to associate HAARP with the space laboratory construction which is separately being planned by the United States. HAARP is an integral part of a long history of space research and development of a deliberate military nature.

The military implications of combining these projects is alarming.

Basic to this project is control of communications, both disruption and reliability in hostile environments. The power wielded by such control is obvious.

The ability of the HAARP / Spacelab/ rocket combination to deliver very large amount of energy, comparable to a nuclear bomb, anywhere on earth via laser and particle beams, are frightening.

The project is likely to be "sold" to the public as a space shield against incoming weapons, or, for the more gullible, a devise for repairing the ozone layer.

Further References:
C.L. Herzenberg, Physics and Society, April 1994.

R. Williams, Physics and Society, April 1988.

B. Eastlund, Microwave News, May/June 1994.

W. Kofinan and C. Lathuillere, Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 14, No. 11, pp 1158-1161, November 1987 (Includes French experiments at EISCAT).

G. Metz and F.W. Perkins. Ionospheric Modification Theory: Past Present and Future, Radio Science, Vo1.9, No. 11, pp 885 -888, November 1974.
Feb 24, 2006
SUNWEBCHEMTRAILS10.jpg
Paleis Soestdijk 24 februari 2006 om 18.00u329 viewsChemtrails tot en met Hilversum, geen wolkje te bekennen, allemaal chemisch afval uit die vliegtuigraketten,
om zonlicht te vertroebelen, het weer en de atmosfeer te kunnen manipuleren, mindcontrol, ziektes te verspreiden enz.
Feb 24, 2006
AlienAmersfoort.jpg
Stadsring Amersfoort bij de Kei, "an Alienstatue" spotting Chemtrails..644 viewsDit album bevat 14 foto's!
Scroll helemaal naar beneden om alle foto's te bekijken.
De teksten eronder zijn lang, dus het kan even duren voor u de volgende foto tegenkomt, maar ze zijn wel de moeite waard!

PROOF Chemtrails Are Real; Listed by the US-Government as an EXOTIC WEAPON; in the House Of The Representatives, 107th Congress H.R. 2977, Space Presevation Act of 2001 October 2nd. See: www.youtube.com/watch?v=OU9Gul_oTk&NR (1:58sec)

Chemtrails; Hoe ze het doen: van een vliegtuigmonteur van een grote vliegtuigmaatschappij:
Zie: http://www.nulpuntenergie.net/diversen/chemtrails.htm
Feb 22, 2006
Langestraat2.jpg
januari 2006 Langestraat Amersfoort391 views5 minuten later is de rotzooi in de lucht al opgelost en heeft het zich vermengd met de lucht en de wolken, niemand die iets heeft opgemerkt...Visible smog becomes invisible.

Wi-Fi Invisible smog detected everywhere, Panorama - Wi-Fi warning Signal.mp4
Feb 22, 2006
Chemtrzw.jpg
eind januari 2006, biochemische smog Zuidwestelijke richting vanaf Bunschoten424 viewsTools4wellness [elektrosmog]: www.tools4wellness.nl/?gclid=CMafnMT68owCFQJLQwodwSBVDQ

CO2-tax nonsens: www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/4177925/__CO2-taks_onzin___.html?p=33,1

zat. 7 juni 2008: Dat zegt de Amerikaanse natuurkundige Fred Singer, die deze week ons land bezocht. Volgens Singer stapelen de bewijzen zich op dat niet de menselijke CO2-uitstoot, maar vooral natuurlijke factoren het klimaat domineren. " Smeltende ijsbergen, als dat al gebeurt, zijn geen bewijs van door de mens veroorzaakte klimaatverandering."

Hij wijst erop dat de wereldtemperatuur sinds een piek in 1998 iets is gedaald en gestabiliseerd. "Een CO2-taks klinkt mooi, maar is nutteloos. Want je probeert 'de wereld te redden', maar het blijft gewoon een ordinaire belasting."
Feb 22, 2006
chemtrailssporen.jpg
Shift of Consciousness..504 viewsChemtrails, HAARP en Globalwarming: www.indymedia.be/en/node/7464

Chemtrails bevestigt door Canadese en US Officials: www.portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/06/12850.shtml

A scientist working at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base told Columbus Alive (Dec. 6, 2001) that two different chemtrails projects are currently being conducted by the U.S. military. One involves creating clouds to cool global warming.

Chemtrails are also being deployed by the Pentagon to suspend a mixture of barium stearate and fine iron particles as a temporary atmospheric antenna for conducting radio and radar waves over the horizon. The soapy stearate used to carry the airborne iron particles appears in the sky as prismatic bands of color.

Barium-iron chemtrails were reportedly used to create long range radio-and-radar "ducting" during sustained air strikes on Iraq, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. The scientist interviewed by Fitzrakis also stated that barium chemtrails are being used in conjunction with an "atmospheric heater" called HAARP in Gakon, Alaska.

HAARP's inventor Bernard Eastland told this reporter that the principal purpose of this multi-million watt weapon is to "steer the jet stream" and change the weather. His patent calls for spraying barium in the atmosphere to enhance the effects of HAARP. "Wright-Pat has long been deeply engaged in HAARP's electromagnetic warfare program," Eastlund told Columbus Alive.

/h3>
If some of the chemtrails being sprayed overhead contain compounds for conducting electromagnetic energy, residents of all affected communities could be in even graver danger from the intense electromagnetic radiation emitted by cellphone and microwave transmitter towers, radar installations at military bases, high-voltage power lines, high-power military relay towers and myriad other well-documented sources of "electronic smog" - 15 million times more intense than natural background levels.

Barium chemtrails could accidentally amplify these already hazardous electromagnetic emanations.

Canadian military officers at Canadian Forces Base Comox spokesmen have heatedly denied the existence of this joint military operation. But Terry Stewart told the Vancouver Courier (Aug. 15, 2001) that his information confirming the Canada-U.S. military exercise came directly from CFB Comox.


- # - # - # -

Veteran reporter William Thomas has covered stories suppressed by the mainstream media for more than 30 years. He is the award-winning author of Scorched Earth, Bringing The War Home, Probing The Chemtrails Conundrum, Alt. Health, All Fall Down: The Politics of Terror and Mass Persuasion. His video documentaries include "Eco War", "Waterwise" and "Chemtrails: Mystery Lines In The Sky".
eastlund science, project 3http://www.europarl.europa.eu/dg3/sdp/backg/en/1998/b980209.htm#1Background information : 09-02-98
The HAARP Project and nonb-lethal weapons
Brussels, 9th February 1998






The HAARP Project and nonb-lethal weapons





The HAARP project and non-lethal weapons.

Experts alarmed - public debate needed.


The hearing on the HAARP project and non-lethal weapons was held in connection with a European Parliament own-initiative report, to be drawn up by Maj Britt THEORIN (PES, S), on the possible use of military resources in environmental strategies.

Non-lethal (or non-deadly) weapons - a varied scenario
As Peter TRUSCOTT (PES, UK) said in his introduction, "There is an invisible line between what is acceptable and what is suspect". This is the nub of the issue.


Non-lethal weapons constitute a trend in military thinking which has developed since the end of the Cold War. The world is dealing with a different sort of crisis, which is less easily identifiable and less easy to manage with traditional methods and weapons - hence the desire to master the violence by means other than the same violence. Non- lethal weapons are compared by some authors to "straitjackets" and defined as "any action capable of modifying the behaviour of the adversary while avoiding his annihilation". This appears to be a significant element of crisis prevention but can be - and is - also used in civilian situations (e.g. crowd control).


Mr Luc MAMPAEY, a researcher at GRIP, the Brussels-based European institute for research and information into peace and security, said he believed the expression "non-lethal weapons" was semantically contentious. He argued that the term had reassuring connotations. It was the politically correct term, and one which could delude the public into thinking that nowadays a clean war was possible and hence morally acceptable. In fact, as he himself and the Red Cross representative, Mr Robin COUPLAND (Geneva), pointed out, the dividing line between deadly and non-deadly weapons was not clear. Some weapons might result in death, while others could incapacitate their victims permanently or temporarily. Mr COUPLAND was quite categorical: the term "non-deadly", he said, was ultimately a marketing slogan.


The problem of definition "by default" led all the experts to stress that there was no single type of non-lethal weapon and that a careful distinction must be made between the various types, from the simplest to the most sophisticated. These new weapons covered a broad spectrum of technologies, from optical systems with a dazzling or blinding effect, through sound and electro- magnetic waves, chemical, medicinal, adhesive, slippery, super-caustic and acidic substances, biological agents, bacteria and micro-organisms, to rubber bullets and electric-shock batons.


Dangers to health and the environment


The effects on health and the environment were also described as variable. Any weapon designed to disrupt an organism, as well as weapons capable of affecting an organism indirectly, by chemical or biological means, or optical, acoustic or neurological stimuli, could become fatal under certain conditions. Adhesive foam, it was said, could also have extremely dangerous side- effects.


Only if a precisely calculated dose were perfectly delivered could it be guaranteed that sensory (or xenobiotic) stimuli would not have irreversible, or indeed, fatal effects. In practice, this perfect control over the degree of disruption was the first thing likely to go by the board under extreme conditions, where the desire for a swift and decisive solution would rapidly override considerations of ethics or toxicology.


The risk of abuse in democratic societies


However, it was argued, health and environmental issues were not the only concerns raised by the use of non-lethal weapons. Mr COUPLAND expressed concern about an overlap of civil, police and military applications. He was also afraid that these weapons might be used not to replace conventional weapons but in addition to them.


In Mr MAMPAEY's view, as non-lethal weapons developed, links were bound to be created between military and law-and-order operations, which, he said, would enable certain current conventions to be bypassed. There was a danger of growing militarisation of domestic police forces, which would have access to more sophisticated weaponry. This could raise problems in any state which was supposed to be based on the rule of law and to be mindful of human rights and individual freedoms.


The HAARP project


Tom SPENCER (EPP, UK), chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, said that the United States had been invited to state its viewpoint on this matter to the hearing. Although the US had declined an initial invitation, Mr SPENCER reiterated his offer, saying that the Americans could send a representative to address the committee in future if they wished.


Ms Rosalie BERTELL, from Toronto (Canada), is one of the best-informed experts about HAARP (the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme), a programme which has been developed by the US military.


She described the background to HAARP. The ionosphere is a high-altitude layer of the atmosphere with particles which are highly charged with energy. If radiation is projected into the ionosphere, huge amounts of energy can be generated and used to annihilate a given region.


The HAARP project involves the manipulation of the earth's ionosphere, whose natural role is to moderate energy transfer from the sun to the earth and is used as a missile trajectory and as a reflector for radio communication. The aim of HAARP is to control and manipulate the ionosphere so as to enable the manipulator to wipe out communications at will on a global scale, or to make them resilient in the event of a nuclear war.


It also enables communications to take place with submerged submarines and can, in theory, create geomagnetic pathways to guide particle beams which could then deposit large amounts of energy anywhere on the globe. In simpler terms, HAARP, with its power of intimidation, of delivery or denial of electrical energy on a global scale and its control of communications, is an element of a system which could control the global village in some frightening ways.


According to Dr Nick BEGICH, an expert from Alaska and author of one of the leading publications on the subject*, the HAARP programme would allow such concentrations of energy to be attained that an entire region of the planet could be deprived of water. Electromagnetic waves can cause earthquakes or tidal waves. Mr SPENCER pointed out that, under international conventions, any actions leading to climate change were prohibited.


Mr BEGICH said that in his eyes the project was purely and simply "Star Wars technology". Moreover, it was a secret project, as the US Congress had refused to finance Star Wars. The USA, he claimed, had allocated 91 million dollars to the main programme, to which must be added the related programmes. Over the last 50 years, he said, certain levels of security had been developed which were protected from public scrutiny. State secrets were acceptable in themselves but if they involved such major repercussions for human beings and the environment they must be made public. In his view, the international community should be allowed to evaluate the risks of the HAARP programme.


Eurico DE MELO (EPP, P) said he regarded the revelations as terrifying and said that there was a need for a campaign to inform the public about it.


Winding up, Magda AELVOET (Green, B) told the hearing that there was a saying: "War is too important to be left to the generals". She feared we had forgotten this truth.



Further information: Etienne BASSOT - tel. 284 47 41



* Angels Don't Play This Haarp, Advances in tesla technology, Earthpulse Press, USA, 1995

Feb 22, 2006
ChemtrailsLangestraat1.jpg
januari 2006, Langestraat Amersfoort515 views1e foto, op de 2e foto verderop in dit album ziet u dat 5 minuten later dit hele wolken dek inclusief de Chemtrails al in de lucht zijn verspreid.
Chemtrails and HAARP, 2 wings of the bird, see www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2G2OtU4d6A&NR

What Chemtrails and H.A.A.R.P Really are: www.rense.com/general79/chem.htm

By Carolyn Williams Palit
11-9-7

"The United States does not torture." --President George W. Bush

We are dealing with Star Wars. It involves the combination of chemtrails for creating an atmosphere that will support electromagnetic waves, ground-based, electromagnetic field oscillators called gyrotrons, and ionospheric heaters. Particulates make directed energy weapons work better. It has to do with "steady state" and particle density for plasma beam propagation.

They spray barium powders and let it photo-ionize from the ultraviolet light of the sun. Then, they make an aluminum-plasma generated by "zapping" the metal cations that are in the spray with either electromagnetics from HAARP, the gyrotron system on the ground [Ground Wave Emergency Network], or space-based lasers. The barium makes the aluminum-plasma more particulate dense. This means they can make a denser plasma than they normally could from just ionizing the atmosphere or the air.

More density [more particles] means that these particles which are colliding into each other will become more charged because there are more of them present to collide. What are they ultimately trying to do up there -- is create charged-particle, plasma beam weapons.
Chemtrails are the medium - GWEN pulse radars, the various HAARPs, and space-based lasers are the method, or more simply:

Chemtrails are the medium -- directed energy is the method.

Spray and Zap.

This system appears to be in Russia, Canada, the United States, and all of Europe. Exotic weapons can be mobile, stationary, land-based, aerial, or satellite.

It is an offensive and defensive system against EM attacks and missiles. It uses ionospheric particle shells as defense mechanisms [like a bug-zapper shell]* against missiles and EM attacks. That means they spray and then pump up the spray with electromagnetics. When these shells are created using the oscillating, electromagnetic, gyrotron stations, it "excludes" and displaces the background magnetic field. These shells can be layered one above another in a canopy fashion for extra protection from missiles. The chemtrail sprays have various elements in them like carbon which can used to absorb microwaves. Some of these sprays have metal flakes in them that make aerial craft invisible to radar. Spoofer sprays. Sprays like these can be used to create colorful, magnetized plasmas to cloak fighter jets.

There are satellite weapons involved. Activists are using meters and are getting readings of microwaves, x-rays, and some other kind of emission that they are not sure of, maybe a low-intensity laser.

They are also photographing gas plasma generation due to the heating of chemtrails by electromagnetics. The technical names for vertical and horizontal plasma columns are columnar focal lenses and horizontal drift plasma antennas. Various size of gas plasma orbs are associated with this technology. These orbs can be used as transmitters and receivers because they have great, refractory and optical properties. They also are capable of transmitting digital or analog sound. Barium, in fact, is very refractive -- more refractive than glass.

What does that mean? Someone or someones are very involved in unconstitutional, domestic spying and the entrained plasma orbs carried on electromagnetic beams can be used for mind control programming. The satellites can be programmed to track and monitor various frequencies on different parts of your body. These electromagnetic beams carrying the gas plasma orbs stick due magnetic polarity and frequency mapping and tracking to people's eyes, ears, temples, and private parts. A beam with entrained orbs carries pictures in each orb just like the different frames in a movie. It is a particle beam that is also a frequency weapon.

The satellites download holographic mind control movies, pictures, sounds, and sensations to people through this technology. The Air Force has stated in "Air Force 2025" that their goal is to develop virtual and augmented reality mind control. Depending on the how the computer is programmed or depending on the mood or intent of the person interfacing with the technology, you can be probed, bothered, gaslighted, frightened, manipulated, electronically raped, or tortured. It scans your brain frequencies and deciphers your thoughts. The satellites track you by mapping your bioenergetic signature [body biometrics] and constantly scanning an area to find you.

We are the lab rats for this technology and something is very wrong in the military or intelligence branches somewhere. Because developmental projects in government and military are often so compartmentalized, I suppose someone could be using and developing this technology secretly and without authorization. Then again, behavioral and mind control programs were an authorized policy under MKULTRA. Our country has a history of experimenting on its citizens. We are talking about satellite charged-particle frequency weapons attacking a person 24 hours a day. Psychotronic weapons are considered weapons of mass destruction by the U.N.

"HAARPs" can create earthquakes and can also x-ray the earth to find underground military bases, gold, or oil reserves. These ionospheric heaters can also operate as an over-the-horizon or under-the-ocean communications system. This system can control the weather or create disasters. Taken together with the aurora keyhole through-your-roof satellite surveillance system, Echelon electronic computer/phone sweeps, plasma-cloaked DOD Drug War helicopters and stealths, implants, and cameras on the street, it constitutes one, big global and space control grid.

These weapons involve beams. Two beams overlapped will couple into a particle-ion beam that will bounce off of a remote target and send a holographic image back to the satellite for remote spying operations. When you cross two strong beams, you can supposedly* create scalar energies. These energies can be used as untraceable weapons for nuclear size explosions or for defense. These crossed-energies can be used to cause a person's physical electrical system to fail or with a lower frequency, administer a kind of remote electro-shock. Visualize touching a positive and negative electric cable to each other on top of your head. Scalar energies can be utilized in hand-held military guns and on tanks. They can dud-out electronics or cause large, electrical blackouts. Scalar energies are practically impossible to shield against. You need lead, ceramics, and a deep underground facility to not be affected by these weapons. Or, you need to be up and above the field of battle.

People who are working on these issues hear tones and hums. If you hear persistent tones and static; have body vibrations, burning sensations, "bangs" to the head, neurological damage, or immune system damage; are hearing electronic voices or hearing the sound of a plasma; suffering from pains deep in your organs or constant headaches; or experiencing other anomalous activity then you may be being targeted by directed energy, mind control weapons. These weapons could be on helicopters, jets, stealth fighters, or on satellites. Directed energy beams and electromagnetic waves can be sent to you via hand-held devices or piggy-backed in on cell phone and satellite towers.

Is it possible that someone(s) are very afraid of coming famines and riots due to the ongoing, man-induced failure of the ecological system, and they are saturating the earth with chemtrails for large- scale, gas plasma mind control? Is this the last grasp for the world's resources? Or, are they just control freaks and money mongers? Someone would like to get to that oil under the melting [due to chemtrail-trapped EM heat] Artic. And, I guess the Third World is not a part of this system. I don't think that the developed nations are going to let them in on this either.

Any country that joins this NATO system will become mind-controlled and diseased due to the associated, intense, oscillating, electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic soup, and the poisonous, toxic chemtrails. Our DNA will break. We risk the earth's spin and tilt becoming messed up due to mucking around with the magnetic fields through this military technology. Maybe, it is already messed up.

It constitutes U.S. global domination via NATO and the erosion of civil rights. According to Charlotte Iserbyt and Al Martin, there are ex-KGB and ex-STASI advising our new Office of Total Information Awareness. They are the ones creating our new internal passports [national ID]. And under "The Treaty on Open Skies," we have overflights by Russian and German military. Who exactly is flying those plasma-cloaked craft that are seen all over this country and mistaken for UFOs by people who do not know about this aerial deception technology? Obviously, we have another "Project Paperclip" in the making. We can add the new thugs to the 2,000 Iraqi brought into country by Daddy Bush who are now living in Nebraska.

The elitist corporate government is going to hold the rest of us hostage with directed energy weapons in space, if the Policy for a New American Century group - PNAC - Bush and cronie think tank has their way, along with directed energy attacks against any country or citizen that they decide they do not like. These weapons can create climate war, weather war, mind war, cyber war, disease war, disaster war, and undetectable war. Taken together they can create economic war.

If this system is not stopped, it will kill billions due to aluminum and barium poisoning. It will kill billions due to crop failures and world-wide famine. It will cause heart attacks, strokes, and cancers. It will cause stillbirths, miscarriages, and infertility. The chemtrail sprays often have fungi, bacteria, viruses, dessicated red blood cells, crystalline substances, carbon, metal cations, lithium, other chemicals, heavy metals, and God knows what - probably smart dust, or nanocrap. Years of biowarfare testing on the American public is no big secret anymore. Spraying germs in the sky where they mutate due to the ultra-violet light -- brillant plan, my man. Are we acceptable losses or is this by design?


Feb 22, 2006
Chemtr[1].januari.jpg
eind januari/februari 2006 Zuid Westelijke richting415 viewsNASA Confirms Weather-Shaping Chemtrails: www.mail-archive.com/chemtrailsarerealNASAConfirms

NASA: S-L-O-W To Spit Out The Truth
by Lisa Guliani


In the June 17, 2002 issue of the American Free Press newspaper, a bold headline caught my attention: "NASA Confirms Weather-Shaping Chemtrails". What?? Could it be? Do I dare believe my eyes? NASA is confirming that chemtrails are real? Naturally, I had to read this article written by Mike Blair.

You betcha, the good ole boys at NASA are FINALLY admitting what many of us already know and have been saying for quite some time - that chemtrails are not only REAL, but are also wreaking their deleterious effects on weather conditions. Well, whaddaya know? It must be a holiday or something. Gee, maybe if they REALLY try, they will even come across with the truth about HAARP someday in this lifetime. I can only dream.

If we assume the "glass-is-half-full" attitude, we might say that this sloooow admission is "progress" since governmental agencies have notoriously denied the existence of chemtrails despite Representative Dennis Kucinich legitimizing them in House Resolution 2977 as a form of "exotic weaponry" back in October, 2001. Sometimes I think if Jesus came down off the cross and declared that chemtrails are real, there would still be some moron to argue with Him about it. Duh.

The American Free Press article further states that NASA researchers (in all their wisdom, I'm sure) have even "concluded that this POLLUTION can create cirrus clouds." Did you read that, folks? NASA called chemtrails POLLUTION. Ahhh, maybe next time they'll grow a ball and call it just what it is - POISON. Moreover, NASA's Langley Research Center in Virginia went on to say that these artificially created cirrus clouds "have an impact on climate because they spread over large areas and effectively trap sunlight". Woohoo!! NASA began this latest bit of "research" after the events of 9/11/2001, so ten months of "study" and NASA has managed to officially connect the first dot or two. Bravo, fellas. It's nice to see ya catching up with the rest of us - finally.

Blair's article continues on to say NASA "came to its startling conclusions while conducting research while all NON-MILITARY aircraft were grounded" in the initial days following the events of September 11th. First of all, "startling conclusions?" Why is NASA startled at all? NASA has known about chemtrails all along. After all, isn't it NASA that obtained and holds the U.S. patent numbered 3813875? Why, YES, it is!!! Gee, maybe they forgot or something, ya think? They procured this patent in 1974. It is linked with a program that utilizes BARIUM for the purpose of creating ion clouds in our atmosphere. Fancy that. But NASA is "startled" to conclude that chemtrails are affecting our climate, eh?


Feb 22, 2006
Bolbliksem.jpg
Bolbliksem te Soestdijk op 25 augustus 2005 om 21.30u793 viewsFeb 22, 2006
Rolwolken3juni.jpg
Originele foto: ROLWOLKEN BOVEN DE NOORDZEE [Boogwolk, Boekenplankenwolken, Shelfcloud] 3 juni 2005, Ijmuiden1076 viewsChemtrails Baarn - the Netherlands, June 2nd, 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5BQHe2ak4o

The International Space Station (ISS) March 17th, 2009 - Baarn, The Netherlands: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVC3ERtZxSk

CHEMTRAILS! BAARN - SOEST - AMERSFOORT, NEDERLAND - 22 APRIL 2009: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCjtu-wC1og

IN THE END OF DAYS - THE EXCELLENT DRUM OF GOLDEN LIGHT WILL SHINE! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7g_2M_J2d0c
Jan 27, 2006
chemtr2.jpg
Chemtrails boven de Noordzee843 viewsAl deze foto's van chemtrails zijn gemaakt op 15 januari in 2006 op de Pier van Ijmuiden.
Het had die dag over geheel Nederland koud maar ZONNIG moeten zijn. Dat was het ook op de Pier van Ijmuiden totdat vanaf een uur of 16.00u er boven de Noordzee richting Engeland wel heel veel chem- en contrails aangebracht werden, de lucht werd oranje, grijs en geel, de Zon leek te verdubbelen en te vervagen en het werd steeds kouder. Niets meer van wat een stralende heldere zonnige namiddag had moeten zijn.
Jan 20, 2006
chemtr3.jpg
16.00u 15 januari 2006: Chemtrails boven de Noordzee, vanaf de Pier van Ijmuiden694 viewsvoor foto's van King Air 200 en 350 met Wingtip Chemtrailssprayers voor Weermanipulatie.
Learjet 35A: 'cloud-seeding' en de vele onbekende militaire vliegtuigen en jets.
Zie: www.chemtrails.nl/map2/Het%20Laatste%20Oordeel.htm

Foto's en informatie van een 'wingtip generator, zoals deze gebruikt wordt bij het sproeien van zware metalen en aerosols met als doel Weersverandering.
Bovendien komen de zware metalen en chemicalien in water terecht, waardoor er vele volksziektes kunnen ontstaan en in de lucht ademhalingsproblemen veroorzaken.
Jan 20, 2006
chemtr4.jpg
Chemtrails 15 januari 2006628 viewsEen Rapport van het Europees Parlement t.a.v. Klimaatontregeling en H.A.A.R.P. : www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+PDF+V0//NL

27. is van mening dat HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) wegens de ingrijpende gevolgen daarvan voor het milieu een mondiale aangelegenheid is en dringt erop aan...

www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A4-1999-0005+0+DOC+PDF+V0//NL

Rapport van het Europees Parlement:

30. roept in het bijzonder op tot het sluiten van een internationaal verdrag voor een wereldwijd verbod op onderzoek en ontwikkeling, zowel in de militaire als in de civiele sector, die erop gericht is om kennis omtrent de werking van de menselijke hersenen op basis van chemische of elektrische processen, geluidstrillingen of anderszins in te zetten voor de ontwikkeling van wapens die het mogelijk maken om mensen op enigerlei wijze te manipuleren, met inbegrip van een verbod op alle eventuele huidige of toekomstige toepassingen van dergelijke systemen.

HR 2977 IH


107th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2977
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

October 2, 2001
Mr. KUCINICH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science, and in addition to the Committees on Armed Services, and International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A BILL
To preserve the cooperative, peaceful uses of space for the benefit of all humankind by permanently prohibiting the basing of weapons in space by the United States, and to require the President to take action to adopt and implement a world treaty banning space-based weapons.


Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Space Preservation Act of 2001'.

SEC. 2. REAFFIRMATION OF POLICY ON THE PRESERVATION OF PEACE IN SPACE.

Congress reaffirms the policy expressed in section 102(a) of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451(a)), stating that it `is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind.'.

SEC. 3. PERMANENT BAN ON BASING OF WEAPONS IN SPACE.

The President shall--

(1) implement a permanent ban on space-based weapons of the United States and remove from space any existing space-based weapons of the United States; and

(2) immediately order the permanent termination of research and development, testing, manufacturing, production, and deployment of all space-based weapons of the United States and their components.

SEC. 4. WORLD AGREEMENT BANNING SPACE-BASED WEAPONS.

The President shall direct the United States representatives to the United Nations and other international organizations to immediately work toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing a world agreement banning space-based weapons.

SEC. 5. REPORT.

The President shall submit to Congress not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and every 90 days thereafter, a report on--

(1) the implementation of the permanent ban on space-based weapons required by section 3; and

(2) progress toward negotiating, adopting, and implementing the agreement described in section 4.

SEC. 6. NON SPACE-BASED WEAPONS ACTIVITIES.

Nothing in this Act may be construed as prohibiting the use of funds for--

(1) space exploration;

(2) space research and development;

(3) testing, manufacturing, or production that is not related to space-based weapons or systems; or

(4) civil, commercial, or defense activities (including communications, navigation, surveillance, reconnaissance, early warning, or remote sensing) that are not related to space-based weapons or systems.

SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) The term `space' means all space extending upward from an altitude greater than 60 kilometers above the surface of the earth and any celestial body in such space.

(2)(A) The terms `weapon' and `weapons system' mean a device capable of any of the following:

(i) Damaging or destroying an object (whether in outer space, in the atmosphere, or on earth) by--

(I) firing one or more projectiles to collide with that object;

(II) detonating one or more explosive devices in close proximity to that object;

(III) directing a source of energy (including molecular or atomic energy, subatomic particle beams, electromagnetic radiation, plasma, or extremely low frequency (ELF) or ultra low frequency (ULF) energy radiation) against that object; or

(IV) any other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means.

(ii) Inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person)--

(I) through the use of any of the means described in clause (i) or subparagraph (B);

(II) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations; or

(III) by expelling chemical or biological agents in the vicinity of a person.

(B) Such terms include exotic weapons systems such as--

(i) electronic, psychotronic, or information weapons;

(ii) chemtrails;

(iii) high altitude ultra low frequency weapons systems;

(iv) plasma, electromagnetic, sonic, or ultrasonic weapons;

(v) laser weapons systems;

(vi) strategic, theater, tactical, or extraterrestrial weapons; and

(vii) chemical, biological, environmental, climate, or tectonic weapons.

(C) The term `exotic weapons systems' includes weapons designed to damage space or natural ecosystems (such as the ionosphere and upper atmosphere) or climate, weather, and tectonic systems with the purpose of inducing damage or destruction upon a target population or region on earth or in space.


Jan 20, 2006
Chemtrails~0.jpg
Chemtrails op 15 januari boven de Noordzee548 viewsZon vervaagd al door al die chem-contrails, en het werd steeds kouder..
op de Pier van Ijmuiden, na 16.00u

*Scalar EM-technologies all over the planet and the Tesla domes already in use for the benefit of the entire humanity? to reduce Global Warming!? and Climate Change!??: www.raven1.net/mager.htm

Crop circles, Glowing Orbs, and Scalar Interferometers

Scalar interferometry may explain many unusual phenomena that are being sighted. Two immediately come to mind, the glowing orbs that are being seen in the skies around the world, and the crop circles. Both phenomena could be easily accomplished with the new scalar superweapons. Balls of plasma flying through the sky at phenomenal speeds may well be the "marker beacons" of the scalar weapons. Marker beacons are created for fine tuning the aiming of the devices. Air Force jets were recently sent aloft from Edwards AFB to chase two just glowing orbs. After chasing them a while, the orbs simple vanished. That is to say, the scalar beams creating the orb were turned off.

By feeding a graphic pattern into the aiming software such a plasma ball could be made to trace out that pattern, at the distant interference zone (target zone), making the standing crops fall over, creating a crop circle. Remember there are many modes and effects of these weapons. They are really the engineering of reality itself.


Summary
If Tom Bearden's information is correct then we will have to reexamine world affairs in a new light, seeing the maneuvering of those forces who possess the new weapons. For one thing, there is no defense against such weapons other than having the weapons oneself.
4684063 - August 4, 1987 - Particulates generation and removal
4686605 - August 11, 1987 - Method and apparatus for altering a region in the earth's atmosphere, ionosphere, and/or magnetosphere
4704942 - November 10, 1987 - Charged Aerosol
4712155 - December 8, 1987 - Method and apparatus for creating an artificial electron cyclotron heating region of plasma
4744919 - May 17, 1988 - Method of dispersing particulate aerosol tracer
4766725 - August 30, 1988 - Method of suppressing formation of contrails and solution therefor
4829838 - May 16, 1989 - Method and apparatus for the measurement of the size of particles entrained in a gas
4836086 - June 6, 1989 - Apparatus and method for the mixing and diffusion of warm and cold air for dissolving fog
4873928 - October 17, 1989 - Nuclear-sized explosions without radiation
4948257 - August 14, 1990 - Laser optical measuring device and method for stabilizing fringe pattern spacing
4948050 - August 14, 1990 - Liquid atomizing apparatus for aerial spraying
4999637 - March 12, 1991 - Creation of artificial ionization clouds above the earth
5003186 - March 26, 1991 - Stratospheric Welsbach seeding for reduction of global warming
Jan 20, 2006
HoeRotsoverPier.jpg
Hoe komt dit Rotsblok dat duizenden kilo's weegt op de Pier terecht, op 15 januari 2006?685 viewsWie weet dat?
Of door de kracht van het Zeewater misschien?
Wie het weet mag het ons melden.

Filmpje; Stromings(Water)kering in het verlengde van de Pier te Ijmuiden in de Noordzee eind augustus 2007: www.ufodewaarheid.com/movie/mov00123.3GP
Jan 20, 2006
Goldenlightsutra[1].com.jpg
766 viewswww.goldenlightsutra.com,Dec 16, 2005
hoe werkt onze website.JPG
471 viewsAllereerst hartelijk welkom op onze website. Nu volgt een korte uitleg over hoe onze website werkt:

Wilt u de diashow zien? Dan ziet u onderaan de homepage laatste toevoegingen staan. Als u op een van deze foto's klikt, wordt de foto iets uitvergroot. Boven de foto ziet u verschillende mogelijkheden waaronder ook het icoontje "start diashow".

Klik op de plaatjes om de Albums in te gaan.

Veel kijkplezier en wijsheid op de verkenningstocht door UfoDeWaarheid.com.
Sep 17, 2005
     
1385 files on 9 page(s) 9