|    Home
Photos   |   Briefings   |   Chemtrail Correspondence   |   US Congress   |   European Parliament   |   UK Parliament   |   Dr Rosalie Bertell





European Parliament

HAARP and the European Parliament Resolution

1.On the Trail Towards New Science,  Dr. Nick Begich
2. Background Information, The HAARP Project and non-lethal weapons,
Report of the public hearing of 5th Febrary 1998, published 9th February 1998.
3. The Report on the Environment, Security and Foreign Policy (A4-0005/99)
European Parliament Committeeof Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy, 14 January 1999

4. Resolution of The European Parliament on the environment, security and foreign policy
The European Parliament, 28th January 1999

5. Background information on Tom Spencer

6. Parliamentary questions subsequent to the Resolution

 1. On the Trail Towards New Science
by Dr. Nick Begich
At the end of January and the beginning of February, 1997 a trip through Europe was arranged for myself and my friend, Dr. Patrick Flanagan. The purpose of the trip was to promote our issues in new science and politics while learning about the work of others in Europe. A great deal is happening around the world and there is much promise on the horizon.
We began the trip in New York speaking with others interested in health sciences. Our first meeting was with Sara Shannon, author of a book called Diet for the Atomic Age. This book is one of the finest dealing with the subject of low level radiation exposures; in fact, it is the best book on the subject I have read. It describes the background radiations we are exposed to in daily life. It also describes what can be done to avoid the dangerous effects of long term exposure to higher than normal levels of radiation. The book describes foods which help eliminate radioactive toxins that concentrate in the body and also describes foods to avoid.
Sara offered us a RadalertTM to take with us on our journey through Europe. The device was easy to use, requiring only setting two switches to get a count. We found significant differences in the background radiation of each area visited. Some were well within the limits of safe exposures while other areas were approaching or exceeding safety levels. It was interesting to note the differences and contemplate what could be accomplished with a few thousand such devices monitoring the activities of every "risk facility" in the country and around the world. It would be interesting to see the correlations which could be made between energy producing facilities. The effects on our immune systems and our general health could also be considered. Both the book and the RadalertTM are being added to the products offered by Earthpulse Press.
Our next meeting in New York was with Dr. Joseph Carozza, M.D. He has been investigating alternative and natural healing technologies for use in the United States. He has a strong interest in new technologies with a particular interest in learning more about the merits of electromagnetic healing systems. Dr. Carozza introduced us to Emanuel Revici, M.D., a scientist who has spent a good deal of his life involved in advancing the understanding of disease causes and their elimination through balanced body chemistry. His pioneering work is being applied to evolving concepts in electromedicine. Dr. Revici has been recognized for his work by the American Foundation for Cancer Research and the Institute for Applied Biology. We hope to publish more on this most accomplished individual in the future in the hope of connecting his ideas with others around the world.
Dr. Carozza's interests are shared by others we are in touch with through our work, such as Dr. Reijo Mäkelä and Dr. Anu Mäkelä. We are hoping to see medical practitioners in the United States trained in the Mäkelä method of electro-laser therapy. This method has been successful in arresting and reversing the growth of certain cancers by effecting them electromagnetically. The method has been applied to Parkinson's, diabetes, cardiovascular disorders, M.S. and other ills otherwise thought to be incurable. Part of our emphasis has been bringing forward and connecting new ideas in science, health and politics. To this end our trip was off to good beginnings.
Our next stop was Amsterdam for a day of rest and adjustment to the eleven-hour time difference from Alaska and the nine-hour difference from Patrick's home in Arizona.
The following day, we were off to Brussels to meet with our friends in the European Parliament on the HAARP issue. Our first stop was to make contact with research staff and members of the Parliament who were interested in HAARP and related issues. Our primary contact was Tom Spencer a member from Great Britain who had just become the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. Mr. Spencer had been in contact with us on HAARP for over a year. He was supportive in his interest in the issue and was preparing to advance proposals in this regard.
The results of the meetings in Brussels was the commitment to move forward a resolution in opposition to the HAARP project and, perhaps, opposing the entire direction these new electromagnetic weapons systems were taking. These new systems represent the beginning of another arms race. This is a race which we can avoid if we act now by eliminating the use of weapon systems most would agree are not necessary.
Over the last three years, since the HAARP research was initiated, a good deal has come our way regarding the direction of the military in advancing new technology. We maintain our belief that a strong military is vital at this time for all of the obvious reasons. However, the world has changed, and the way in which warfare is likely to be waged has changed as well. The issue now is what is the appropriate direction for the military? What are the real resources which can be reoriented? What are reasonable expectations for these resources in terms of contributions to our existence on the planet? The issue of reallocation of intellectual capital, the intelligence of many of our best minds, is the overriding issue. To reallocate the intellectual capital of nations may hold the key to much human progress. Is now the time?
The use of these new technologies is creating some discussion in terms of the real intent of military planners. These planners are giving the illusion of change to a more peaceful world while continuing to develop more efficient killing systems. The problem with many of these new weapon development programs is that they exploit new knowledge about human physiology by destroying human life, or significantly degrading it, rather than using this knowledge to build better healing systems. The knowledge being gained by the military in human interactions with electromagnetic energy may hold the keys to much of the advancement possibilities in medicine. An important part of the debate on these new systems centers on the need to breakdown barriers in the scientific secrecy cabal. These barriers are hampering the future development of new health systems and food growing systems. The need for real research energy to be redirected is the greatest cost of our past "cold war thinking." Disclosure of what has already been learned in health and agriculture (now the most pressing world- wide problems facing us) is needed now.
It is no longer the greater threat of war which places the world at risk. It is the threat of failure to reorient much of our scientific research into improving the human condition rather than sustaining a status quo which otherwise will continue to decay. The issue in all of this is the trillions of dollars being spent to develop new systems which can influence human health, behavior and activity in a way which transfers too much power to governments. The transfer of power fails to hold safeguards necessary to keep government accountable. Real science, in the end, should benefit mankind generally rather than empowering people in power with better systems to control populations.
It was back to Amsterdam after Brussels and, in a bit of wandering around, we found one of the few businesses oriented to new brain technologies. Ard Qualm, the owner of Wide Minds, was a committed traveler on the road to awakening people to their higher potentials of mind. He was enthusiastic about many of the technologies he was involved in. In his assortment of technology we saw many familiar systems. He had Super Learning systems, light and sound devices, numerous audio programs, books and other technologies neatly arranged in the small shop. We demonstrated Dr. Flanagan's NeurophoneTM and left some materials for Mr. Qualm. We heard from him a few days later in Munich. T hrough his interest and effort, we expect to collaborate on bringing some of the technology we are coming in contact with to Amsterdam.
There is a great deal o interest in Europe about methods to increase human potential. There has always been a strong focus on the physical body. Today, there is emerging a greater general interest in enhancing the mind. The interest in mental enhancement for many people has been lost in mysticism and confused facts. This is changing. Many existing and new technologies are being refined and advanced. These new technologies offer much promise to us all. These are systems for creating almost immediate relaxation, accelerated learning systems, behavior modification systems, technologies designed to awaken otherwise difficult to reach mental states and methods for increasing general mental performance. Some of these technologies are now being applied to the correction of many problems without the use of drugs. Such things as attention deficit disorders, learning disabilities, and concentration or creative enìergy can be released with these technologies. Some continue to hold onto their mysticism, resenting the new technology as a short path which does not carry with it the discipline of otherwise rigorous training. The new technology fills a basic need to advance and explore our individual potentials without the trappings of philosophical dogma. It is for this reason that these technologies continue to interest so many. We will be covering many of these in future issues of Flashpoints.
The next stop was to Helsinki to meet with friends, media and other researchers. The first meeting was with Dr. Anu Mäkelä, Ph.D.,M.D. (M.A.) who is advancing the work of her father while at the same time coming into her own as a research scientist. She has been working with food preservation technologies which hold great promise. In the days we were in Helsinki she put forward her first patent application and was working �on gaining an additional research grant to further her endeavors. She has found a way to irradiate food with amplified light emissions allowing for the preservation of food without refrigeration. The interesting thing about this research is that the food is hit with the light in a frequency range which does not effect the food but resonates with the microorganisms, molds, and fungi in such a way as to destroy them while leaving the food unharmed and free of decay. We were able to look at two month old meat, dairy, and other samples which were treated and left in sealed containers at room temperature. Red meats remained free of decay and milk samples were similar with a very nice cream separation in the test tubes. This research holds much promise for the transportation of food and preservation of its quality. If food can be preserved without freezing or cooking at high temperatures the quality of the food is also enhanced. Th�e idea that food preservation can be achieved for very limited costs is revolutionary for obvious economic and ecological reasons. We are hopeful that Dr. Mäkelä will perfect this method and that her country is wise enough to continue to fund her research.
Our next meeting was an interview arranged by Anu with Jouko Vähä-Koskela a journalist with the second largest Finnish newspaper, Turun Sanomat. As a reporter he is a specialist in technology and defense issues. His interests included the HAARP project, new weapon systems being deployed around the world and the NeurophonicTM technologies.We shared many of the HAARP documents which prove its weapons capability as the project continues to advance. More-over, we were able to discuss the implications of the "Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA)" being advanced through the development of electromagnetic weapon systems. This concept, the RMA, was first put forward by the United States Army War �College. Their thesis, simply put, is that the changes in technology taking place at this time are so profound they can be compared to the introduction of gun powder to the West. They assert that these changes in technology require a change in values and belief systems in order to bring them into general use by the military. They even put forward a plan to change the values of people as a part of their introduction of these new technologies. Is it right to have branches of government (the military in particular) in a position to shift American values? I s this right?
The meeting with Jouko turned to the NeurophoneTM and its potential for learning and hearing. The use of the device as a demonstration of how the body handles electromagnetic energy (in this case ultra sonic sound) served to illustrate some of the points regarding the new technologies. The following day's edition of the newspaper carried the story on HAARP and t¢he NeurophoneTM. It was the lead story and raised some interest at the Russian embassy; they sent representatives over to meet with our sponsors in Helsinki after our departure. We know that the Russians have been developing similar technologies and we have reported on this in past issues of Flashpoints. The fact that they are now aware of the issue, from our perspective, might lead to greater levels of discussion and perhaps a change in direction. What was important was the dialogue among average people which began in the countries we visited. The coverage of these issues by media is changing the status quo.
We next met with Dr. Alexander Kaivarainen, Ph.D. He received his Ph.D from the Moscow Institute of Biophysics, USSR Academy of Science, in 1974 and the degree of Doctor of Science in Physics and Mathematics from the Scientific and Technical Association in Leningrad in 1989. For over ten years he headed the Laboratory of Molecular Biophysics for the Research Center of the USSR Academy of Science.
Dr. Kaivarainen traveled to Helsinki to meet with us to discuss work of mutual interest. His most recent work was culminated in the book Hierarchic Concept of Matter and Field: Water, Biosystems & Elementary Particles which is where Patrick and I first encountered his work. He was sent our way by Dr. Reijo Mäkelä who knew we shared similar interests. Ideas regarding new technologies for solvent and solid analysis was a major part of the discussion. His concepts of matter and energy have resulted in the development of a technology and computer software. This technology is potentially capable of identifying 150 characteristics of a sample by using only four measuring instruments. Basically new combined analyzer of matter properties (CAMP) is elaborated in his theories and invention. This invention could lead to major breakthroughs because, t¿ hrough relatively simple tests performed on substances, a greater amount of information can be gleaned. This invention could have significant impacts on many branches of science and it is our hope that we can bring Dr. Kaivarainen to the United States to work with us in advancing his work and the work of others. We are currently preparing grant applications to facilitate further developments on the NeurophoneTM and increased understanding of environmentally safe sol-vents for use in the printing industry and are hoping to include this fine scientist as a part of the research team.
The next stop was to Munich, Germany where our hosts Robert Thiedemann and Sabine Fechner had arranged a remarkable schedule of presentations and interviews on both Patrick's work and our work on HAARP. We met with a number of representatives of the media from the Netherlands and Germany. We were able to demonstrate the technology and discuss the ramifications of Dr. F¼lanagan's research. We were well received in Germany and believe that the efforts of our hosts in getting this information out was truly incredible.
One of the researchers Robert and Sabine arranged for us to meet is measuring human energy fields using a unique system of Kirlian (high-frequency) photography. H. C. Seidl was using his system to measure the field strength in a person's finger tips. The measurements could be used to diagnose dysfunction in the body by looking at the energy component of the individual as expressed in the photograph. Mr. Seidl, over several years of research, has been able to draw correlations which are quite remarkable. As a tool for health professionals this method of diagnoses may hold promise for many patients. We are hopeful that the work of this individual will advance and that the necessary resources will become available to move forward.
For our readers who may not be aware of Kirlian photography it is best described as a photo-graphic method which captures on film the light energy radiations which emanate from the body. These fields are measurable and indicate the vitality of the living organism or person being photographed. The method has been around for some years but its use for such specific diagnoses is in its infancy as a science. The work of this home inventor again demonstrates the spirit from which many of our technologies have sprung.
In Munich, another companion throughout our stay was Mr. Oswald Bartel, the owner of Biomed E.T.C. He has been collaborating with Dr. Flanagan in the development of a number of special ionized oils for use externally on the body. This technology is similar to some of the research of Drs. Gael Crystal and Patrick Flanagan. In their research, Crystal EnergyTM is used as an additive for drinking water which causes the fluid to be reduced in surface tension and gain a negative netü charge. This increases the efficiency of the water in living systems. Use of the treated water results in increased efficiency in assimilating nutrients and ridding the body of toxic substances. The oils on the other hand are primarily designed for external use. The non-saturated oil is ionized and retains energy better than water because of the structure of atoms in oil. This allows for the release of energy over a longer period of time in a balanced and sustained way. Again, using Kirlian photography, the energy flow can be seen to increase under the influence of ionized oil. The use of ionized oils on the acupuncture points or other parts of the body has been reported to be effective in changing the energy state of the body with positive results. We hope to publish some of Mr. Bartel's research and offer greater access to his technology in coming months. The idea that the external application of oils can resulôt in a sustained exchange of energy in tissue is exciting for uses in pain relief and rebalancing the body in order to alleviate disease.
Our next stop was to Paris to see some of the art and other objects displayed in the Louvre. Patrick particularly wanted to see the pyramids located on the grounds of the museum. While there we saw that the codex of Leonardo de Vinci (purchased by Bill Gates) was on display at the Luxembourg Museum. Several months before I had attempted to gather some information on this document for Patrick because of his long term interest in water. Here it was, on public display, in Paris. The information was wonderful and the in sights of Leonardo de Vinci interesting.
Leaving Paris for the States, the impact of our visit to Europe began to settle in and the realization of the very real opportunity to advance science through publishing became clear. Our focus as an organization ôis even more driven to publish and facilitate the introduction of new ideas for the improvement of humanity. The idea that a few people can change a great deal was never more obvious as it was in this most interesting travel story...on the path of the new scientist.
The concern and interest in all of these topics extends to people around the world. That man has finally begun to make huge leaps in health sciences, learning technologies, and agriculture, yet largely uses these new technologies to create potentially life-destroying systems is the tragedy of our Age. Electromagnetic warfare needs to be beaten into the millennial plowshares of health. We are hopeful that our efforts will be extended again in Europe in either May or June. We are also hopeful that we will see formal actions from the European Parliament on weapons issues and perhaps see further advanc es in technology for the benefit of mankind.


 2. Background Information : 09-02-98
Brussels, 9th February 1998
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

EU News Report, 5th February 1998

THE HAARP PROJECT:
PURE RESEARCH, STAR WARS CONTINUATION OR ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER?

At a public hearing in Brussels on 5th February, the Committee on Foreign Affairs discussed the HAARP project (the High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme), which has been developed by the US military, as well as the wider issue of non-lethal weapons. The chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom SPENCER (EPP, UK), stressed the importance of the hearing in connection with the report to be drawn up by Maj Britt THEORIN (PES, S) on the possible use of military resources in environmental strategies.

Mr SPENCER said that he attached great importance to ensuring that varied - and indeed opposing - viewpoints were aired in the course of any hearing, so that a clear and well-informed picture of the issue could be obtained. It would therefore have been useful, on this occasion, to hear the views of the United States and NATO. However, the NATO Secretary General, after consultations within the Alliance, had told the committee that there was no NATO policy on this matter and that he was therefore unable to send an expert to the hearing. Mr SPENCER had therefore contacted the office of the US Permanent Representative to NATO but it had refused to send anyone to the hearing. Mr SPENCER regarded this as regrettable but noted that, as far as the committee was concerned, the issue would stay on the agenda. It would be ready to listen to their views at any point in the future.

News Report will return to this subject in a special Background Note.

Further information: Etienne BASSOT - tel. 284 47 41




 3. REPORT
On the environment, security, and foreign policy


[The full report is available at the website of the EU Parliament. I have extracted the passages on HAARP only]

Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy

Rapporteur: Mrs Maj Britt Theorin

Draftsman: Mr Olsson, Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection

(Hughes procedure)
C O N T E N T S

A MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION

B EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

Annex 1

OPINION
*.wpd
[163 kb]
*.pdf
[104 kb]

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, AndréLéonard, Barón-Crespo, Bertens, Bianco, Burenstam Linder, Carnero González, Carrozzo (for Colajanni), Dillen, Dupuis, Gahrton, Goerens (for Cars), Graziani, Günther (for Gomolka), Lalumière, Lambrias, Pack (for Habsburg), Pettinari (for Imbeni pursuant to Rule 138(2), Piha, Rinsche, Sakellariou, Salafranca Sánchez-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.


A MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy
[Extracts on HAARP only]

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;



B EXPLANATORY STATEMENT
A defence against environmental threats
[Extracts on HAARP and non-lethal weapons only]

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.

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.

[Extracts from end notes]

(21)      This section is based on information from the hearing.
(22)      Dr Nick Begich, speaker at the hearing.
(23)      The ionosphere contains vast protective magnetic fields know as the Van Allen belts which intercept charged particles (protons, electrons and alpha particles).
(24)      In 1958 the US Navy exploded 3 devices containing nuclear material 480 km above the South Atlantic. Designed by the US Department of Defence and the Atomic Energy Commission under the code name Project Argus. Source: Dr Rosalie Bertell.
(25)      Article 1, the Antarctic Treaty.

OPINION
[Extract on HAARP only]
(Rule 147)
for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy
on the motion for a resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy (report by Mrs Theorin)
Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection
Draftsman: Mr Karl-Erik Olsson
PROCEDURE
At its meeting of 20 July 1998 the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection appointed Mr Karl-Erik Olsson draftsman.
It considered the draft opinion at its meetings of 12 October and 25 November 1998.
At last meeting it adopted the following conclusions by 26 votes to 2, with 1 abstention.
The following took part in the vote: Collins, chairman; Dybkjær, vice-chairman; Olsson, draftsman; d'Aboville, Blokland, Bowe, Breyer, Cabrol, Correia, Eisma, Estevan Bolea (for Bébéar), Flemming, Florenz, González Álvarez, Graenitz, Hulthén, Kuhn, Lange (for Díez de Rivera Icaza), Leopardi, McKenna, Oomen-Ruijten, Pimenta (for Burtone), Pollack, Roth-Behrendt, Tamino, Trakatellis, Valverde López, Virgin and White.

CONCLUSIONS
The Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Consumer Protection calls on the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy, as the committee responsible, to incorporate the following conclusions in its report:

11. Regards the US military ionospheric manipulation system, HAARP, based in Alaska, which is only a part of the development and deployment of electromagnetic weaponry for both external and internal security use, as an example of the most serious emerging military threat to the global environment and human health, as it seeks to interfere with the highly sensitive and energetic section of the biosphere for military purposes, while all of its consequences are not clear, and calls on the Commission, Council and the Member States to press the US Government, Russia and any other state involved in such activities to cease them, leading to a global convention against such weaponry;

12. 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;


 4. Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy
The European Parliament

[Extracts relating to HAARP only]


Thursday 28 January 1999
C 128/92 EN 7.5.1999 Official Journal of the European Communities
8. Environment, security and foreign affairs
A4-0005/99
Resolution on the environment, security and foreign policy
The European Parliament,

having regard to the report of the 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),

Legal aspects of military activities

23. Calls on the European Union to seek to have the new ënon-lethalí weapons technology and the
development of new arms strategies also covered and regulated by international conventions;

24. Considers HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) by virtue of its far-reaching 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 HAARP programme currently being funded in Alaska;

25. 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;

26. Calls on the Commission to examine if there are environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings;

27. Calls for an international convention introducing a global ban on all developments and
     deployments of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings;



 5. Tom Spencer's Bio
extracts from


As Member of the European Parliament for Derbyshire from 1979 to 1984, he was the Conservative Spokesman on Social Affairs and Employment and subsequently on External Trade. He was Associate Dean of Templeton College, Oxford from 1984-1989 and founding Executive Director of the European Centre for Public Affairs from 1987 to 1989. He was elected Conservative Member for Surrey in June 1989. He was Deputy Chief Whip and served on the Agriculture Committee and on the Environment Committee. He was Chairman of the Conservatives in the European Parliament (the British Section of the European People's Party Group) 1994-97 and Chairman of the EP-Czech Joint Parliamentary Committee for the same period. From 1997-99 he was President of the European Parliament's Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy.

As a committed environmentalist he was, from 1995-99, President of GLOBE International (Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment) that links four hundred Members of Parliament worldwide. His interests include Global Governance, Foreign Policy formation, Climate Change, Trade, Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals, and Environment and Security. He chaired meetings of the Religious and Scientific Committee of the Religion, Science and Environment Symposia organised by His All Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (2000 - 2002). He was Chairman of Counterpart Europe (2000 - 2002) an NGO active in sixty countries. He was a Commissioner of the Commission on Globalisation (2000 - 2003) and Co-Moderator of the "National Sovereignty and Universal Challenges: Choices for the World after Iraq" conference held in Brussels in June 2003. He is Senior Advisor to the Institute for Environmental Security. He is a Board Member of Action for a Global Climate Community.

Tom Spencer writes, lectures and broadcasts widely. His hobbies include gardening and opera. He holds the Great Golden Medal for Merit of the Republic of Austria (1996) and the Forum for the Future's Green Ribbon Award (1999). He is a member of the Council of Federal Trust and of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Public Affairs and the Handbook of Public Affairs, the Advisory Council of the Centre for Corporate and Public Affairs at Manchester Metropolitan University, the MSc Business and Public Affairs Advisory Board at Brunel University, and the Advisory Councils of EchoResearch and the Fondation EurActiv.


[Note: Mr Spencer was forced to resign as an MEP on 31 January 1999, only a few days after the European Parliament passed the resolution on HAARP. In a bizzare scandal, UK Customs found prohibited items - cannabis and a gay sex video- in Mr Spencer's suitcase upon his entering the UK. Just a coincidence, or an intelligence services set up?



 6. Parliamentary Questions Subsequent to the Resolution



WRITTEN QUESTION E-1453/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the  Commission

(28 April 2003)
Subject:  European Parliament resolution of 28 January 1999 (A4-0005/1999) on the environment, security and foreign policy

With reference to paragraphs 26 to 29 of the European Parliament resolution of 28 January 1999 on the environment, security and foreign policy (A4-0005/1999(1)):
1.      With regard to paragraph 26, has the Commission examined whether there are environmental and public health implications for Arctic Europe arising from the HAARP programme, and will it be reporting to Parliament concerning its findings? If so, what implications have been identified?
2.      With regard to paragraph 27, what steps has the Commission taken to establish and enforce an international convention introducing a global ban on all developments and deployments of weapons which might enable any form of manipulation of human beings?
3.      With regard to paragraph 28, what steps has the Commission taken to conclude international treaties to protect the environment from unnecessary destruction in the event of war?
4.      With regard to paragraph 29, what steps has the Commission taken with a view to the establishment of international standards for the environmental impact of peacetime military activities?


(1)      OJ C 128, 7.5.1999, p. 92.

Answer(s)     

Parliamentary questions
Answer given by Mrs  Wallström on behalf of the Commission
(written question: E-1453/03)
(3 July 2003)

The High frequency Active Auroral Research Programme (HAARP) for Arctic Europe is a military programme. The Commission has no competence, nor indeed the expertise, to carry out the examination requested by the Parliament in paragraph 26 of its Resolution.

With regard to the requests made in paragraphs 27 to 29, these deal with international treaties and standards which are predominantly concerned with military questions, e.g. on disarmament, and therefore fall within the competence of the Member States.

OJ C 33 E, 06/02/2004 (p. 121).

............................................................................................................................................................................................

Question which has lapsed pursuant to Rule 185 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1446/04

by Paul Lannoye (Verts/ALE) to the  Commission

(29 April 2004)
Subject: HAARP project and Commission follow-up to the resolution adopted by Parliament in 1999

In its resolution of 28 January 1999 on the environment, security and foreign policy (A4-0005/99)(1), Parliament stated that the HAARP project was manipulating the environment for military ends (recital R) and called for there to be a STOA examination of HAARP, as a global concern (paragraph 24), in order to assess the impact on the local and global environment and on public health in general.

In paragraph 26, Parliament called on the Commission to examine the possible environmental and public health implications of the HAARP programme for Arctic Europe and to report back to Parliament with its findings. Five years later, I am not aware of the existence of any such report.

Would the Commission explain what initiatives have been taken regarding this affair?

OJ C 128, 07.05.1999, p. 92.

Question has lapsed pursuant to Rule 185 of Parliament's Rules of Procedure.