by Michel Chossudovsky
Professor of Economics, University of Ottawa, author of The Globalization of
Poverty, second edition, Common Courage Press, 2000.

The important debate on global warming under UN auspices provides but a
partial picture of climate change; in addition to the devastating impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions on the ozone layer, the World's climate can now be
modified as part of a new generation of sophisticated "non-lethal weapons."
Both the Americans and the Russians have developed capabilities to
manipulate the World's climate.

In the US, the technology is being perfected under the High-frequency Active
Aural Research Program (HAARP) as part of the ("Star Wars") Strategic
Defence Initiative (SDI). Recent scientific evidence suggests that HAARP is
fully operational and has the ability of potentially triggering floods,
droughts, hurricanes and earthquakes. >From a military standpoint, HAARP is
a weapon of mass destruction. Potentially, it constitutes an instrument of
conquest capable of selectively destabilising agricultural and ecological
systems of entire regions.

While there is no evidence that this deadly technology has been used, surely
the United Nations should be addressing the issue of "environmental warfare"
alongside the debate on the climatic impacts of greenhouse gases…

* * * * * * * * * * *

Despite a vast body of scientific knowledge, the issue of deliberate
climatic manipulations for military use has never been explicitly part of
the UN agenda on climate change. Neither the official delegations nor the
environmental action groups participating in the Hague Conference on Climate
Change (CO6) (November 2000) have raised the broad issue of "weather
warfare" or "environmental modification techniques (ENMOD)" as relevant to
an understanding of climate change.

The clash between official negotiators, environmentalists and American
business lobbies has centered on Washington's outright refusal to abide by
commitments on carbon dioxide reduction targets under the 1997 Kyoto
protocol.1 The impacts of military technologies on the World's climate are
not an object of discussion or concern. Narrowly confined to greenhouse
gases, the ongoing debate on climate change serves Washington's strategic
and defense objectives.


World renowned scientist Dr. Rosalie Bertell confirms that "US military
scientists … are working on weather systems as a potential weapon. The
methods include the enhancing of storms and the diverting of vapor rivers in
the Earth's atmosphere to produce targeted droughts or floods."2 Already in
the 1970s, former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had foreseen
in his book "Between Two Ages" that:

"Technology will make available, to the leaders of major nations, techniques
for conducting secret warfare, of which only a bare minimum of the security
forces need be appraised... [T]echniques of weather modification could be
employed to produce prolonged periods of drought or storm."

Marc Filterman, a former French military officer, outlines several types of
"unconventional weapons" using radio frequencies. He refers to "weather
war," indicating that the U.S. and the Soviet Union had already "mastered
the know-how needed to unleash sudden climate changes (hurricanes, drought)
in the early 1980s."3 These technologies make it "possible to trigger
atmospheric disturbances by using Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) radar
[waves]." 4

A simulation study of future defense "scenarios" commissioned for the US Air
Force calls for:

"US aerospace forces to 'own the weather' by capitalizing on emerging
technologies and focusing development of those technologies to war-fighting
applications… From enhancing friendly operations or disrupting those of the
enemy via small-scale tailoring of natural weather patterns to complete
dominance of global communications and counterspace control,
weather-modification offers the war fighter a wide-range of possible options
to defeat or coerce an adversary... In the United States,
weather-modification will likely become a part of national security policy
with both domestic and international applications. Our government will
pursue such a policy, depending on its interests, at various levels. 5


The High-Frequency Active Aural Research Program (HAARP) based in Gokoma
Alaska --jointly managed by the US Air Force and the US Navy-- is part of a
new generation of sophisticated weaponry under the US Strategic Defense
Initiative (SDI). Operated by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space
Vehicles Directorate, HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas
capable of creating "controlled local modifications of the ionosphere".
Scientist Dr. Nicholas Begich --actively involved in the public campaign
against HAARP-- describes HAARP as:

"A super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the
ionosphere [upper layer of the atmosphere] by focusing a beam and heating
those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate
everything -- living and dead." 6

Dr. Rosalie Bertell depicts HAARP as "a gigantic heater that can cause major
disruption in the ionosphere, creating not just holes, but long incisions in
the protective layer that keeps deadly radiation from bombarding the
planet." 7


HAARP has been presented to public opinion as a program of scientific and
academic research. US military documents seem to suggest, however, that
HAARP's main objective is to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of
Defense purposes." 8 Without explicitly referring to the HAARP program, a US
Air Force study points to the use of "induced ionospheric modifications" as
a means of altering weather patterns as well as disrupting enemy
communications and radar.9

According to Dr. Rosalie Bertell, HAARP is part of an integrated weapons'
system, which has potentially devastating environmental consequences:

"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. …
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 device for repairing the ozone layer. 10

In addition to weather manipulation, HAARP has a number of related uses:

"HAARP could contribute to climate change by intensively bombarding the
atmosphere with high-frequency rays... Returning low-frequency waves at high
intensity could also affect people's brains, and effects on tectonic
movements cannot be ruled out. 11.

More generally, HAARP has the ability of modifying the World's
electro-magnetic field. It is part of an arsenal of "electronic weapons"
which US military researchers consider a "gentler and kinder warfare". 12


HAARP is part of the weapons arsenal of the New World Order under the
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). From military command points in the US,
entire national economies could potentially be destabilized through climatic
manipulations. More importantly, the latter can be implemented without the
knowledge of the enemy, at minimal cost and without engaging military
personnel and equipment as in a conventional war.

The use of HAARP -- if it were to be applied-- could have potentially
devastating impacts on the World's climate. Responding to US economic and
strategic interests, it could be used to selectively modify climate in
different parts of the World resulting in the destabilization of
agricultural and ecological systems.

It is also worth noting that the US Department of Defense has allocated
substantial resources to the development of intelligence and monitoring
systems on weather changes. NASA and the Department of Defense's National
Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) are working on "imagery for studies of
flooding, erosion, land-slide hazards, earthquakes, ecological zones,
weather forecasts, and climate change" with data relayed from satellites. 13


According to the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) signed at
the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro: "States have… in accordance with
the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law,
the (…) responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction
or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of
areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction." 14

It is also worth recalling that an international Convention ratified by the
UN General Assembly in 1997 bans "military or other hostile use of
environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or
severe effects."15 Both the US and the Soviet Union were signatories to the
Convention. The Convention defines "'environmental modification techniques'
as referring to any technique for changing--through the deliberate
manipulation of natural processes--the dynamics, composition or structure of
the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere or
of outer space." 16

Why then did the UN --disregarding the 1977 ENMOD Convention, as well as its
own charter, decide to exclude from its agenda climatic changes resulting
from military programs?


In February 1998, responding to a report of Mrs. Maj Britt Theorin --Swedish
MEP and longtime peace advocate--, the European Parliament's Committee on
Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense Policy held public hearings in
Brussels on the HAARP program.17 The Committee's "Motion for Resolution"
submitted to the European Parliament:

"Considers HAARP… 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...; [the
Committee] regrets the repeated refusal of the United States
Administration... to give evidence to the public hearing …into the
environmental and public risks [of] the HAARP program." 18.

The Committee's request to draw up a "Green Paper" on "the environmental
impacts of military activities", however, was casually dismissed on the
grounds that the European Commission lacks the required jurisdiction to
delve into "the links between environment and defense". 19 Brussels was
anxious to avoid a showdown with Washington.


While there is no concrete evidence of HAARP having been used, scientific
findings suggest that it is at present fully operational. What this means is
that HAARP could potentially be applied by the US military to selectively
modify the climate of an "unfriendly nation" or "rogue state" with a view to
destabilizing its national economy.

Agricultural systems in both developed and developing countries are already
in crisis as a result of New World Order policies including market
deregulation, commodity dumping, etc. Amply documented, IMF and World Bank
"economic medicine" imposed on the Third World and the countries of the
former Soviet block has largely contributed to the destabilization of
domestic agriculture. In turn, the provisions of the World Trade
Organization (WTO) have supported the interests of a handful of Western
agri-biotech conglomerates in their quest to impose genetically modified
(GMO) seeds on farmers throughout the World.

It is important to understand the linkage between the economic, strategic
and military processes of the New World Order. In the above context,
climatic manipulations under the HAARP program (whether accidental or
deliberate) would inevitably exacerbate these changes by weakening national
economies, destroying infrastructure and potentially triggering the
bankruptcy of farmers over vast areas. Surely national governments and the
United Nations should address the possible consequences of HAARP and other
"non-lethal weapons" on climate change.


1. The latter calls for nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an
average of 5.2 percent to become effective between 2008 and 2012. See
Background of Kyoto Protocol at http://www.globalwarming.net/gw11.html
2. The Times, London, 23 November 2000.
3. Intelligence Newsletter, December 16, 1999.
4. Ibid.
5. Air University of the US Air Force, AF 2025 Final Report,
http://www.au.af.mil/au/2025/ (emphasis added).
6. Nicholas Begich and Jeane Manning, The Military's Pandora's Box,
Earthpulse Press, http://www.xyz.net/~nohaarp/earthlight.html See also the
HAARP home page at http://www.haarp.alaska.edu/
7. See Briarpatch, January, 2000. (emphasis added).
8. Quoted in Begich and Manning, op cit.
9. Air University, op cit.
10. Rosalie Bertell, Background of the HAARP Program, 5 November, 1996,
11. Begich and Manning, op cit.
12. Don Herskovitz, Killing Them Softly, Journal of Electronic Defense,
August 1993. (emphasis added). According to Herskovitz, "electronic warfare"
is defined by the US Department of Defense as "military action involving the
use of electromagnetic energy..." The Journal of Electronic Defense at
http://www.jedefense.com/ has published a range of articles on the
application of electronic and electromagnetic military technologies.
13. Military Space, 6 December, 1999.
14. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, New York, 1992. See complete
text at http://www.unfccc.de/resource/conv/conv_002.html (emphasis added).
15. See Associated Press, 18 May 1977.
16. Environmental Modification Ban Faithfully Observed, States Parties
Declare, UN Chronicle, July, 1984, Vol. 21, p. 27.
17. European Report, 7 February 1998.
18. European Parliament, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defense
Policy, Brussels, doc. no. A4-0005/99, 14 January 1999.
19. EU Lacks Jurisdiction to Trace Links Between Environment and Defense,
European Report, 3 February 1999.
........ ......... ......... .........

C Copyright by Michel Chossudovsky, Ottawa, November, 2000.
All rights reserved. Permission is granted to post this text on
non-commercial community internet sites, provided the essay remains intact
and the copyright note is displayed. To publish this text in printed and/or
other forms contact the author at [email protected], fax:

Michel Chossudovsky
Department of Economics,
University of Ottawa, Ottawa, K1N6N5
<voice box: 1-613-562-5800, ext. 1415,
Fax: 1-514-425-6224
E-Mail: [email protected];
(Altern. E-mail: [email protected])