Science, and transportation united states senate

irrevocable damage can be done to nations not involved in the

hostilities, as well as to those at war.

1 U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office

of Environmental Monitoring and Prediction, "Weather Modification Activities for Calendar

Your 1075," Rockville, Md., June 1976, p. 47.

429

able and are in use could lead to an increase in international tensions.

Natural drought in a region, or any other unusual natural disaster,

will be suspect or blamed on an enemy. The results of this insecurity

were discussed by Edith Brown Weiss, a scientist and proponent of

passage of a treaty banning the use of weather modification as a

weapon of war, during her testimony before the Senate Foreign Rela-

tions Committee :

Accepting any environmental modification techniques as legitimate weapons

undermines the already shaky distinction between conventional and unconven-

tional means of warfare. It makes acceptable the idea of using techniques of envi-

ronmental modification as a weapon of war. . . . Even the chance that States will

be able to use some techniques for hostile purposes without violating the Con-

ventions casts suspicion on the development and use of weather modification

technology for peaceful purposes. In the long run, it can endanger the interna-

tional cooperative programs in weather forecasting and atmospheric research,

which help us to understand and use weather to benefit mankind. 2

In light of these problems, the international community has made

scattered attempts both to further the study of weather and its modi-

fication and to insure the peaceful use of this new technology. The Con-

vention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of

Environmental Modification Techniques, which was signed in Geneva

for the United States on May 18, 1977 (but which has not yet been sub-

mitted to and approved by the Senate) and the precipitation enhance-

ment program sponsored by the World Meteorological Organization

are the most outstanding examples of these attempts.

In the United States, the Congress has taken the lead in formulating

a foreign policy on weather modification. Passage in 1973 of Senate

Eesolution 71, calling for an international agreement to limit the use

of weather modification in warfare, was the first major step taken in

this area and occurred over the objections of the administration. The

National Weather Modification Policy Act of 1976 required the Secre-

tary of Commerce to develop a national policy, or alternative national

policies on weather modification, including international aspects of it.

This chapter will briefly outline the activities of international orga-

nizations in the area of weather modification as well as the activities

of the Congress and the executive branch which deal with international

activites in weather modification. United States military activities and

the activities of other nations will be discussed elsewhere in this report.

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other

Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques

development of the treaty

On July 3, 1974, the United States and the Soviet Union issued a

joint statement recognizing the potential danger of the use of environ-

mental modification in warfare and agreeing to :

1. Advocate the most effective measures possible to eliminate

the dangers of this type of warfare ; and

2. Meet during 1974 to explore the problem and its solution.

One year prior to this communique, the Senate had adopted by a

2 U.S. Congress, Senate, Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment, "Pro-

hibiting Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques," hearing, 94th Cong., 2d

sess., Jan. 21, 1976, Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976, p. 29.

34-857—79 30

430

tiate a treaty controlling the use of environmental modification as a

weapon of war.

On August 7, 1974, Soviet Foreign Minister Gromyko sent a letter

to the Secretary-General of the United Nations asking that a resolu-

tion advocating the conclusion of an international convention prohib-

iting environmental modification for military purposes be added to the

agenda of the 1974 U.N. General Assembly. 3 The Soviet Union sub-

mitted, on September 24, 1974 a resolution calling for a convention and

a draft convention entitled "Prohibition of Action to Influence the

Environment and Climate for Military and Other Purposes Incompati-

ble with the Maintenance of International Security, Human Well-

Being and Health." 4

The proposed convention was quite far reaching. For example,

article 1 stated that each party to the convention "undertakes not to

develop meteorological, geophysical or any other scientific technologi-

cal means of influencing the environment, including the weather and

climate, for military and other purposes incompatible with the mainte-

nance of international security, human well-being and health, and,

furthermore, never under any circumstances to resort to such means of

influencing the environment and climate or to carry out preparations

for their use." Article 2 listed 1 2 specific activities which were to be

prohibited. Other articles prohibited parties from assisting other

states in such activities and noted that nothing in the convention was

meant to impede scientific progress or the development of methods to

improve the environment for peaceful purposes. Violations were to be

reported to the Security Council, and parties would adopt national

controls to prevent their citizens from taking actions contrary to the

treaty. After 5 years a conference of the parties would be held to revise

the convention if necessary in light of scientific developments. 5

After debate, the General Assembly amended the resolution to elim-

inate some of the ambiguities the members found, adopted it on

December 9, 1974, and requested the Conference of the Committee on

Disarmament (CCD) to proceed "as soon as possible to achieving

agreement on the text of such a convention" as the one proposed by the

Soviet Union and to submit a report on the finding to the next session of

the General Assembly. 6 (The United States abstained on this vote

after noting in the debate that the problem had not been defined and

it was premature to conclude that a convention would be feasible or

effective.) 7

3 United Nations mimeographed document Xo. A/9702. 1074.

4 United Nations mimeocrraphed document Xo. A/C1/L675, 1974.

5 United Nations document A/9910, Dec. 6, 1974.

6 A/Res/3264 (XXIX) .

7 Senator Stuart Symington, a member of the U.S. delegation to the 29th session of the

United Xations General Assembly summed up the reasons for the United States stand as

follows :

"The public explanation of our stand was that 'even with the commendable changes ac-

cepted by the Soviet delegation, the resolution as it now stands still appears to prejudge how

the committee would consider the question.'

"The reason for our abstention appeared to be the fear that this general recommendation

might result years hence in a treaty, subject to a two-third vote of approval by the Senate,

tbal in some respect the executive branch might not like. This fear to explore even the pos-

sibility of a legal regime for environmental modification seems to approach excessive

caution."

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. "The United Xations. the United

States and Anns Control." report by Senator Stuart Symington, member of the delegation

to the United Xations. May 197.". 94th Cong., 1st sess., committee print, Washington. U.S.

Government Printing Office, 197"5, p. 4.

431

>egan meeting to develop a joint approach to a treaty prohibiting the

ise of environmental modification as a weapon of war. These meetings

continued through the summer of 1975. During the summer of 1975,

he CCD was also holding meetings on the draft convention proposed

jy the Soviet Union in September 1974. In August of 1975, the Soviet

Jnion and the United States submitted identical draft conventions to

he CCD. At the time the U.S. delegate noted that the submission of

dentical texts was important, that the major issues had been identified

ind that discussions had shown that a consensus had clearly been

eached on the desirability of achieving such an agreement. 8

On July 1, 1976, the CCD established a working group to consider

he modifications of the joint draft convention and in early September

ransmitted a completed draft convention to the United Nations Gen-

•ral Assembly. The General Assembly adopted the resolution, calling

:or acceptance of the draft convention on December 10, 1976, by a re-

:orded vote of 96 to 8 with 30 abstentions. 9

The resolution directed the Secretary General to open the conven-

ion for signature and ratifications. The convention was opened for

ignature in Geneva on May 18, 1977, and was signed by the United

States and 33 other nations.

CRITICISM OF THE CONVENTION

Even before the Convention wa c opened for signature, there was a

rreat deal of criticism of its contents. Critics claimed that it contained

oopholes that seriously weakened the treaty. One action taken by sev-

ral environmental groups was to file a law suit against the State De-

)artment on the grounds that the Department was required to file an

nvironmental impact statement on the effects of the Convention.

In addition to these environmental groups, several members of the

United Nations, scientists and members of Congress have been critical

>f the Convention. The main criticism is that the treaty only partially

>ans environmental modification techniques in warfare. The question-

ible language is centered in the language of article I, which reads :

Each State Party to this convention undertakes not to engage in military or

ny other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having ivide-

pread, long-lasting, or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or in-

ury to another State Party. [Emphasis added.] 10

The italicized language is the so-called troika language, which was

iot in the original Soviet draft, but was used in the joint Soviet/

Jnited States communique, leading to the conclusion that it was added

.t the insistence of the United States.

In a paper prepared for the General Assembly debate, the Govern-

ment of Mexico called this phrase "in every respect inadequate and

mbiguous. 11 And Dr. Edith Brown "Weiss, in testifying on January 21,

976, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stated :

Article 1 indicates that the convention covers only environmental modification

?chniques "having widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects". Ironically, the

5 United Nations. General Assembly, Conference of the Committee on Disarmament, re-

ort. vol. I. New York, United Nations. 1976, p. 61. (United Nations, document A/31/27

nited Nations. General Assembly, official records. 31st sess. suppl. No. 27.)

9 T ext of the resolution published in the Department of State bulletin, Jan. 1, 1977. pp.

6-29.

n See United Nations Document No. A/C.1/31/S Nov. 16, 1976, p. 2.

432

language sounds like it covers only those techniques which are least developed —

in this draft about the extent to which weather modification activities are cov-

ered by its prohibitions and about whether the use of environmental modification

techniques incidental to facilitating the effectiveness of other weapons is

covered. 12

Secondly, the Convention was criticized for its lack of effective en-

forcement procedures. Complaints of violations of the Convention are

to be referred to the Security Council where both the United States and

the Soviet Union, the countries with the leading capabilities to develop

technology for weather warfare, have a veto. Critics contend that giv-

ing the power to investigate violations and determine whether dam-

ages can be claimed to the veto-prone Security Council makes enforce-

ment of the treaty impossible.

In defending the proposed treaty to Congressman Gilbert Gude. the

Director of the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Fred C.

Ickle, wrote in September 24, 1975 :

The anticipatory nature of the proposed Convention carries with it many of

the basic uncertainties of the future, and I anticipate criticisms of different

aspects of the agreement from several sides. The alternative to action now would

be to attempt restraint at a later time, when the possibilities of hostile use of

environmental modification techniques may be more real. An agreement on pro-

hibitions might then be more difficult to achieve. 13

In a f ollowup letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee com-

menting on the comments of Dr. Weiss, Mr. Ickle stated :

Because certain effects are not listed, she questions whether all uses are pro-

hibited. The presence or absence of any technique in the list does not indicate

that it is allowed or prohibited — all hostile uses of all environmental modifica-

tion techniques having widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects would be pro-

hibited by the Convention. 14

Finally, concerning the enforcement procedures, this same letter

commented :

It is unlikely, as a practical matter, that a permanent member of the Security

Council would exercise its veto to prevent an investigation of a complaint

brought against it (or an ally), since such an act would probably be taken as

confirmation of a violation by many UN members. 15

The Convention, as approved by the General Assembly, calls upon

the parties to look again at the provisions of the Convention in 5 years

time to insure that the Convention is in fact fulfilling its purpose. This

will give critics an opportunity to strengthen the Convention.

ACTIVITIES SINCE THE UNITED NATIONS APPROVAL OF THE CONVENTION

The Convention was opened for signature on May 18, 1977. At that

time Secretary of State Vance made a statement which many regarded

as an indication that the United States was willing to reexamine the

use of the so-called troika language. His comments were :

In the view of the United States, the effect of the convention should be to elimi-

nate the danger of environmental warfare because it prohibits all significant

12 U.S. Congress. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations. Subcommittee on Oceans and

Internationa] Environment. "Prohibiting Hostile Use of Environmental Modifications Tech-

niques. - ' hearing, Jan. 21, 1976, 94th Cong., 2d sess., Washington, U.S. Government Print-

ing Offipp. 1976.

» Ibid., p. 6.

M Ibid., p. 18.

" Ibid., p. 17.

433

terms, the convention limits the prohibition to those uses having "widespread,

long-lasting or severe effects." The United States will be prepared to reexamine

this limitation on the scope of the convention at the review conference or pos-

sibly before. 16

In the fall of 1977, the law suit against the Department of State was

dropped when the Department agreed to prepare an environmental

assessment statement (not an environmental impact statement), and

submit it to the Senate with the Convention. According to the Depart-

ment of State, this statement will discuss what the Convention does, in

the Department's understanding, what weather modification tech-

niques are currently available and thus covered by the Convention, and

will state that the only use of weather modification for hostile use ever

engaged in by the United States was in Vietnam (see section on con-

gressional activities). 17 The way has now been cleared for transmittal

of the Convention to the Senate, which is expected to take place during

1979.

As of mid 1978, 50 nations had signed the Convention, and 19 had

Activities of the World Meteorological Organization in Weather

Modification

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) has been a special-

ized agency of the United Nations since 1951, although its predecessor,

a nongovernmental organization, the International Meteorological Or-

ganization, dates to 1873. WMO's responsibilities include the coordina-

tion, standardization, and improvement of meteorological services

throughout the world and the encouragement of an efficient exchange

of meteorological information between countries.

The WMO is the international organization which historically more

than any other has been involved in various aspects of weather modi-

fication. According to a WMO background paper prepared for the pre-

cipitation enhancement project WMO activities in the area of weather

modification began as early as 1955 with the publication of a technical

note (study) devoted to the scientific aspects of cloud and precipita-

tion control. 18 By the early 1970 ? s the general awareness and interest in

inadvertent as well as planned weather modification had increased to

the point that WMO felt it necessary to issue guidelines to handle in-

quiries from member nations on weather modification. The statement,

entitled "Present State of Knowledge and Possible Practical Bene-

fits in Some Fields of Weather Modification" was first published in

1971, and revised and amplified in 1975.

By 1972 WMO found it necessary to issue "Guidelines for Advice

and Assistance Related to the Planning of Weather Modification Ac-

tivities" in order to answer the more specific questions being asked of

WMO. At the same time, a working commission of WMO was desig-

nated as a panel of experts on weather modification for the WMO,

thus creating a permanent panel to monitor and study weather

modification.

16 "United States Signs Convention Banning Environmental Warfare," statement by Sec-

retary Vance, Department of State bulletin, June 13, 1977, pp. 633^.

17 See p. 441.

18 World Meteorological Organization, "Plan for the Precipitation Enhancement Project

(PEP)," PEP report No. 3, Geneva, November 1976.

434

Following a world wide survey of weather modification activities

and interests in 1972 and 1973, the WMO concluded that it should be-

come more active in weather modification and during 1974 began for-

mulating a program on weather modification and estimating its costs

with the view that these could be studied and implemented during the

1976-79 financial period. The WMO Weather Modification Pro-

gramme was adopted in 1975. At the time, the WMO Congress stated

that:

WMO was the appropriate international body with the necessary scientific and

zation to become more active in order to provide the best possible advice to mem-

bers, the United Nations and other international organizations concerning

weather modification. In view of the urgent need to find ways of increasing world

food production and conserving water supplies, it was agreed that priority in this

field had to be given to increasing precipitation.

Considering that the results of most rainmaking projects up to that time had

been inconclusive because of the lack of sound scientific planning, operation and

evaluation, Congress agreed that scientifically convincing answers concerning the

feasibility of precipitation enhancement could best be advanced through an in-

ternationally planned, executed and evaluated experiment in precipitation stimu-

lation. 19 (

Thus the major element of the new Weather Modification Pro-

gramme would be a precipitation enhancement project (PEP). The

aim of PEP is to plan, set up, and carry out an international, scien-

tifically controlled precipitation enhancement experiment in a semiarid

region under conditions where the chances of increasing precipitation

on the ground in amounts big enough to produce economic benefits are

optimal. The objectives listed by WMO are as follows :

(a) To provide members with reliable information about the

probabilities of successful artificial intervention in meteorological

processes with the object of increasing the amount of precipitation,

over an area of the order of 10,000 km 2 . The size of the area for the

proposed project (that is, the target and nearby control areas)

should be somewhere around 50,000 km 2 , a scale large enough to

provide adequate evaluation of scientific feasibility and economic

benefit, but small enough to permit the use of adequate methods for

seeding and observations ;

(b) To demonstrate at a satisfactory statistical significance level

over a relatively short experimental period (5 years) that any

increase observed is not a chance event but is associated with the

seeding. The principal evaluation of this experiment will be in

terms of precipitation at the ground;

(e) To obtain sufficient understanding of the meteorology and

cloud physics in the area of the experiment to insure that the sta-

tistical association of seeding and any increase in precipitation

will be generally acceptable as a cause-and-effect relationship;

(V) To make an examination outside the target area in order

to determine whether any benefits of seeding extend over areas

greater than the target area, or whether there 1ms merely been a

romparatively local redistribution of precipitation;

18 Ibid., p. 21.

435

(e) To make systematic measurements varying from mesoscale