Banner Advertiser

Thursday, March 4, 2010

[ALOCHONA] It is abnormal that the conflict did not occur earlier



It is abnormal that the conflict did not occur earlier
 
Imtiaz Ahmed, professor of international relations at the University of Dhaka talks to Mushfique Wadud about the recent tensions in the Chittagong Hill Tracts area

Recently, we saw an episode of violence surface in the Chittagong Hill Tracts area. Despite having a peace accord signed in 1997, how do you interpret the occurrence of such violence?

   I think the occurrence of such a conflict in the CHT area is not abnormal. Rather, it is abnormal that the conflict did not occur earlier. The agreement was signed in 1997. From that time till date, I have not seen any qualitative change in this area which can create an atmosphere of trust between the hill people and the Bengali settlers. The BNP government did not show any interest towards the agreement. The Awami League that signed the agreement also did not do anything to implement the accord. Not much was done to create an atmosphere of trust there. No mentionable change in terms of development is visible.

   The lack of trust between the two groups is the main problem. I think it is the civil society's responsibility to create an atmosphere of trust. The political society will create rules and regulations, and control the law and order situation. On the other hand, the civil society will create an atmosphere of trust with the help of education, the role of media and different cultural organisations. Unless we can build the trust, we cannot solve the problem. We can have a short term solution with the security force's intervention but for a long term solution, the atmosphere of trust between the two groups is essential.

   It is said that outside factors are responsible for influencing the conflict in the CHT area. What is your take on it?

   There might be some external factors involved in the CHT conflict. But I think, in any situation, if the internal factors are weak, the external factors will automatically gain the advantage. I do not think the external factors come first. If you have trust and unity at your home, no one can harm you. But when there are tensions inside, the external factors inevitably take advantage of it. The CHT situation is no different. If there is disunity between people, a part of it will welcome the external forces.

   It has been thirteen years since the Peace Accord was signed, but it has yet to be implemented. What, in your opinion, are the reasons behind the delay?

   The political parties are not serious about it. In Bangladesh, democracy is election centered. The CHT area is not a big enough factor to influence the outcome of an election for any party. There are only three constituencies in the region. So the political parties are not worried about the problems of the area. The land issue is also one of the main hindrances for the implementation of the peace accord. In the CHT area, the two groups – hill people and the Bengali settlers are both marginalised. The hill people are marginalised in four ways – politically, socially, economically and intellectually. On the other hand, the Bengali people are marginalised in terms of economics and intellectuality. Two marginalised groups always create tension. The government did not allow the use of cell phones there for a long time. When you think that you are different from others, you will want to separate. So, the more we integrate them with the mainstream population, the more likely it is that the problem will be resolved.

   The UPDF was established and gained in popularity after the signing of the Peace Accord. This is highlighted upon by a section of people, to show that there were inherent problems in the Peace Accord. What is your take on it?

   No agreement in this world can find a hundred per cent consensus. There is always one group who are dissatisfied with the agreement and they try to exert pressure or want to fight unless their demand is fulfilled. The politics of UPDF is that they think that the accord was signed very quickly without considering a few aspects. UPDF could only gain popularity so long as the accord remained unimplemented. Unfortunately, the government has done nothing redress the situation.

   A section of people believe that the decision to withdraw the military forces played an important part in sparking the recent conflict. What is your take on it?

   Firstly, the military withdrawal was a temporary withdrawal from the camp. The cantonment was not withdrawn. That does not mean that the military cannot go back to the area. The military went there during the recent violence. I think it is the police's responsibility to control the law and order situation. Military intervention is the last resort. Did the government send the military in to the other parts of the country in cases of conflict? Military's training is to target enemies, destroy it and return to the cantonment. The presence of military forces there signals a political failure. The military's presence there has a historical background as the Shanti Bahini was embroiled in an armed struggle. But that is not the case now. I think military's presence permanently in the area will destroy the atmosphere of trust.

   What are the immediate tasks for the government now to tackle the situation? What is your suggestion?

   The immediate task is to improve the law and order situation. For that, a volunteer group can be created in which Bengali and hill people can participate. The volunteer group will hold meetings between the two groups of people. The volunteer force can be from the political parties as well. The volunteer groups can also solve other disputes. Then there has to be a long term plan. There must be development in the area. Government can build industries in the area. Also, cultural development is inevitable. The responsible ministry should have the vision for the development. When the hill people will see that they have employment, development, shopping centers and other modern systems, they will not go for the armed struggle.
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Indian diplomat's faux pas whipsup uproar



Indian diplomat's faux pas whipsup uproar 
 
Some Indian diplomats posted in Bangladesh appeared to be making a habit to make sarcastic remarks against Bangladeshis and chastise them for making any complaints. The immediate past Indian High Commissioner Pinak R Chakraborty made quite a name for himself for occasionally making provocative, albeit undiplomatic, remarks.
   
Now that he has gone, the present Chittagong-based Assistant Indian High Commissioner A K Goswami has made a successful attempt to fill the void last week. It took place at a formal meeting of the businessmen at the Chittagong Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCCI) in presence of visiting Northeast Indian business delegation led by ministers of Assam and Tripura.
   
The Chittagong Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCCI) has requested the Indian government to withdraw Assistant High Commissioner A K Goshwami from Bangladesh for his undiplomatic comment in a formal meeting in the port city last week.
   
In a written complaint, M A Latif MP, President of the CCCI, also communicated their anger to the Indian foreign minister S M Krishna against the objectionable comment concerning Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, with copies sent to the secretary of the ministry, Indian High Commissioner to Bangladesh, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bangladesh and the Principal Secretary to Prime Minister.
   
The situation arose on February 27, when ministers from India's north-eastern states were holding a meeting on trade and investment in the CCCI auditorium in Chittagong. The meeting was aimed at enhancing regional cooperation, bilateral trade relations and investments.
   
In the meeting, Chittagong businessmen asked the Indian officials to ease the visa formalities and said how they could help promote bilateral business when they face such hurdles in getting business visa to travel to India. As most of the businessmen's complaint on the issue, AK Goshwami, Assistant High Commissioner of India, could not hold his temper while addressing the business leaders. He made an audacious comment likening the way the speakers spoke in the meeting to that of Sheikh Mujib.
   
"Everyone should not shout like Bangabandhu," he said to criticise the way the Chittagong businessmen spoke while complaining about delay and harassments in getting Indian visas. Bangladeshi business leaders instantly protested the objectionable utterance by the Indian AHC posted in Chittagong and asked him to stop.
   
Sensing discontents among the business leaders, M.P. Bordoloi, Minister for Trade and Commerce of Assam state, expressed his regret and apologised to the audience over the comment of the AHC, and thus assuaged their anger.
   
Jitendra Chowdhury, Trade and Commerce Minister of Tripura, senior government officials and business leaders from Assam and Tripura including M L Devnath, President of Tripura Chamber of Commerce were present in the meeting.


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] ICG Report reveals Indian connection to JMB



ICG Report reveals Indian connection to JMB

 

 

The report recently published by the International Crisis Group on the resurgence of the JMB reveals that it maintained extensive contacts within India up to 2008. Unfortunately the ICG fails to follow-up on any of these leads which might have disclosed contacts with Indian government agencies.  The ICG report also failed to see explain the obvious contradiction in its finding that while the JMB, "has shown no interest in the global jihad, it nevertheless maintains contacts with a wide range of local and international jihadi groups." The report never questions whether this self-imposed limitation undermined its credibility with other Jihadi groups such as HuJi (B) and L-e-T since JMB leaders have often denounced other militant campaigns such as in Kashmir (see The India Doctrine (First Edition page 60; Naya Diganta – Sheikh Rahman believes in Akhand Bharat (March 31, 2006); Holiday – Resurfacing of Islamist Jihadis: Alarm bell for security). The following are short extracts and quotations from the ICG report which discloses the JMB connection to India and the groups apparently sympathetic attitude towards the neighboring country  which makes its militant Islamist agenda appear highly dubious and suspect –

 

PAGE 3

 

Abdur Rahman … [after] returning later the same year … fell out with Tunda over the latter's insistence that the priority should be fighting India. For Rahman, who was executed by the government in 2007, establishing Islamic law in Bangladesh was more important. In April 1998, he brought seventeen other militants together, and JMB came into being.

 

 

PAGE 5 –

 

Women from JMB families were also seen as instrumental in strengthening alliances with organisations beyond Bangladesh's borders. Al Amin, an Indian JMB member, currently working as one of the group's explosives experts in Dhaka, was married to a Bangladeshi woman to strengthen his local ties. The sister of an operative named Selim, who was in charge of smuggling of JMB men, arms, explosives and counterfeit currencies across the Bangladeshi-Indian border in Rajshahi division, was married to a former shura member, Rafiqul Islam, who often used the alias Russel.

 

PAGE 6 –

 

Hafez Mahmud received twelve months' training from militants in India in 1997

 

 

PAGE 9 –

 

In early 2002, three Indian nationals named Mohammad, Belal and Salahuddin crossed the Indo-Bangladesh border at Godagari, Rajshahi, and met Abdur Rahman in Tangail to discuss running arms and explosives from India. Belal was put in charge of the weapons smuggling operation between Maldah district in India's West Bengal state and Bangladesh, which earned JMB roughly $200 a month. Between 2002 and August 2005, JMB purchased 30 pistols, 300 to 400 packs of power gel and 5,000 detonators from India to be smuggled into Bangladesh. The identity and nature of their collaborators on the Indian side, however, remains unclear.

 

PAGE 13 –

 

An arrested Indian LeT operative named Mufti Obaidullah told officials that JMB sought and received help from a HUJI-B splinter known as the Tamiruddin faction or the Tanjin-e-Tamiruddin, in conducting explosions in at least 22 districts of the 63 districts targeted.

 

[COMMENT – In an earlier article I have shown that Mufti Obaidullah is probably a fraud with the Indian media and security services expressing little interest in his capture.] 

 

 

PAGE 14 –

 

The crackdown separated the committed JMB cadres from those less inclined to take part in jihad. Several ehsars, including senior trainers, left for jobs in the Middle East or fled to India.

 

Saidur, who authorities believe is in Bangladesh, replaced the leadership largely with veteran members who had been trained directly by Abdur Rahman or had taken part in past JMB operations. This second shura was short-lived, with two of its members arrested in late 2006. There was an exodus of members to India around this time, including several more senior operatives.

PAGE 15 –

 

Sayem, who was part of Abdur Rahman's inner circle, is reportedly hiding in India.

 

 

PAGE 17 –

 

A large number of ehsars who fled across the Rajshahi border to the Indian state of West Bengal have set up JMB operations there with around 25 Indian and Bangladeshi members. An Indian national named Saif is said to be in charge of the Indian wing, operating in Nadia, Maldah and Murshidabad districts. He runs the operations from an office in Bahrampur, a town in Murshidabad, which serves as a hideout for fugitive JMB operatives, such as shura member Sayem. This wing smuggles guns and bomb-making equipment across the border, along with da'wah programs conducted by some twenty to 25 JMB members.

 

[COMMENT – It seems very convenient that these JMB operatives are able hideout in India but have never carried out a single terrorist operation in that country.]

 

 

PAGE 18 –

 

Most of the materials such as power gels and detonators were smuggled from India.

 

 

PAGE 20 –

 

The October 2008 arrest of Rafiqul Islam, who was in charge of the Shibanj and Godagari borders with India, revealed that JMB smuggled counterfeit Indian and Pakistani rupees, U.S. dollars and Bangladeshi takas to India across remote border crossings in Rajshahi division.  The operations were then conducted by JMB's India wing, possibly by shura member Sayem, who is thought to be hiding there. The counterfeiting operations of Rafiqul's cell contributed around $720 per month to JMB's central fund, enough to provide $2,150 to Boma Mizan to purchase explosives in August 2008.

 

 

 

 PAGE 21 –

 

JMB brought in ten men from its Indian branch in November 2008 for its planned assassination attempt on Zia, but the plan was scrapped after several arrests of high-level JMB operatives in the same month.

 

 

PAGE 24 -

 

All militant groups, especially JMB, have benefited from porous borders with India and Myanmar, particularly when BDR personnel abandoned their posts for nearly a week during the mutiny. JMB has regularly exploited lax border control to smuggle its arms and explosives from across the border, while also using the north-west border as its main channel to smuggle counterfeit currencies to India. Hundreds of JMB operatives, including senior leaders such as Boma Mizan, simply walked across the border during the first crackdown to hide out in India.

 

 

[COMMENT – It had been presumed at the time of the BDR Mutiny that the borders could now be breached to the severe detriment of Bangladesh. If as some reports suggest that the BDR Mutiny was a planned operation of Indian intelligence and that the BSF were part of the mutiny plan so as to allow JMB operatives free to cross the border into Bangladesh to carry out attacks in the country with the full connivance of RAW --- an obvious implication not followed up by the ICG]  

 

 

PAGE 28 –

 

Despite undeniable evidence of militants such as the JMB using areas along the India-Bangladesh border to train, Dhaka and New Delhi for years insisted on blaming each other for their respective problems rather than acknowledge their overlapping interest in tackling them. Intermittent firefights between Indian and Bangladeshi border forces exacerbate acrimony between the neighbours and feed conspiratorial views among senior Bangladeshi security officials, some of whom believe that JMB is a proxy for India's intelligence agency, the Research and Analysis Wing (RAW). (246)

 

n246 - For example, a senior intelligence official said, "JMB is not patriotic. They are mad men who want to kill everyone. We think it may have been created by the government across the border. So that is why they want to stir up trouble in Bangladesh. At least HUJI is patriotic. They would think twice before trying to assassinate our leaders. More importantly, they have always said they would join us in case of a war against India". Crisis Group interview, Dhaka, July 2009.

 

[COMMENT – This seems to confirm the earlier assertions that there are clear differences between HUJI and the JMB and that they do not make for natural allies. A point not followed up by ICG]. 

 

 

 

 

  

PERSONAL NOTE –

 

It appears that my blog DeshCalling is being blocked in Bangladesh and so I would request readers to send a complaint to the following link if you are unable to access it and view its contents –

 

http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/blogger/thread?tid=38a58867c811e3db&hl=en&fid=38a58867c811e3db000480b4b0339ec2

 



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] THE BERLIN RULES ON WATER RESOURCES



THE BERLIN RULES ON WATER RESOURCES: THE NEW PARADIGM FOR INTERNATIONAL WATER LAW

DELLAPENNA, Joseph W.

Villanova University School of Law

Abstract

Drawing upon the experience of century, nations have constructed a customary international law for transboundary fresh water resources built around the principle of equitable utilization. The earliest complete formulation of this body of law was the Helsinki Rules on the Uses of International Rivers of the International Law Association of 1966. Like all customary law, this body of international law retains flexibility by being vague while allowing only for relatively primitive enforcement mechanisms. In an effort to improve things, the United Nations drafted a convention to codify the customary law. Even before that the UN Convention enters into force, it has been taken as a cogent summary of the relevant customary international law. The UN Convention, however, fails to integrate the environmental or ecological concerns and relevant human rights that have emerged in international law into the older body of international water law. Beginning in 1996, the International Law Association undertook to reformulate the Helsinki Rules in order to incorporate international environmental law and international human rights law. The project, for which I served as Rapporteur, concluded in August 2004 with the Association's approval of the Berlin Rules on Water Resources. The Berlin Rules speak in terms of a new paradigm of international water law that focuses on ecological integrity, sustainability, public participation, and minimization of environmental harm—principles not reflected in the Helsinki Rules and only developed in rudimentary form and then only for transboundary waters in the UN Convention. This paper will serve to introduce the Berlin Rules.

Key words: Berlin Rules on Water Resources; customary international law; environmental harm; groundwater; Helsinki Rules; international environmental law; international human rights; public participation; sustainability; transboundary water resources; UN Convention on Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses

Introduction

In 1966, the International Law Association approved the Helsinki Rules on the Uses of International Rivers (ILA 1966). The Helsinki Rules quickly came to be seen as the authoritative summary of the customary international law on transboundary or internationally shared waters. In 1970, the UN General Assembly refrained from endorsing the Helsinki Rules, instead choosing to request the International Law Commission to prepare a set of draft articles on the "non-navigational uses of international watercourses modeled on the Helsinki Rules. The Commission did not complete its work on this project until 1994. The Commission's Draft Articles in turn were reworked by the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the General Assembly into the United Nations Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourse, approved by the General Assembly by a vote of 103-3 on May 21, 1997 (United Nations 1997). While ratifications of the UN Convention have proceeded slowly and it has yet to enter into force, it has become recognized as authoritative on the customary international law governing the issues it addresses. Finally, on August 21, 2004, the International Law Association, meeting in Berlin, approved the Berlin Rules on Water Resources as yet another authoritative summary of the customary international law applicable to waters—but this time to all waters and not just to transboundary or international waters (ILA 2004). I served as Rapporteur for the Berlin Rules.

 

This will strike some as rather a lot of effort going into a narrow and arcane field of law. Yet given the importance and growing scarcity of water resources in the world today, few areas of international law are of greater moment than that relating to water resources. Great as the concerns of individual water users are, the problems are magnified for communities and nations by the reality that water is an ambient resource that largely ignores human boundaries. All of the 264 largest rivers in the world flow through basins that are shared by more than one nation—basins that are home to at least 40 percent of the world's population (Wolf 1998). The most cooperative of neighboring States have found it difficult to achieve mutually acceptable arrangements to govern transboundary surface waters even in relatively humid regions were fresh water is usually sufficient to satisfy most or all needs (McCaffrey 2001). Within federal unions located in humid regions, political subdivisions have engaged in long and bitter political and legal struggles over the waters they share. In arid regions, such conflicts become endemic and intense despite otherwise friendly relations or even membership in a federal union. No wonder the English derived the word "rival" from the Latin word "rivalis," meaning persons who live on opposite banks of a river. The problems of transboundary aquifers have hardly begun to be faced (Symposium 2003). No wonder many observers conclude that there is considerable risk of conflict over water among neighboring nations or communities.

 

The outlook is not altogether bleak, however. The ambient nature of water creates a need for cooperation among the same groups who are contending over its allocation. In fact, considerable evidence suggests that cooperative solutions to water scarcity problems are more likely than prolonged conflict. At least in the twentieth century, water facilities have remained off limits to combat, cooperative water arrangements have been negotiated, and pre-existing arrangements have honored even while the bullets are flying—no matter how violent conflict between States sharing a common water source has become and especially when water itself has played a central role in the conflict (Dellapenna 1997). India and Pakistan are an excellent example. They have engaged in three full-scale, albeit limited, wars since 1948, as well as numerous other skirmishes and serious threats of war—all for reasons largely unrelated to their shared water resources. They have even developed nuclear weapons specifically to threaten each other. During this same period, however, the two States negotiated and implemented a complex treaty on sharing the waters of the Indus River basin, they did not target water facilities, and they carried through with the cooperative water management arrangements even during actual periods of full-scale hostilities. As historian Robert Collins observed, writing about another contested river, "Perhaps the weight of history lies too heavy in the silt of the Nile valley, but man will always need water; and in the end this may drive him to drink with his enemies" (Collins 1996).

 

The problem is how to structure cooperation in a way that increases trust and eliminates water as a possible reason for war while assuring efficient and ecologically sustainable water management and use. International law (particularly customary international law) by itself cannot solve this problem, but international law is an essential element of any solution. This article addresses the evolving body of customary international law as a vehicle for addressing water management problems, focusing on the Berlin Rules of Water Resources (ILA 2004).

The traditional customary international law of water resources

The claims and counterclaims among states involved in disputes over surface waters—the process whereby the traditional elements of customary international law (state practice and opinio juris) are established—follow a set pattern that diverges sharply according to the riparian status of the state (Dellapenna 1997; McCaffrey 2001). Upper riparian States initially claim "absolute territorial sovereignty," claiming the right to do whatever they choose with water within their borders regardless of its effect on other States. Downstream States initially claim a right to the "absolute integrity of the watercourse," claiming that upstream States can do nothing that affects the quantity or quality of water that flows down the watercourse. The utter incompatibility of the claims guaranteed that neither would prevail, yet the claims offered no solution for the conflicting interests of the upper and lower riparians. Eventually, through a process often requiring decades, States have found solutions through application of the principle of "equitable utilization." The principle of equitable utilization recognizes the right of all riparian States to use water from a common source so long as their uses do not interfere unreasonably with uses in another riparian state. Today, nearly all states agree that the numerous water treaties demonstrate the existence of a rule of customary international law that each state's sovereignty over its water resources is restricted by the obligation not to inflict unreasonable injury on another state (ILA 1966; ILA 2004; United Nations 1997). The German Reichsgerichtshof expressed the point in these straightforward words:

The exercise of sovereign rights by every State in regard to international rivers traversing its territory is limited by the duty not to injure the interest of other members of the international community. Due consideration must be given to one another by the States through whose territories there flows an international river. No State may substantially impair the natural use of the flow of such a river by its neighbors (Donauversinkung Case).

           

The consensus of all relevant sources on customary international law on the rule of equitable utilization was crystallized and codified in the Helsinki Rules and the UN Convention (ILA 1966; UN 1997). These documents also, however, raise a possibility that other customary international legal law applies to the waters of the world in addition to the rule of equitable utilization.

The Helsinki Rules

Every group of international legal experts to consider the customary international law of internationally shared water resources has embraced the rule of equitable utilization in one form or another. These groups have no official standing as lawgivers, but their opinions carry special weight because of the stature of the members who worked on these projects, and because the approval of the end result carries the imprimatur of a large and diverse body of experts. Foremost among these groups is the International Law Association, a highly regarded nongovernmental organization of legal experts founded in 1873. The International Law Association completed the best-known study of the customary international law of transboundary water resources in 1966—the Helsinki Rules on the Uses of International Rivers (ILA 1966). The Helsinki Rules have heavily influenced state practice as well as the efforts of other international associations examining the law of internationally shared fresh waters.

 

The Helsinki Rules treat international drainage basins (watersheds extending over two or more States) as indivisible hydrologic units to be managed as a single unit to assure the "maximum utilization and development of any portion of its waters" (ILA 1966, art. II). This rule explicitly includes all tributaries (including tributary groundwater) within the concept of "drainage basin" and thus extends the reach of the rules beyond the primary international watercourse itself. The Helsinki Rules first formulated the phrase "equitable utilization" to express the rule of restricted sovereignty as applied to fresh waters: "Each basin State is entitled, within its territory, to a reasonable and equitable share in the beneficial uses of the waters of an international drainage basin" (ILA 1966, art. IV). The Helsinki Rules also had chapters on pollution, navigation, timber floating, and procedures for preventing and settling disputes.

 

The International Law Association thereafter drafted rules relating to water-centered activities not addressed directly or adequately by the Helsinki rules, including flood control (1972), pollution (1972, 1982), navigability (1974), the protection of water installations during armed conflicts (1976), joint administration (1976, 1986), flowage regulation (1980), general environmental management concerns (1980), groundwater (1986), cross-media pollution (1996), and remedies (1996). Some of these supplemental rules developed a second basic principle governing the management of internationally shared water resources, that States not cause "substantial damage" to the environment or to the natural condition of the waters beyond the limits of the nation's jurisdiction. In general, however, the International Law Association remained fixated on the rule of equitable utilization as the only significant rule in the customary international law of water resources.

The UN Convention

The UN General Assembly approved a convention—the United Nations Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (United Nations 1997)that was modeled on the Helsinki Rules (ILA 1966). The central debate in the drafting of the UN Convention was over the relation of the rule of equitable utilization and the so-called no-harm rule (Dellapenna 2001). The two rules, as finally approved by the General Assembly, are set forth in articles 5 and 7:

 

Article 5

Equitable and reasonable utilization and participation

1.      Watercourse States shall in their respective territories utilize an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner. In particular, an international watercourse shall be used and developed by watercourse States with a view to attaining optimal and sustainable utilization thereof and benefits therefrom, taking into account the interests of the watercourse States concerned, consistent with adequate protection in the watercourse.

2.      Watercourse States shall participate in the use, development and protection of an international watercourse in an equitable and reasonable manner.  Such participation includes both the right to utilize the watercourse and the duty to cooperate in the protection and development thereof, as provided in the present articles.

Article 7

Obligation not to cause appreciable harm

1.        Watercourse States shall, in utilizing an international watercourse in their territories, take all appropriate measures to prevent the causing of significant harm to other watercourse States.

2.        Where significant harm nevertheless is caused to another watercourse State, the States whose use causes such harm shall, in the absence of agreement to such use, take all appropriate measures, having due regard for the provisions of articles 5 and 6, in consultation with the affected State, to eliminate or mitigate such harm and, where appropriate, to discuss the question of compensation.

While there is room for debate over the point, Article 7 appears to be definitely subordinated to the rule of equitable utilization in Article 5. Given that each state's actions, if undertaken without regard for the interests of the other state, would inflict harm on the other, one could hardly reach any other conclusion (Dellapenna 1996).

 

Overall, the UN Convention contains 37 articles dealing with the obligations of riparian States to share the common resource, to consult with each other, to protect the environment, and to resolve disputes. The articles on international consultations, environmental protection, and on resolution of disputes go well beyond the comparable provisions of the Helsinki Rules. Give the generally cautious approach of the drafters of the UN Convention—limiting their work to transboundary water issues and even refusing to including groundwater within the scope of the convention unless the groundwater was directly connected to a surface international watercourse—drafters' intent appears to have been to codify customary international law rather than to "progressively develop" it.

 

This point assumes considerable importance because ratifications of the UN Convention have proceeded slowly, raising considerable doubt whether or when it will enter into effect. Eight years after General Assembly approved the UN Convention, only 16 States have signed it, and only 12 States have ratified it. No new States have acted on it since Namibia ratified the convention in August 2001. Yet just because the Convention is not being ratified does not mean that it has had no effect. In the same year as the General Assembly approved the Convention, the International Court of Justice referred to the Convention as expressing the customary international law of transboundary waters—specifically regarding those new rules on environmental protection (Gabcíkovo-Nagymoros Case 1997). Whether the new mandates regarding international consultations and dispute resolution similarly reflect customary international law remained unclear.

Groundwater

Groundwater makes up about 97 percent of the world's fresh water apart from the polar ice caps and glaciers. Yet, in contrast to the considerable state practice regarding the sharing of surface water sources, there has been remarkably little state practice regarding shared underground water sources. Newer technologies and exponential growth in demand for water in the second half of the twentieth century have made groundwater a critical transnational resource that is increasingly the focus of disputes between nations yet for which no consistent body of state practice has yet emerged. For example, the United States and Mexico, have several treaties governing the waters of the border regions, yet their water treaties are silent on groundwater with potentially disastrous results (Aparicio & Hidalgo 2004); Symposium 2000). As a result, the International Boundary and Waters Commission that the too nations have created to address transboundary water concerns have hardly begun to address the increasing stresses on their shared groundwater (Mumme 2002). Nonetheless, all commentators have concluded that groundwater must be subject to the same rules as apply to surface waters—if only because groundwater and surface water are the same thing moving in differing stages of a single hydrologic cycle. The UN Convention, however, adopted an extremely restrictive approach, however, including only groundwater that drains to a "common terminus" with surface waters within its definition of a "watercourse" (United Nations 1997, art. 1). This definition ignores the fact that groundwater might be interdependent with surface water sources and yet follow other paths to the sea (or other terminus).

The Berlin Rules

At its meeting in Edinburgh in January 1996, the Water Resources Law Committee of the International Law Association voted to compile and review the entire body of its and its predecessor committees' work from the Helsinki Rules of 1966 through various supplementary rules approved by the Association through 1996. The Committee and the Association confirmed this decision at the biennial conference of the Association in August 1996, appropriately in Helsinki. I agreed to undertake the initial step, a consolidated compilation of the various rules approved by the Association. Based upon this consolidated draft, the Committee decided, at a meeting in Rome in June 1997, to attempt to revise the Helsinki Rules and their supplemental rules in light of the contemporary customary international law. I served as Rapporteur of this effort, which concluded in Berlin in 2004 with the International Law Association's approval of the Berlin Rules on Water Resources (ILA 2004).

 

The Berlin Rules set forth a clear, cogent, and coherent summary of the relevant customary international law, incorporating the experience of the nearly four decades since the Helsinki Rules were adopted. The Berlin Rules take into account the development of important bodies of international environmental law, international human rights law, and the humanitarian law relating to the war and armed conflict, as well as the adoption by the General Assembly of the UN Convention. The Berlin Rules include within their scope both national and international waters to the extent that customary international law speaks to those waters. Indeed, some of the rules go beyond speaking strictly about waters and address the surrounding environment that relates to waters (the "aquatic environment") and the obligation to integrate the management of waters with the surrounding environment. The major changes in the Berlin Rules relate to the rules of customary international law applicable to all waters—national as well as international, although there are certain refinements in the rules relating strictly to international waters. By including all of these matters within a single set of rules, a lawyer, a jurist, a water manager, a water policy maker, or anyone else concerned by the rules of customary international pertaining to water will, for the first time, find all the relevant rules in one place, with attention to the interrelationships of the rules  as well as to their clear statement.

 

After an initial chapter that sets forth the scope of the chapter and key definitions, Chapter II sets forth the general principles applicable to all waters: the right of public participation, the obligation to use best efforts to achieve both conjunctive and integrated management of waters, and duties to achieve sustainability and the minimization of environmental harm. Chapter III sets forth the basic principles applicable solely to international waters. The remaining chapters develop these basic principles in significant detail. The refinements in the rules applicable solely to international waters (principally found in chapters III, IX, XI) pertain mostly to recognizing the importance of the obligations regarding environmental protection and public participation that apply even to those waters. The International Law Association has once again revisited the recurring debate about the relation of the rule of equitable utilization and the rule requiring the avoidance of significant harm, with a new formulation of that relationship that will no doubt attract yet more discussion of the question (articles 12 & 16). Certain other chapters relating to armed conflict (chapter X), state responsibility (chapter XII), private legal remedies (chapter XIII), and the settlement of international dispute (chapter XIV) also contain certain refinements without making any substantial departure from the Helsinki Rules and the UN Convention.

 

Much or most of the chapters dealing with all water (national and international) either are new or are significantly different from the content of the Helsinki Rules and the UN Convention, both of which restricted their coverage solely to international waters. Chapter IV deals with the rights of persons (including, in articles 20 and 21, the rights of persons organized as communities). Chapter V deals in considerable detail with the protection of the environment, including the obligation to protect the ecological integrity of the aquatic environment (including, but not limited to, the duty to protect ecological flows and the prevention of the introduction of alien species), the obligation to apply the precautionary approach, and the duty to prevent, eliminate, reduce, or control pollution as appropriate (including a special rule on hazardous substances). Chapter VI addresses the obligation to undertake the assessment of environmental impacts of programs, projects, or activities relating to all waters—national and international. Chapter VII sets forth obligations for cooperative and separate responses to extreme situations, including highly polluting accidents, floods, and droughts).

 

Perhaps the most significant innovations in the Berlin Rules are found in chapter VIII dealing with groundwater. The Seoul Rules, approved by the International Law Association in 1986 as a supplement to the Helsinki Rules to address groundwater (ILA 1986), only said that the same rules applied to groundwater as applied to surface waters. The UN Convention said even less about groundwater. While it is true that in principle the same rules apply to groundwater (the obligation of conjunctive management implies as much), the characteristics of groundwater are so different from surface water sources that the Berlin Rules set about to spell out in some detail how the general principles and rules apply specifically to the management of aquifers. Most of the rules in chapter VIII apply to all aquifers (national and international), although one rule speaks specifically to legal issues relating to transboundary aquifers (article 42). The chapter also makes explicit that its rules apply to all aquifers, regardless of whether the aquifer is connected to surface waters or whether it receives any significant contemporary recharge (article 36).

 

The Berlin Rules incorporate the experience of the nearly four decades since the Helsinki Rules were adopted, taking into account the development of important bodies of international environmental law, international human rights law, and the humanitarian law relating to war and armed conflict, as well as the adoption by the General Assembly of the United Nations of the UN Convention. The Berlin Rules represent a bold departure in the formulation of the customary international law of water resources if they are compared to the Helsinki Rules. Yet compared to international environmental law and the international law of human rights, the Berlin Rules are not bold at all. Time will tell whether governments, courts, and international lawyers will accept the Berlin Rules as fully or as quickly as they accepted the Helsinki Rules. There are few changes in the rules applicable solely to international waters (chapters III, IX, XI), although there are some refinements in certain of these rules. Certain other chapters relating to armed conflict (chapter X), state responsibility (chapter XII), private legal remedies (chapter XIII), and the settlement of international disputes (chapter XIV) also have refinements without substantial departure from the Helsinki Rules and the UN Convention.

 

The New Paradigm

 

The Helsinki Rules and the rules supplementary thereto largely limited their approach to the rule of equitable utilization and the prevention of transboundary harm. The UN Convention, while giving more attention to the prevention of various kinds of harm, also limits its rules to transboundary contexts. The nature of customary international law being as it is, there is always room for debate whether a particular practice of States has reached the status of binding international law, as well as about the precise content of the customary rules. Which is why some of the new articles do not proclaim absolute standards, but indicate only that States are to use "best efforts" or "take all appropriate measures" or the like. Some of the new articles are firmly grounded in international human rights law, and are well beyond question. Other articles are supported strongly by international environmental agreements that have entered into force and are widely followed even in nations that have not ratified them. The International Law Association easily concluded that these rules do indeed correctly summarize the current state of customary international as it pertains to water resources. In doing so, the Association approved a new paradigm for synthesizing the somewhat disparate rules into a coherent whole based on a recognized set of legal principles.

 

The new paradigm found in the Berlin Rules has gained acceptance in customary international over the last 30 years or so without being fully identified or articulated before. This paradigm includes of five general principles that apply to States in the management of all waters, wholly national or domestic waters as well as internationally shared waters:

1.      Participatory water management (arts. 4, 17-21, 30, 69-71);

2.      Conjunctive management (arts. 5, 37);

3.      Integrated management (arts. 6, 22-24, 37-41);

4.      Sustainability (arts. 7, 10(1), 12(2), 13(2)(h), 22, 23(1), 29, 35(2)(c), 38, 40, 54(1), 58(3), 62, 64(1)); and

5.      Minimization of environmental harm (arts. 8, 13(2)(i), 22-35, 38-41).

 

Additionally, the Berlin Rules posit three further rules relating to water in a strictly international or transboundary context:

6.      Cooperation (arts. 9(2), 10, 11, 32-35, 42, 56-67);

7.      Equitable utilization (arts. 12-15, 42); and

8.      Avoidance of transboundary harm (arts. 16, 42).

This new paradigm—a coherent, comprehensive, and comprehensive vision of the current state of the relevant customary international law—should lawyers, water managements, and other decision makers well.

 

References
 

APARICIO, Javier, & Jorge HIDALGO. 2004. "Water Resources Management at the Mexican Borders," Water International 29:362-74.

COLLINS, Robert. 1996. The Waters of the Nile: Hydropolitics and the Jonglei Canal, 1900-1988. Markus Wiener Publishers, Princeton, NJ.

DELLAPENNA, Joseph W. 1996. "The Two Rivers and the Land between: Mesopotamia and the International Law of Transboundary Waters," BYU Journal of Public Law 10:213-61.

DELLAPENNA, Joseph W. 1997. "Population and Water in the Middle East: The Challenge and Opportunity for Law," International Journal of the Environment & Pollution 7:72-110.

DELLAPENNA, Joseph W. 2001. "The Customary International Law of Transboundary Fresh Waters," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 1:264-305.

Donauversinkung Case (Württemberg & Prussia vs. Baden), 116 Entsheidungen des Reichsgerichts in Zivilsachen 1 (Germany Staatsgerichtshof 1927), reprinted in Ann. Digest of Pub. Int'l L. Cases 128 (H. Lauterpacht ed. 1931).

Gabcíkovo-Nagymoros Case (Hungary v. Slovakia), 1997 ICJ No. 92

INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION. 1966 ("ILA 1966"). "The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers," in Report of the Fifty-Second Conference (Helsinki). International Law Association, London, UK.

INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION. 1986. "International Rules on Groundwater," in Report of the Sixty-Second Conference (Seoul 1986). International Law Association, London, UK.

INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION. 2004 ("ILA 2004"). "The Berlin Rules on Water Resources," in Report of the Seventy-First Conference (Berlin). International Law Association, London, UK.

MCCAFFREY­, STEPHEN C. 2001. The Law of International Watercourses: Non-Navigational Uses. Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK.

MUMME, Stephen P. 2002. "The Case for Adding an Ecology Minute to the 1944 United States-Mexico Water Treaty," Tulane Environmental Law Journal 15:239-56.

Symposium. 2000. "Transboundary Groundwater on the U.S.-Mexican Border," Natural Resources Journal 40:185-473.

Symposium. 2003. "Transboundary Aquifers," Water International 28:143-200.

UNITED NATIONS. 1997. "UN Convention on the Law of Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses," UN Doc. No. A/51/869.

WOLF, Aaron T. 1998. "Conflict and Cooperation along International Waterways," Water Policy 1:251-65.



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Human Rights in 2009



Human Rights in 2009
 
 
 
 


__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[ALOCHONA] Electromagnetic Manipulation of the Earth's Climate



 
Electromagnetic Manipulation of the Earth's Climate


 

 

This article was prepared to provide a summary of the contents of a book written in 1995 which describes an entirely new class of weapons.

The weapons and their effects are described in the following pages. The United States Navy and Air Force have joined with the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, to build a prototype for a ground based "Star Wars" weapon system located in the remote bush country of Alaska.

 

The individuals who are demanding answers about HAARP are scattered around the planet. As well as bush dwellers in Alaska, they include: a physician in Finland; a scientist in Holland; an anti-nuclear protester in Australia; independent physicists in the United States; a grandmother in Canada, and countless others.

 

Unlike the protests of the 1960s the objections to HAARP have been registered using the tools of the 1990s. From the Internet, fax machines, syndicated talk radio and a number of alternative print mediums the word is getting out and people are waking up to this new intrusion by an over zealous United States government.

 

The research team put together to gather the materials which eventually found their way into the book never held a formal meeting, never formed a formal organization. Each person acted like a node on a planetary info-spirit-net with one goal held by all -- to keep this controversial new science in the public eye. The result of the team's effort was a book which describes the science and the political ramifications of this technology.

 

That book, Angels Don't Play this HAARP: Advances in Tesla Technology, has 230 pages. This article will only give the highlights. Despite the amount of research (350 footnoted sources), at its heart it is a story about ordinary people who took on an extraordinary challenge in bringing their research forward. 

 

HAARP Boils the Upper Atmosphere

HAARP will zap the upper atmosphere with a focused and steerable electromagnetic beam. It is an advanced model of an "ionospheric heater." (The ionosphere is the electrically-charged sphere surrounding Earth's upper atmosphere. It ranges between 40 to 60 miles above the surface of the Earth.)

 

Put simply, the apparatus for HAARP is a reversal of a radio telescope; antenna send out signals instead of receiving. HAARP is the test run for a super-powerful radiowave-beaming technology that lifts areas of the ionosphere by focusing a beam and heating those areas. Electromagnetic waves then bounce back onto earth and penetrate everything -- living and dead.

 

HAARP publicity gives the impression that the High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program is mainly an academic project with the goal of changing the ionosphere to improve communications for our own good. However, other U.S. military documents put it more clearly -- HAARP aims to learn how to "exploit the ionosphere for Department of Defense purposes." Communicating with submarines is only one of those purposes.

 

Press releases and other information from the military on HAARP continually downplay what it could do. Publicity documents insist that the HAARP project is no different than other ionospheric heaters operating safely throughout the world in places such as Arecibo, Puerto Rico, Tromso, Norway, and the former Soviet Union. However, a 1990 government document indicates that the radio-frequency (RF) power zap will drive the ionosphere to unnatural activities.

" ... at the highest HF powers available in the West, the instabilities commonly studied are approaching their maximum RF energy dissipative capability, beyond which the plasma processes will 'runaway' until the next limiting factor is reached."

If the military, in cooperation with the University of Alaska Fairbanks, can show that this new ground-based "Star Wars" technology is sound, they both win. The military has a relatively-inexpensive defense shield and the University can brag about the most dramatic geophysical manipulation since atmospheric explosions of nuclear bombs. After successful testing, they would have the military megaprojects of the future and huge markets for Alaska's North Slope natural gas.

 

Looking at the other patents which built on the work of a Texas' physicist named Bernard Eastlund, it becomes clearer how the military intends to use the HAARP transmitter. It also makes governmental denials less believable. The military knows how it intends to use this technology, and has made it clear in their documents. The military has deliberately misled the public, through sophisticated word games, deceit and outright disinformation.

 

The military says the HAARP system could:

Give the military a tool to replace the electromagnetic pulse effect of atmospheric thermonuclear devices (still considered a viable option by the military through at least 1986)

 

Replace the huge Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) submarine communication system operating in Michigan and Wisconsin with a new and more compact technology

 

Be used to replace the over-the-horizon radar system that was once planned for the current location of HAARP, with a more flexible and accurate system

 

Provide a way to wipe out communications over an extremely large area, while keeping the military's own communications systems working

 

Provide a wide area earth-penetrating tomography which, if combined with the computing abilities of EMASS and Cray computers, would make it possible to verify many parts of nuclear nonproliferation and peace agreements

 

Be a tool for geophysical probing to find oil, gas and mineral deposits over a large area

 

Be used to detect incoming low-level planes and cruise missiles, making other technologies obsolete

The above abilities seem like a good idea to all who believe in sound national defense, and to those concerned about cost-cutting. However, the possible uses which the HAARP records do not explain, and which can only be found in Air Force, Army, Navy and other federal agency records, are alarming. Moreover, effects from the reckless use of these power levels in our natural shield -- the ionosphere -- could be cataclysmic according to some scientists.

 

Two Alaskans put it bluntly. A founder of the NO HAARP movement, Clare Zickuhr, says "The military is going to give the ionosphere a big kick and see what happens."

The military failed to tell the public that they do not know what exactly will happen, but a Penn State science article brags about that uncertainty. Macho science? The HAARP project uses the largest energy levels yet played with by what Begich and Manning call "the big boys with their new toys." HAARP is an experiment in the sky, and experiments are done to find out something not already known. Independent scientists told Begich and Manning that a HAARP-type "skybuster" with its unforeseen effects could be an act of global vandalism.
 


HAARP History

 

The patents described below were the package of ideas which were originally controlled by ARCO Power Technologies Incorporated (APTI), a subsidiary of Atlantic Richfield Company, one of the biggest oil companies in the world. APTI was the contractor that built the HAARP facility. ARCO sold this subsidiary, the patents and the second phase construction contract to E-Systems in June 1994.

 

E-Systems is one of the biggest intelligence contractors in the world -- doing work for the CIA, defense intelligence organizations and others. $1.8 billion of their annual sales are to these organizations, with $800 million for black projects -- projects so secret that even the United States Congress isn't told how the money is being spent. 

E-Systems was bought out by Raytheon, which is one of the largest defense contractors in the world. In 1994 Raytheon was listed as number forty-two on the Fortune 500 list of companies. Raytheon has thousands of patents, some of which will be valuable in the HAARP project. The twelve patents below are the backbone of the HAARP project, and are now buried among the thousands of others held in the name of Raytheon. Bernard J. Eastlund's U.S. Patent # 4,686,605, "Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth's Atmosphere, Ionosphere; and/or Magnetosphere," was sealed for a year under a government Secrecy Order.

 

The Eastlund ionospheric heater was different; the radio frequency (RF) radiation was concentrated and focused to a point in the ionosphere. This difference throws an unprecedented amount of energy into the ionosphere. The Eastlund device would allow a concentration of one watt per cubic centimeter, compared to others only able to deliver about one millionth of one watt.

 

This huge difference could lift and change the ionosphere in the ways necessary to create futuristic effects described in the patent. According to the patent, the work of Nikola Tesla in the early 1900's formed the basis of the research.

 

What would this technology be worth to ARCO, the owner of the patents? They could make enormous profits by beaming electrical power from a powerhouse in the gas fields to the consumer without wires.

 

For a time, HAARP researchers could not prove that this was one of the intended uses for HAARP. In April, 1995, however, Begich found other patents, connected with a "key personnel" list for APTI. Some of these new APTI patents were indeed a wireless system for sending electrical power. Eastlund's patent said the technology can confuse or completely disrupt airplanes' and missiles' sophisticated guidance systems. Further, this ability to spray large areas of Earth with electromagnetic waves of varying frequencies, and to control changes in those waves, makes it possible to knock out communications on land or sea as well as in the air.

 

The patent said:

"Thus, this invention provides the ability to put unprecedented amounts of power in the Earth's atmosphere at strategic locations and to maintain the power injection level particularly if random pulsing is employed, in a manner far more precise and better controlled than heretofore accomplished by the prior art, particularly by detonation of nuclear devices of various yields at various altitudes... "

 

"...it is possible not only to interfere with third party communications but to take advantage of one or more such beams to carry out a communications network even though the rest of the world's communications are disrupted. Put another way, what is used to disrupt another's communications can be employed by one knowledgeable of this invention as a communication network at the same time."

 

"... large regions of the atmosphere could be lifted to an unexpectedly high altitude so that missiles encounter unexpected and unplanned drag forces with resultant destruction."

 

"Weather modification is possible by, for example, altering upper atmosphere wind patterns by constructing one or more plumes of atmospheric particles which will act as a lens or focusing device.

... molecular modifications of the atmosphere can take place so that positive environmental effects can be achieved. Besides actually changing the molecular composition of an atmospheric region, a particular molecule or molecules can be chosen for increased presence. For example, ozone, nitrogen, etc., concentrations in the atmosphere could be artificially increased."

Begich found eleven other APTI Patents. They told how to make "Nuclear-sized Explosions without Radiation," Power-beaming systems, over-the-horizon radar, detection systems for missiles carrying nuclear warheads, electromagnetic pulses previously produced by thermonuclear weapons and other Star-Wars tricks. This cluster of patents underlay the HAARP weapon system.

 

Related research by Begich and Manning uncovered bizarre schemes. For example, Air Force documents revealed that a system had been developed for manipulating and disturbing human mental processes through pulsed radio-frequency radiation (the stuff of HAARP) over large geographical areas. The most telling material about this technology came from writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski (former National Security Advisory to U.S. President Carter) and J.F. MacDonald (science advisor to U.S. President Johnson and a professor of Geophysics at UCLA), as they wrote about use of power-beaming transmitters for geophysical and environmental warfare. The documents showed how these effects might be caused, and the negative effects on human heath and thinking.

 

The mental-disruption possibilities for HAARP are the most disturbing. More than 40 pages of the book, with dozens of footnotes, chronicle the work of Harvard professors, military planners and scientists as they plan and test this use of the electromagnetic technology. For example, one of the papers describing this use was from the International Red Cross in Geneva. It even gave the frequency ranges where these effects could occur -- the same ranges which HAARP is capable of broadcasting.

 

The following statement was made more than twenty-five years ago in a book by Brzezinski which he wrote while a professor at Columbia University: 

"Political strategists are tempted to exploit research on the brain and human behavior. Geophysicist Gordon J.F. MacDonald, a specialist in problems of warfare, says accurately-timed, artificially-excited electronic strokes could lead to a pattern of oscillations that produce relatively high power levels over certain regions of the earth ... in this way one could develop a system that would seriously impair the brain performance of very large populations in selected regions over an extended period" 

" ... no matter how deeply disturbing the thought of using the environment to manipulate behavior for national advantages, to some, the technology permitting such use will very probably develop within the next few decades."

In 1966, MacDonald was a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee and later a member of the President's Council on Environmental Quality. He published papers on the use of environmental control technologies for military purposes. The most profound comment he made as a geophysicist was, "the key to geophysical warfare is the identification of environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy." While yesterday's geophysicists predicted today's advances, are HAARP program managers delivering on the vision?

 

The geophysicists recognized that adding energy to the environmental soup could have large effects. However, humankind has already added substantial amounts of electromagnetic energy into our environment without understanding what might constitute critical mass. The book by Begich and Manning raises questions:

Have these additions been without effect, or is there a cumulative amount beyond which irreparable damage can be done?

 

Is HAARP another step in a journey from which we cannot turn back?

 

Are we about to embark on another energy experiment which unleashes another set of demons from Pandora's box?

As early as 1970, Zbigniew Brzezinski predicted a "more controlled and directed society" would gradually appear, linked to technology. This society would be dominated by an elite group which impresses voters by allegedly superior scientific know-how. Angels Don't Play This HAARP further quotes Brzezinski: 

"Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Technical and scientific momentum would then feed on the situation it exploits," Brzezinski predicted.

 

His forecasts proved accurate. Today, a number of new tools for the "elite" are emerging, and the temptation to use them increases steadily. The policies to permit the tools to be used are already in place. How could the United States be changed, bit by bit, into the predicted highly-controlled technosociety? Among the "steppingstones" Brzezinski expected were persisting social crises and use of the mass media to gain the public's confidence.

 

In another document prepared by the government, the U.S. Air Force claims: "The potential applications of artificial electromagnetic fields are wide-ranging and can be used in many military or quasi-military situations... Some of these potential uses include dealing with terrorist groups, crowd control, controlling breaches of security at military installations, and antipersonnel techniques in tactical warfare. In all of these cases the EM (electromagnetic) systems would be used to produce mild to severe physiological disruption or perceptual distortion or disorientation. In addition, the ability of individuals to function could be degraded to such a point that they would be combat ineffective. Another advantage of electromagnetic systems is that they can provide coverage over large areas with a single system. They are silent and countermeasures to them may be difficult to develop... One last area where electromagnetic radiation may prove of some value is in enhancing abilities of individuals for anomalous phenomena."

 

Do these comments point to uses already somewhat developed? The author of the government report refers to an earlier Air Force document about the uses of radio frequency radiation in combat situations. (Here Begich and Manning note that HAARP is the most versatile and the largest radio-frequency-radiation transmitter in the world.) 

The United States Congressional record deals with the use of HAARP for penetrating the earth with signals bounced off of the ionosphere. These signals are used to look inside the planet to a depth of many kilometers in order to locate underground munitions, minerals and tunnels. The U.S. Senate set aside $15 million dollars in 1996 to develop this ability alone -- earth-penetrating-tomography. The problem is that the frequency needed for earth-penetrating radiation is within the frequency range most cited for disruption of human mental functions. It may also have profound effects on migration patterns of fish and wild animals which rely on an undisturbed energy field to find their routes.

 

As if electromagnetic pulses in the sky and mental disruption were not enough, T. Eastlund bragged that the super-powerful ionospheric heater could control weather.

 

Begich and Manning brought to light government documents indicating that the military has weather-control technology. When HAARP is eventually built to its full power level, it could create weather effects over entire hemispheres. If one government experiments with the world's weather patterns, what is done in one place will impact everyone else on the planet. Angels Don't Play This HAARP explains a principle behind some of Nikola Tesla's inventions -- resonance -- which affect planetary systems.

 
Bubble of Electric Particles

 

Angels Don't Play This HAARP includes interviews with independent scientists such as Elizabeth Rauscher. She has a Ph.D., a long and impressive career in high-energy physics, and has been published in prestigious science journals and books. Rauscher commented on HAARP. "You're pumping tremendous energy into an extremely delicate molecular configuration that comprises these multi-layers we call the ionosphere." &QUOTThe ionosphere is prone to catalytic reactions," she explained, "if a small part is changed, a major change in the ionosphere can happen."

 

In describing the ionosphere as a delicately balanced system, Dr. Rauscher shared her mental picture of it -- a soap-bubble-like sphere surrounding Earth's atmosphere, with movements swirling over the surface of the bubble. If a big enough hole is punched through it, she predicts, it could pop.

 
Slicing the Ionosphere

 

Physicist Daniel Winter, Ph.D., of Waynesville, North Carolina, says, "HAARP high-frequency emissions can couple with longwave (extremely-low-frequency, or ELF) pulses the Earth grid uses to distribute information as vibrations to synchronize dances of life in the biosphere." Dan terms this geomagnetic action 'Earth's information bloodstream,' and says it is likely that coupling of HAARP HF (high-frequency) with natural ELF can cause unplanned, unsuspected side effects.

 

David Yarrow of Albany, New York, is a researcher with a background in electronics. He described possible interactions of HAARP radiation with the ionosphere and Earth's magnetic grid: "HAARP will not burn holes in the ionosphere. That is a dangerous understatement of what HAARP's giant gigawatt beam will do. Earth is spinning relative to thin electric shells of the multilayer membrane of ion-o-speres that absorb and shield Earth's surface from intense solar radiation, including charged particle storms in solar winds erupting from the sun. Earth's axial spin means that HAARP -- in a burst lasting more than a few minutes -- will slice through the ionosphere like a microwave knife. This produces not a hole but a long tear -- an incision."


Crudely Plucking the Strings

 

Second concept: As Earth rotates, HAARP will slice across the geomagnetic flux, a donut-shaped spool of magnetic strings -- like longitude meridians on maps. 

HAARP may not 'cut' these strings in Gaia's magnetic mantle, but will pulse each thread with harsh, out-of-harmony high frequencies. These noisy impulses will vibrate geomagnetic flux lines, sending vibrations all through the geomagnetic web. "

 

"The image comes to mind of a spider on its web. An insect lands, and the web's vibrations alert the spider to possible prey. HAARP will be a man-made microwave finger poking at the web, sending out confusing signals, if not tearing holes in the threads. " 


"Effects of this interference with symphonies of Gaia's geomagnetic harp are unknown, and I suspect barely thought of. Even if thought of, the intent (of HAARP) is to learn to exploit any effects, not to play in tune to global symphonies. "

 

Among other researchers quoted is Paul Schaefer of Kansas City. His degree is in electrical engineering and he spent four years building nuclear weapons. "But most of the theories that we have been taught by scientists to believe in seem to be falling apart," he says. He talks about imbalances already caused by the industrial and atomic age, especially by radiation of large numbers of tiny, high-velocity particles "like very small spinning tops" into our environment. The unnatural level of motion of highly-energetic particles in the atmosphere and in radiation belts surrounding Earth is the villain in the weather disruptions, according to this model, which describes an Earth discharging its buildup of heat, relieving stress and regaining a balanced condition through earthquakes and volcanic action.

 
Feverish Earth

 

"One might compare the abnormal energetic state of the Earth and its atmosphere to a car battery which has become overcharged with the normal flow of energy jammed up, resulting in hot spots, electrical arcing, physical cracks and general turbulence as the pent-up energy tries to find some place to go."

 

In a second analogy, Schaefer says "Unless we desire the death of our planet, we must end the production of unstable particles which are generating the earth's fever. A first priority to prevent this disaster would be to shut down all nuclear power plants and end the testing of atomic weapons, electronic warfare and 'Star Wars'." Meanwhile, the military builds its biggest ionospheric heater yet, to deliberately create more instabilities in a huge plasma layer -- the ionosphere -- and to rev up the energy level of charged particles.


Electronic Rain From The Sky

 

They have published papers about electron precipitation from the magnetosphere (the outer belts of charged particles which stream toward Earth's magnetic poles) caused by man-made very low frequency electromagnetic waves. "These precipitated particles can produce secondary ionization, emit X-rays, and cause significant perturbation in the lower ionosphere."

 

Two Stanford University radio scientists offer evidence of what technology can do to affect the sky by making waves on earth; they showed that very low frequency radio waves can vibrate the magnetosphere and cause high-energy particles to cascade into Earth's atmosphere. By turning the signal on or off, they could stop the flow of energetic particles.

 
Weather Control

 

Avalanches of energy dislodged by such radio waves could hit us hard. Their work suggests that technicians could control global weather by sending relatively small 'signals' into the Van Allen belts (radiation belts around Earth). Thus Tesla's resonance effects can control enormous energies by tiny triggering signals. 

The Begich/ Manning book asks whether that knowledge will be used by war-oriented or biosphere-oriented scientists.

 

The military has had about twenty years to work on weather warfare methods, which it euphemistically calls weather modification. For example, rainmaking technology was taken for a few test rides in Vietnam. The U.S. Department of Defense sampled lightning and hurricane manipulation studies in Project Skyfire and Project Stormfury. And they looked at some complicated technologies that would give big effects. Angels Don't Play This HAARP cites an expert who says the military studied both lasers and chemicals which they figured could damage the ozone layer over an enemy. Looking at ways to cause earthquakes, as well as to detect them, was part of the project named Prime Argus, decades ago. The money for that came from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA, now under the acronym ARPA.) In 1994 the Air Force revealed its Spacecast 2020 master plan which includes weather control. Scientists have experimented with weather control since the 1940's, but Spacecast 2020 noted that "using environmental modification techniques to destroy, damage or injure another state are prohibited." Having said that, the Air Force claimed that advances in technology "compels a reexamination of this sensitive and potentially risky topic." 

40 Years of Zapping the Sky?

 

As far back as 1958, the chief White House advisor on weather modification, Captain Howard T. Orville, said the U.S. defense department was studying "ways to manipulate the charges of the earth and sky and so affect the weather" by using an electronic beam to ionize or de-ionize the atmosphere over a given area.

 

In 1966, Professor Gordon J. F. MacDonald was associate director of the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at the University of California, Los Angeles, was a member of the President's Science Advisory Committee, and later a member of the President's Council on Environmental Quality.

 

He published papers on the use of environmental-control technologies for military purposes. MacDonald made a revealing comment: "The key to geophysical warfare is the identification of environmental instabilities to which the addition of a small amount of energy would release vastly greater amounts of energy. " World-recognized scientist MacDonald had a number of ideas for using the environment as a weapon system and he contributed to what was, at the time, the dream of a futurist. When he wrote his chapter, "How To Wreck The Environment," for the book Unless Peace Comes, he was not kidding around. In it he describes the use of weather manipulation, climate modification, polar ice cap melting or destabilization, ozone depletion techniques, earthquake engineering, ocean wave control and brain wave manipulation using the planet's energy fields.

 

He also said that these types of weapons would be developed and, when used, would be virtually undetectable by their victims. Is HAARP that weapon? The military's intention to do environmental engineering is well documented, U.S. Congress' subcommittee hearings on Oceans and International Environment looked into military weather and climate modification conducted in the early 1970's. "What emerged was an awesome picture of far-ranging research and experimentation by the Department of Defense into ways environmental tampering could be used as a weapon," said another author cited in Angles Don't Play This HAARP.

 

The revealed secrets surprised legislators. Would an inquiry into the state of the art of electromagnetic manipulation surprise lawmakers today? They may find out that technologies developed out of the HAARP experiments in Alaska could deliver on Gordon MacDonald's vision because leading-edge scientists are describing global weather as not only air pressure and thermal systems, but also as an electrical system.

Small Input - Big Effect

 

HAARP zaps the ionosphere where it is relatively unstable. A point to remember is that the ionosphere is an active electrical shield protecting the planet from the constant bombardment of high-energy particles from space. This conducting plasma, along with Earth's magnetic field, traps the electrical plasma of space and holds it back from going directly to the earth's surface, says Charles Yost of Dynamic Systems, Leicester, North Carolina. "If the ionosphere is greatly disturbed, the atmosphere below is subsequently disturbed."

 

Another scientist interviewed said there is a super-powerful electrical connection between the ionosphere and the part of the atmosphere where our weather comes onstage, the lower atmosphere. 

One man-made electrical effect -- power line harmonic resonance -- causes fallout of charged particles from the Van Allen (radiation) belts, and the falling ions cause ice crystals (which precipitate rain clouds). What about HAARP? Energy blasted upward from an ionospheric heater is not much compared to the total in the ionosphere, but HAARP documents admit that thousandfold-greater amounts of energy can be released in the ionosphere than injected. As with MacDonald's "key to geophysical warfare," "nonlinear" effects (described in the literature about the ionospheric heater) mean small input and large output. Astrophysicist Adam Trombly told Manning that an acupuncture model is one way to look at the possible effect of multi-gigawatt pulsing of the ionosphere. If HAARP hits certain points, those parts of the ionosphere could react in surprising ways.

 

Smaller ionospheric heaters such as the one at Arecibo are underneath relatively placid regions of the ionosphere, compared to the dynamic movements nearer Earth's magnetic poles. That adds another uncertainty to HAARP -- the unpredictable and lively upper atmosphere near the North Pole.

 

HAARP experimenters do not impress commonsense Alaskans such as Barbara Zickuhr, who says "They're like boys playing with a sharp stick, finding a sleeping bear and poking it in the butt to see what's going to happen."

 
Could They Short-Circuit Earth?

 

Earth as a spherical electrical system is a fairly well-accepted model. However, those experimenters who want to make unnatural power connections between parts of this system might not be thinking of possible consequences. Electrical motors and generators can be caused to wobble when their circuits are affected. Could human activities cause a significant change in a planet's electrical circuit or electrical field? A paper in the respected journal Science deals with manmade ionization from radioactive material, but perhaps it could also be studied with HAARP-type skybusters in mind:

 

"For example, while changes in the earth's electric field resulting from a solar flare modulating conductivity may have only a barely detectable effect on meteorology, the situation may be different in regard to electric field changes caused by manmade ionization... " Meteorology, of course, is the study of the atmosphere and weather. ionization is what happens when a higher level of power is zapped into atoms and knocks electrons off the atoms. The resulting charged particles are the stuff of HAARP. "One look at the weather should tell us that we are on the wrong path," says Paul Schaefer, commenting on HAARP-type technologies.

 

Angels Don't Play This HAARP: Advances in Tesla Technology is about the military's plan to manipulate that which belongs to the world -- the ionosphere. The arrogance of the United States government in this is not without precedent.

 

Atmospheric nuclear tests had similar goals. More recently, China and France put their people's money to destructive use in underground nuclear tests. It was recently reported that the US government spent $3 trillion dollars on its nuclear program since its beginnings in the 1940's. What new breakthroughs in life science could have been made with all the money spent on death?

 

Begich, Manning, Roderick and others believe that democracies need to be founded on openness, rather than the secrecy which surrounds so much military science. Knowledge used in developing revolutionary weapons could be used for healing and helping mankind. Because they are used in new weapons, discoveries are classified and suppressed. When they do appear in the work of other independent scientists, the new ideas are often frustrated or ridiculed, while military research laboratories continue to build their new machines for the killing fields.

 

However, the book by Manning and Begich gives hope that the military industrial academic bureaucratic Goliath can be affected by the combined power of determined individuals and the alternative press. Becoming informed is the first step to empowerment.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17902



__._,_.___


[Disclaimer: ALOCHONA Management is not liable for information contained in this message. The author takes full responsibility.]
To unsubscribe/subscribe, send request to alochona-owner@egroups.com




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___