crop has been destroyed due to recent frosts. During this period of change in the world's climate, the United States has benefited economically raising its food exports from $8 billion in 1972 to $20 billion last year. Food exports are seen as vital statistics by our government and as important political levers in world affairs.

The Allende government was denied needed wheat shortly before the coup in Chile. After the Pinochet junta took power wheat was delivered. Indochina was formerly the world's largest rice producer but was surpassed by the U.S. after the use of military defoliation and weather modification which destroyed its crops. Recently Bangladesh was threatened with a suspension of food aid unless it stopped selling gunny sacks to Cuba. Many other incidents of food as a political tool by the U.S. government can be cited. Presently America controls a larger share of the world's wheat and rice production than the Arabs' control of oil. If we further examine how the recent changes in climate will affect food production it is interesting to note that most American metereologists and the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that the drop in temperature worldwide will allow a great political advantage for the United States. This analysis is examined in a report written by the Directorate of Intelligence, the Office of Political Research of the CIA, that was released in August of 1974 titled "Potential Implications of Trends in World Population, Food Production and Climate". This report should be read by everyone who is concerned about weather modification. Its contents have not been examined in Congressional hearings. The report starts out indicating that providing adequate food stocks for the world will become an increasing problem in the years ahead with a key role falling to the U.S.

Even in the most favourable circumstances predictable, with increased devotion of scarce resources and technical expertise, the outcome will be doubtful; in the event of adverse changes in climate, the outcome can only be grave. ... The U.S. now provide nearly three fourths of the world's net grain exports and its role is almost certain to grow over the next several decades. The world's increasing dependence on American surpluses portends an increase in U.S. power and influence, especially vis-a-vis the food deficit poor countries. Indeed, in time of shortages the U.S. will face difficult choices about how to allocate its surpluses between affluent purchasers and the hungry world. The implications for the world food situation and for U.S. interests would be considerably greater if climatologists who believe a cooling trend is underway prove to be right. If the trend continues for several decades there would almost certainly be an absolute shortage of food. The high-latitude areas, including the USSR and North China, would experience shorter growing seasons and a drop in output. The monsoon fed lands in Asia and Africa would also be adversely affected. U.S. production would probably not be hurt much. As custodian of the bulk of the world's exportable grain, the U.S. might regain the primacy in world affairs it held in the immediate past World War II era.... In the poor and powerless areas, population would have to drop to levels that could be supported. The population problem would have solved itself in the most unpleasant fashion.

This report first examines projected increases in population worldwide with our present figure of four billion scheduled to increase to 7.8 billion in 25 years. This population growth is very unevenly distributed with a greater increase taking place in the less developed nations than the developed countries. In relation to rising populations the report emphasizes how these new world inhabitants will require a rise in food production. An annual growth of 2.3-2.5% is projected as needed. Fortunately between 1954 and 1973 world food output rose at the rate of 2.5%. During this period world trade patterns in grain have shifted according to the report.

Twenty years ago, North America exported mainly to Western Europe; most other regions were basically self-sufficient. Now the whole world has become dependent on North America for grain-feed grains mainly to Europe and Japan, food grains elsewhere. The U.S. now supplies nearly 4 of the net global exports, and Canada between 15-20%. In 1972. India's monsoon season was poor, China had drought in the North and floods in the South, the USSR experienced both drought and a short growing season and drought was particularly oppressive in parts of Central America and Africa. The results were starvation for some, hunger for many, a rapid rise in food prices everywhere and a drastic drawdown of existing world stocks of grains.

Previously U.S. reserves had served as a cushion but now these reserves are at a very low level and almost all of U.S. farmland is back into production.

The U.S. and Canada can expect a sizable boost in earnings from agricultural products in the coming years but if global harvests are poor the report shows how choices will have to be made between rich and poor countries.

The section on climate at the end of the report examines how the cooling climate of the world will affect food production. According to the report only the U.S. and Argentina would escape adverse climate effects. Canada and the USSR would have shorter growing seasons, more frequent monsoon failures would "significantly reduce" food production in Asia. China would be hit "by cooling in the North and monsoon failures in the South." Advances techniques of the green revolution would be negated by the cooling weather, since these techniques were developed for use in warmer periods of climate.

Finally the CIA report ends with a discussion of how a cooling world would be politically advantageous for the U.S. in terms of dominating food production. In a cooler and therefore hungrier world, the U.S.'s near-monopoly position as food exporter would have an enormous, though not easily definable impact on international relations. It could give the U.S. a measure of power it had never had before-possibly an economic and political dominance greater than that of the immediate post World War II years . . . Washington would acquire virtual life and death power over the fate of multitudes of the needy. . . the U.S. would gain extraordinary political and economic influence.

It seems in retrospect that Congress may have only scratched the surface in relation to weather modification. Why is it that the world's climate is cooling a trend that will be so politically advantageous to the U.S. government? Who and what is behind it? Why is the CIA so interested in this subject? Recently Dan Morgan of the Washington Post discovered that the CIA's crop forecasting service is more accurate than the USDA's. Why?

My own research into weather modification at NOAAS weather library in Silver Spring indicates that NASA is heavily involved in weather modification activities along with the Air Force, Navy and Army. Little has been done in Congress to find out exactly what the military has been doing with weather outside of Vietnam-nothing in relation to food production. The time is now for Congress to hold intensive hearings on U.S. weather modification activities and their possible relationship to the current change in the world climate.

To give food aid to countries just because people are starving is a pretty weak reason. (Denny Ellerman, US National Security Council staffperson, Washington Post, December 9, 1974)

As economic competition among many disadvantaged nations heightens, it may be to a country's advantage to insure a peaceful, natural environment for itself and a disturbed environment for its competitors . . . Such a secret war need never be declared or known by the affected populations... The years of drought and storm could be attributed to unkindly nature. (Dr. Gordon J. F. MacDonald, former member of the President's Council on Environmental Quality)

Let me say this before rain becomes a utility that they can plan and distribute for money. By "they" I mean the people who cannot understand that rain is a festival, who do not appreciate its gratuity, who think that what has no price has no value, that what cannot be sold is not real, so that the only way to make something actual is to place it on the market. The time will come when they will sell you even your rain. ("Rain and the Rhinocerous" by Thomas Morton)

UNITED STATES/SOVIET DRAFT CONVENTION ON ENVIRONMENTAL WARFARE AND U.S. STATEMENTS TO THE U.N. CONFERENCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON DISARMAMENT

DRAFT CONVENTION ON THE PROHIBITION OF MILITARY OR ANY OTHER HOSTILE USE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MODIFICATION TECHNIQUES PRESENTED JOINTLY BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS TO THE U.N. CONFERENCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON DISARMAMENT, AUG. 21, 1975 The States Party to this Convention,

Guided by the interest of consolidating peace, and wishing to contribute to the cause of limiting the arms race, and of bringing about disarmament, and of saving mankind from the danger of using new means of warfare;

Recognizing that scientific and technical advances may open new possibilities with respect to modification of the environment;

Realizing that military use of environmental modification techniques could have widespread, longlasting or severe effects harmful to human welfare, but that the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes could improve the interrelationship of man and nature and contribute to the preservation and improvement of the environment for the benefit of present and future generations;

Desiring to limit the potential danger to mankind from means of warfare involving the use of environmental modification techniques;

Desiring also to contribute to the strengthening of trust among nations and to the further improvement of the international situation in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE I

1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to engage in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to another State Party.

2. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes not to assist, encourage or induce any State, group of States or international organization to engage in activities contrary to the provision of paragraph 1 of this Article.

ARTICLE II

As used in Article I, the term "environmental modification techniques" refers to any technique for changing-through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes the dynamics, composition or structure of the Earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere, or of outer space, so as to cause such effects as earthquakes and tsunamis, an upset in the ecological balance of a region, or changes in weather patterns (clouds, precipitation, cyclones of various types and tornadic storms), in the state of the ozone layer or ionosphere, in climate patterns, or in ocean currents.

ARTICLE III

The provisions of this Convention shall not hinder the use of environmental modification techniques for peaceful purposes by States Party, or international economic and scientific cooperation in the utilization, preservation and improvement of the environment for peaceful purposes.

ARTICLE IV

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes, in accordance with its constitutional processes, to take any necessary measures to prohibit and prevent (27)

any activity in violation of the provisions of the Convention anywhere under its jurisdiction or control.

ARTICLE V

1. The States Party to this Convention undertake to consult one another and to cooperate in solving any problems which may arise in relation to the objectives of, or in the application of the provisions of this Convention. Consultation and cooperation pursuant to this Article may also be undertaken through appropriate international procedures within the framework of the United Nations and in accordance with its Charter.

2. Any State Party to this Convention which finds that any other State Party is acting in breach of obligations deriving from the provisions of the Convention may lodge a complaint with the Security Council of the United Nations. Such a complaint should include all possible evidence confirming its validity, as well as a request for its consideration by the Security Council.

3. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to cooperate in carrying out any investigation which the Security Council may initiate, in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, on the basis of the complaint received by the Council. The Security Council shall inform the States Party to the Convention of the results of the investigation.

4. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes to provide or support assistance, in accordance with the United Nations Charter, to any Party to the Convention which so requests, if the Security Council decides that such Party has been harmed or is likely to be harmed as a result of violation of the Convention.

ARTICLE VI

1. Any State Party may propose amendments to this Convention. The text of any proposed amendment shall be submitted to which shall circulate

it to all States Party.

2. An amendment shall enter into force for all States Party which have accepted, it upon the deposit with ---of instruments of acceptance by Thereafter it shall enter into force for any remaining State Party on the date of deposit of its instruments of acceptance.

ARTICLE VII

This Convention shall be of unlimited duration.

ARTICLE VIII

1. This Convention shall be open to all States for signature. Any State which does not sign the Convention before its entry into force in accordance with Paragraph 3 of this Article may accede to it at any time.

2. This Convention shall be subject to ratification by signatory States. Instruments of ratification and instruments of accession shall be deposited with

3. This Convention shall enter into force after the deposit of instruments of ratification by in accordance with Paragraph 2 of this Article. 4. For those States whose instruments of ratification or accession are deposited after the entry into force of this Convention, it shall enter into force on the date of the deposit of their instruments of ratification or accession.

5. The shall promptly inform all signatory and acceding States of the date of each signature, the date of deposit of each instrument of ratification or of accession and the date of the entry into force of this Convention, and of the receipt of other notices.

6. This Convention shall be registered by Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

in accordance with

ARTICLE IX

This Convention, the Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish texts of which are equally authentic, shall be deposited with who shall send certified copies thereof to the Governments of the signatory and acceding States. In witness whereof, the undersigned, duly authorized thereto, have signed this Convention.

Done in

on

STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR JOSEPH MARTIN, JR., AT THE CONFERENCE OF THE COMMITTEE ON DISARMAMENT, THURSDAY, AUGUST 21, 1975

Mr. Chairman: The United States today is tabling in the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament a draft Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. A parallel draft is being tabled by the delegation of the Soviet Union. We are presenting the draft convention as a basis for considération by all governments and for negotiation in the CCD.

Previous discussions in the United Nations General Assembly, in the series of bilateral meetings between representatives of the Soviet Union and my government, and here in this Committee, have indicated clearly the serious concern felt by many states, including my own, over the potential catastrophic dangers to mankind if environmental modification techniques were to be developed as weapons of war. Comments made by the experts at our recent informal meetings on this subject underline the need to develop effective measures to control military or any other hostile use of those techniques having major adverse effects before such techniques can be developed and perfected.

In the past few weeks, various delegations have provided data on the existing state of the art in environmental modification and have hypothesized about the nature of possible future techniques. From these data we can see that, while environmental warfare is not practical on a militarily significant scale at present, understanding and technology in the field are increasing. Significant advances may be possible in the course of time. Some scientists believe, for example, that methods might be developed for intentionally and selectively effecting harmful changes in the composition of the earth's atmosphere or in its climate, or causing floods or drought. An ambitious, incautious, or desperate state might then resort to the use of such techniques. At present there is an opportunity to prohibit such use. We should seize that opportunity.

The United States delegation believes that development of a generally accepted convention along the lines of the draft we are tabling today would best allow us to accomplish the objectives of the General Assembly, the CCD, and of the US-USSR Joint Statement of July 3, 1974. At the same time it would not discourage the development of peaceful and beneficial environmental modification techniques.

The formulation of a convention imposing restraints on environmental warfare presented difficult and complex problems of definition, since the development of environmental modification techniques is still at an early stage and a treaty will necessarily have to deal with future discoveries. This draft seeks to resolve such definitional problems.

The draft convention would prohibit military or any other hostile use, as a means of destruction. damage, or injury, of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects. The prohibition against "military or any other hostile use" covers both the hostile use of environmental modification techniques in armed conflict or to initiate such conflict, and the use of such techniques for the specific purmese of causing destruction, damage, or injury, even when no other weapons are used or there is no other military operation taking place. We believe this draft provides a basis for distinguishing between the use of environmental modification techniques as weapons, which is covered by the prohibition, and the environmental impact of other weapons, which is not covered.

The draft deals with environmental modification techniques whose use would have widespread, long-lasting or severe effects. This is in order to focus on the most important aspects of the problem-potential applications of such techniques as weapons which could cause the gravest harm to man and his environment. An important consideration in this regard is that in any limitation on the hostile uses of environmental modification techniques, the attainable degree of verification of compliance with treaty constraints obviously is related to the scale of activity. Accordingly, the possibilities for verification decrease as the size, duration, or severity of the activity diminishes.

Included in the proposed convention is an illustrative list of effects of environmental modification techniques subject to prohibition. The list includes earthquakes and tsunamis: an upset in the ecological balance of a region; or changes in weather patterns, the state of the ozone layer, climate patterns or ocean currents.