Secretary KISSINGER. No, we considered it a major achievement to assemble the seven nuclear exporters, many of whom had previously resisted any effort to get an international consensus. They are also concerned about giving the impression of forming a sort of directorate, and it is to take account of the convictions of some of these countries that we have agreed to proceed by simply stating the restrictions that we would observe and that we have reason to believe, as a result of these discussions, that all other seven will also observe, and I think that as an initial step considerable progress has been made.

Letter From ACDA Director Iklé to Senator Pell: Environmental Modification, March 17, 19761

DEAR SENATOR PELL: By way of follow-up to your Subcommittee's hearings, held earlier this year on the draft environmental modification treaty, I am pleased to submit the attached answers to the questions you submitted to us subsequent to the hearings. Again, let me express my appreciation for your kind willingness to permit Assistant Director Davies, who as you know led the U.S. Delegation during negotiations with the Soviets, to testify in my absence."

I understand your concern over the use of the criteria "widespread, long-lasting or severe" and will make it known to the appropriate agencies involved in the negotiating process. At the same time, I wish to correct an apparent misunderstanding of the statements contained in my letter of September 24, 1975, to Congressman Gude. I did not mean to suggest that "anything that is effective militarily would be prohibited by these criteria." My letter stated that if the technique of precipitation modification should become effective "so that its use had widespread, long-lasting or severe effects, its use would be prohibited." As a practical matter, depending on the specific circumstances, it would appear that most militarily effective activities would have the prohibited effects.

You may be assured that we are continuously re-examining these criteria, as well as other provisions of the draft which have come under criticism, with a view to determining what changes may be warranted. Sincerely,

FRED C. IKLÉ.

1Prohibiting Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, Second Session, on the Draft Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, p. 16. The letter is a response to questions by Sen. Pell, ante, pp. 13–14.

ACDA Responses to Questions by Senator Pell: Environmental Modification, March 17, 19761

Question 1. Aren't there some forms of research and development which are verifiable and therefore could be included in the treaty's prohibition? 2 I am thinking, for example, of experiments-if they are someday feasible-to induce earthquakes or tidal waves.

Answer. The draft does not include a general prohibition on research and development activities because of the difficulty of distinguishing between research for hostile purposes and for peaceful purposes. In theory, there may be some developmental activities, for example, those related to the generation of tidal waves, which could be distinguished from peaceful activities. However, arriving at a practical treaty provision that would prohibit only those developmental activities that could be distinguished presents problems we have not yet solved.

Question 2. In your opinion, would military involvement in Government research and development of environmental modification affect the credibility of the developing agreement?

Answer. As noted in the Executive Branch statement at the hearing on January 21, the United States Government carries out all of its research and development activities regarding environmental modification techniques on an unclassified basis. There are clearly uses of environmental modification techniques which are not restricted by the Convention, such as the dispersal of fog at one's own airfield, which might warrant military involvement in research and development activities. Such involvement by the military should not affect the credibility of the draft Convention.

Question 3. In Article I of the draft Convention, it states that the prohibition applies only to actions against other parties to the Convention. Why is that necessary?

Answer. The purpose of the limited prohibition, which is common in treaties of this type, is to provide an incentive to join the Convention.

Question 4. What have other delegations said on this point (application of the use prohibition only to actions against other parties to the Convention)?

Answer. Since the CCD has just begun its consideration of the draft Convention this question has not been generally addressed. However,

1

1 Prohibiting Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Oceans and International Environment of the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Ninety-fourth Congress, Second Session, pp. 16-19. Sen. Pell put these questions to Dr. Iklé on Jan. 23 (ante, pp. 13-14). The answers were transmitted in an attachment to a letter by Dr. Iklé, supra.

'I.e., the "Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques." For text, see Documents on Disarmament, 1975, pp. 385–388.

the Netherlands Government has observed that the commitment should apply to all states, not just to States Parties.3

Question 5. In Article V, paragraph 2 of the Convention, it states. that complaints must be lodged with the Security Council. Wouldn't it be more effective to have some other body of the U.N. hear complaints in order to avoid vetoes?

Answer. It is unlikely, as a practical matter, that a permanent member of the Security Council would exercise its veto to prevent an investigation of a complaint brought against it (or an ally), since such an act would probably be taken as confirmation of a violation by many U.N. members.

Question 6. What have other delegations said on this point?

Answer. Sweden has expressed concern about the complaint procedure, and argued that States bound by the Convention should be treated on an equal basis. It has stated that another more acceptable complaint procedure must be developed or that the permanent members of the Security Council must bind themselves formally not to use their right of veto.

Australia has stated that it shares Sweden's concern and supports the Swedish suggestions with some qualifications. Australia has proposed that in view of a lack of technical expertise in the Security Council, it should have the power to call upon technical advice from any expert body, within or outside the U.N. system, when investigating a complaint. Australia has further noted that it does not believe it to be possible or desirable for U.N. technical bodies such as the United Nations Environment Programme to adjudicate disputes.

The Netherlands CCD delegation has stated that the complaints procedure in Article V is unsatisfactory for several reasons. The delegation has said that responsibility for investigating suspected violations should be given to the U.N. Secretary-General instead of to the Security Council and has suggested the creation of a committee of 10-15 treaty parties to assist the Secretary-General in fact-finding. In their view the committee could also advise the Secretary-General on what to do with the results of an investigation, including reporting to the Security Council, and making preparations for periodic review conferences.

Question 7. What are your responses to the specific suggestions and observations made in the testimony given by Congressman Gude and Dr. Weiss?

Answer. Representative GUDE. Mr. Gude's first observation deals with the scope of the prohibition in Article I of the draft Convention. He raises the question whether the phrase "widespread, long-lasting, or severe" should be deleted because of its ambiguity. This observation is addressed in the letter to which these answers are attached. It is

ing

3 Ante, p. 85.

See Prohibiting Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques: Hear

pp. 2-3, 28-30.

correct, as Mr. Gude has stated, that weather modification may produce unintended results. In this respect, the language of the draft is quite clear. Any hostile use having widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects, regardless of the intended scope, would violate the Convention. The hostile uses of some techniques, such as earthquake and tsunami generation, are considered as invariably having widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects, and are, therefore, prohibited outright.

Representative Gude's second observation deals with the analogy to the Biological Weapons Convention, which he suggests can provide a model for a prohibition on research and development of environmental modification, has been addressed in the response to the first question of this set [sic].

Finally, Mr. Gude suggested that all environmental modification research be removed from the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies. This suggestion has been addressed in the response to the second question in this set.

Dr. WEISS. Dr. Weiss' first observation questions the advisability of restricting the scope of the draft Convention to widespread, longlasting, or severe effects. The comments in the letter to which these answers are attached and those above apply to this observation.

Dr. Weiss' second observation questions whether certain uses of environmental modification techniques are covered by the draft Convention. She cites as examples the non-hostile use of fog dispersal techniques to facilitate aircraft movement at one's own airfields, and precipitation modification techniques to increase snowpack in mountain passes or to increase rainfall to wash out jungle trails. It is clear that non-hostile uses of environmental modification techniques are not covered by the terms of the draft Convention. Thus, fog dispersal over one's own airfields would not be prohibited by the Convention. With respect to other types of activities affecting another State Party, if such use constitutes a means of damage, destruction, or injury and has widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects, it would be prohibited. Snowpack enhancement and washing out jungle trails would therefore be prohibited. The third observation made by Dr. Weiss concerns the correlation of the prohibition contained in Article I with the list of effects of the use of environmental modification techniques in Article II. Because certain effects are not listed, she questions whether all uses are prohibited. The presence or absence of any technique in the list does not indicate that it is allowed or prohibited-all hostile uses of all environmental modification techniques having widespread, longlasting, or severe effects would be prohibited by the Convention.

Dr. Weiss' fourth observation concerns possible damage that might be caused to international cooperation in meteorology and the atmospheric sciences.

The Executive Branch attaches great importance to international cooperation in this area and would not wish to jeopardize it in any way. If it became clear that the draft Convention would have a serious adverse effect on international cooperation, we would, of course, review our position very carefully.

The fifth observation by Dr. Weiss concerns the use of environmental modification techniques to facilitate the effectiveness of other weapons. Admiral Davies noted in his testimony that the treaty would not prohibit clearing fog from an airport to facilitate landing of aircraft after a mission. He also indicated that clearing fog over an enemy airport to facilitate bombing it, while perhaps unrealistic, would be permitted under the draft Convention.

Dr. Weiss' sixth observation concerns the complaint procedure. This has been addressed above in the response to the fifth and sixth questions of this set.

Dr. Weiss' seventh observation concerns the obligation to provide assistance to other States Parties to the Convention harmed or likely to be harmed as a result of a violation. Dr. Weiss cites Principles 21 and 22 of the Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, which have been agreed to by the U.S., as inconsistent with this obligation. It should be noted that the Stockholm Declaration was developed in the context of peaceful activities of States.

As her eighth observation Dr. Weiss cites the terms biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere in Article II and asks whether all parts of the environment are included. By using the terms "Earth" and "outer space," Article II makes it clear that "environment" is to be interpreted in a very broad sense. In order to illustrate some of the components of the environment, the terms "biota," "lithosphere," "hydrosphere," and "atmosphere" were used. They should not be taken as limiting the scope of the treaty. Techniques for modifying any part of the environment are envisioned as coming under the Convention. Dr. Weiss' last observation concerns the need to develop regulations on the peaceful uses of weather modification. The view of the Executive Branch remains that, when and if the need for such regulation develops, the draft Convention and whatever regulations on peaceful uses are deemed appropriate should be consistent, but that it is not necessary or desirable to attempt to regulate peaceful uses in this Convention.

Statement by the Argentine Representative (Berasategui) to the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament: Environmental Modification, March 18, 19761

Today my delegation would like to refer again to the draft conventions on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques (CCD/471 and 472).2

To be quite frank, we would have preferred the Committee to take up first of all a number of other matters of unquestionably high pri

'Prohibiting Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques: Hearp. 13.

ing.

For text of the declaration, see UN Monthly Chronicle, vol. IX, no. 7 (July 1972), pp. 89-90.

1CCD/PV.695, pp. 6–14.

'Documents on Disarmament, 1975, pp. 385-388.

253-754 O-78-9