ing the prohibition to include some verifiable forms of military research and development; by perhaps deleting the requirement that complaints must be lodged with the Security Council where a veto could block action, and by deleting the language which restricts the benefits of the prohibition against environmental warfare to those nations which are parties to the convention. Finally, I would like to have the Defense Department's reaction to the statements made by Bernard A. Power, president of Weather Engineering Corp. of Canada, in an address to the Canadian Meteorological Society on December 9, this past year, alleging that this subcommittee was not informed of all of the Defense Department's weather modification activities in Southeast Asia during the course of the hearings held in March 1974. Our first witness today is Congressman Gilbert Gude. Would you please come forward. STATEMENT OF HON. GILBERT GUDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 8TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF MARYLAND Mr. GUDE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to share with you and the other members of this subcommittee my thoughts on the draft Convention Prohibiting the Military or other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques. When I first appeared before your subcommittee in July 1972, I discussed the dangers posed to peace by the development and proliferation of weather modification techniques as weapons, and I spoke in favor of Senate Resolution 281 [later changed to S. Res. 71], then before the subcommittee, which proposed an international treaty banning environmental and geophysical warfare. It was due to your continued efforts, Mr. Chairman, that the Senate passed this resolution during its next session. Undoubtedly, this action helped move the executive branch toward the draft convention made public last August. Given the difficulty of finding a formula acceptable to both parties, I would also commend the U.S. negotiating team, headed by Adm. Thomas Davies, for producing, in concert with the Soviet delegation, a draft document for presentation before the U.N.'s Conference of the Committee on Disarmament [CCD]. Unfortunately, the proposed treaty does not completely embody the good sense of the Senate as expressed in the above-mentioned resolution. I believe that, in its current form, the draft convention contains loopholes, and thus does not provide the comprehensive ban on environmental warfare we need. It is these deficiencies I will discuss today. INTENT AND EFFECTS TESTS OF DRAFT CONVENTION My major concern is over the language of the crucial first article. I think that we can agree that the words, "widespread, long-lasting, or severe" in paragraph I are vague, and furthermore a prohibition so expressed would still permit a certain amount of hostile weather modification activity. In an effort to determine precisely what forms of modification would not fall under this article, I wrote to Dr. Fred Ikle, Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and requested clarification. My letter of September 5, 1975, and his response are appended to this testimony. As one can see from Dr. Ikle's letter, the draft treaty still permits certain types of weather modification, as long as they were not used directly for destructive purposes. The example he offers is fog dispersal to facilitate aircraft takeoffs and landings, and I agree that there is no reason we should seek to limit the use of such techniques since their chief result is to increase crew safety. However, I would like to call your attention to Dr. Ikle's comment on the unsuccessful rainmaking campaign waged by the United States in Indochina during the 1960's. This is in the third paragraph of his September 24 letter. Such operations are not prohibited per se, only those which might produce "widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects." Presumably such operations aimed at producing local, ephemeral, or mild effects, such as local cloudbursts or thunderstorms are permissible. But the Indochina episode illustrates the danger of drawing distinctions in terms of degree; weather modification is an uncertain science and its effects frequently defy prediction. In Vietnam our efforts to create major storms apparently fell far short of their intended goal, but who can say when in the future we might seed for an increase in local rainfall and produce a major flood. I know of no documented military examples of this, but a suit has been filed in this country alleging that the flood which struck Rapid City, S. Dak., in June 1972, which killed 200 people, was directly attributable to a civilian cloud-seeding operation gone tragically awry. The point is that since weather modification may produce unintended results, we cannot be sure that limited operations will not produce the widespread, long-lasting, or severe effects proscribed by the agreement. In sum, the language of the draft convention would impose both an intent test and an effects test on environmental modification techniques. An intent test-what is the purpose of the modification activity is valid, though not conclusive. An action could have deleterious effects regardless of its intent, as in the Rapid City case, and such effects would not necessarily impact only on the intended recipients. The effects test-widespread, long-lasting, or sever-raises important problems because such a test can really be applied only after the fact. One cannot determine the effects until after the modification activity has taken place, at which point it might be too late. Obviously those hostile measures which are not expected to work will not be proposed, and to ban them does not make a meaningful treaty. An outright ban on all warfare by environmental modification is more to the point. NONPROHIBITION OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR MILITARY PURPOSES I was also disappointed that the draft treaty tabled before the CCD, unlike the draft treaty proposed in the Senate resolution, contains no provisions to prohibit research and development of environmental modification techniques for military purposes. In saying this, I recognize that enforcing such a ban would be extremely difficult, given that the development of certain modification techniques for peaceful uses is a legitimate goal of Government and scientific research. In addition, the possibility that civilian research might be adapted to destructive purposes is always present. However, I offer as a model the International Convention on Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons signed in April 1972. In this document only good faith and the right to bring suspected violations before the U.N. Security Council assure that legitimate civilian research is not perverted to hostile use. I believe that a similar statement calling for an end to research on environmental modification techniques for military purposes would be an important addition to an international ban on hostile modification activity. Toward this end, my colleague, Mr. Fraser, and I wrote to the President on July 31, 1975, requesting a statement of intent on the environmental modification issue, and urging a strong stand against the hostile use of modification techniques. We further urged that the President remove all environmental modification research from the Department of Defense and intelligence agencies. Dr. Ikle, writing for the President, responded and assured us that all DOD research in this field is unclassified. Nonetheless, I suggest that such experimentation does not belong in the Defense Department, particularly after the United States has taken a leading role in introducing a treaty prohibiting the manipulation of the environment as a weapon. It is doubtful that any treaty would be credible as long as its signatories continue research and development under military aegis. TREATY IS IMPORTANT FIRST STEP FORWARD These objections notwithstanding, the treaty prohibiting the use of environmental modification as a weapon is an important step forward in that it closes an entire field of science to hostile applications before large weapons development programs have been devised. Admiral Davies has informed me that the treaty has been favorably received by other U.N. members since it was tabled last August 21. It is scheduled for discussion during the upcoming session of the CCD in February, and Admiral Davies anticipates that it will be submitted to the U.N. General Assembly later this year. Hopefully, that body will give it all due considerations, for prompt agreement in this area is in the interest of all nations. All too frequently we do not begin to deal seriously with new weapons until they have become thoroughly established and nations have vested interests in preserving them. This time we have an opportunity to approach a new and possibly dangerous field in an orderly and systematic way that can only contribute both to world peace and to the supremacy of international law. The administration is to be commended for its work thus far and urged to move forward on obtaining the agreement of other nations to a strong treaty. Mr. Chairman, I would like to place in the record the several pieces of correspondence between Congressman Fraser and myself and the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in regard to this matter. Senator PELL. They will be placed in the record. [The information referred to follows:] HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, D.C., September 5, 1975. Dr. FRED C. IKLE, Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, DEAR DR. IKLE: Publication of the draft Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques has raised new questions about government policy in addition to those posed in the recent letter from Congressman Fraser and myself. The text of the draft convention, specifically Article I(1), and various public comments on it have drawn attention to its possible ambiguity and the question of whether some hostile weather modification activities might effectively be excluded from the convention's terms. I would ask then specifically what forms of weather modification could conceivably be regarded as not included in the convention? My particular interest is in the rain and fog creation and dispersal. Would the convention prohibit all rainmaking activities? If not, specifically what categories of rain or fog projects would be sanctioned? Is it your view that a rainmaking project such as that undertaken over Indochina in the late 1960s would be prohibited by this draft convention? Would, as a further example, similar projects to create drought also be prohibited? Let me make clear that I have favored weather modification research for peaceful purposes-rainmaking for agricultural purposes is a prime example but I want to insure that there is no doubt that the intent of the convention as well as the letter of its language are to prohibit all hostile uses of weather modification without exception. I hope you will be able to provide me with that assurance. Sincerely, GILBERT GUDE. On September 24 Dr. Ikle responded with a more thorough explanation of the draft convention : Hon. GILBERT GUDE, U.S. House of Representatives. U.S. ARMS CONTROL DEAR CONGRESSMAN GUDE: A short time ago I replied to the letter you and Congressman Fraser sent to the President in July. In that letter I noted the tabling at the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD) on August 21 of identical United States and U.S.S.R. drafts of a multilateral Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, which had been negotiated pursuant to the Joint Statement of July 3, 1974. Because other nations will want to discuss, and perhaps suggest modifications to the U.S.-Soviet approach embodied in the draft Convention, the final outcome of the forthcoming negotiations at the CCD cannot be predicted at this time. However, the questions in your recent letter of September 5 can be answered in terms of the tabled draft as it is understood by the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. The term "environmental modification techniques", as used in the draft, encompasses all forms of weather modification, including precipitation modification, and the dispersal or creation of fog. The Convention would prohibit any hostile use of such techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury to another State Party. Thus, the convention would permit the nonhostile use of weather modification techniques, for example fog dispersal to facilitate the launch or recovery of aircraft at one's own airfields, since this does not constitute use as a means of destruction, damage or injury. The United States precipitation modification efforts in Southeast Asia during the 1960's apparently did not achieve the damaging effects on the enemy that are the inherent objective of military operations, thus demonstrating the present substantial inadequacies in the technology of precipitation modification. However, it is my view that if future progress should make this technology effective so that its use had widespread, long-lasting or severe effects, its use would be prohibited. If drought were the objective, the same would be true. 66-312-76 The anticipatory nature of the proposed Convention carries with it many of the basic uncertainties of the future, and I anticipate criticisms of different aspects of the agreement from several sides. The alternative to action now would be to attempt restraint at a later time, when the possibilities of hostile use of environmental modification techniques may be more real. An agreement on prohibitions might then be more difficult to achieve. I appreciate your strong interest and support in this effort, and trust that this responds to your inquiry. We will keep you advised of progress as it occurs. Sincerely, FRED C. IKLE. It is my view that this correspondence, along with a meeting I had with Dr. Ikle and two members of his staff clarifies a number of the questions that have been raised about the treaty, though some of our basic concerns about the scope of Federal weather modification activities remain. The correspondence does make clear the scope of the treaty, and though it is clearly not as ironclad as I had hoped, it is fair to say that it is not as weak as some originally suggested when it was first made public. If the CCD approves the draft convention and the United States becomes a party to it, I would hope to raise some further questions about it at that time. In addition, I intend to further pursue the questions we began with-the creation of a lead agency and the shifting of weather modification research into civilian agencies. We have yet to receive a satisfactory response from the White House on these issues, and I am now in the process of drafting appropriate legislation to remedy the situation, which may be the only answer. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, The PRESIDENT, DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: In keeping with our long-standing interest in the international implications of the use of environmental modification, we now write you requesting a statement of intent on U.S. policy regarding the hostile uses of environmental modification. The Subcommittee on International Organizations held a hearing Tuesday, July 29, 1975 to receive testimony on H. Res. 28 (which is enclosed), and to explore progress and prospects for efforts to secure an international agreement banning research, experimentation, or activities involving environmental modifications for hostile purposes. Unfortunately, the scheduled Administration witness, Admiral Thomas Davies of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, was withdrawn, and clarification of the Administration's position on this issue was not possible. Attached are some questions whose answers will help clarify public and Congressional understanding of this issue area. We are most concerned that this Government not advance any proposal, or enter into any agreement legitimizing directly or indirectly-any form of environmental warfare. Although the technology for exotic environmental modification is distant, the potential for some environmental warfare is still real. Therefore, we urge you to take a clear stand, publicly and internationally, against any hostile uses of any form of environmental modification, and that this position be articulated in all U.S. talks on this issue. As one step in this direction, we further urge you to remove any environmental modification research, Experimentation, or activities from the Department of Defense, its service components, and U.S. intelligence agencies, placing them instead in full public view within appropriate domestic civilian agencies. Also, because we know so little of the possibilities and consequences of environmental modification, we encourage you to support as well the upcoming international scientific research to be conducted by the World Meteorological Organization in 1977. This is an issue with great and long-lasting import for the American people and mankind. Environmental modification of some types can conceivably be beneficial to both, and we fully support its development and use for peaceful, humanitarian purposes. We look forward to your response to the attached questions, and hope for your favorable consideration of our recommendations. With best wishes. Sincerely yours, DONALD M. FRASER, M.C., |