EU questions (fears) HAARP openly (EU-report download)

I stumbled upon a fragment of the report from 1999 from the EU on another site (www.niburu.nl). I have viewed and read most on HAARP that can be found on the web, I thought, but never knew the EU openly discussed the matter and asked US military and researchers to give their explanation on the continuation of the HAARP project. The US HAARP people did not attend the meeting.

I did not know that there was a controversy between the EU and the US on the subject. The EU regard HAARP definitely as a weapon.

I will give a citation and a LINK to the full report from the EU.
TITLE: REPORT
on the environment, security and foreign policy
Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy

"HAARP - a weapons system which disrupts the climate
On 5 February 1998 Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament held a hearing the subject of which included HAARP. NATO and the US had been invited to send representatives, but chose not to do so. The Committee regrets the failure of the USA to send a representative to answer questions, or to use the opportunity to comment on the material submitted.(22)
HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) is run jointly by the US Air Force and Navy, in conjunction with the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Similar experiments are also being conducted in Norway, probably in the Antarctic, as well as in the former
Soviet Union.(23) HAARP is a research project using a ground based apparatus, an array of antennae each powered by its own transmitter, to heat up portions of ionosphere with powerful radio beams.(24) The energy generated heats up parts of the ionosphere; this results in holes in the
ionosphere and produces artificial ’lenses’.
HAARP can be used for many purposes. Enormous quantities of energy can be controlled by manipulating the electrical characteristics of the atmosphere. If used as a military weapon this can have a devastating impact on an enemy. HAARP can deliver millions of times more energy to a
given area than any other conventional transmitter. The energy can also be aimed at a moving target which should constitute a potential anti-missile system.
The project would also allow better communications with submarines and manipulation of global weather patterns, but it is also possible to do the reverse, to disrupt communications. By manipulating the ionosphere one could block global communications while transmitting one’s own.
Another application is earth-penetrating, tomography, x-raying the earth several kilometres deep, (25) In 1958 the US Navy exploded 3 devices containing nuclear material 480 km above the South Atlantic. Designed by the US Department of Defence and the Atomic Energy Commission under the code name Project Argus. Source: Dr Rosalie Bertell.
(26) Article 1, the Antarctic Treaty. DOC_EN\RR\370\370003 - 20 - PE 227.710/fin. to detect oil and gas fields, or underground military facilities. Over-the-horizon radar is another application, looking round the curvature of the earth for in-coming objects. From the 1950s the USA conducted explosions of nuclear material in the Van Allen Belts(25) to
investigate the effect of the electro-magnetic pulse generated by nuclear weapon explosions at these heights on radio communications and the operation of radar. This created new magnetic radiation belts which covered nearly the whole earth. The electrons travelled along magnetic lines of force and created an artificial Aurora Borealis above the North Pole. These military tests are liable to disrupt the Van Allen belt for a long period. The earth’s magnetic field could be disrupted over large areas,
which would obstruct radio communications. According to US scientists it could take hundreds of years for the Van Allen belt to return to normal. HAARP could result in changes in weather patterns.
It could also influence whole ecosystems, especially in the sensitive Antarctic regions. Another damaging consequence of HAARP is the occurrence of holes in the ionosphere caused by the powerful radio beams. The ionosphere protects us from incoming cosmic radiation. The hope is that the holes will fill again, but our experience of change in the ozone layer points in the other direction. This means substantial holes in the ionosphere that protects us.With its far-reaching impact on the environment HAARP is a matter of global concern and we have to ask whether its advantages really outweigh the risks. The environmental impact and the ethical aspect must be closely examined before any further research and testing takes place. HAARP is a project of which the public is almost completely unaware, and this needs to be remedied.
HAARP has links with 50 years of intensive space research for military purposes, including the Star Wars project, to control the upper atmosphere and communications. This kind of research has to be
regarded as a serious threat to the environment, with an incalculable impact on human life. Even now nobody knows what impact HAARP may have. We have to beat down the wall of secrecy around military research, and set up the right to openness and democratic scrutiny of military research projects, and parliamentary control.
A series of international treaties and conventions (the Convention on the prohibition of military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, the Antarctic Treaty, the Treaty on
principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space including the moon and other celestial bodies, and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) casts considerable
doubt on HAARP on legal as well as humanitarian and political grounds. The Antarctic Treaty lays down that the Antarctic may be used exclusively for peaceful purposes.(26) This would mean that
HAARP is a breach of international law. All the implications of the new weapons systems should be examined by independent international bodies. Further international agreements should be sought to protect the environment from unnecessary destruction in war."

Just thought this was something that belonged on ATS as a source.
I often read articles that suggest that the big governmental bodies are all in cohoots with each other. This proofs the opposite in my opninion.
I applaud the initiators of this report.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by Pjotr]

[edit on 7-11-2007 by Pjotr]

My interpretation of that report is that that particular EU committee regarded HAARP as a potential environmental threat because they did not know what the long term consequences of it's use might be on the ionosphere and climate trends. Although I wonder how much those involved understand the ionosphere? It's no different to expressing concern over the possible long term environmental/climatic impact of nuclear tests, for example.

Their conclusion is that they:

Considers HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) by virtue of its farreaching impact on the environment to be a global concern and calls for its legal, ecological and ethical implications to be examined by an international independent body before any further research and testing;

My guess is that the US didn't take a blind bit of notice though!

I do note the comment about it's potential use of a weapon to shoot down incoming missiles. It's difficult to know just how speculative the comments made are, but I don't see any scientific support in the paper and it seems to be more a call for more information than an informed opinion on the subject.

I do also note there's no mention of using HAARP to control hurricanes or cause earthquakes


But a good find and well worth posting

[edit on 7-11-2007 by Essan]

Swords into Ploughshares

Good work, Pjotr!

The way I read it is something like this.

The actual Resolution that was presented to the European Parliament wasn't about HAARP specifically. Its purpose was to support the adaptation of military weapons technology to peaceful use.

The references to HAARP are tacked on; they don't fit well with the rest of the resolution text. It is clearly something one of the drafters of the resolution was concerned about. Although the resolution was adopted by the Parliament, the adoption probably has much more to do with the other contents than with HAARP. The entry in the European Parliament's Daily Notebook for 28 January 1999 makes this rather clear.

Defence spending - turning swords into environmental ploughshares

(A4-0005/99 - Theorin)

Thursday 28 January - MEPs voted to adopt this resolution which calls for a common strategy bringing together the CFSP aspects of EU policy with its trade, aid, development and international environmental policies. The vote was 127 in favour with 21 against and 115 abstentions. The resolution notes that the armed forces can make a substantial contribution to the prevention of environmental damage. However the call in the report for the introduction of training for environmental defence troops with a view to establishing a coordinated European environmental protection brigade was rejected. The resolution also expresses concern about the American HAARP project and its possible detrimental effects on the environment, and regrets the repeated refusal of the US administration to send anyone in person to give evidence to Parliament.

Clearly no-one thought the HAARP clauses mattered very much, one way or the other.

A good analogy for what happened here would be with the odd little clauses that get tacked on to bills in the US legislature and get adopted (sometimes more or less unnoticed), along with the bill when it is voted in. Most of these clauses have nothing to do with the main intent of the bill but merely contain pork for constituents and lobbies. I suspect the HAARP clauses in Resolution A4 - 0005/99 were there to please some of the more vocal European environmental and peace lobbies.

As incriminating evidence against HAARP, I feel it lacks a certain something.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
Swords into Ploughshares

As incriminating evidence against HAARP, I feel it lacks a certain something.

[edit on 7-11-2007 by Astyanax]

I agree competely. I was surprised that HAARP was noticed by these people and that they question it, I was not surprised that they sum up most of the general questions that you can come up with concerning HAARP. They are not scientists, like most politicians. To get topics like this seriously researched they need back up. Let alone if this is possible, it is a US matter in the first place.