Letter received by British target Ruth Barnett in 2004:

Dear Ruth Barnett,
 
Thank you for your email - please accept this as a reply from both
Green Party Members of English Parliament, myself and Jean Lambert.
 
The subject came to the attention of the Green Group in 1996, and we
have slowly developed a knowledge base and large archive in this
highly specialized area. Although neither of us were MEPs at the
time of the vote in January 1999, the Green Group was the strongest
supporter of the report.
 
Electro-Magnetic (EM) weapons are one of the newest and most serious
military developments in the world today.  Enormous secrecy surrounds
their development, which is helped by the fact that they rely on the
complex physics of non-ionizing radiation and on bio-electromagnetics.
They can be broadly broken down into two categories - those aimed at
the environment and those aimed at living systems, or in reality the
human central nervous system.
 
In the case of the environment, very large quantities of energy can
be literally 'broadcast', like radio, to create certain special
environmental effects - radical changes in the ionosphere to affect
communications, and possibly even the weather, as well as reflection
to earth to perform such feats as x-raying the earth to find
underground installations, possibly large transfers of energy to
power equipment, or to apply destructive forces anywhere on earth,
including EMP effects (Electro-Magnetic Pulse, associated with
nuclear explosions), and simpler tasks like submarine communication,
using very long waves.
 
The more sinister aspect concerns the ability to use low energy
density waves of particular frequencies and special waveforms to
literally 'tune into' the human central nervous system (CNS),
something that has been achieved in the laboratory, according to
publicly available scientific literature. This might be done on an
individual scale, to temporarily or perhaps permanently alter
psychological states, so as to elicit certain behaviours from
human beings.  It is alleged that many victims have been tested
involuntarily for decades now with this technology.

It is also suggested that these weapons have been used in some
actions, most especially the Gulf War and against the Greenham
Common women in the UK.  In this case they would have a mass effect,
in that they are aimed at large groups.  This use is sought not
only by the military, but, alarmingly, by the police forces as well,
clearly for the purpose of controlling unruly domestic populations.

Once achieved, such a system might become irreversible, or
unstoppable.
 
This subject also has very serious implications for standard
setting for non-ionizing radiation, because the levels of exposure
at which one can manipulate the human being are very low indeed,
since it is the tuning and the waveform which matter, not the
levels, which is the reason that Russian exposure standards are
apparently 1000 times lower than the US standards.
 
It is worth comparing the standard setting processes for non-
ionizing and for ionizing radiation, as they are remarkably similar.
The military, via the International Commission on Radiological
Protection (ICRP), played a major role in originally setting
ionizing standards at ridiculously high levels by burying or
ignoring the science, leading to the need for continuous
reductions in the acceptable exposure levels.

Something similar appears to happening with non-ionizing radiation,
in that a very similar unelected 'independent' advisory committee
(ICNIRP - International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation
Protection) has offered advice in this area, which is accepted
blindly by the European Commission, despite the fact that, once
again, much of the science is being ignored, and the precautionary
principle, for some odd reason, seems not to apply.  The fact that
two of the US representatives on ICNIRP have been associated with
the military has echoes of the past, and is most suspicious. 
 
The focus of public attention so far has been a project in Alaska
called HAARP (High frequency Active Auroral Research Program), which
is a massive 'array' transmitter designed to manipulate the
ionosphere for military purposes - communications effects, earth
x-rays, and possibly weather manipulation (despite conventions
banning this).  But the range of uses of this basic technology is
very wide, much wider than its predecessor, ionizing radiation
(nuclear).

The primary difference is that electromagnetic waves can be "tuned"
so as to have certain effects on living systems, whereas the
"chaotic" nature of ionizing radiation does not facilitate this
and the result of exposure to it is normally direct damage only.
As stated above, scientists have been able to "tune" EM to
facilitate remote direct communication with the central nervous
systems of living creatures, and they are of course especially
interested in using this fact to manipulate human beings.
 
They were used in a crude form by the Soviets against the US
Moscow embassy in the '60s with fatal consequences for the
ambassador himself, and it is believed that they were used in what
is called a 'superfence' against the Greenham Common women, and
also to demotivate the Iraqi troops during the Gulf War.  The
Soviets tried in the 70s to prevent an arms race in this area by
means of a Convention, but the US rejected these efforts, and has
moved ahead very rapidly, also within NATO, into a dominant
position.
 
Unless this development is stopped, we are entering an Orwellian
'1984' type scenario, which could potentially permanently transfer
enormous power to those in control of the technology.  It must also
be seen in the wider context of the one-sided arms race currently
underway, where the US is re-arming, by continuing with 'Star Wars',
and is aiming to be totally dominant in 'Space Power' by 2020.

Electromagnetic weapons play a key role here, alongside ABMs,
lasers and particle beam weapons.

We are of course totally opposed to the development and deployment
of these weapons.  We regard  the unsuccessful attempts in the 70s
of the former Soviet Union to have these weapons controlled by a
UN Convention as having been a major missed opportunity, which has
now led to a new arms race in this field.  We have sought to renew
the attempt to have a Convention to outlaw these weapons and the
research that leads to them, primarily that concerning external
manipulation of the human central nervous system.
 
The Greens achieved the quite remarkable Parliament resolution on
January 28th 199, damning the US for not being willing to even come
to discuss the matter with the Parliament, and in particular
attacking the HAARP project in Alaska, calling for a Parliament
STOA study on it, while also calling in rather vague terms for a
ban on the manipulation of human beings.
 
Yours sincerely, 
 
Dr Caroline Lucas 
Green Party MEP for South East England
