When Saddam Hussein so pig-headedly failed to shower US troops with chemical weapons as they entered Iraq,thus depriving them of a retrospective justification for this war, the American generals explained that hewould do so as soon as they crossed the "red line" around Baghdad. Beyond that point, the desperatedictator would lash out with every weapon he possessed.
Well, the line has been crossed and recrossed, and not a whiff of mustard gas or VX has so far beendetected. This could mean one of three things. Saddam's command system may have broken down (he may be dead,or his troops might have failed to receive or respond to his orders); he is refraining, so far, from usingthem; or he does not possess them.
Advertisement
The special forces sent to seize Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have found no hard evidence at any ofthe 12 sites (identified by the Pentagon as the most likely places) they have examined so far. As Newsweekrevealed in February, there may be a reason for this: in 1995, General Hussein Kamel, the defector whoseevidence George Bush, Tony Blair and Colin Powell have cited as justification for their invasion, told the UNthat the Iraqi armed forces, acting on his instructions, had destroyed the last of their banned munitions.1But, whether Saddam Hussein is able to use such weapons or not, their deployment in Iraq appears to beimminent, for the Americans seem determined to do so.
Advertisement
Chemicals can turn corners, seep beneath doors, inexorably fill a building or a battlefield. They can killor disable biological matter while leaving the infrastructure intact. They are the weapons which reach theparts other weapons cannot. They are also among the most terrifying instruments of war: this is why SaddamHussein used them to such hideous effect, both in Iran and against the Kurds of Halabja. And, for an occupyingarmy trying not to alienate local people or world opinion, those chemicals misleadingly labelled"non-lethal" appear to provide a possibility of capturing combatants without killing civilians.
This, to judge by a presidential order and a series of recent statements, now seems to be the USgovernment's chosen method for dealing with Iraqi soldiers sheltering behind human shields, when itsconventional means of completing the capture of Baghdad have been exhausted. It makes a certain kind of sense,until two inconvenient issues are taken into account. The deployment of these substances would break theconventions designed to contain them; and the point of this war, or so we have endlessly been told, is toprevent the use of chemical weapons.
Last week George Bush authorised US troops to use tear gas in Iraq.2 He is permitted to do so byan executive order published in 1975 by Gerald Ford, which overrides, within the US, the 1925 Geneva Protocolon chemical weapons. While this may prevent his impeachment in America, it has no standing in internationallaw.
The Chemical Weapons Convention, promoted by George W's father and ratified by the United States in 1997,insists that "each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare."3Tear gas, pepper spray and other incapacitants may be legally used on your own territory for the purposes ofpolicing. They may not be used in another country to control or defeat the enemy.
Advertisement
For the past two months, US officials have been seeking to wriggle free from this constraint. In February,the defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, told Congress's armed services committee that "there are timeswhen the use of non-lethal riot agents is perfectly appropriate."4 He revealed that he and thechairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Richard Myers, had been "trying to fashion rules ofengagement" for the use of chemical weapons in Iraq.5
Rumsfeld, formerly the chief executive of GD Searle, one of the biggest drugs firms in the US, has neverbeen an enthusiast for the Chemical Weapons Convention. In 1997, as the senate was preparing to ratify thetreaty, he told its committee on foreign relations that the convention "will impose a costly and complexregulatory burden on US industry".6 Enlisting the kind of self-fulfilling prophecy with whichwe have since become familiar, he maintained that it was not "realistic", as global disarmament"is not a likely prospect".7 Dick Cheney, now vice-president, asked the committee torecord his "strong opposition" to ratification.8
Advertisement
Last month Victoria Clarke, an assistant secretary in Chemical Donald's department, wrote to theIndependent on Sunday, confirming the decision to use riot control agents in Iraq, and claiming, withoutsupporting evidence, that their deployment would be legal.9 Last week the US Marine Corps told theAsia Times that "CS gas and pepper spray had already been shipped to the Gulf".10 Thegovernment of the United States appears to be on the verge of committing a war crime in Iraq.
Given that the entire war contravenes international law, does it matter? It does, for three reasons. Themost immediate is that there is no such thing as a non-lethal chemical weapon. Gases which merely incapacitateat low doses, in well-ventilated places, kill when injected into rooms, as the Russian special forces found inOctober when they slaughtered 128 of the 700 hostages they were supposed to be liberating from a Moscowtheatre. It is impossible to deliver a sufficient dose to knock out combatants without also delivering asufficient dose to kill some of their captives.11
Advertisement
The second reason is that, if they still possess them, it may induce the Iraqi fighters to retaliate withchemical weapons of their own. At the same time, it encourages the other nations now threatened with attack byGeorge Bush to start building up their chemical arsenals: if the US is not prepared to play by the rules, whyshould they?
The third reason is that the use of gas in Iraq may serve, in the eyes of US citizens, to help legitimiseAmerica's illegal chemical weapons development programme. As the US weapons research group the SunshineProject has documented, the defence department and the army are experimenting with chemicals which cause pain,fear, convulsions, hallucinations and unconsciousness, and developing the hollow mortar rounds required todeliver them.12 Among the weapons they are testing is fentanyl, the drug which turned the Moscowtheatre into a gas chamber.13 Since March 2002, the government's "non-lethal weaponsdirectorate" has been training the Marine Corps in the use of chemical weapons.14
Advertisement
All these activities break the convention. The deployment of chemicals in Baghdad could be the event whichfinally destroys the treaties designed to contain them, and this, in turn, would be another step towards thedemolition of international law and the inception of a bloody and brutal era, in which might is unconstrainedby universal notions of right.
You cannot use chemical weapons to wage war against chemical weapons. They are, as the convention makesclear, the instruments of terrorists. By deploying them, the US government would erase one of the remainingmoral distinctions between its own behaviour and that of the man it asks us to abominate.
Advertisement
References:
1. John Barry, 3 March 2003. Exclusive: The Defector’s Secrets. Newsweek. See also: UKExpert's Analysis Reveals More Lies and Distortions from US and UK, which links to the original documents.
2. The Straits Times, 3rd April 2003. Teargas use equals chemical war? ; The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 2nd April 2003. U.S. Troops Can Use TearGas, Pentagon Says.
3. Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weaponsand on their destruction, Paris 13 January 1993.
4. Testimony of Secretary Of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Before The 108th Congress House Armed ServicesCommittee, 5 February 2003. Federal News Service.
Advertisement
5. ibid
6. Cited in Stephen Kerr, 27 February 2003. ForThe President And Poison Gas. Znet.
7. ibid
8. ibid
9. Victoria Clarke, 9th March 2003. Letter to The Independent on Sunday.
10. David Isenberg, 1st April, 2003. Next up: 'Non-lethal' chemicals that kill. The Asia Times.
11. Eg Alastair Hay, 12 March 2003. Out of the straitjacket. The Guardian.
12. The Sunshine Project, 11 February 2003. Pentagon Perverts Pharma with New Weapons; US "NonLethal" Chemical (and Biochemical) Weapons Research: ACollection of Documents Detailing a Dangerous Program.
13. ibid
14. US Marine Corps contract M67004-99-D-0037, purchase request number M9545002RCR2BA7, December 2001Non-Lethal Weapons: Acquisitions, Capabilities, Doctrine, & Strategy: ACourse of Instruction.
