THE world is waiting to see whether or not Saddam Hussein will use chemical weapons against the troops invading Iraq. But it is the US that is in danger of breaching the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention.
At issue is the use of 鈥渘on-lethal鈥� riot-control agents such as tear gas and pepper spray, which the US military has allegedly taken to the Gulf. According to some experts, this act alone could be interpreted as 鈥渕ilitary preparations to use chemical weapons鈥�, specifically prohibited by the convention.
Under the convention, which the US and Britain have signed but Iraq has not, the legal status of riot-control agents depends on their intended use. Deploying them to enforce laws, such as controlling a riot by your own civilians, is expressly permitted. But the convention specifically rules out their use in warfare: for example, to flush enemy soldiers out of bunkers so they can be shot, as the US did in the Vietnam War.
Advertisement
No one is publicly advocating this approach in Iraq. But does this mean that riot-control agents cannot be used at all in a military situation? Many argue that in the confusing situations facing troops in Iraq, such weapons could save lives. For example, if the Iraqis use human shields to frustrate coalition attacks, tear gas might allow troops to separate civilians from combatants. After all, they argue, why can鈥檛 an army use on its enemy something that a police force can use on its own population?
Britain, at least, has ruled them out. Non-lethal chemical weapons will not be used in any military operations, defence minister Geoff Hoon told a briefing last week.
But there are clear signs that the US is seriously considering the use of riot-control agents. In February, the US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed that in certain situations their use would be 鈥減erfectly appropriate鈥�.
After Vietnam, President Ford signed Executive Order 11850 restricting the use of riot agents in battle to two situations, and then only with presidential approval: against human shields or in rescue missions to save isolated troops from a mob. But it seems that President Bush has already specifically sanctioned the use of riot-control agents in Iraq. In an email seen by 快猫短视频, the US Department of Defense says that the decision to use them now rests with commanders in the field.
Many would see deploying riot agents against human shields as stretching the permitted use of riot-control agents under the treaty past the breaking point. The issue of whether, and in which situations, an army can use these agents was debated when the convention was drafted. Then as now, some argued that the chemicals could reduce civilian deaths. The problem was drafting rules for their use: how do you write a set of rules that allows for the dispersal of a human shield while banning the 鈥渟moking out鈥� of enemy soldiers from a bunker so they can be shot?
Even if one country wanted to change the rules, there is little chance of other signatories agreeing to renegotiate the convention just six years after it finally came into force. And in the current climate of hostility to arms control, there鈥檚 a risk that re-opening the treaty for negotiation could kill it. 鈥淲e are in danger of throwing away our only safeguard,鈥� says Julian Perry Robinson, an authority on the convention at the University of Sussex in Britain.
Also, the designation of riot-control agents as 鈥渘on-lethal鈥� is something of a misnomer, says Alistair Hay, an expert in chemical weapons at Leeds University. 鈥淚t鈥檚 doubtful you would get away without casualties,鈥� he says. 鈥淚f people don鈥檛 come out of a building and concentrations inside are high then they will die.鈥�
Another problem is that in war it could be hard for one side to know what chemical the other has used. Iraq might retaliate with more deadly chemicals if indeed Saddam Hussein has them. 鈥淪ince World War I, every use of lethal chemical weapons on the battlefield has been preceded by the use of some type of non-lethal or riot control agent,鈥� says Elisa Harris, former director of nonproliferation for the US National Security Council.