Introduction to translation:
The Israeli occupation state has used white phosphorus in Gaza more than once, and may expand its use of chemical warfare tools in its upcoming ground attack on the besieged Strip. Every time a chemical weapon is used, people wonder what the fuss about it is about. Isn’t it an ordinary weapon like other weapons? Why is it considered forbidden? Why do some international agreements oppose its use? In this article, Ben Heineman of The Atlantic explains the matter.
Translation text:
The year 2013 witnessed a widespread global debate about whether force should be taken against the Syrian government due to its use of sarin gas on civilians (which is a type of deadly chemical weapon, and is considered one of the most deadly toxic gases, as it affects the central nervous system and disrupts its functions, leading to paralysis. Complete respiratory failure and ultimately killing the victim. That controversy depended in part on whether the reasons that prompted the signing of a convention after World War I to prevent the use of chemical and biological weapons were still respected among countries.
The 1925 Geneva Protocol focused less on the horrific twentieth-century technology that led to mass slaughter in World War I than on chemical warfare. It is true that the advanced technologies of warfare at that time, such as barbed wire, automatic weapons, and cannons, left behind horrific and incomprehensible effects on the soldiers, to the point where military combat tactics in the nineteenth century became obsolete and outdated, but the impact of the use of gas on the Western and Eastern fronts is what led to Banning chemical and biological warfare, even though it caused only about 1% of deaths at the time.
Completely different approach
The Geneva Protocol considered the use of gas in wars to be a completely different approach from other methods of mass killing, which in turn led to the prohibition of the use of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases, in addition to the prohibition of bacteriological methods of warfare (which is the use of microscopic organisms such as bacteria or viruses). As a means of mass killing or spreading diseases in the context of military conflicts. At that time, the International Red Cross, religious leaders, politicians, and military institutions decided to present three arguments aimed at convincing people of the importance of banning the use of chemical and biological weapons in war.
The first reason revolved around the unique killing methods and the special suffering that gases caused to victims in World War I. The Germans used it for the first time against the British in the Battle of Ypres in 1915, and all armies resorted to it after that. Chlorine then caused damage to the ears and eyes and death from suffocation, and was later replaced by phosgene, a colorless gas that damages the lungs and then suffocates after a period of exposure. As for mustard gas, it causes ulcers on the external skin and internal organs, especially the lungs, and may ultimately kill the victim after a long journey of suffering. Even those who survive often suffer for the rest of their lives from serious respiratory and other health problems resulting from inhaling such gases.
The second reason behind prohibiting the use of such gases is their “indiscriminate effect” on battlefields. Gases used in chemical warfare spread widely in the atmosphere, and air currents may carry them back onto soldiers or civilian populations. This uncontrolled aspect of chemical warfare has led some military leaders on all sides to object to the use of such gases.
Related Post
The third reason revolves around fear of an unknown future. Although the number of actual deaths and injuries resulting from chemical warfare was small compared to the horrific total of other warfare techniques, there remained concern about its wider and more widespread use in the future, and the terrifying and inhumane images of soldiers wearing gas masks played a role in feeding those emotional fears.
From Japan to Israel
Together, these reasons created a special level of public fear and loathing that prompted collective action embodied in the 1925 Protocol. The Protocol stated that such wars were condemned by the public opinion of the civilized world. Forty nations originally agreed to the Protocol, and today more than There are 130 countries that have adopted the protocol, although the United States did not officially adopt it until 1975.
The exceptional nature of chemical and biological warfare was embodied in the Chemical Weapons Convention, which entered into force in 1997. The convention sought to address many of the shortcomings of the Geneva Protocol by prohibiting the manufacture and stockpiling of such chemical weapons. The agreement also required the destruction of existing stockpiles, the establishment of a verification system and a special monitoring body, and indeed 193 countries have ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (Israel signed the convention without ratifying it)*.
Of course, international agreements on the prohibition of chemical weapons do not have a direct enforcement mechanism and therefore cannot impose sanctions or implement measures against states that violate these agreements. Instead, legal escalation against an offending state requires invoking UN general legal procedures. History has always been full of examples of other countries that resorted to chemical weapons in their wars before Syria, starting with Japan, which used chemical weapons against China in the early 1940s, through Iraq, which used them against Iran and the Kurds in the 1980s (all the way to the Israeli occupation state, which is currently using them on civilians in Gaza strip)*.
Going back at least to the 1925 Protocol, we will find that the international community took a decision to prohibit the use of chemical and biological weapons because it is considered a moral issue completely different from conventional weapons, which some may attribute to their ability to kill and destroy horribly on a large scale and indiscriminately without distinction. This is why chemical and biological agents today are classified as weapons of mass destruction, and the reasons given for deterring chemical warfare in the 1920s closely resemble the reasons given by the Obama administration in its case for action against the Syrian government in 2013.
At the time, US Secretary of State John Kerry stated: “The killing of more than 1,400 Syrian civilians by chemicals demonstrates the massive and indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world has long refused to use. We are outraged and denounced by these barbaric acts that violate basic values.” “for humanity and includes the most horrific weapons in the world.” At that time, the administration showed films revealing the horror of the harm that befell civilians as a result of these chemical weapons, including bare-chested men lying on the floor, bent under the weight of constant convulsions, and children who suffered from bodily disorders and loss of control over their movements, while panic and screaming dominated the scene.
However, the use of force to deter any country that resorts to chemical warfare does not depend only on the reasons given in support of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, but it is clear that there are many other factors that are taken into consideration, including the ability of military action to achieve the desired objectives effectively, or the necessity of Military measures are proportional to the goal sought to be achieved, in addition to the presence of restrictions and rules that determine the scope and method of using military force, and finally the deterrent or intimidating effects of military action supported by some allies, which must contribute to achieving the desired goals and reducing potential negative possibilities.
In the end, the debate over the idea that “chemical and biological warfare” is completely different from other wars remains very important, because at a time like this the United States is supposed to intervene – albeit superficially – to prevent these wars for moral reasons (but one of the strange ironies is that the United States It actually supports the brutal war of the Israeli occupation against civilians in the Gaza Strip, in which chemical weapons are used without oversight or accountability)*.
————————————————————————–
*Translator’s notes
————————————————————————–
This article is translated from The Atlantic It does not necessarily reflect the location of Maidan.
translation: Sumaya Zaher.
