|
Vol. XXXVII
No. 37 September 15, |
Bogey of Chemical Weapons in
Prabir Purkayastha
THE world
seems to be
moving on two different tracks on the use of chemical weapons
in
Almost
the only narrative in the
is did Assad regime use chemical weapons, but what should be
the
response.
The evidence of Assad government using chemical weapons needs
to be at least
plausible, for the world to accept
military strikes. In
the rest of the world, barring perhaps only
there is deep
scepticism about such
claims.
The
media
reflects very much the views of its government when it comes
to issues of war
and foreign policy. Just as in the case of
and its mythical WMDs, the
media has dutifully fallen in line with the Obama
administration, debating
vigorously about whether the
has the responsibility to police the world.
The belief
that such
strikes will be limited rests entirely on
not responding to such
strikes. If they do, there is every possibility of the strikes
and counter
strikes spinning into a larger regional conflagration. The
consequence for the
rest of the world including
would be disastrous with oil prices going through the roof. That countries such
as
are unwilling to take a strong position
and tell the
stop its dicing with a regional war is a telling commentary on
the state of
global diplomacy today.
ASTOUNDING HYPOCRISY
ON CHEMICAL WEAPONS
The
hypocrisy of western
powers on chemical weapons is also quite astounding. The
and biological
weapons to
during the Iraq-Iran war (1980-88.) Officers from Pentagon
were planning
day-to-day strikes including chemical weapons against Iranian
positions using
satellite data for battlefield intelligence.
So did the
Robert Fisk, the well-known journalist and commentator on
Middle East, has
talked about
security
services technicians he had met in
during the Iraq-Iran war, who had come to help
build biological weapons.
The
used white phosphorus in Falluja, which is illegal to use
against
personnel. This
has resulted in rates of
cancer in Falluja that are higher than even in
after the atom bomb. The
has used depleted uranium munitions widely in
which again is highly poisonous and carcinogenic. Its use of
Agent Orange in
again public knowledge. Agent Orange contained high levels of
dioxin, one of
the most poisonous chemicals known, and even today is causing
thousands of deformities
among the newborn.
has also used white phosphorous in
in its 2008-2009 attack against civilian population.
The US not only covertly
supported Saddam in his war
against Iran, it also provided diplomatic cover in the UN by
not condemning
Iraq when Iran brought charges against it for use of chemical
weapons. In
Hallebja, where an estimated 5,000 Kurds died in Saddams attack using
chemical weapons, CIA even
fabricated evidence showing that
was responsible for the
attack. For the
now to turn moralistic about international norms and the
need to discipline
Assad for use of chemical weapons sounds completely hollow, at
least to the
rest of the world, if not to its own citizens.
What is the evidence
that the
the
and the French intelligence
agencies have with them? Almost all the evidence is from
classified sources, in
other words, we
are supposed to trust
the same agencies that had cooked up the evidence for WMDs in
Even the
numbers of victims differ. Kerry has an exact figure of 1429
without offering
us any names or other details. Cameron talked about 500, the
oft quoted Syrian
Observatory of Human Rights 502, Doctors without Borders, 355.
We can
understand that figures may differ under the circumstances,
but when we hear
exact numbers such as 1429, we can be pardoned for believing
that the
agencies are
trying a little too hard!
There is one piece of
evidence that is worth
considering further. Kerry talks about intelligence intercept
that shows that
Syrian high ranking military officials were aware of the
strike and presumably
complicit in it. Again, Powell’s presentation of
evidence in the UN comes to
mind. There also he had made similar claims, except he had
played intercepts
for the world to hear. It transpired his claims were at
variance with what the
intercept actually contained, but at least he had presented
the evidence. If
the
has such intercepted evidence, why is it shy of presenting it
to the world? Or
has it learned from Powells mistake?
There are reports from
various sources which indicate
that the “original” evidence about the intercept is from
Military
Intelligence Unit 822, their Signal Intelligence unit. It is
supposedly from a
Syrian officer from army headquarters enquiring from the unit
having chemical
munitions who had fired such weapons and the denial of this
officer that his
unit had fired any such weapon. It in fact substantiates the
opposite that
the chemical attack was not launched by Assad’s forces. So two
reasons why the
does not want to share the so-called voice
intercept it originates from
and by no means confirms the claim the
is making.
The second reason given
is that if chemical weapons
have been used, only Assad’s forces have such capability. And
there is evidence
that chemical weapons have been used. Ergo, Assad is guilty.
DISTINCTION
BETWEEN
POISONOUS
CHEMICALS
& CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Here, it is important to
make a distinction between
poisonous chemicals and chemical weapons. As we saw in
a number of industrial chemicals are
highly toxic, and it is not clear without detailed analysis,
presumably being
carried out by the UN investigators that it was weaponised
chemical agents that
were used. If non-weaponised chemical agents are the cause,
obviously a much
larger group of people have access to these chemicals. Even an
accident
bombing of a chemical factory can release poisonous
chemicals.
Kerry has talked of a
sarin signature in the samples
from victims. Even apart from the issue of chain of custody of
such samples who
collected them, who transferred them and how credible is the
analysis mere
signature of sarin is not enough to establish sarin use. A
number of other neurotoxic
chemicals share a similar signature. This is the problem with
much of the
continuously stretches the language to imply more than it
actually is saying.
If it is true that
weaponised sarin has been used, is
it true that only Assad’s forces have access to such chemical
weapons? Here,
the
case is even weaker. After two years of war and rebels having
overrun a number
of Assad’s weapon depots and bases, the argument that rebels
cannot have any
chemical weapons is indeed very weak. There
have been reports from Turkey
of Syrian rebels aligned with Jabhat Al Nusra, being found
with two kilograms of
sarin, and also similar reports from Iraq. The
intelligence agencies in the past have also claimed that Al Qaeda has chemical weapons capability.
It may also be
remembered that Aum Shinrikiyo had
manufactured sarin with the help one chemist and home-made
facilities.
Obviously if a crazed cult in
could make sarin 20 years back, to argue only Assad has
chemical weapons in
high degree of naiveté.
The UN team in
had earlier come to the conclusion that it is the rebels not
Assad that have
used chemical weapons and specifically sarin in
Carla del Ponte, one of its
inspectors had gone public with this in May this year
regarding the rebels use
of sarin.
Further, it is known and
verified by international
agencies that
had chemical weapons, even though Gaddafi’s regime had agreed
to destroy all of
it after joining the Chemical Weapons Convention in 2004. After Gaddafi was
overthrown, undisclosed
chemical munitions were discovered. OPCW,
the official body that oversees the chemical weapon convention
has a time table
for the destruction of these weapons, which it has been unable
to fulfill.
Given that
is now in the hands of groups closely allied with Al Qaeda, it
would not be surprising
if such weapons find their way to the Syrian rebels and Al
Qaeda affiliates
such as Jabhat al Nusra.
There are also credible
reports (Mint Press News) that
Arabia
has supplied chemical weapons to the Syrian rebels. Dale
Gavlak and her associate,
Yahya Abbaneh, a Jordanian freelancer, have reported from
Ghouta, the scene of
the chemical incident, that
had supplied the rebels with chemical
weapons. They have spoken with the residents, the father of
one of those killed
who was handling such weapons and to other residents of the
area. The residents
talk about such weapons being stored in tunnels in Ghouta. The
picture that
emerges is not a willful strike but an accident as those who
were handling
chemical weapons did not know much about them.
The argument that
has no chemical weapons
programme cuts little ice. They can easily assemble such a
programme or buy
such arms from the black market. Or procure them from
which is
awash with weapons.
There is also
corroborative evidence from other
sources Syrian News agency
has reports including videos of tunnels containing chemical
weapons and other
materials with Saudi markings being found in Ghouta. They have
also complained
of their soldiers being affected by sarin on entering such
tunnels. There are
also reports of Hezbollah fighters of being treated for sarin
in a hospital in
fighting in Ghouta.
The question that could
also be asked is why does
chemical weapons when most of the world has given up its use?
The answer is a
simple one.
has said
time and again that they will give up their chemical weapons
if
gives up its nuclear weapons; it is their
insurance against a nuclear strike by
And just for record, though
the
has joined the Chemical Weapons Convention, it still has a
stockpile of such
weapons. It has missed its deadline for destruction of its
stockpile that it
was obligated to do by 2012.
Ariel Sharon
had said
just before the
attack
in 2003,
should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after
These are
irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons of
mass destruction.
and
have already fallen;
and
remain from
list. All this
talk of international norms is a
cynical ploy for the larger strategic objectives of the
US-Israel axis in the
region. The bombing of
is the first step in the unfolding battle that finally targets
strategy to establish
only military power in the region. This is the humanitarian
bomb the people of
the fire for a much larger war. While the rest of the world
watches the
fuse.
