Egypt's Nile water committee reviews trilateral negotiations on Ethiopia's GERD    Germany's Merkel gives Britain 30 days to find last-minute Brexit solution    Egyptian police seize 100kg of methamphetamine, arrest 5 people    Egypt's Zohr gas field output rises to 2.7 bln cubic feet per day: Minister    Tottenham Hotspur plans to refinance stadium debt -source    Asian markets lower, traders look to central banks for guidance    Tennis: India expect 'positive' verdict on Davis Cup tie against Pakistan    Tennis: Wildcard Pera stuns third seed Strycova to move into Bronx quarters    FIFA appoint normalisation committee for Egypt's FA until elections    Media body secretary general arrested as part of judge bribery probe: Authority    Egypt drafting new law to impose tax on social media ads, online services    Death toll from Afghan wedding blast rises to 80: Officials    US says it's ready to resume nuclear talks with North Korea    Egypt's MSMEDA injects EGP 2.8 bln into micro, small enterprises in H1 2019    Egypt's Banque du Caire expects to sell minority stake by early 2020    Egypt arrests secretary general of top media body for alleged bribery: Source    Hong Kong leader hopes way out of chaos with dialogue, mutual respect    UK's PM Boris Johnson opening Brexit bid: rip out Irish border backstop    Iran's tanker heads to Greece; U.S. warns against helping vessel    Liverpool thankful to have Egyptian star Salah on his frontline: Klopp    Egypt's Baron Empain Palace to be reopen after renovation    Court sentences six to death, 41 to lifetime imprisonment violence related case    Trump says he would release Mideast peace plan after Israeli elections    What do you know about gold alloying?    NBE announces EGP 2.5m prizes for handball youth teams for their world achievements    ACWA Power compares 3 bids to supply production units for Luxor power station    Jennifer Lopez evokes Egyptian outrage post her North Coast performance    Cairo's historic Tahrir square to be renovated – PM    Al-Sisi honours Egypt's scholars on Science Day    IS claims responsibility for suicide bombing killing 63 in Afghan wedding    Political parties gear up for parliamentary, senate, local elections    Unprecedented Glory: Egypt win Men's U-19 World Handball Championship    12th National Egyptian Theatre Festival fuel up public theatre art scene    28th Citadel Festival for Music and Singing embraces attendees with international troupes    A simple diet change could help live longer, reduce cardiovascular risks by 16%    Serbian Micho to be Zamalek's new coach: Egypt's Mortada Mansour    Cairo University tops 2019 Shanghai Academic Ranking    3 sentenced to death for 2016 killing of 4 Egyptian policemen    Ministry of Environment has a plan for "black clouds season"    Too early to estimate Nile's flooding volume: Irrigation Ministry    Sudan's key opposition may nominate economist Abdalla Hamdok for prime minister    Egypt to launch Bike for Every Citizen initiative soon    Egypt's Zamalek equal club record with 7-0 hammering of Somalia's Dekedaha    LA Opera declines details on longtime general director's investigation    Sudan opposition to nominate economist Abdalla Hamdok for prime minister: Sources    Egypt produces ‘Fraud' documentary on Muslim Brotherhood history    Photo of Egyptologist Zahi Hawass to decorate NYC's Times Square to promote tourism to Egypt    T. Jefferson Parker tells latest tale in tight, vivid prose    

Thank you for reporting!
This image will be automatically disabled when it gets reported by several people.

Why the Outcry over Chemical Attack, But Not the Earlier 100K Deaths?
Published in Amwal Al Ghad on 01 - 09 - 2013

After the guns of World War I fell silent, the world's nations convened in Geneva to outlaw for the first time an entire class of weapons. Barely 1 percent of the war's battlefield deaths had come from toxic chemicals, yet these had evoked greater horror than the blast wounds, shrapnel and bullets that killed millions more.
Nearly a century later, images of another chemical-weapons attack are stirring some Western capitals into action, this time over the alleged gassing of thousands of Syrian civilians by their government. Now, as then, the toll of dead and injured is relatively small, roughly equal to the average number of fatalities in an ordinary week in Syria's civil war.
The response has prompted the same question that arose during the debates of the early 1920s: Why are chemical weapons different?
The question is central to arguments being made this week by both proponents and opponents of a military strike to punish Syria over its alleged use of nerve gas in an Aug. 21 attack on rebel strongholds near eastern Damascus. President Obama hasaccused Syria of crossing a moral and legal red lineby using weapons that are outlawed and uniquely repugnant, and on Saturday he denounced the alleged attack as "an assault on our human dignity."
But others question why the United States is compelled to respond to one type of killing when it took no military action to prevent the deaths of an estimated 100,000 Syrians by more conventional but often brutal methods.
Even some who were convinced by the administration's intelligence case say they question why a single atrocity ranks higher than so many others. The White House released an intelligence assessment and map Friday detailing why it holds Syrian officials responsible for the deaths of nearly 1,500 people, including more than 400 children.
"Even if the map is only half accurate, this was truly a heinous use of chemical weapons," said Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired army colonel and former adviser to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell during the months before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. "That said, [North Korean leaders] Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il killed thousands if not millions more with starvation, yet we did nothing substantive. Is it worse to die of gas or hunger?"
Others argue that chemical weapons are indeed unique, and any use demands a firm response from civilized nations to deter future attacks.
"Chemical weapons are genuinely horrible, and they are indiscriminate," said Jeffrey Lewis, an arms-control expert at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. "They are a particularly cruel way to kill someone."
It is true, Lewis said, that civilians will die in any conflict — often in excruciating ways. "But I'm on board with any effort to try to ban the most inhumane weapons, the things that kill on a mass scale," he said.
Even before the first clouds of deadly chlorine gas swept over French lines in 1915, the use of poisons in warfare was widely seen as taboo. In 1863, in the middle of America's bloodiest war, the U.S. War Department issued a decree banning poisoning in any form, including the use of poison-tipped bullets or the poisoning of food supplies. Eleven years later, a similar ban was approved, but never ratified, by 14 European countries.
Jonathan Tucker, the author of "War of Nerves," a history of chemical weapons, argued that there's something primal in the human revulsion to such weapons.
"This ‘chemical weapons taboo' appears to have originated in the innate human aversion to poisonous substances," Tucker writes, "as well as revulsion at the duplicitous use of poison by the weak to defeat the strong without a fair physical fight."
Chemical toxins only became a true weapon of mass destruction during World War I, when European chemists were enlisted on both sides to help end the stalemate in the trenches. Chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas would eventually kill more than 90,000 soldiers and wound nearly a million others. While the death toll was relatively small — three times as many were killed in the Battle of the Somme in 1916 — gas attacks were feared because they frequently left victims in agony for days.
Public disgust over the use of such toxins helped drive support for the 1925 Geneva treaty banning the use of chemical weapons, as well as the more robust 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention that has been ratified by all but a handful of the world's nations. Among the remaining holdouts are North Korea and Syria, both of which are said by U.S. officials to possess stockpiles of chemical munitions.
Since the 1925 treaty signing, only a handful of chemical attacks have been documented. Among the worst was a 1988 attack by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein against the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which sarin and other deadly gases killed between 3,000 and 5,000 civilians.
The Halabja deaths brought an international outcry but no military response. It was the last mass-casualty attack using chemical weapons until 2012, when U.S. officials say the Syrian regime launched the first in a series of strikes that culminated in the shelling east of Damascus on Aug. 21.
In his statement on Saturday, Obama evoked images of gassed Syrian children.
"What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?" the president said. "What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?"
Some arms-control experts see merit in Obama's insistence on accountability for those that violate such a widely shared principle on acceptable conduct in war. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said the century-old movement to eliminate chemical weapons lost ground when Saddam was permitted to gas his country's Kurdish population with relative impunity.
"The muted response by the international community — including the United States — probably encouraged Saddam to continue using chemical weapons in that war, and also encouraged other countries in the region to develop their own," Kimball said.
Greg Thielmann, a former State Department intelligence analyst who publicly questioned the George W. Bush administration's case for invading Iraq in 2003, said the Syria evidence possesses a moral clarity that was missing 10 years ago. Back then, he said, a different White House was attempting to assess Iraq's weapons capability and whether it might have nuclear weapons in the future. This time, the question is far simpler: Did Syria violate international law and a widely held "chemical weapons taboo"?
"This," Thielmann said, "feels a lot different to me."
Source: The Washington Post

Clic here to read the story from its source.