Syrian chemical weapons: Brought to you by Britain

When the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against its own people last year, the British government expressed outrage. Now it turns out that those weapons were purchased from Britain:

Britain sold chemicals and components to Syria that ended up being used in the manufacture of the deadly nerve agent sarin, BBC Newsnight can reveal.

A leaked Foreign Office document says they were supplied in the mid-1980s.

Ministers will confirm within days that UK firms provided the materials and that Syria has admitted they played a role in its chemical weapons programme.

[...]

Syria's declarations to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) name Britain as the sole supplier of dimethyl phosphate (DMP), trimethyl phosphate (TMP) and hexamine - three chemicals that Syria used in the production of sarin.

The phosphate chemicals are regarded as the building blocks of sarin and Newsnight understands British companies sold hundreds of metric tonnes of them to Damascus.

Syria's declarations have since been verified by a Whitehall audit of chemical sales by British companies.

Syrian crimes against humanity: enabled by the British-government-backed British arms industry.

The UK is at least helping to clean up the mess it helped make, contributing naval escorts and destruction facilities to the international program to destroy Syria's chemical weapons. But that's probably a small consolation to their victims.

The Syria deal

Just a few weeks ago, it looked like the US - having learned nothing from Iraq, Afghanistan, or its other military adventures - was going to begin a punitive bombing campaign in Syria. Now, thanks to an off-the-cuff remark by John Kerry and some efforts by the Russians, it looks like they won't:

The US-Russia deal on Syria's chemical weapons is a "victory" that averts war, a Syrian minister says.

The framework document says Syria must provide full details of its stockpile within a week - with the chemical arsenal eliminated by mid-2014.

If Syria fails to comply, the deal could be enforced by a UN resolution with the use of force as a last resort.

So Syria surrenders its chemical weapons, and the US doesn't bomb its children. I fail to see a down-side here. No, its not going to stop the regime's murder of its own citizens, but that was never on the table anyway. What was on the table was a random US bombing campaign, with certain civilian casualties and strong risks of regional escalation. Now that has been averted - for now.

Not a good idea

The government has announced the results of its latest oil exploration permit offers - including two blocks for Anadarko in the Pegasus Basin. For those with short memories, Anadarko owned 25% of the Deepwater Horizon platform, which exploded and polluted the Gulf of Mexico in 2010. And now they'll be drilling in 2,700m deep water off New Zealand.

This company, doing this sort of drilling, doesn't exactly fill me with confidence - especially given the lax regulatory environment. And any spill will likely end up in Kaikoura - damaging one of our premier tourist industries.

And then there's the other problem: they're drilling a chemical weapons dump. According to NZ Petroleum and Minerals, block 54861 used to be known as 12PEG2 - which is right where New Zealand dumped its mustard gas at the end of World War II.

No, not a good idea at all. And hopefully it'll suffer the same fate as Petrobras' exploration off East Cape.

Drilling for mustard gas

Today Gareth Hughes was asking about deep sea drilling off Wellington in Parliament. His concern was the risk of an oil spill, but there's a worse one: chemical weapons. According to Owen Wilkes' History of New Zealand Chemical Warfare 1845 - 1945 [PDF], New Zealand maintained a large stockpile of mustard gas during WWII, primarily in the form of 25-pounder gas shells. These were stored in Auckland, and in Wellington at the Belmont Magazines. At the end of the war, they were dumped:

In April 1946 the hulk Rosomund was towed out to the l00 fathom line in Hauraki Gulf by the tug Maui Pomare from Auckland and scuttled. It was carrying 200 tons of chemical shell

In October 1946 some 1500 tons of 25 pdr chemical shell and 20 tons of bombs221 were dumped off Wellington by the Marine Department steamer Matai (normally used for lighthouse replenishment etc).

The location for the latter dumping was described as lying 50 nautical miles off Pencarrow Light on a bearing of l34 degrees.222 Assuming this is correct then the munitions are at about 175 deg 40' E, 41 deg 55' S, or about 45 km SE of Palliser Head, and well to the east of Cook Strait. Water depths here are of the order of 2800 metres, well beyond trawling depth.

According to the coordinates in the invitation for bids, that area is bang in the middle of exploration block 12PEG2. I wonder if the bidders have been informed they'll be drilling into a chemical weapons dump?

And yes, this is a problem and a potential risk to human health:

At least 21 and possibly as many as 50 ships loaded with 303 000 munition tons of allied mustard and German nerve gas weapons were scuttled off the coasts of Norway, Sweden and Denmark at the end of World War 2. The Soviet Union also dumped something like 50 000 tons of chemical munitions into the Baltic after World War II. Most of this was in fairly deep water but some is in quite shallow water only a few miles off shore. The munitions have been corroding steadily since, and mustard gas has leaked from them, in the form of’a jelly like substance which lies around on the sea floor without mixing in the seawater. Danish and Swedish fishermen often find soap-like lumps of mustard gas jelly attached to trawl nets, and on occasion Danish fishermen have been badly burnt by handling such nets.

(There's an example of such an incident here)

With drilling, the problem is going to be contamination of drilling equipment, but its still a risk, and one bidders need to be aware of.

It's a war crime

Down in the sewer, the usual suspects have lept to the defence of Israel, attempting to argue that their current actions in Gaza are not a war crime. Unfortunately for them, the UN special rapporteur for human rights in the Occupied Territories - begs to differ:

The Israeli airstrikes on the Gaza Strip represent severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war.

Those violations include:

• Collective punishment: The entire 1.5 million people who live in the crowded Gaza Strip are being punished for the actions of a few militants.
• Targeting civilians: The airstrikes were aimed at civilian areas in one of the most crowded stretches of land in the world, certainly the most densely populated area of the Middle East.
• Disproportionate military response: The airstrikes have not only destroyed every police and security office of Gaza's elected government, but have killed and injured hundreds of civilians; at least one strike reportedly hit groups of students attempting to find transportation home from the university.

Earlier Israeli actions, specifically the complete sealing off of entry and exit to and from the Gaza Strip, have led to severe shortages of medicine and fuel (as well as food), resulting in the inability of ambulances to respond to the injured, the inability of hospitals to adequately provide medicine or necessary equipment for the injured, and the inability of Gaza's besieged doctors and other medical workers to sufficiently treat the victims.

Who to believe? Random ranters, or an internationally renowned human rights expert, tasked by the UN with monitoring the implementation of international law in the area? Tough question...

And to add to that, now they're using white phosphorus - but only to produce a smokescreen, of course. Any Palestinian children who have their skins melted off by this horror weapon are simply "collatoral damage"...

Making the world a safer place

The US invasion of Iraq is full of horrific ironies. A "war on terror" has encouraged terorism. A war to bring human rights has instead brought torture and death squads and abuses assessed by Iraqis themselves as "worse than under Saddam". And now a war ostensibly fought to prevent terrorists from gaining access to weapons of mass destruction has seen the Iraqi resistance using chemical weapons.

The Iraqi gas bombs are as crude as you can get - a cylinder of chlorine with a bomb attached - but they are effective enough. The raw material is widely available - chlorine can be found whereever there are water treatment facilities - and the idea seems to be getting around fast. There were three gas attacks last week alone, and US forces have found a bomb factory where the bombs were being made. Once perfected, the technique will no doubt spread to other conflicts - just as the use of roadside bombs and suicide bombers has.

So much for the idea that the fighting terrorism in Iraq would make the world a safer place...

"A horror weapon"

Via NZBC, it seems the US aren't the only people who have been using white phosphorus in Iraq: the insurgents have been using it too. Except when they use it, the US media describes it as a "horror weapon". I guess it just becomes more horrible when the victims are Americans rather than Iraqi children...

Needless to say, I do not think anyone should be using white phosphorus on anyone, combatant or not. It is a completely indiscriminate weapon which causes terrible injuries [GRAPHIC; do not click "successiva" too often if you want to keep your lunch]. This is as vile as mustard gas, and it should be treated exactly the same way: its use outlawed, stocks destroyed, and those who use it punished as mass-murdering criminals.

White Phosphorus is a chemical weapon

In my posting about the US's use of white phosphorus in Fallujah, I sidestepped the debate about whether WP was or wasn't a chemical weapon, noting that given the way it melted people's skin off, such debate was spectacularly beside the point. I take that back: white phosphorus is a chemical weapon. Why? Because the Pentagon thinks so - at least if Saddam Hussein uses it. The smoking gun is a declassified 1995 Pentagon intelligence report entitled "Possible use of phosphorus chemical":

SUMMARY: IRAQ HAS POSSIBLY EMPLOYED PHOSPHOROUS CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST THE KURDISH POPULATION IN AREAS ALONG THE IRAQI-TURKISH-IRANIAN BORDERS. [...]

IN LATE FEBRUARY 1991, FOLLOWING THE COALITION FORCES' OVERWHELMING VICTORY OVER IRAQ, KURDISH REBELS STEPPED UP THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST IRAQI FORCES IN NORTHERN IRAQ. DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (GEOCOORD:3412N/04401E) (VICINITY OF IRANIAN BORDER) AND DOHUK (GEOCOORD:3652N/04301E) (VICINITY OF IRAQI BORDER) PROVINCES, IRAQ. THE WP CHEMICAL WAS DELIVERED BY ARTILLERY ROUNDS AND HELICOPTER GUNSHIPS (NO FURTHER INFORMATION AT THIS TIME). APPARENTLY, THIS TIME IRAQ DID NOT USE NERVE GAS AS THEY DID IN 1988, IN HALABJA (GEOCOORD:3511N/04559E), IRAQ, BECAUSE THEY WERE AFRAID OF POSSIBLE RETALIATION FROM THE UNITED STATES(U.S.) LED COALITION...

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If white phosphorus is a chemical weapon when Saddam uses it, it is when the US uses it too. And if Iraqis are to be charged for the use of such weapons, then the American commanders at Fallujah should be right there in the dock beside them.

An admission

Anyone wanting to deny that the US used white phosphorus in Fallujah should check out this BBC report, where a Pentagon spokesperson flat out says:

"It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants"

But I guess the Pentagon is on the side of the terrorists, right?

White Phosphorus in Fallujah

Over the past few days I've been watching the growing story of the US's use of white phosphorus in Fallujah last year. According to allegations initially made by Italian broadcaster RAI, and subsequently confirmed by both US soldiers and contemporary media reports, the US used white phosphorus against "insurgents". Whether deliberately or by gross negligence, these "insurgents" included a large number of civilians, who suffered terrible injuries. The Bush Administration initially denied the allegations, then admitted them in the face of the evidence, but denied that this equated to the use of a chemical weapon. The latter point is arguable; as George Monbiot points out in the Guardian:

White phosphorus is not listed in the schedules of the Chemical Weapons Convention. It can be legally used as a flare to illuminate the battlefield, or to produce smoke to hide troop movements from the enemy. Like other unlisted substances, it may be deployed for "Military purposes... not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare". But it becomes a chemical weapon as soon as it is used directly against people. A chemical weapon can be "any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm".

And yet at the same time, such quibbling is spectacularly beside the point. The reason we ban chemical weapons such as mustard gas is because they are indiscriminate and cause terrible injuries [GRAPHIC]. That's the same reason we object to white phosphorus: it makes absolutely no distinction between combatants and civilians, affects a wide area, and causes terrible injuries [GRAPHIC]. It is not something that should even be considered for direct military use, let alone in a civilian area such as a city. But then, "indiscriminate" pretty much sums up the whole attitude of US forces in Iraq since the beginning, and if its more convenient for them to melt the skin off the people they're supposed to be saving, that's exactly what they'll do.

(BTW, if you're looking at the pictures linked above, do not click "successiva" too often unless you have a very strong stomach. Melted dead people crawling with maggots may cause you to lose your lunch)

Tear gas and escalation

What might happen if the US actually uses tear gas on the battlefield? One possibility is escalation. According to the article I linked to earlier,

In four major uses of chemical weapons in the past — by combatants in World War I; by the Italians in Ethiopia; by the Egyptians in Yemen; and in the Iran-Iraq war — deployment was preceded by use of non-lethal agents

So it's entirely possible that the US using tear gas could provoke Saddam into letting fly with whatever stocks of VX and mustard gas he's managed to hide from the inspectors. Needless to say, this would be a Bad Thing. OTOH, provoking Saddam into using chemical weapons would prove that the US was right all along to be suspicious of inspections, and Rumsfeld and his NeoCon pals might consider it worth the price of a bad precedent and a few thousand coalition soldiers and civillians dead or maimed. And if we want to get really cynical, the US has threatened to use nuclear weapons in response to any chemical attack; provoking such an attack would allow the US to impress the world with its military power (getting the second half of oderint dum metuant) and avoid all that icky high-casualty street-fighting in Baghdad.

OK, so the latter is just cynical and possibly paranoid; OTOH do you really trust Rumsfeld and the Project for the New American Century not to think like that?

I guess the best we can hope for is that Saddam doesn't have anything - then we'll just have to deal with a marauding hegemon tearing up yet another global treaty... business as usual, I guess.